LogFAQs > #894440078

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Profit sharing.
Zeus 01/20/18 2:57:01 PM #2:	wolfy42 posted... Why isn't this done more? I mean, of course besides greed. Because profits are already being shared with the investors. Companies with profit-sharing -- as I understand it -- are usually ones without investors where the employees are effectively the owners/investors, having a direct stake and say in the company's operation. And, broadly speaking, wage standards are one of the bigger reasons why it's not done. It's not much different than paying a supplier -- why would you pay more than you have to? Having more money to go around means you can invest in your operations, lower prices to undercut competitors, carry more inventory, etc. And keep in mind that the overall profit margins -- not to be confused with the product markup -- for a lot of industries are pretty thin. wolfy42 posted... Profit sharing would solve most of the wage problems in a far better way then just raising the min wage drastically in a short period of time. Having people working at Mc Donalds making more then EMTs seems wrong, even if the EMTs often don't mind. I don't think you understand how McDonald's actually works. What McDonald's corporate makes is irrelevant to what a franchisee employee is being paid. McDonald's corporate's customers aren't the guys walking into the restaurants (except for 5% of locations in the US), it's the restaurants themselves who pay fees and buy product. wolfy42 posted... If the employees normally got around $10 an hour, that is almost a 50% increase in total income (also brings it pretty close to $15 an hour). The way it works is the expenses to run acompany, pay salaries (including a fair amount for the owner, not to exceed 10x the lowest paid employees pay per hour) and losses are taken out of the gross profit. Gross profit shouldn't be confused with net profit. You can have a positive gross profit but a negative net profit depending on the overall cost of your operations. Paying additional compensation on gross is generally stupid. In general, if they wanted to pay a bit more, they could pay a bit more. You don't need profit sharing to compensate employees better. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:894440078] in Profit sha... [t:76223431]...</cite> <quote><cite>wolfy42 posted...</cite> <quote>Why isn't this done more? I mean, of course besides greed.</quote> Because profits are already being shared with the investors. Companies with profit-sharing -- as I understand it -- are usually ones without investors where the employees are effectively the owners/investors, having a direct stake and say in the company's operation. And, broadly speaking, wage standards are one of the bigger reasons why it's not done. It's not much different than paying a supplier -- why would you pay more than you have to? Having more money to go around means you can invest in your operations, lower prices to undercut competitors, carry more inventory, etc. And keep in mind that the overall profit margins -- not to be confused with the product markup -- for a lot of industries are pretty thin. <cite>wolfy42 posted...</cite> <quote>Profit sharing would solve most of the wage problems in a far better way then just raising the min wage drastically in a short period of time. Having people working at Mc Donalds making more then EMTs seems wrong, even if the EMTs often don't mind. </quote> I don't think you understand how McDonald's actually works. What McDonald's corporate makes is irrelevant to what a franchisee employee is being paid. McDonald's corporate's customers aren't the guys walking into the restaurants (except for 5% of locations in the US), it's the restaurants themselves who pay fees and buy product. <cite>wolfy42 posted...</cite> <quote>If the employees normally got around $10 an hour, that is almost a 50% increase in total income (also brings it pretty close to $15 an hour). The way it works is the expenses to run acompany, pay salaries (including a fair amount for the owner, not to exceed 10x the lowest paid employees pay per hour) and losses are taken out of the gross profit.</quote> Gross profit shouldn't be confused with net profit. You can have a positive gross profit but a negative net profit depending on the overall cost of your operations. Paying additional compensation on gross is generally stupid. In general, if they wanted to pay a bit more, they could pay a bit more. You don't need profit sharing to compensate employees better. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1