Workers Productivity Up 2.9% Cost Per Worker Down 1.9%

[TruthOut10]

Productivity Picks Up as U.S. Companies Cut Labor Costs

The productivity of U.S. workers expanded more than previously estimated in the third quarter as companies cut labor expenses to preserve profits.
The measure of employee output per hour climbed at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the biggest gain in two years and up from 1.9 percent in the prior three months, revised Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey of 58 economists called for a 2.8 percent rise. Costs per worker fell at a 1.9 percent rate, more than previously estimated.

Productivity Picks Up as U.S. Companies Cut Labor Costs - Bloomberg

 

[rightwinger]

Time to slash their pay

 

[Wiseacre]

Productivity Picks Up as U.S. Companies Cut Labor Costs

The productivity of U.S. workers expanded more than previously estimated in the third quarter as companies cut labor expenses to preserve profits.
The measure of employee output per hour climbed at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the biggest gain in two years and up from 1.9 percent in the prior three months, revised Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey of 58 economists called for a 2.8 percent rise. Costs per worker fell at a 1.9 percent rate, more than previously estimated.

Productivity Picks Up as U.S. Companies Cut Labor Costs - Bloomberg

And your point is?

 

[TruthOut10]

Productivity Picks Up as U.S. Companies Cut Labor Costs

The productivity of U.S. workers expanded more than previously estimated in the third quarter as companies cut labor expenses to preserve profits.
The measure of employee output per hour climbed at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the biggest gain in two years and up from 1.9 percent in the prior three months, revised Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey of 58 economists called for a 2.8 percent rise. Costs per worker fell at a 1.9 percent rate, more than previously estimated.

Productivity Picks Up as U.S. Companies Cut Labor Costs - Bloomberg

And your point is?

Companies have been steadily holding employee wages down for at least 30 years, but the trend in the last several years has been making FEWER workers working longer and harder, while increasing Corporate profits and CEO pays for the most part.

When the average worker gets jack shit. Companies have also been making it a practical business decision on reducing workers hours down from the traditional 40 hour week in order to NOT pay them any benefits.

Stagnant wages which for the most part aren't livable wages in today's economy, so still wondering what my point is?

 

[TruthOut10]

I hope I answered your question, sad part is that you asked for my point. The article was very self explaining and I rather deal from a point of fact, rather than be involve myself in alot of "speculation".

Which means one or two things:

1) So uninformed or unaware of this problem that you had to ask.

2) You do know and for some reason don't see this as a problem and okay with Corporations squeezing the last bit of blood out of the common worker and don't care that wages not only haven't gone up, but in alot of cases have gone down over the years.

Once again that is the truly sad part, so which one are you?

 

[Wiseacre]

Productivity Picks Up as U.S. Companies Cut Labor Costs

The productivity of U.S. workers expanded more than previously estimated in the third quarter as companies cut labor expenses to preserve profits.
The measure of employee output per hour climbed at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the biggest gain in two years and up from 1.9 percent in the prior three months, revised Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey of 58 economists called for a 2.8 percent rise. Costs per worker fell at a 1.9 percent rate, more than previously estimated.

Productivity Picks Up as U.S. Companies Cut Labor Costs - Bloomberg

And your point is?

Companies have been steadily holding employee wages down for at least 30 years, but the trend in the last several years has been making FEWER workers working longer and harder, while increasing Corporate profits and CEO pays for the most part.

When the average worker gets jack shit. Companies have also been making it a practical business decision on reducing workers hours down from the traditional 40 hour week in order to NOT pay them any benefits.

Stagnant wages which for the most part aren't livable wages in today's economy, so still wondering what my point is?

Some hyperbole in there on your part, but essentially correct. Too bad the ideologue in the WH hasn't put economic policies in place that actually grew the economy enough so that most companies would be incentivized to do the opposite.

 

[Wiseacre]

I hope I answered your question, sad part is that you asked for my point. The article was very self explaining and I rather deal from a point of fact, rather than be involve myself in alot of "speculation".

Which means one or two things:

1) So uninformed or unaware of this problem that you had to ask.

2) You do know and for some reason don't see this as a problem and okay with Corporations squeezing the last bit of blood out of the common worker and don't care that wages not only haven't gone up, but in alot of cases have gone down over the years.

Once again that is the truly sad part, so which one are you?

#2. Keeping labor costs down and doing everything you can to increase productivity is the only way for businesses to survive in the Obama economy.

Some people read the facts and draw a conclusion from them. Other people have already drawn the conclusion and assume the facts support it. I already know which one you are.

 

[TNHarley]

I hope I answered your question, sad part is that you asked for my point. The article was very self explaining and I rather deal from a point of fact, rather than be involve myself in alot of "speculation".

Which means one or two things:

1) So uninformed or unaware of this problem that you had to ask.

2) You do know and for some reason don't see this as a problem and okay with Corporations squeezing the last bit of blood out of the common worker and don't care that wages not only haven't gone up, but in alot of cases have gone down over the years.

Once again that is the truly sad part, so which one are you?

#2. Keeping labor costs down and doing everything you can to increase productivity is the only way for businesses to survive in the Obama economy.

Some people read the facts and draw a conclusion from them. Other people have already drawn the conclusion and assume the facts support it. I already know which one you are.

 

[TruthOut10]

I hope I answered your question, sad part is that you asked for my point. The article was very self explaining and I rather deal from a point of fact, rather than be involve myself in alot of "speculation".

Which means one or two things:

1) So uninformed or unaware of this problem that you had to ask.

2) You do know and for some reason don't see this as a problem and okay with Corporations squeezing the last bit of blood out of the common worker and don't care that wages not only haven't gone up, but in alot of cases have gone down over the years.

Once again that is the truly sad part, so which one are you?

#2. Keeping labor costs down and doing everything you can to increase productivity is the only way for businesses to survive in the Obama economy.

Some people read the facts and draw a conclusion from them. Other people have already drawn the conclusion and assume the facts support it. I already know which one you are.

I'll use Walmart as an example:

They don't pay their employees a "livable wage", so most of their employees end up going on various programs in order to survive (public assistance, etc.) which local or Federal Government has to pick up the tab. Taxpayers, subsidizing their wages, because they don't make enough to support themselves nor offers health insurance, etc.

Now before Walmart sets up a store in any town or City, they bully the local government to give them enormous tax breaks for years. So they setup shop and eventually most all local businesses are destroyed because they can't compete, now forcing wages to stay real low.

The Walmart heirs which is probably less than 5 of them have more wealth than over 40% of the rest of the U.S. population. Yet you have these workers without government assistance couldn't survive.

When is the greed enough? Paying those same workers at least $15.00 per hour would NOT make them any less rich.

Pay no taxes and expects the government to subsidize their workers in order for them to survive.

 

[TNHarley]

I hope I answered your question, sad part is that you asked for my point. The article was very self explaining and I rather deal from a point of fact, rather than be involve myself in alot of "speculation".

Which means one or two things:

1) So uninformed or unaware of this problem that you had to ask.

2) You do know and for some reason don't see this as a problem and okay with Corporations squeezing the last bit of blood out of the common worker and don't care that wages not only haven't gone up, but in alot of cases have gone down over the years.

Once again that is the truly sad part, so which one are you?

#2. Keeping labor costs down and doing everything you can to increase productivity is the only way for businesses to survive in the Obama economy.

Some people read the facts and draw a conclusion from them. Other people have already drawn the conclusion and assume the facts support it. I already know which one you are.

I'll use Walmart as an example:

They don't pay their employees a "livable wage", so most of their employees end up going on various programs in order to survive (public assistance, etc.) which local or Federal Government has to pick up the tab. Taxpayers, subsidizing their wages, because they don't make enough to support themselves nor offers health insurance, etc.

Now before Walmart sets up a store in any town or City, they bully the local government to give them enormous tax breaks for years. So they setup shop and eventually most all local businesses are destroyed because they can't compete, now forcing wages to stay real low.

The Walmart heirs which is probably less than 5 of them have more wealth than over 40% of the rest of the U.S. population. Yet you have these workers without government assistance couldn't survive.

When is the greed enough? Paying those same workers at least $15.00 per hour would NOT make them any less rich.

Pay no taxes and expects the government to subsidize their workers in order for them to survive.

Wow a good post from you lol

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I hope I answered your question, sad part is that you asked for my point. The article was very self explaining and I rather deal from a point of fact, rather than be involve myself in alot of "speculation".

Which means one or two things:

1) So uninformed or unaware of this problem that you had to ask.

2) You do know and for some reason don't see this as a problem and okay with Corporations squeezing the last bit of blood out of the common worker and don't care that wages not only haven't gone up, but in alot of cases have gone down over the years.

Once again that is the truly sad part, so which one are you?

#2. Keeping labor costs down and doing everything you can to increase productivity is the only way for businesses to survive in the Obama economy.

Some people read the facts and draw a conclusion from them. Other people have already drawn the conclusion and assume the facts support it. I already know which one you are.

I'll use Walmart as an example:

They don't pay their employees a "livable wage", so most of their employees end up going on various programs in order to survive (public assistance, etc.) which local or Federal Government has to pick up the tab. Taxpayers, subsidizing their wages, because they don't make enough to support themselves nor offers health insurance, etc.

Now before Walmart sets up a store in any town or City, they bully the local government to give them enormous tax breaks for years. So they setup shop and eventually most all local businesses are destroyed because they can't compete, now forcing wages to stay real low.

The Walmart heirs which is probably less than 5 of them have more wealth than over 40% of the rest of the U.S. population. Yet you have these workers without government assistance couldn't survive.

When is the greed enough? Paying those same workers at least $15.00 per hour would NOT make them any less rich.

Pay no taxes and expects the government to subsidize their workers in order for them to survive.

Wow.. and sadly... you probably actually believe this bullshit.

Lemme guess... public school?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Productivity Picks Up as U.S. Companies Cut Labor Costs

The productivity of U.S. workers expanded more than previously estimated in the third quarter as companies cut labor expenses to preserve profits.
The measure of employee output per hour climbed at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the biggest gain in two years and up from 1.9 percent in the prior three months, revised Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey of 58 economists called for a 2.8 percent rise. Costs per worker fell at a 1.9 percent rate, more than previously estimated.

Productivity Picks Up as U.S. Companies Cut Labor Costs - Bloomberg

If productivity is optimal then its doubtful any of these companies will be able to increase profits by laying people off.

 

[Wiseacre]

I hope I answered your question, sad part is that you asked for my point. The article was very self explaining and I rather deal from a point of fact, rather than be involve myself in alot of "speculation".

Which means one or two things:

1) So uninformed or unaware of this problem that you had to ask.

2) You do know and for some reason don't see this as a problem and okay with Corporations squeezing the last bit of blood out of the common worker and don't care that wages not only haven't gone up, but in alot of cases have gone down over the years.

Once again that is the truly sad part, so which one are you?

#2. Keeping labor costs down and doing everything you can to increase productivity is the only way for businesses to survive in the Obama economy.

Some people read the facts and draw a conclusion from them. Other people have already drawn the conclusion and assume the facts support it. I already know which one you are.

I'll use Walmart as an example:

They don't pay their employees a "livable wage", so most of their employees end up going on various programs in order to survive (public assistance, etc.) which local or Federal Government has to pick up the tab. Taxpayers, subsidizing their wages, because they don't make enough to support themselves nor offers health insurance, etc.


It is not the responsibility of an employer to pay workers a living wage. Employers are in business to make a profit, and a big part of that is keeping costs down. One of which is labor costs; you don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. If an employee wants more than what they're being paid then the onus is on them to improve their value in the labor market.


Now before Walmart sets up a store in any town or City, they bully the local government to give them enormous tax breaks for years. So they setup shop and eventually most all local businesses are destroyed because they can't compete, now forcing wages to stay real low.


All businesses want tax breaks or special deals to build a new store or plant. You can call it bullying, but that's the facts of life; if this other town or state or country is offering me this deal then why should I do business with you if you're not giving me a better deal? And BTW, it ain't just about tax breaks, there are a number of other factors, some of which involve tangilbe and intangible employee benefits.

One other point, I think it's true that local businesses are destroyed to use your phrase when Walmart moves in. Times change and progress marches on, when somebody can offer your customers a better price through economies of scale or any other reason, then you've got a problem. You tell me, would you rather pay $10 or $20 for the same product?


The Walmart heirs which is probably less than 5 of them have more wealth than over 40% of the rest of the U.S. population. Yet you have these workers without government assistance couldn't survive.


I knew this was coming, sooner or later you were going to bitch about the top 2%ers. You know what, I don't give a shit what they make; I don't care how much inequality there is cuz all those people on the bottom end have a choice as to whether they want to do what is necessary to get off the bottom. I don't think life on the bottom should be all that comfortable; if it is, then what incentive do they have to do anything about it.


When is the greed enough? Paying those same workers at least $15.00 per hour would NOT make them any less rich.


Yeah it would, cuz the stockholders would pull their money out of Walmart in favor of some other business that was more profitable. And if $15 was the minimum wage here, then they'd invest in foreign companies or in some other way. What you're talking about is socialism, paying somebody what they need instead of what their labor is worth in the labor market.


Pay no taxes and expects the government to subsidize their workers in order for them to survive.

The one point I can agree with, with respect to rich guys and big corps paying no taxes cuz of loopholes, tax breaks, and special interest deductions. I think that's a load of crap, the tax system we have now has to be reformed somehow. BEFORE we fiddle around with the rates let's rework the tax code and THEN talk about who's rates need to go up or down. And BTW we oughta be taking a look at making sure our money is better spent, we're losing a lot of money through fraud, waste, and abuse.

 

[Barb]

Productivity Picks Up as U.S. Companies Cut Labor Costs

The productivity of U.S. workers expanded more than previously estimated in the third quarter as companies cut labor expenses to preserve profits.
The measure of employee output per hour climbed at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the biggest gain in two years and up from 1.9 percent in the prior three months, revised Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey of 58 economists called for a 2.8 percent rise. Costs per worker fell at a 1.9 percent rate, more than previously estimated.

Productivity Picks Up as U.S. Companies Cut Labor Costs - Bloomberg

And your point is?

From 1973 to 2011, labor productivity rose 80.4 percent but real median hourly wage increased 4.0 percent, and the real median hourly compensation (including all wages and benefits) increased just 10.7 percent. If the real median hourly compensation had grown at the same rate as labor productivity over the period, it would have been $32.61 in 2011, considerably more than the actual $20.01."

Warren responds, "Twelve bucks and change, what's the big deal?"

http://www.facebook.com/AmericansForInequality

Understanding the wedge between productivity and median compensation growth | Economic Policy Institute

During the 1973 to 2011 period, labor productivity rose 80.4 percent but real median hourly wage increased 4.0 percent, and the real median hourly compensation (including all wages and benefits) increased just 10.7 percent. These trends are shown in the table below. If the real median hourly compensation had grown at the same rate as labor productivity over the period, it would have been $32.61 in 2011 (2011 dollars), considerably more than the actual $20.01 (2011 dollars). Consequently, the conventional notion that increased productivity is the mechanism by which living standards increases are produced must be revised to this: Productivity growth establishes the potential for living standards improvements and economic policy must work to reconnect pay and productivity.

Not that you weren't already perfectly well aware

 

[TruthOut10]

#2. Keeping labor costs down and doing everything you can to increase productivity is the only way for businesses to survive in the Obama economy.

Some people read the facts and draw a conclusion from them. Other people have already drawn the conclusion and assume the facts support it. I already know which one you are.

I'll use Walmart as an example:

They don't pay their employees a "livable wage", so most of their employees end up going on various programs in order to survive (public assistance, etc.) which local or Federal Government has to pick up the tab. Taxpayers, subsidizing their wages, because they don't make enough to support themselves nor offers health insurance, etc.

Now before Walmart sets up a store in any town or City, they bully the local government to give them enormous tax breaks for years. So they setup shop and eventually most all local businesses are destroyed because they can't compete, now forcing wages to stay real low.

The Walmart heirs which is probably less than 5 of them have more wealth than over 40% of the rest of the U.S. population. Yet you have these workers without government assistance couldn't survive.

When is the greed enough? Paying those same workers at least $15.00 per hour would NOT make them any less rich.

Pay no taxes and expects the government to subsidize their workers in order for them to survive.

Wow.. and sadly... you probably actually believe this bullshit.

Lemme guess... public school?

I speak what I know and know what I speak. The problem is that peeps like you are too dumb and lazy to find this information yourselves. Because peeps like you are trained to be spoon fed information and forgotten how to think for yourselves.

So when someone drops knowledge on you and it's information your cant handle your next and only move is to attack that person bringing you the information once you realize it's the truth.

Maybe you should've went to my public school where we were taught how to think instead of being taught what to think.

Walmart Heirs Worth More Than Entire Bottom 40% of Americans

Chart: 6 Walmart Heirs Hold More Wealth Than 42% of Americans Combined | Mother Jones

Real facts. Myths vs.Facts

WalMart is Bad for Business

 

[TNHarley]

I'll use Walmart as an example:

They don't pay their employees a "livable wage", so most of their employees end up going on various programs in order to survive (public assistance, etc.) which local or Federal Government has to pick up the tab. Taxpayers, subsidizing their wages, because they don't make enough to support themselves nor offers health insurance, etc.

Now before Walmart sets up a store in any town or City, they bully the local government to give them enormous tax breaks for years. So they setup shop and eventually most all local businesses are destroyed because they can't compete, now forcing wages to stay real low.

The Walmart heirs which is probably less than 5 of them have more wealth than over 40% of the rest of the U.S. population. Yet you have these workers without government assistance couldn't survive.

When is the greed enough? Paying those same workers at least $15.00 per hour would NOT make them any less rich.

Pay no taxes and expects the government to subsidize their workers in order for them to survive.

Wow.. and sadly... you probably actually believe this bullshit.

Lemme guess... public school?

I speak what I know and know what I speak. The problem is that peeps like you are too dumb and lazy to find this information yourselves. Because peeps like you are trained to be spoon fed information and forgotten how to think for yourselves.

So when someone drops knowledge on you and it's information your cant handle your next and only move is to attack that person bringing you the information once you realize it's the truth.

Maybe you should've went to my public school where we were taught how to think instead of being taught what to think.

Walmart Heirs Worth More Than Entire Bottom 40% of Americans

Chart: 6 Walmart Heirs Hold More Wealth Than 42% of Americans Combined | Mother Jones

Real facts. Myths vs.Facts

WalMart is Bad for Business

That sounds like your political party

 

[Barb]