I doubt that anyone apart from you drew that impression from what I said. I was talking about how profits are used not the reason for making them which isn't, incidentally, as black and white as you seem to think.You wrote - 'They use those profits to create more outlets and thus more jobs.' - giving the impression that businesses expand to create jobs. Jobs may or may not be a by-product of expansion, they are not the reason for it. Where possible, businesses will expand while getting rid of jobs.
As I said the people should have signed off JSA and been paid.In this case, a company was contracted to provide, I presume, some sort of stewarding positions. The jobs therefore existed and should have been paid accordingly, minimum wage at least. As I understand it, the company chose instead to not pay any 'going rate' for stewarding, and instead called the whole enterprise a job creation scheme, where people were obliged to prove their suitability for a possible future job. The people were coerced into doing it for 'benefit wages', that were not payed by the company concerned. There were no terms or conditions to which they could agree or disagree.
Yes there should but if they were deemed as under training then the JSA was covering their training. The fault is if the company charged a huge amount to provide staff. The reality may be that they were only allowed to cover their costs, if that is the case do you still object?Nowhere have I suggested that they be paid twice. However, if there's a need for large numbers of people to have temporary, one or two-day type jobs, then there should be systems in place to allow for temporary suspension of benefit without undue disruption to the claimant.
Indeed but as long as the JSA is reduced by a commensurate amount.Or some system in place, as above, to allow for odd-day temp work.
The going rate should be at least minimum wage, rather than benefit wage. And they were employed. The fact was, the jobs were only temporary. They could only exist because the company was able to exploit a government scheme and thus exploit the workers.
And how do we know that anybody will have impressed enough to be taken on for the future imaginary job. Surely the company can again take advantage of some government scheme, whereby some other workshy, feckless dolite can be coerced into working for 3 months on benefit wages.
You are correct. You did not say that businesses exist to provide jobs. I used the term, responding to your statement that businesses expand and thus create more jobs, which I deemed to be inaccurate as it's only a possible by-product. I concede the point.
There was a general impression that business owners deserve all the rewards, as they had the idea and worked for nothing to get said businesses off the ground. This is palpably untrue. As you have pointed out, the money to start a business has to come from somewhere. As I pointed out, it's not possible to survive if there's no money, therefore to suggest that business owners work for years, for nothing, is bollocks.
I suggest that you wouldn't see the value of a skilled workforce, if you could get a desktop machine to do all their work for you, that didn't require paying.
Yup! Dropped a bit of a bullock there. The number should have read 2,200. My apologies for the misleading information. Sausage fingers an all.Please post a reputable reference to this please - i.e. mainstream newspaper and not wiki.
As Wal-Mart only have 9,600 stores worldwide, they'd have real trouble locking workers into 22,000 stores in the US. (Check the Wal-Mart corporate website for confirmation for store numbers).
I'd have more respect for your opinions if your facts weren't demonstrably incorrect.
You clearly have very little grasp of what it takes to start a business. All the money goes into growing the business and making it a success and the barest minimum is taken out in personal wages. If I have created a business and worked long and hard to make it work and grow then who does deserve most of the rewards? However most ownbers are only too happy to reward success in others, that's why bonuses are paid, as much to encourage as to reward.
Well you'd be totally wrong. The most valuable workers of all are those that have a customer interface. Customers aren't machines and they don't like dealing with machines and a bad employee who deals with the customers can lose you contracts you may have taken years of hard work to gain.
However if I made millions would you sooner I employed men to carry me everywhere on a sedan chair or would you sooner I bought a car? Sometimes a machine has a place.
I wish you'd stop making assumptions about me. You have no idea how many businesses I've started, or have run. You have no idea whether they've been successful or not.
I originally challenged the notion that business owners take nothing out of their businesses, that all money is reinvested. People cannot survive on nothing. They have to live. They get money to live from somewhere. If they take nothing out, it's because they have access to other money and thus do not need to. If they do not have access to other money, and take none from their business - they die. Because they can't live on nothing.
I have not said that I'm in business to create jobs, however I am delighted to do so because it enables my business to expand and grow and it lightens my load. I'm in business to make money but in doing so I create jobs. I have never said that I am in business to create jobs and I have not tried to insult you or pull you down, perhaps you wouldn't mind treating me with the same respect with which I treat you?If you're telling me that you're in business to provide jobs, or that you expand to create jobs, then I call you a liar. While you may create jobs in order to expand, job creation is not your prime motive.
I have no idea what business you're in but I suggest that if it was manufacturing, and you could get a machine to do the job of any number of employees, then you would do so. I suggest that if your business had shareholders, you'd be obliged to, in order to maximise their profits.
Furthermore, I am not prepared to accept that you speak for 'most' employers, or 'most' owners.
Let me stop you there.Yes, a great soundbite but it means nothing.
I had not said that their existence was to create jobs, what I said was that they use their profit to expand and to create jobs.
Do you object to the owner of a business making money?
Should he or she do all the hard work, all the years of hardship and sweat and tears to build up a viable business and then live like a pauper so they can pay the toilet cleaner £25k a year?
That's the trouble with so many people today they want everything but are willing to earn nothing.
This of course all means nothing as you are the spotty 22 year old junior who's areas of responsibilty mostly incude making tea.If you recruit someone for your business, you don't automatically say "what's the cheapest I could employ them for?" That's a false economy and will result in damage to your business. Instead you say "what skill set does the person need to have and what will I need to pay to get that skill set?"
Lets say I'm taking on a new person for the purchasing department. Then my shopping list might include:
-- Experience of the field they will be purchasing goods in
-- Decent negotiating skills
-- Experience of ISO 9000
I'd then go and look at some job adverts placed by other companies in my area and see what they're paying. That's my benchmark for what I've got to pay. Let's suppose I think that £25,000 is the going rate for the job. Then I'll advertise it for £20,000 - £25,000 with slightly more available for an exceptional candidate. That gives me flexibility in who I hire.
-- I might pay £20,000 for someone inexperience but with real potential.
-- I might pay £27,500 for someone more senior who can bring a few extra things to the table.
If I take this person on, I would hope they stay with me for at least three years. If I add up their wages for this period, together with my costs, I'm making an investment of £100,000 in that individual. That's a lot of money for a small business.
If I underpay the person, I won't get the right person for my business. if I pay someone £18,000 and put them in charge of a purchasing budget of £500,000 a year, they would easily cost me £25,000 in poor purchasing decisions - far more than I've saved on their wages.
Sensible businesses pay the going rate. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys - and your business will soon be in trouble. But has also been pointed out, if you overpay, you'll be too expensive relative to your competitors, and the business will start to fail.
Neither should we ignore the fact that an person's destiny is in their own hands. They can't be forced to work for a company. If they don't like the pay, then they should look for a job that pays better. If they can't find a job that pays better, then they need to invest time in improving their skills so that they can get a job that pays better in the future.
As a PS: I practice what I preach. I study in my own time with a view to making my job more secure at my present company and giving me the best chance of getting a job elsewhere if I decide to.
How many companies have you started and how many have you run?Some.
Again, you're tryng to talk for most business owners. What of those who don't have alternative funds for living expenses?I didn't say that business owners take nothing out of their business. What I actually said was that initially they have to take the bare minimum in order to make their business succeed. There may well be quite a gap between starting your business and receiving your first cheque and it is the business owner who has to fund that from their own funds. Most business owners will take the bare minimum until there is a steady supply of money coming into the business. I'm surprised that you didn't know that if you started a business.
I have not said that I'm in business to create jobs, however I am delighted to do so because it enables my business to expand and grow and it lightens my load. I'm in business to make money but in doing so I create jobs. I have never said that I am in business to create jobs and I have not tried to insult you or pull you down, perhaps you wouldn't mind treating me with the same respect with which I treat you?
You'll find that I've already conceded the point.
Of course a manufacturer would because in most cases he would not be able to manufacture that product at a saleable price without doing so. We all use items of machinery or technology. Do you employ someone to take a message to thse you wish to speak to or do you use a telephone? If you had a landscaping business would you employ 30 people with shears to cut a lawn of would you use machinery? You seem to be of the opinion that a business should be run to employ the maximum number of people on the maximum wage possible. Was that the way you ran your businesses?
So you agree. I was making the point that where applicable, businesses will replace workers with machinery whenever possible. Businesses are only concerned with employees when said employees are seen to be beneficial for the company. I suggest that employees are, in the main, paid the minimum possible wage.
Then stop saying things like 'most owners'.I speak for myself, anyone who has started or run a business will be in a position to judge whether I an representative or not. I'm sure there are plenty of people reading this making up their own minds about who has their foot in reality and who doesn't.
I thought you'd eventually get round to saying something similar.Just out of interest do you have a skill or a trade and are you currently fully employed and if you aren't why aren't you?
My current status is irrelevant to this discussion. The merit of any opinion does not rest on the status of its proponent. Your responses to me thus far seem to based on the premise that I disagree with your whole stance on the matter. But you don't actually know whether or not I agree. All I've done is pick a couple of points that I felt required a challenge.
Edited to add - I picked up on the point about owners getting nothing because what you originally said reinforced a previous post by CQMS
[snip]The people who put their houses on the line. The people who pay themselves nothing for the first few years and get less than their lowest paid employee.[/snip]
Can we get away from this carefully nurtured notion that all the unemployed are work-shy scroungers? While some are, most are not. Just blithely stating: “Well, they can go out and get a job if they can’t live on their benefits”, is just repeating the nasty gobment line to divert attention away from themselves. There are no fuckin’ jobs! And even when work is available, it’s extremely low-paid and mostly unpleasant.
No-one seems to have put two and two together here. The fact that it's not worth their while to go to work because they'd only get as much as they get on benefits is not an indication that benefits are too high (because they really are the bare minimum) but a very clear sign that even the minimum wage is far too low. If the unemployed could look forward to much higher wages, then that would be incentive enough. And all this bollocks about "paying what the market will bear" is a pitiable justification for only shelling out the absolute minimum in remuneration.
“A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work” is also another one that should be consigned to the shite-heap. Employees don’t pay fair wages and they don’t want to either, because that would mean that they’d earn less in profits. And profits, and the growth in profits, is what it’s all about. If a company’s in trouble, it would rather dump 40 skilled employees on £50,000 a year each than two totally useless board-members on a million a year apiece.
There are two reasons to start a business; either to be independent or to enjoy the “double-status” condition. I chose to be independent and I’m a freelance translator. I don’t employ anyone else and I can choose how much I earn. I also don’t exploit others.
Companies are not only competing for markets, but also for status, for year-on-year growth. If they report that profits are two percent lower, it's a catastrophe. They might have cleared, say, five million after tax in the previous year, so the reporting year is still well in the black. But “profits" are lower. It’s a perverse status race driven purely by ego. The highest profits, the biggest company and the most employees, that's what counts. That's what impresses. And that will only get worse as time progresses. What a fuckin’ perverse world we live in.
I’d prepared a whole bevy of rebuttals to the quitty responses of your man Wordsmith, but I decided to reduce it to a reply to this quote. I work with languages for a living. I'm a translator and, occasionally, interpreter. The English language is awash with connotations, synonyms, double-meanings and lead-ins that fetch up against sheer walls when confronted with the realities of life, just like your man Call-Me-Dave is discovering in these nasty times.It's not status, it's short termism. First, the bonus schemes given to senior management encourages short term profits not long term building - so they do everything to maximise this years profits (and bonus) and far too little to make sure the company is going to be healthy in 5 years time. The short termism is also driven by institutional investors who drive for short term profit to boost their immediate returns from their investment - rather than encouraging the company to invest for the long term - and deliver profits (and dividends) well into the future.
Let me stop you there.
Do grow up, you have offered nothing to the discussion that is true so far, you are just doing your usual and bombarding the thread with lengthy and contrary replies to any poster more interesting than you as you fancy yourself an intellectual, you also hate being wrong.
Stop using the ever increasingly distorted acceptions to the general rule as a defence and explain to the class why multi nationals should have the wage bill subsidised by the tax payer?
Which multi-nationals are having their wage bills subsidised?
Just such an expression is short terminism. It actually means that the proponents couldnt give a **** about the folks theyre disposing over and regard them as mere pawns in the pursuit of ever higher profits.
Were supposed to be (and were morally and ethically charged with) building a much better and more optimistic world for our children and grandchildren. We owe them that much at least. But we have to ask ourselves just how that's turning out.