WE'VE MOVED!
We are proud to announce our NEW community destination. Engage with resident experts and fellow entrepreneurs, and learn everything you need to start your business. Check out the new home of StartupNation Community at startupnation.mn.co
We are proud to announce our NEW community destination. Engage with resident experts and fellow entrepreneurs, and learn everything you need to start your business. Check out the new home of StartupNation Community at startupnation.mn.co
Options
Wage Gap Question
Sign In or Register to comment.
Comments
The other issue is that of agency and moral hazard with regard to someone who has no risk in the game. This can also be seen in the issues between the UAW and the car companies. A company can not be profitably run if it is primarily run for the benefit of its employees because the employees do not generally realize that the health of the company is tied so closely to their own profitability. Rather, they see the company as a piggy bank or ATM machine that is supposed to fork over the cash when they want or need some.
I understand the arguments for employee retention, so pay them what they`re worth or a bit above market if you don`t want them looking around, but don`t let them start thinking they can or should raid the company`s treasury.
It does point out the issues with direct multiples.
If the full potential earnings aren`t distributed, then workers might look at it as a disengenuous act, in that the "Wages" of the CEO (which is the basis for the other workers) are not a reflection of what the CEO actually takes home (as the owner of the company), and is therefore meaningless in terms of completely distributing the fruits of everyones labors to everyone.
Another real issue (It would interesting to get Barkwheat`s response) is if you completely distribute the profits as income (and as a multiple of the lowest wage earner), what happens if there is a loss? Does everyone who received a nice pay suddenly "owe" the company their percentage of the loss?
This really does illustrate the problems with a full distribution, and how workers don`t usually understand the implications of ownership... They look at the fat years as unjustified wealth, and the thin years as a time that the owners just have to give it up... No relationship between the two at all.
Now that I`m thinking about it, this is one of the problems with windfall profits.
ladderless12/18/2008 4:37 PM
OK, I have to write this.
Is the premise of the question that only our Beloved, Caring, All-Seeing Government Officials are the only ones who can make millions?
Up-Start Sheeple Nation
This latest trend towards New Totalitarian Marxism is getting tiresome.
At what point are we Sheeple going to demand the Government nationalize everything?
Is the New and Improved way to become a successful entre-p-manure to know the right extortionists and get in on the latest Marxist mandate at the ground floor? - Create a mandate; invest in it; drive the herd of Sheeple into it.
It`s like the soviets’ system of Party members and proletariat.
Wage gap my ass.
For example:
If you`re so jealous of the money a brain surgeon makes compared to a nurse, go to friggin` medical school for half your like and become a brain surgeon.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28337800/
Now, these guys might be a little too well paid.
Fall-out from barney Frank`s Free Money Scam is not capitalism.
We are at the event horizon of Marxism. - Oops! Too late! We`re past going back.
Here`s a very recent article from Paul Graham, whose business is helping technology start-ups get going.http://www.paulgraham.com/credentials.html
A very quick gist of the article is that things are changing, and quickly. Where industry used to value the size of the company and the seniority of the employees, smaller companies are making it harder for non-performers to hide as dead weight while at the same time allowing people to show what they`re worth through their performance.
As these trends continue (and as long as they are allowed to), they will address the inequities of the current system without the need for artificial caps or governmental interference. He also demonstrates some dynamics that appear to be causing this movement, which may give clues on ways to help it move forward while building a stable business.
I commend you on your feelings for the members of your organization, whatever size it may be. That shows the beginning of wisdom, or the "why to do". All you need to complete it is a solid "what to do" that builds on it.
I`ll also join with some others here in urging you to understand that the perceptions and realities of running a business can be two very, very different things. As you search for your "what to do", also work to address this issue, and you`ll find that your employees can understand a lot more that happens than they usually have access to know, and more than anything else, it`s not knowing that leads to dissatisfaction.
As an aside, I heard recently that some technology start-ups have taken to offering employees a cash bonus to leave. It starts out fairly small, but grows proportionally to the time that they stay. The theory behind this (and it seems to be working rather well) is that if the money is more valuable to them than the contribution they are making, it`s better for the company and the employee to part ways so both can continue their growth. The bonus just serves to promote an understanding that leaving is healthy and expected and to make it a happy event when it does happen.
(edit only to subscribe to this thread)Intchanter12/28/2008 2:41 AM