You should probably go back to Sin's board. I'm not sure you're ready for the big pond little fish.

 

-----signature-----

whats a matter?
you mad cause i yawned at your weakness?
or mad because i pointed out your self pwn?

 

-----signature-----

The increasing amount of widgets on the market drives prices down, whereas the increased demand for widget raw materials drives prices for those up. The company is losing profits and in reaction to that fires 5 of their 10 guys. The worst can be avoided thanks to a government bailout. The new manager gets his golden parachute. Because of his excellent contacts he's soon hired by another company, making more than ever. The 5 widget makers that got fired are still looking for a new job.

What do I win?

 

-----signature-----

He is innovative, he deserves a reward. They learned additional skills, they deserve a raise.

This isn't rocket science.

You could argue the company could just hire new workers trained in the new skills more cheaply. I could argue the innovator already shot his wad, so, dump him and move on.

It doesn't matter if a company can produce 2 million widgets instead of 1 million widgets if the population can only afford to buy 1 million widgets.

In reality, over the long haul, the company should reward innovators and reward adaptable employees.

In a larger scope, a rising standard of living for the middle class is the most beneficial outcome for society as a whole, so, society should focus on things that benefit the middle class. Give the workers a raise commensurate with the increase in productivity and society as a whole benefits.

The classic example is Henry Ford paying his employees enough that they could afford to buy his cars. He was a true innovator and he could have easily kept wages down and grabbed all the profits. But, he didn't, and America became an industrial powerhouse.

What right wingers don't see is that it is better for all segments of society if 80% of people can afford a car as opposed to only 20% of people being able to afford a car.

And this doesn't even address that fact that today's innovators aren't innovating incredible new products that revolutionize our lives. No, the innovators are busy inventing new financial instruments whose only purpose is to suck money out of the productive segment of society, while socializing all the risks onto the middle class.

 

-----signature-----

Did he use whips and are the workers children okay?

 

-----signature-----

Unquantifiable unless witnessed. You don't know how much of the increased productivity is due to the employees intelligence and work ethic vs. the managers skill in implementing the new methods, training, etc.

I've seen managers who have increased productivity with nothing but moral boosting and positive attitude.

I've also seen workers increase productivity due to a new process, in spite of having a manager suggest, implement and oversee it awfully. All he saw was someone elses idea and copied it with no clue how it really would work. The workers saw better than him and made it happen.

 

-----signature-----

This is a stretch in assuming there are "innovative" managers out there.


Most of the managers I come across are mouth breathing C average dipshits that had no business being in college, and even less so as a manager of anything.

 

-----signature-----

Truth.

 

-----signature-----

30% Management, 70% Labor. Management gets 10% more if they have to fight executive management (you are talking about a middle manager in this example)

Management removes some inefficiencies and gets employees new knowledge. The work is still being done by labor however. Ergo, they get the lions share of the credit.

In my personal experience, management never knows how to do the actual work. They've got a rough idea, but they couldn't do most of the actual work. My experiences are all at highly technical jobs though.

 

-----signature-----

How are you measuring productivity? Are you going solely on number of widgets produced per worker?

 

-----signature-----