The biggest reason by far workers can't support themselves is they don't care...

[kaz]

Why should workers care when all their employers want to do is find a way to get rid of them?

We want to fire the ones who suck, so why should they care we want to fire them for sucking. True, though I was hoping for more of a contribution then that obvious point.

Here's a thought, what if they try NOT sucking so we don't want to fire them.

 

[kaz]

Maybe if you paid your people more you'd get better quality people.

Actually, to add onto this, you're right, but in a way that demonstrates my point not yours.

My business is a combination of three businesses I bought over the last 4 years and merged and I run them together. I'd never had a staff reduction though, we'd filled some needed positions. We grew revenue by about 1/3 last year. Our staff cost as a percent of revenue was still too high, but we were struggling to get the work done. Clearly we'd picked up a lot of dead wood with the acquisitions.

We'd been discussing some low performers. We'd documented and trained and put their feet to the fire, but they still didn't care. They'd improved while the spotlight was on, then go back to their sucky ways. The concern was though that many of them had been with the businesses I bought for decades and there was concern in the management team we'd lose too much knowledge of their businesses if they left.

After beating our heads against the wall all last year, I decided in January we were going to lay off our crappy staff and give our best staff raises. We were constrained to pay our best staff better because as I said our overall staff costs were too high. But I decided I wanted to go ahead.

We started the process over the next few months of putting poor performers on notice and getting rid of them. In the end, we laid off about 25% of our staff and gave about 25% of the staff raises, some of them substantial. My management team was split, about half were for doing it and half thought that even though they were low performers, the work would pile on the good staff and we'd lose too much knowledge of businesses and customers we'd acquired. The results? It was a resounding success.

1) The top staff were happy they got raises

2) The work got easier rather than harder. One person after another told me they were concerned to let that much staff go, but they realized as time went on, they were actually impeding the work, they weren't just low performers

3) Morale improved and people were less frustrated

4) Revenue is on pace to be up another 50% this year.

In the end, we didn't have to hire one new person and we are doing more work easier.

So it is true, raises are good. As long as you shit can the useless crap who show up for work every day and don't care. There seriously ended up being no downside to this.

Your fairytale aside, corporate America isn't getting rid of workers so they can pay their other workers more.

To add to this, first, it's sad that my real life exceeds your imagination.

Second, I do want to make clear I'm not saying that any company can let go of their bottom 25% performers. As I said by doing three acquisitions, I had accumulated a lot of dead wood, it was time. I'd hired people to fill in where we needed help. We were at the point we had to get rid of the riff raff who were in the way.

 

[kaz]

Actually, to add onto this, you're right, but in a way that demonstrates my point not yours.

My business is a combination of three businesses I bought over the last 4 years and merged and I run them together. I'd never had a staff reduction though, we'd filled some needed positions. We grew revenue by about 1/3 last year. Our staff cost as a percent of revenue was still too high, but we were struggling to get the work done. Clearly we'd picked up a lot of dead wood with the acquisitions.

We'd been discussing some low performers. We'd documented and trained and put their feet to the fire, but they still didn't care. They'd improved while the spotlight was on, then go back to their sucky ways. The concern was though that many of them had been with the businesses I bought for decades and there was concern in the management team we'd lose too much knowledge of their businesses if they left.

After beating our heads against the wall all last year, I decided in January we were going to lay off our crappy staff and give our best staff raises. We were constrained to pay our best staff better because as I said our overall staff costs were too high. But I decided I wanted to go ahead.

We started the process over the next few months of putting poor performers on notice and getting rid of them. In the end, we laid off about 25% of our staff and gave about 25% of the staff raises, some of them substantial. My management team was split, about half were for doing it and half thought that even though they were low performers, the work would pile on the good staff and we'd lose too much knowledge of businesses and customers we'd acquired. The results? It was a resounding success.

1) The top staff were happy they got raises

2) The work got easier rather than harder. One person after another told me they were concerned to let that much staff go, but they realized as time went on, they were actually impeding the work, they weren't just low performers

3) Morale improved and people were less frustrated

4) Revenue is on pace to be up another 50% this year.

In the end, we didn't have to hire one new person and we are doing more work easier.

So it is true, raises are good. As long as you shit can the useless crap who show up for work every day and don't care. There seriously ended up being no downside to this.

Your fairytale aside, corporate America isn't getting rid of workers so they can pay their other workers more.

In fact it is getting rid of jobs altogether, as with mechanization and outsourcing they are usually not required. That is the truth behind the fairytale, we are in the next round of mass industrialization, people that don't adapt are cast aside and become poor; no matter how hard they work, or how well educated they are.

The only ones who lost their jobs were the ones who after getting endless training and instruction didn't care about their own lives and their own jobs to do their job to have a job. Trying to spin it into your other socialist points isn't supported by the scenario.

 

[kaz]

There is a reason why people don't want the jobs you are offering Kaz, the jobs suck (whether they are low rank or middle management).

So the good people who serve customers and work hard get rewarded, the ones who don't got chances and more chances and then fired. How is that "squeezing" anyone? Why do the good ones actually want to stay? You don't differentiate between the good ones and the bad ones at all when in fact they are clearly different groups. Why would I want the bad ones to stay?

Here's a fun fact, no permanent employee has ever quit on me. And I've had to force out the ones who I don't want. I'm not seeing the support for your observation my jobs suck and no one wants them.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Only the gullible who lack critical thinking skills and don't know how to fact check for themselves would believe something that utterly ludicrous!

Fact check what? You didn't say anything specific, I did. And it's basic history. You love and trust government, I got it. When government screws up, you won't see it, I got it. But government has the guns, government makes the rules, government forced banks to do it's bidding, government funded the housing bubble, but facts don't matter to a sycophant, do they de.yesman.eo?

Anyone who is gullible enough to believe that the government held a gun to the heads of the Wall Street banks and forced them to give junk balloon mortgages to anyone with a pulse wouldn't even know where to start fact checking because that requires critical thinking skills.

The Bootlickers of Bankensteins exhibit cognitive dissonance if they think that when the Greedheads On Parole (GOP) controlled both Houses and the Presidency, they would ignore any whining by the bankers about Sub-Prime Mortgages. Those were all flipper loans: They'd lend to derelicts so they could re-possess whole neighborhoods and turn them into upscale condos for Yuppies.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Depends on their course of study, if they have a PhD in 13th century french lesbian studies then tell them they deserve it, otherwise, tell them to keep swinging and doing the right things.

Living like a 15-year old working without pay in college so that they will never grow up. You economic bullies are sickening and refuse to take responsibility for the utter failure of your system of getting ahead. You are under the illusion that just because you are one of the few who make money off this system you must have earned it. Counterfeiters also make money.

you, a collectivist leftard bully, are a failure if you don't understand that ANYBODY if they have the will and character can get from the very bottom of this country to the very high. Some - even to the very top.

As long as you praise inheritance and trust funds, you can't possibly think much of class-climbers unless they are HeirDads spawning your precious preppy idols.
The ladder of the inferior people who conform to get ahead was built by the Heirheads to get the most fanatical workoholic zombie slaves into the upper classes. Ambitious imbeciles get ahead and do the rest of us no good. They take out their bitterness on those who refused to kissass their way to the top. These secretly bitter economic bullies walk tall be walking all over people.

 

[PrometheusBound]

good Lord, this pathetic collectivist bully didn't yet get out of his Mom's basement

Nice safe fantasy to believe in. But your escapism also denotes fear. You know that most Americans don't want to be you, have no respect for you, and will crush you like grapes if we ever quit whining and start making wine. But first we have to eliminate the traitors guarding the grapevines. The Right will become the gungrabbers if the majority ever focus on appropriate targets instead of shooting at the decoys the Right provides for them.

 

[PrometheusBound]

What you're saying is that millions of the jobs we have in retail in this country are not real jobs but are rather the punishment for those who through some sort of inadequacy on their part deserve to suffer.

That is sheer elitist contempt for the dignity of honest labor.

I'd thank you for that contribution to the discussion, but it's a pile of

Maybe if you paid your people more you'd get better quality people.

You have been set up to accept part of the whole disastrous educational scheme, which will make your point meaningless and ineffective. It is the obligation of the future employers, as a substitute for paying taxes, to pay high salaries to students.

If you don't pay someone a salary to go to college or other job training, he isn't worth anything. That is never discussed because the Heirheads who control things had their Daddies pay them the equivalent of a student salary in the form of an allowance. They don't want to confess that being paid so they could live a normal lifestyle is the only reason they have degrees. They, like most other Diploma Dumbos, have no right to those degrees because all they prove is that they got a job by going four years without a job. This turns the talent pool into a puddle, so paying people more only when they get a job won't improve productivity.

 

[hipeter924]

There is a reason why people don't want the jobs you are offering Kaz, the jobs suck (whether they are low rank or middle management).

So the good people who serve customers and work hard get rewarded, the ones who don't got chances and more chances and then fired. How is that "squeezing" anyone? Why do the good ones actually want to stay? You don't differentiate between the good ones and the bad ones at all when in fact they are clearly different groups. Why would I want the bad ones to stay?

Here's a fun fact, no permanent employee has ever quit on me. And I've had to force out the ones who I don't want. I'm not seeing the support for your observation my jobs suck and no one wants them.

All that proves is that they were desperate enough to stay due to tough times or no jobs about, if they got a higher paying job they would hardly stay. You complain about employees not working hard enough, or not being loyal enough; but the truth is that they don't care because of your managment style or the pay.

Just calling them lazy or incompetent won't cut it, if you find so many bad employees why hire them in the first place. Bet you will outsource, so soon all those jobs will be gone, like a lot of people I don't believe the 'job creator' myth, you are out to exploit people and make money. Telling me otherwise is dishonest.

Why should they care when they are expendable, and thrown out will nilly. No wonder some people aren't performing. Would suck to be in that position, but worse would be working there.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why should workers care when all their employers want to do is find a way to get rid of them?

well. If the business adds technology to reduce the need for manual labor, of course.
However, it is not a 'desire' of employers to simply want to get rid of workers.
Where you got that is a mystery.
The workers SHOULD care because they are being paid to do the work.
It's an example of fulfilling their end of the employment agreement.
It's a very simple concept.
Employer works to the best of his ability= employer pays the agreed rate.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Jobs are for chumps. The only reason to get a job is to save enough to go out on your own. The whole concept of jobs as be-all end-all is ridiculous. People who work their way up the corporate hierarchy are no better than trained apes.

 

[hipeter924]

Jobs are for chumps. The only reason to get a job is to save enough to go out on your own. The whole concept of jobs as be-all end-all is ridiculous. People who work their way up the corporate hierarchy are no better than trained apes.

Most wealth in the US is inherited, Romney inherited his wealth from his parents; and a lot of Republicans are the same. They never had to work for their wealth, just had it handed to them, but they still find a way to bash welfare recipients. Then those same people bash others as being 'parasites' that actually had to work for their money (rather than just asset strip). I am going to inherit my wealth, but unlike Romney I am not going to bash or use the welfare system.

 

[Old Rocks]

Regarding wal-mart, McDonalds and other discussions going on across the board, there is one thing that is overwhelmingly clear. Workers need to invest in themselves by getting an education, training, working harder, working longer and paying attention to detail. Those are how they make more money, and that is their job, not taxpayers and not their employers. However, the simple ability to support themselves is more basic than that. First, my background.

I have managed people starting about six months after I graduated college in 1988. For the next 20 years, I spent about half doing two stints in GE Management (GE Information Services, GE Power Systems, GE Capital, GE Consumer Finance) and the other half in management consulting (Booz Allen, et al). Since 2009, I have bought 5 businesses. I spun two off and merged the other three and run those as a single business.

Any worker other than extreme cases of retardation or mental illness, any worker could support themselves if they do one thing. Care. Of the hundred or so people I've fired in my career, they had repeated chances and their shortcomings were well within their ability. But they made the same stupid mistakes over and over and over. My low skilled workers now have to be closely managed and their work double checked by people who do care. No matter how poor a choices workers have made in the past, if they get a job and go every day and care about the quality of their work and reliably double check it before passing it on to someone else, they would quickly earn enough to support themselves.

It's indisputable fact to anyone with any real management and business experience.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ]Wealth distribution In America - YouTube[/ame]

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is a reason why people don't want the jobs you are offering Kaz, the jobs suck (whether they are low rank or middle management).

So the good people who serve customers and work hard get rewarded, the ones who don't got chances and more chances and then fired. How is that "squeezing" anyone? Why do the good ones actually want to stay? You don't differentiate between the good ones and the bad ones at all when in fact they are clearly different groups. Why would I want the bad ones to stay?

Here's a fun fact, no permanent employee has ever quit on me. And I've had to force out the ones who I don't want. I'm not seeing the support for your observation my jobs suck and no one wants them.

All that proves is that they were desperate enough to stay due to tough times or no jobs about, if they got a higher paying job they would hardly stay. You complain about employees not working hard enough, or not being loyal enough; but the truth is that they don't care because of your managment style or the pay.

Just calling them lazy or incompetent won't cut it, if you find so many bad employees why hire them in the first place. Bet you will outsource, so soon all those jobs will be gone, like a lot of people I don't believe the 'job creator' myth, you are out to exploit people and make money. Telling me otherwise is dishonest.

Why should they care when they are expendable, and thrown out will nilly. No wonder some people aren't performing. Would suck to be in that position, but worse would be working there.

You know nothing. All you have are liberal rants...

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Jobs are for chumps. The only reason to get a job is to save enough to go out on your own. The whole concept of jobs as be-all end-all is ridiculous. People who work their way up the corporate hierarchy are no better than trained apes.

Most wealth in the US is inherited, Romney inherited his wealth from his parents; and a lot of Republicans are the same. They never had to work for their wealth, just had it handed to them, but they still find a way to bash welfare recipients. Then those same people bash others as being 'parasites' that actually had to work for their money (rather than just asset strip). I am going to inherit my wealth, but unlike Romney I am not going to bash or use the welfare system.

Take your money and do something with it. You'll enjoy it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Regarding wal-mart, McDonalds and other discussions going on across the board, there is one thing that is overwhelmingly clear. Workers need to invest in themselves by getting an education, training, working harder, working longer and paying attention to detail. Those are how they make more money, and that is their job, not taxpayers and not their employers. However, the simple ability to support themselves is more basic than that. First, my background.

I have managed people starting about six months after I graduated college in 1988. For the next 20 years, I spent about half doing two stints in GE Management (GE Information Services, GE Power Systems, GE Capital, GE Consumer Finance) and the other half in management consulting (Booz Allen, et al). Since 2009, I have bought 5 businesses. I spun two off and merged the other three and run those as a single business.

Any worker other than extreme cases of retardation or mental illness, any worker could support themselves if they do one thing. Care. Of the hundred or so people I've fired in my career, they had repeated chances and their shortcomings were well within their ability. But they made the same stupid mistakes over and over and over. My low skilled workers now have to be closely managed and their work double checked by people who do care. No matter how poor a choices workers have made in the past, if they get a job and go every day and care about the quality of their work and reliably double check it before passing it on to someone else, they would quickly earn enough to support themselves.

It's indisputable fact to anyone with any real management and business experience.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ]Wealth distribution In America - YouTube[/ame]

There is no such thing as "wealth distribution"....Workers earn what they earn. Those that take their disposable income and invest it properly will make their money work for them..
Anyone can save money. Anyone. it doesn't matter.. Ten bucks a week....Accumulate $500 per year over the lifetime of a working career and guess what...That's somewhere between $150 and $200K...And that is if the person stuck it in a home safe.
Or, they could take that $500 or $100 per year and stick it in an IRA....
The average person's biggest problem is they think money is for spending. It isn't. Planning for one's retirement is the number one priority regarding what to do with disposable income. Even if it's ten bucks a week.

 

[PrometheusBound]

There is a reason why people don't want the jobs you are offering Kaz, the jobs suck (whether they are low rank or middle management).

So the good people who serve customers and work hard get rewarded, the ones who don't got chances and more chances and then fired. How is that "squeezing" anyone? Why do the good ones actually want to stay? You don't differentiate between the good ones and the bad ones at all when in fact they are clearly different groups. Why would I want the bad ones to stay?

Here's a fun fact, no permanent employee has ever quit on me. And I've had to force out the ones who I don't want. I'm not seeing the support for your observation my jobs suck and no one wants them.

All that proves is that they were desperate enough to stay due to tough times or no jobs about, if they got a higher paying job they would hardly stay. You complain about employees not working hard enough, or not being loyal enough; but the truth is that they don't care because of your managment style or the pay.

Just calling them lazy or incompetent won't cut it, if you find so many bad employees why hire them in the first place. Bet you will outsource, so soon all those jobs will be gone, like a lot of people I don't believe the 'job creator' myth, you are out to exploit people and make money. Telling me otherwise is dishonest.

Why should they care when they are expendable, and thrown out will nilly. No wonder some people aren't performing. Would suck to be in that position, but worse would be working there.

The plutocrats' mantra that they create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood. That sucks!

 

[PrometheusBound]

Jobs are for chumps. The only reason to get a job is to save enough to go out on your own. The whole concept of jobs as be-all end-all is ridiculous. People who work their way up the corporate hierarchy are no better than trained apes.

Most wealth in the US is inherited, Romney inherited his wealth from his parents; and a lot of Republicans are the same. They never had to work for their wealth, just had it handed to them, but they still find a way to bash welfare recipients. Then those same people bash others as being 'parasites' that actually had to work for their money (rather than just asset strip). I am going to inherit my wealth, but unlike Romney I am not going to bash or use the welfare system.

The class-climbing HeirDads should be put in the same tumbrils with the aristocrats because they get ahead by humiliating themselves in the advancement process designed by the upper class to get brown-noses and not brains. This situation is as disgusting as if the plutocrats were all pedophiles and you had to become a boytoy to get anywhere in life. One clue leading an intelligent person to disrespect class-climbing castrates is that rich kids receive a healthy allowance in college while real Americans have to live like 15-year-olds until they graduate. So the ambitious imbeciles never grow up, ceasing to be Americans.

Limousine Liberals never mention this, of course, confining the debate to tuition instead of salary, which once again proves that they are merely the Left wing of the plutocratic vulture. Trust funds must be abolished. Then preppies will drop out at the same rate real Americans do.

 

[Katzndogz]

Living like a 15-year old working without pay in college so that they will never grow up. You economic bullies are sickening and refuse to take responsibility for the utter failure of your system of getting ahead. You are under the illusion that just because you are one of the few who make money off this system you must have earned it. Counterfeiters also make money.

you, a collectivist leftard bully, are a failure if you don't understand that ANYBODY if they have the will and character can get from the very bottom of this country to the very high. Some - even to the very top.

As long as you praise inheritance and trust funds, you can't possibly think much of class-climbers unless they are HeirDads spawning your precious preppy idols.
The ladder of the inferior people who conform to get ahead was built by the Heirheads to get the most fanatical workoholic zombie slaves into the upper classes. Ambitious imbeciles get ahead and do the rest of us no good. They take out their bitterness on those who refused to kissass their way to the top. These secretly bitter economic bullies walk tall be walking all over people.

Very few people born to wealth don't work. Not only do they work, but they don't stop. The "rich" work up to the day they die. There's no such thing as retirement.

 

[Vox]

Our leftards seem to not understand the basic concept - business exists for profit not for charity. If there is a balance between profit and costs for running the business - everyone is going to be happy. If the balance is tipped too much, that the codts are overbearing ( because of the government regulations, taxes, obsmacare) the business owners are going to cut other spendin costs for that - and that is the labor cost. And if the worker is not happy - all he can blame is the government