Would you want to work for a company that gave salary increases/decreases based on yearly profit/loss? (UserQ)
I shouldn't be affected by the idiot in the cubby next to me.
I couldn't work in sales you gotta be a good liar and a bullshít artist. Not as bad as being a lawyer but close.
How about personal merit
Pinky: don't bother responding to Realistic. He/she is just trolling. Jumps in everyday, writes the same asinine line, and has never engaged in a single discussion on any comment...honestly, he/she has no idea why they believe that...just another glittering jewel of ignorance and blind Obama love.
I'm in sales...that's EXACTLY how my pay structure works (not company-wide obviously). As my sales territory grows in profitability, so does my paycheck....until Obamacare kicks in, then I'm out of a job.
FAILURE! Don't get me wrong, I'm not too keen on Romney either. I want Ron Paul to win. But you cannot bash Romney and leave Obama unscathed if you want anyone to take you seriously.
@Realistic, nearly anyone voting for Obama would have to be a complete moron if they believe that he's handled the economy or foreign/domestic policy well. The only two bright spots in Obama's presidency were the sniping of Somali pirates, and the killing of Bin Laden. The rest has been an abysmal..
Not company-wide profits/losses. That would base my pay on the performance of too many others. That only works well for compensating very high level executives whose job it is to ensure company-wide profitability. If pay was based solely on my profitability, then that would be fine.
Yes. This kind of system would motivate me to work harder and consistent pay increases would motivate me too. With this system one positive feeds off the other positive, and that creates a win-win situation for everybody.
If I were motivated to move my product and increase profits, therefore, my raise then yeah. But, I'm not, I'm a lazy bastard
Anyone who votes for Romney seriously does not understand politics and economics
Oh. You mean the way it should be? Absolutely.
I'll take the salary increases when we increase profits but I don't think I could absorb a salary decrease in a bad year. Bonuses and supplemental income based on profit/loss would be fine with me.
Then people would actually work!!!!!!!!!
And that's how unions were born
Not unless I had a say in the direction/ focus of the company.
Yes. Communist bastards.
Too bad politicians aren't payed this way.
Companies that include profit sharing usually do pretty good. I think it's a pretty good way to limit fraud, waste & abuse & give the employees a vested interest in the company doing well.
No..I can see getting paid due to how the company is doing, but life is full of stress. I seriously wouldn't want to worry about that. Having to worry about the stock market and IRAs for retirement is bad enough. id rather see Congress deal with that mess. let the public vote themselves a raise
The kicker is: Obama hired this dumbass for one of his job "czars " incredible
I would not want to work for Kodak..The dumbass CEO Perez asks the board for a bonus for executives while the company is in bankruptcy..WTF? millions of people might be out of a job and this idiot whines about a company jet, how he needs a new one when he just got one.
Amazing. Everyone rants and raves to hold schools accountable, but no one wants to be held accountable in their own jobs. Interesting.
I agree 100% with Danno9
I would love for congress to get paid based on profit or loss.
Do I want my pay to be reflected by my and my coworkers effectiveness?
It's called earning your worth.
Something I see lower income, democrats, and a surprisingly large percentage of republicans seem to not understand.
I already do!
I already do. It's called a bonus program, and I've never received my bonuses. I love being good at what I do.
Don't they anyway?
Why would I take a decrease in wages? I never got a raise where I used to work even when we increased their income by 66%
Not my base salary, because I'd want to know I could make my bills even if they mismanaged the thing into a loss, but a small percentage of higher than projected profits that I was directly responsible for, as a bonus, while not necessary, would be an incentive to stay on.
Duh I work on commission if I don't produce, I don't get a decent wage. Only people who don't have to worry about producing results (union) expect pay increases just for showing up
and you would have to atleast be paid minimum wage
I don't want to but I do. Most small companies do, but they call it something like a merit increase.
I love the idea of working in a slacker-free environment. It's always the most fun to work with motivated folks pulling together with a common goal.
As for cyclical income - that pretty much comes with all non-drone jobs.
Would you like to be out of a job when another recession hits?
If i knew that everyone in the company gave 110% then yes, otherwise no.
Not really -_- that could turn out disastrous
Every year is too volatile, but I would interested in trying it on more like a 5-year cycle, to build in mode natural adjustment.
Raises should be based on personal performance.
I hope the people that voted "no" to having raises based on company performance here, also voted that teachers union are good. People seem to be ignorant to how this works. You either work for a company and get a raise based on performance, or a union gets you a raise.
I already do. Well we get out usual 3% every year but our bonuses are based on profit/loss. Yes, I am lucky to get a bonus.
no, unless im a higher up and actually have a say in the direction of the company.
@FakeSound is right on the money! The problem with our economy isn't profits, it's demand. People who spend money (the bottom 50%) have less disposable income than ever. They cut back and demand goes down, so companies don't hire. It's basic econ. 101!
I do too.
When the economy picks up, for sure! Right now, don't think so.
I already do.
Are you kidding me? Corps are doing better than EVER right now!