Comment on The circle of life
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 week agopayroll, which is generally a businesses highest expense
This is something that changed in the industry; it was a investment back then.
Comment on The circle of life
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 week agopayroll, which is generally a businesses highest expense
This is something that changed in the industry; it was a investment back then.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
Huh, it’s been an operating expense since, let me check, the dawn of business?
“Investing in” your employees doesn’t make a ton of sense when they could just hop over to the next company after a year, much like loyalty in a company doesn’t make sense. It’s all a business transaction in the end so if you can get a better deal, you should.
The unfulfilled promise of AI is to reduce the expense to a minimum so the few remaining people can accomplish the same work. That’s more of an investment than paying people to work for you until they find a better job ever was. In theory.
0tan0d@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Hi I suggest you crack open a history book and look at why ford didn’t pay his employees in peanuts.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
To solve the turnover issue, sure. It’s not like the employees had that many other places to go to that could afford to do the same, he could just double or triple everyone’s salary and nobody’s going anywhere. It was a necessary business expense. EXPENSE. He could’ve made more money if he didn’t have to pay it. Similarly to the raw materials, electricity, and every other unavoidable business expense.
It’s also not the same for software engineers, for an example. Too many companies hiring, or at least there used to be until a few years ago. You have to not just pay a lot of money, you also have to have a large bonus 3 or 4 years down the line, often in the form of stock options. Otherwise your engineer making 300k will just take the next job for 400k in half a year to a year.
In normal companies that can’t afford bonuses that are more or less life-changing windfalls, there’s no “investing” in employees. You can pay the market rate for a new grad and they disappear in a year or two to another company that doesn’t take new grads at all but rather poaches employees once they’ve gotten some initial work experience and thus they waste less money than the companies hiring and training juniors and can afford to pay more. The company that doesn’t “invest” in employees, gets more bang for its buck.
wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
Citation needed with data. Because I’d argue pay on the factory is also proportional to quality output. So would they have still made the money with a worse product?