|
Iamgoofball posted:what type of work your business does is so loving un-identifying that we can't do poo poo with it Here, I'll go first. I do corporate financial accounting for a private printing company whose primary revenue is business to business. Unless this small business is hyper specific like a stupid tech startup or you own dragon dildos or something we probably won't figure out who you are/ where you live.
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
How Rude posted:Here, I'll go first. I do corporate financial accounting for a private printing company whose primary revenue is business to business. Nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
How Rude posted:Unless this small business is hyper specific like a stupid tech startup even then he could just say stupid tech startup, and that's generic as gently caress but can be worked with but he wont because i have a feeling this job he's talking about getting apps for doesn't exist, and he's just making all this poo poo up
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Wow someone was mad enough to spend $10 over this? Wow an unironic "u mad bro"
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Nonetheless. nonetheless isn't a job title post the job title
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I have no idea what anyone's labor is "worth" in any kind of objective way and I'm asking you (or anyone else), seriously, unironically, how someone would arrive at that number. I know more or less what I can budget and there are statistics that can help figuring out at what wage I might be able to fill a position but literally the only way I can assess whether someone thinks I'm paying what they're worth and that what I'm paying is fair is whether they agree to come work for me or not. You know that you need their labor badly enough to justify spending that amount of money to hire and employ them. You're not hiring employees out of charity, you're doing it because they'll enable you to maintain or increase your profits even after accounting for their salary and other related costs. Do you think we're stupid or something?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Iamgoofball posted:nonetheless isn't a job title Sales Assistant. I posted that pages back. Like...assistant to sales people.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Man responsible for continued employment of multiple people incapable of judging value of labour. I give it a year before he sells the company for magic beans.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You know that you need their labor badly enough to justify spending that amount of money to hire and employ them. You're not hiring employees out of charity, you're doing it because they'll enable you to maintain or increase your profits even after accounting for their salary and other related costs. Do you think we're stupid or something? I think I'm really, honestly trying to ask you about this and you keep being snarky instead of just engaging with it. Yes, I know I need a person. I know that person is (to me) worth spending at least some amount, that I offer to them in exchange for working for me. I have no idea what their "objective" value is and no idea how to figure that out. I have no idea whether they feel what they're going to earn is fair except that they agree to come earn it. What is their worth? Is it the amount I'm willing to pay them? Is it the amount they accept? Is it the amount they would ideally want if they could pick?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Sales Assistant. I posted that pages back. Like...assistant to sales people. wow hey look at that we can actually loving work with this, only took like five posts to get this basic loving information out of you now my basic google search says wages range from 15 hourly to 20 hourly for this sort of position if you factor in salaried positions, but im sure someone who has actual experience in that field(IE. How Rude) can speak with more information about the field
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Iamgoofball posted:wow hey look at that we can actually loving work with this, only took like five posts to get this basic loving information out of you Job is in Chile. $20 an hour is like top 10% wages here.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Job is in Chile. $20 an hour is like top 10% wages here. ill be back in an hour or so with wage information on chile then, will figure out a reasonable example wage then and we can work from there
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
Iamgoofball posted:ill be back in an hour or so with wage information on chile then, will figure out a reasonable example wage then and we can work from there Ok. It's pretty annoying to find stats like that so I'd be really interested to know where you got them if you're successful. The average wage here is approx $800 US net per month (after taxes, healthcare, social security, etc). The job (which I filled, new hire starts Monday) pays $1,000 net per month. edit: In Chilean pesos, obv.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
e: gently caress
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:e: gently caress Re: Your prior post. For sales people it more or less works like that - X% commission on gross sales plus a base. For a lot of posts it's just...not really possible to figure it out that way. How much money does a receptionist make you? Accounting-wise none but it's hard to run the business without them.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:it's hard to run the business without them. That suggests they're making you quite a lot of money.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
brb, changing OP's name to gasolineoverfire
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:brb, changing OP's name to gasolineoverfire Ok I laughed.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Ok I laughed.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I think I'm really, honestly trying to ask you about this and you keep being snarky instead of just engaging with it. You don't need to know what a person is worth. You need to know what the work is worth, and then find a person capable of doing that work. Anything beyond that is just trying to get that work for less than it's worth.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
I must say DnD finally fulfilled its fantasy of enacting the struggle against bourgeois exploiter in an 2006 era internet forum setting itt (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
if your job pays $200 over the average monthly wage how is it also in the top 10% of salaries lol
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You don't need to know what a person is worth. You need to know what the work is worth, and then find a person capable of doing that work. Anything beyond that is just trying to get that work for less than it's worth. That's basically the principle of hiring any individual. A given employee should be adding value by what they're being hired for. This is usually quantified by things like number of additional projects enabled, number of additional sales made, amount of time reduced to complete a project, etc. This is the same principle when buying equipment or opening up a satellite property. It's rarely ever a hard number and generally an approximation, but that's the calculus that should be gone into when throwing money at a solution. Do I think that it's good that people should be measured by how much money they could enable access to (either by saving it or making it)? No, but that's the calculus involved.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
I wouldn't find it difficult to believe some lucky business owner realised there's scope for more sales staff and simply Scrooged an attempt to advertise for a job and keep taking applicants until they got the cheapest one possible, without even considering fair wage or "revenue gained per hour-reasonable profit to business" as a pay scale. Hell, the other end of the latter is how you at least roughly make sure a position is worth hiring for in the first place, e.g. it costs/makes money to fill the role. NinpoEspiritoSanto fucked around with this message at 00:49 on May 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:People make points like this and it makes me think they are the ones who believe in a Just World. Why do you believe that what a worker deserves corresponds to absolutely as much as an employer will pay? You wouldn't view any other economic transaction that way. If you personally hire a plumber or a landscaper or whatever else you're not going to volunteer to pay them extra, at least most likely not, just because you happen to have that amount available. You'd probably (again, idk you, but I would hope) quote around and try to keep the price down so that when other things come up for you that require you to spend money, you have more available. I think we'd probably all recognize that as normal and a good practice? Why is it any different when you're receiving the check instead of writing it? I literally covered this (it's the one part of my post you didn't quote, funny that) but let me spell it out; the maximum of what an employer will pay is what the job is worth because an employer will never pay more than the job is worth. The point at which you won't pay more is the point at which you're paying them more than what you'll get out of them (or likely less than that but never more), thus everything up to that point is the value of their work. If you're trying to pay them less than this, you're paying them less than what they're worth. Also your trades person analogy is terrible, paying someone the value of their work isn't the same as literally giving them all your money, what the gently caress are you talking about. quote:This is true for certain values of true but also wrong and unhelpful. If you're currently employed and you're not a gently caress-up your employer by and large does NOT want to replace you. Not-a-gently caress-up can actually be a hard quality to find. So if you have that quality you have some leverage. Maybe not a lot, depending on exactly what you're doing. But some leverage. Also you might be kind of a gently caress-up but not think you are, so make sure to do a realistic self appraisal. People seem to fall into that trap a lot. But if you're genuinely good you have some leverage to tactfully make demands. The way you do that is first go out and research your other options. Yes, that is some extra work. Yes, you've already worked long and hard and you have a zillion things to do and etc but do it anyway. Once you've found out if there's greener grass somewhere and that it's grass you can actually get to you go to your boss and tactfully tell them you've grown in your job and feel ready for more responsibility (or whatever bullshit. Tact is key) and that you also want more of a role and more money by X amount. Then depending on what they say you either succeed or you bounce. Either way you succeed. D&D would have you believe that this is literally impossible but people do it all the time and people who approach it as part of the game instead of a ridiculous imposition because their employer should just pay them more are going to make more. For 99% of employers, demanding more pay than what they're willing to pay you qualifies you as a gently caress-up. You know I actually had a spiel in mind about how the reason you're having trouble coming up with concrete wages is because you're trying to take a relatively concrete figure like what an employee's work is worth and then subtract a nebulous "the value my company adds" from their pay, the second part being what's screwing you up. However reading your posts it seems like you're actually just have no idea how to value the work people do for your company as the owner of said company with all the data available to you. So uhhh, good luck? Try not to drag too many people down when you go under.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
According to this http://www.fundacionsol.cl/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Los-Verdaderos-Salarios-NESI-2017-1.pdf a top 10% monthly net salary in Chile would be ~1400 USD and I'm pretty sure wateroverfire is giving us the gross, not the net, so it's probably really closer to top 30% and maybe paying like half of it "informally" due to it being Latin America Still doubt someone with his kind of views would pay a top 30% salary to an "asistente de ventas" in a Latin American country really Pochoclo fucked around with this message at 01:42 on May 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
Dire Lemming posted:I literally covered this (it's the one part of my post you didn't quote, funny that) but let me spell it out; the maximum of what an employer will pay is what the job is worth because an employer will never pay more than the job is worth. The point at which you won't pay more is the point at which you're paying them more than what you'll get out of them (or likely less than that but never more), thus everything up to that point is the value of their work. If you're trying to pay them less than this, you're paying them less than what they're worth. Also your trades person analogy is terrible, paying someone the value of their work isn't the same as literally giving them all your money, what the gently caress are you talking about. All intangibly essential employees should get paid the same.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:All intangibly essential employees should get paid the same. You're right, I was approaching it from a "best you're going to get under capitalism" angle rather than what would actually be best.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 02:22
|
|
|
A fun direction to take this thread in is that everyone smart enough to do the job the OP wants to have done for not much money is also savvy enough and mobile enough to do it in a place that hasn't been so skullfucked by capitalism that $20usd/hr is "the top 10% of wages" it's not that neat and clean of course. people are relatively static while capital is infinitely mobile, but Mr. Small Business Owner has a likely story explaining this im sure. Lemme guess: asset rich, cash poor? then maybe you should eat out of your own cut more if you cannot operate without employees. or if you CAN operate without such premium labor then maybe you should do some labor on your business with that expertise you have to justify your draw on such. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH9xPDDy80 Seven Hundred Bee posted:if your job pays $200 over the average monthly wage how is it also in the top 10% of salaries lol chile is not a global imperial hegemon hth Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 02:35 on May 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Wow someone was mad enough to spend $10 over this? It's only people's literal, actual livelihoods at stake, you loving ghoul. wateroverfire posted:I'm going to try to answer you but I need to clarify some points a little. Why do they want to keep the employee if they know exactly how much the work is worth and pay that much? The way you talk about it, owning a business is less about the work being done by the business, and way more about being having the power to pick and choose the people that you keep around. If the employee is contributing greater value to the company than simply their work, then they should be compensated for that, ideally immediately without them having to go to their employer and plead their case. What is the scenario where both of these are true? a) the correct decision for the company is to pay the employee more b) the employee is currently being adequately compensated for their work And while I'm being ignored anyway, how did you come into ownership of this company? Somfin fucked around with this message at 03:23 on May 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
wateroverfire the thing you aren't getting is that if you're viewing the salary negotiation process as a game to be played then you're playing with a stacked deck just in terms of pure information asymmetry, simply because you know you're paying everyone and for the most part your employees probably don't. FWIW I'm a buyer for a medium sized aerospace manufacturing firm with a *vast* amount of scope, I control millions of dollars spending with next to no oversight (because no else at this company is trained to do my duties and I am the resident expert on the subjects that relate to my position and lot of stuff beyond that besides, so no one knows enough to even ask the right questions if I was unethical), on top of a bunch of other stuff related to making airplane parts, but I make almost exactly as much as volkerball makes in terms of hourly wage. I make about 66% of what the other buyers (who do a lot less terms of scope and spend less than what I do [due to the relative value of their respective inputs to the supply chain, not necessarily because they're way better at their jobs than I am, although that could be true too, who knows!]) make and I've been here longer than both of them. My position should not exist in a logically managed corporation (like 300 people work here now for christsakes), and even if it did, it makes absolutely no sense to pay it as little as I make right now. I could get a 100% raise and it would be less than 2% of what I'm responsible for I don't say this to brag because honestly it's kind of pathetic that I haven't jumped ship for a huge bump in pay like so many of my peers but to point out the absurdity of small/medium business management. It's not like my story is unique or anything, dumb poo poo like this happens all over the country and the world since most economic activity is generated by these sized companies. A lot of it can be attributed imo to the opacity of wage and related information in the private sector. I had no idea until recently how wide and deep my job duties were compared to the industry standard until we got merged with a larger corporation that has parts of 4 departments doing what I do. My soon to be boss has way less control over the supply chain process at his company than I do here for example. Job postings are super vauge when it comes to what you're actually going to wind up doing, and of course no one posts a salary in their job posts because information asymmetry is perceived to benefit employers so much. It might be true in a zero sum, owners getting a bigger slice of the pie sense, but I think the whole process significantly reduces productivity overall. Turnover goes up because the only way to actually gauge what you're worth is to interview somewhere else. Morale goes down when it inevitably gets out that someone is getting screwed when HR leaves a printout on the copier by accident. Titles and comparisons on wage aggregator websites aren't a ton of help because of the variance and the trend to put seniority modifiers that might mean a dollar an hour more or ten depending on the place. The whole thing would benefit from a huge dose of transparency. It would make the employer/employee relationship less adversarial and give everyone involved a higher certainty that all parties are operating in good faith.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Yes, I know I need a person. I know that person is (to me) worth spending at least some amount, that I offer to them in exchange for working for me. I have no idea what their "objective" value is and no idea how to figure that out. I have no idea whether they feel what they're going to earn is fair except that they agree to come earn it. What is their worth? Is it the amount I'm willing to pay them? Is it the amount they accept? Is it the amount they would ideally want if they could pick? Yeah, this is the problem right here. People need jobs. The farther down the pay scale the job goes, the more people will need that job and the less options applicants will actually have for alternatives. The fact that someone will come and work for low pay is not an indication that a person feels that the wage is fair, it's a symptom of economic coercion. There are people in the US who will happily work for sub-minimum wage because at some point any pay is better than no pay when you need money. To complicate things even further, go ahead and throw wage opacity onto the pile. Most people don't know what their peers are making. They don't know what other employers are offering, because employers in general aren't listing pay in many job listings. They don't know if your offer is the best that they're going to get or if you're literally offering half the pay for twice the responsibilities of the average position. In most cases there are no good options for getting this information other than unreliable-at-best self-reported data on sites like Glassdoor. Individual wage negotiation is a game that is stacked 100% in the employer's favor and serves no useful purpose for employees. Your best outcome is that you maximize what an employer is willing to pay you, but by definition that's an amount they were willing to pay anyway. Negotiations only make sense when collective bargaining is at play and a union actually has significant leverage over an employer.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
Pretty funny seeing Volkerball being obliterated into a radioactive cloud of atomized particles
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:To complicate things even further, go ahead and throw wage opacity onto the pile. Most people don't know what their peers are making. They don't know what other employers are offering, because employers in general aren't listing pay in many job listings. They don't know if your offer is the best that they're going to get or if you're literally offering half the pay for twice the responsibilities of the average position. In most cases there are no good options for getting this information other than unreliable-at-best self-reported data on sites like Glassdoor. There was a person going around at the last Wellington game development conference outright asking folks what they were making in their role, getting angrier and angrier about it; turns out she was making less than two thirds of what even the lower-paid folks were making, while also being on an endless full-time contract (thanks Hobbit Law!), and she had no idea about any of it because people usually don't talk about this poo poo. I should check in and see if she's either quit or gotten a loving raise at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Pretty funny seeing Volkerball being obliterated into a radioactive cloud of atomized particles "He's making 3.6 posts per hour." "Not great, but not terrible"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 07:41
|
|
|
Somfin posted:There was a person going around at the last Wellington game development conference outright asking folks what they were making in their role, getting angrier and angrier about it; turns out she was making less than two thirds of what even the lower-paid folks were making, while also being on an endless full-time contract (thanks Hobbit Law!), and she had no idea about any of it because people usually don't talk about this poo poo. what in the duck is Hobbit Law Mandatory multiple lunches
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:what in the duck is Hobbit Law New Zealand hosed their labour laws so that Warner Bros could film The Hobbit there while still treating their crew like poo poo. Basically a big company played chicken with a government and won 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
Dire Lemming posted:New Zealand hosed their labour laws so that Warner Bros could film The Hobbit there while still treating their crew like poo poo. Basically a big company played chicken with a government and won Because when you elect right-wing governments they roll the gently caress over, and it was so transparently just to get that one awful exploitative piece of poo poo movie trilogy made. Basically everyone working in the "screen industry" in New Zealand is legally allowed to be strapped down to full time contract work for the rest of their lives unlike every other industry (where a full year of full-time contract work must end with a transition to actual employee status), and they're also hosed in terms of work protections unlike every other industry. And just to make it super clear that this is a gently caress you rather than a positive, they arbitrarily included the video games industry in that, something that Ashen developers Aurora 44 have been exploiting the gently caress out of to keep their workers scared and compliant. Pretty sure it also wrecked the ability to create collective agreements for the entire entertainment industry in New Zealand. Imagine if your life's work project was so good and so pure that it captured the heart of an entire nation and put the country on the map and everyone loved you for it and it made tourism loving explode just to be in the place that was so important and magical. Then a few years later you decide to roll out the sequel and it's just another three bog-standard fuckup shitstain movies, except the government decided to side with a multinational corporation over the workers of the country it's supposed to represent and used the justification of needing to make those lovely movies happen in order to gently caress up the legal protections of every loving worker in every loving industry even tangentially involved. And also a bunch of folks in fundamentally unrelated industries. That's Sir Peter Jackson's actual legacy, and that's what the Hobbit Law is. It's the monkey paw's finger curling. We got the Lord of the Rings. We also got saddled the Hobbit trilogy. Everyone in New Zealand's film and games industries hopes it was loving worth it, because we're still loving paying for it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
Hey OP here's a hot tip, Pay your workers a living wage and also realize that since your position means you control whether or not they have their job tomorrow, and thus whether or not they get payed the money they need to live, means you are by default in a position of power over them and their very well being so any interaction with you has to be transactional with that knowledge as an understood part. If this bothers you so much maybe remove yourself from the managerial hierarchy. Unionzie, form a works co-op and become one of the comrades that then own the company as a collective whole. Or actually don't because if you didn't have control over if someone is able to afford food or not this week I'm not sure they'd talk to you ever cause you seem like a massive idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
OP, take your company's total revenue (or your valuation if you're not turning a profit and just running a stock market scam) then divide that by the number of employees you have. That should give you a ballpark as to what your employees are worth. If that number is less than what you're paying them then I guess the glorious free market has decided your company sucks and you'll be going bankrupt here soon. Something tells me that number is significantly higher than what you're paying, though. And, no, you don't have to stick your neck in the guillotine to make us happy. Just acknowledge the fact that you underpay your employees and you profit off the suffering of others. You asked why you're having trouble getting the peons to suck your dick and then refusing to accept the reality of class struggle. Also, gently caress anyone who says the poor don't have ~financial literacy~, overspending on consumer goods and lottery tickets. That's how capitalism loving works, you arrogant gently caress! By definition for a company to be profitable it must short change its workers, and the workers, who make less than the value of their work, must be a majority of the population. You also can't get economic growth without consumption, propensity to consume is inversely proportional to income, so if everyone in the working class took your advice and just saved up, as they did in 1930 and 2008, the economy crashes. Honestly, this almost pisses me off more than the wealth inequality- the fact that so many of the people up the chain actually believe their bullshit. The fact that these morons who don't understand how economics works get to proselytize how they earned their wealth. You could at least acknowledge your loving everyone over for personal gain.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 17:57
|
|
