We use behavioral management today.

"Most of the gains are a result of new machinery/technologies, which were provided from investments by the capital providers (ie, the owners). Why is it that you think that workers should benefit from improvements that they have had no impact on? SHOULD they get paid more for pushing a button instead of manually performing a task?"

I was surprised by this and wonder if this is now a common point of view. According to classic economic theory wages are determined by the marginal product of labor, that is the extra value of the last worker hired. Increases in productivity have alway be the result of of "new machinery/technologies, which were provided from investments by the capital".
I was really interested the behavior of economy as a whole, not individual companies. See
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/04/has-middle-americas-wages-stagnated/

Hi Meg – very interesting question. I think the comment really concerns the sharing of the gains from productivity between employees and owners (or shareholders etc). In some respect I can definately see the argument here – that the owners are putting up capital to improve the employees output. To me its simply a question of negotiation. To little sharing and employees will become disgruntled and productivity may well suffer – the worst case being a strike action. On the other hand – too much sharing and owners will question the efficiency of marginal investments in the company. Their return equations directly depend on the share of productivity that is paid out in wages. Too much payout and future investment may be jeapordised. Workers will argue (often collectively) from one side and owners from the other. Rather than approaching it from a rule of thumb point of view – i reckon that you need to view this as a continuous process of negotiation in a global economic environment. Some firms are more generous to their workers – and therefore attract better quality workers – who presumably have a higher productivity input than lower quality workers. Not all workers are equal (low skilled, semi-skilled, professional etc) and also the picture by industry group will also differ markedly. Some firms see fit to employ child labour in the developing world – generally capital will seek to optimise returns from capital and labour. The developing countries are taking lower value added work from developed countries where the labour cost is deemed too high. In these countries – labour has no real vote and cannot pressure for a share of productivity gains.

I’ll stop now as i’m rambling a bit i hope this adds something.

What the company earns as a bottom line….and what the owners/officers/ceo’s/chairman make as PERSONAL INCOME are two seperate things…

Obama is increasing the tax on the personal income over 250k, not the gross revenue (bottom line profit)..of a "small business".

Also, what constitutes small business varies by sector and market. – FACT.

Any suggestion otherwise is a complete distortion of reality.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-14,GGLD:en&q=powerpoint+performance+management

The Australian newspaper 10-11 November 2007 p 27
(cdf is chief of defence force)
To cas,
To tsunami,

Thanks.

sorry i have no idea i don’t get that paper

A. An increase in the average hourly compensation that depends on the change in hours worked

B. A 9% increase in average hourly compensation

C. A 6% increase in average hourly compensation

And WHY?

For questions like these, I suggest using concrete numbers. Suppose labour productivity=90, which implies that hourly wage=60. If labour productivity increases by 9%, then productivity becomes 98.1 – so the hourly wage is 2/3 of that, or 65.4.

You should be able to figure out the rest.

With the hype created by Michael Moore in the flourishing insurance markets, another type of insurance would probably interest most of the young generation. “Love Insurance”

If my readers are not already intrigued by the concept, just imagine, with a little premium investment, one would be assured of

No heart breaks.
No sleepless nights
No blank gazing
Financial assistance
Enhanced productivity
Sense of security
Third party evaluations and credentials
Another insurance industry – More jobs -improved Employment rate – Better economy
So what could be the concept like. Read on……

· Both the parties involved (the lovers) should have their insurances before getting into the affair business. The insurance companies would run a background check (past affairs/ breakups/ duration of involvement etc) and decide on a premium based on their age, indulgence in fun activities, educational qualifications, current profession, finances etc.

· The insurance companies shall have the right to conduct the predicting possible compatibility test on both the individuals so as to avoid any fraudulent matches (people conspiring against the insurance companies).

· All these dating and matrimonial sites shall have collaborations with these insurance companies and shall offer discount combo deals.

· Well insured, certified and more confident, the individuals set out to explore their chemistry and possible relation.

· Two possible outcomes: Marriage or breakup.
· If they get married, they could still continue with the insurance and their premium might be reviewed and revised.

· If they break up, the insurance company shall pay the parties involved a compensation – expenses incurred on utmost 10 dates or a fixed dollar amount (which ever is less) as directed in the MOU.

· The parties may choose a higher premium love insurance which shall also cover the wedding expenses if the conventional sponsors (parents) don’t approve of the relation.
Also, any Answers for the following Notes?
And would you want to be my partner?
What happens if one is involved in a breakup or an affair with someone other than they’re officially involved with? Do they earn points? Does their insurance premium go up for the next 3 years?

What about uninsured people? If an insured one gets involved with uninsured, what is the liability?

yes I would