Can y'all not understand the question, If a worker raises his production, should his pay reflect the increase in productivity?
It wasn't about a business model or a "real world" business. It was just a simple question that apparently went way over your heads. If I could make it any more simple for you I would.
____________
The answer is no. Is infinity plus one bigger than infinity?
Every question you've asked jt, has been answered to hell and back in the
simplest ways. You should direct all your questions to consuck, he would
understand you better than the non understanding people here.
Every question you've asked jt, has been answered to hell and back in the
simplest ways.
No it hasn't. Everyone tried to add to the question. You especially have not answered it.
Does an increase in production need an increase in pay?
Every question you've asked jt, has been answered to hell and back in the
simplest ways.
No it hasn't. Everyone tried to add to the question. You especially have not answered it.
Does an increase in production need an increase in pay?
____________
In communist cooperative farms and plants in the old Soviet Union, there was no incentive for workers to produce more than their quotas required, since no additional compensation would accrue from the increased productivity and the worker who did significantly increase his/her production would be expected to maintain productivity at that level without additional compensation. Those who argue against increased compensation for increased productivity
would have fit in well with the Soviet model.
Generally,, increased production, that is, if profits increase, are rewarded according to skill levels,
FYI, Soviet Union allowed farmers private plots. At most, the plots equaled no more than 4 percent of all arable land, but yielded about a third of produce. During the time of the czars, Russia was a major wheat exporter. The US may thank the Soviets for the US replacing Russia globally for wheat.
I've got a question. If you ran a business that made a thing. It took one hour for one man to make one thing. The thing sells for $20. You pay the man $10 and you keep $10. You can sell all the things made. If someone was able to make 2 things per hour, would you pay him $20 per hour? Double his pay and your profit will still be doubled. Or would you pay him $10 and your profit would go from $10 to $30.
___________
You information is flawed. A Thing sold in 1973 for $3,150 and a little less in 1974. It had a top speed of 55 mph and Ralph Nader didn't like it. If you had a worker who could produce a Thing for $10 and you sold them for $20, there would probably be a lot of Things is junk yards today.
________________
jt,
My reply to our question is whether or not the employee agreed to do the job for $10 an hour to begin with. If he did, the employer expect to get the greatest production the employee is capable of giving. If at the end of the agreed upon period the employee feels like he could do more if offered more money, then negotiations should take place. If the employee is not willing to work for the amount offered the employer can either increase the pay or look for someone else willing to do the work. The part you neglect in your question is that you are forgetting other costs as well as the right of the employer to make a profit. If there is no incentive to make a profit, then why open the business? Le the "employee" take all the risk and invest his or her own money in the operation.
Business is not so simple as a single little question. Workforces have changed and there are plenty of people out there willing to work.
