Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is your point that when a company is not doing well, they should continue to shower lavish raises on the executives of that company?
No my point is that your analogy is bad. In economics everything is interwoven and your decision to not take your "lavish" vacation can have just as much impact as your decision to fire your gardener or cleaner or the decision of a manager to give himself a bonus or not and keep his employees or not. What decision do you think people in tourism must make when you don't take your vacation? Especially in poor countries?
Just because a lot of effects are invisible (to you) it doesn't mean they don't exist.
So, if three can do the job of 5, that business has been getting screwed, right?
You see....by following things to their logical conclusion, you understand things better.
Now, if three simply cannot handle the workload of 5, they need to hire one more. Staying fluid in personnel decisions makes a business stronger.
Actually, I have seen cases where the people left were expected to handle the increased work load but couldn't, but the company still didn't hire more people until they were absolutely forced to.
Board of Directors determine the CEO's salary and bonus.
CEO's don't just write company checks to themselves for as much as they want.
Most CEO's get hired under contracts as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
Boards pay CEO's.
And guess who sits on the boards of most corporations? Other CEO's and executives.
Yeah, they gotta perform, but it's a self perpetuating culture.
Actually, I have seen cases where the people left were expected to handle the increased work load but couldn't, but the company still didn't hire more people until they were absolutely forced to.
But when a business starts losing profits, they MUST continue paying for labor that they cannot afford?
They are called "greedy pigs", but you are being responsible?
It's basically the same thing. When you need to cut services, you do.....without regard for the people that you effect.
Huh? What businesses MUST continue employing workers? Your "argument" is a strawman. My company just laid off about a dozen people. No business (that I know of) is forced to employ anyone.
It would be pretty idiotic for a business owner not to hire people when they need to.
You see, YOU cannot walk in and demand a job.
A business owner can fill a position in about 30 seconds.
But, but, but I thought Big Bad Obama made hiring more workers impossible? #scared
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
