Do you know your true cost to your employer? - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Do you know your true cost to your employer? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 3/18/2013 8:42:34 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:

So if it weren't for .gov mandates and taxes that is how much you'd make over your current pay.
.

There is no guarantee of that. Its more likely the business owner would keep that money for himself

It's a false dillemma (spelling?) anyway. If there were no taxes we would have no roads, public service, bridges, et cetera. People expect all this shit for free but without slavery it's not possible. Not saying the gov. isn't bloated but taxes are a necessary evil and I have no problem paying them within reason.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you realize that in the first half of the 19th century in the U.S., there were more than 10,000 miles of private roads constructed without income taxes? Did you know that on a per capita GDP basis this exceeds even the Eisenhower interstate system? There are still numerous private roads today.

They have to be paid for somehow, be it by toll, income tax, property tax, city resale tax, gasoline use tax, what ever you want to call it, it has to be paid for. If i'm missing how we get these roads and public services for free then enlighten me, i'm always up to learn something new if i'm wrong.

I still think our tax rate is too high but with my deductions and writeoffs I don't pay that much so I feel like mine is pretty fair.

Built with money from private sources. Tolls pay for use.

Can you be more specific, I guess i'm not comprehending the numbers behind it. What sort of private sources paid for it and how did they get their money back with a profit?

Posted: 3/18/2013 8:46:58 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You don't have to agree.

I understand that, but some people like yourself like to claim theres all this competition out there that'll float peoples wages, and if anything its an employers market that keeps wages depressed

True as stated, but what does an "employer's market" mean? That there is a surplus of labor, correct? Have you ever wondered why that may be the case? Burdensome, onerous regulations on employers reduce the quantity of labor demanded and minimum wage legislation and the like increase the supply. Not to mention labor is not even close to homogenous, so when you add in all the distortions caused by irresponsible monetary policy and social engineering legislation, it's easy to see why there might be a misallocation of labor.

Posted: 3/18/2013 8:47:06 AM EDT

[#3]

I know what I actually cost and what the policy my bean counters have to use says I cost.

I also know how many multiples of that total cost I bring in in revenue, gross profit, and net group profit.

I know the same for each person I manage. It's amazing to me that half my peers cannot tell me how much they make on every piece in their production chain, including themselves. Just because the unit is "people" shouldn't make it any different than the calcs for a cog when it comes to managing P/L.

Posted: 3/18/2013 8:47:33 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you realize that in the first half of the 19th century in the U.S., there were more than 10,000 miles of private roads constructed without income taxes? Did you know that on a per capita GDP basis this exceeds even the Eisenhower interstate system? There are still numerous private roads today.

T=You really want EVERY road to be a toll road? I don't.

If it means more money in my pocket that I CHOOSE how to spend, you bet your ass I'd rather have that. Eminent domain laws would be a no-go as well.

Posted: 3/18/2013 8:48:42 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

True as stated, but what does an "employer's market" mean? That there is a surplus of labor, correct? Have you ever wondered why that may be the case? Burdensome, onerous regulations on employers reduce the quantity of labor demanded and minimum wage legislation and the like increase the supply. Not to mention labor is not even close to homogenous, so when you add in all the distortions caused by irresponsible monetary policy and social engineering legislation, it's easy to see why there might be a misallocation of labor.

Theres a surplus of labor because employers sent thousands of jobs overseas to be done in countries with no workplace safety rules, environmental rules, etc

Quoted:

If it means more money in my pocket that I CHOOSE how to spend, you bet your ass I'd rather have that. Eminent domain laws would be a no-go as well.

So you'd be fine with having to pay a toll every time you ran to the store for a gallon of milk, to church on Sunday, etc?

Posted: 3/18/2013 8:51:06 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You don't have to agree.

I understand that, but some people like yourself like to claim theres all this competition out there that'll float peoples wages, and if anything its an employers market that keeps wages depressed

True as stated, but what does an "employer's market" mean? That there is a surplus of labor, correct? Have you ever wondered why that may be the case? Burdensome, onerous regulations on employers reduce the quantity of labor demanded and minimum wage legislation and the like increase the supply. Not to mention labor is not even close to homogenous, so when you add in all the distortions caused by irresponsible monetary policy and social engineering legislation, it's easy to see why there might be a misallocation of labor.

Relative bargaining power, in the aggregate, goes up and down. Back in 2006-07, employers were throwing all kinds of money and bonuses at all kinds of people to hire or retain them. Now, not so much (in the aggregate). That will swing back the other way at some point.

Also, the hard truth is that maybe what you do just isn't worth as much as you think it is. If it were, somebody would offer you more to do it. It really is that simple.

Posted: 3/18/2013 8:52:33 AM EDT

[#7]

Yup. I show all my guys every six months at their evaluations. I do so that they will understand when I show them what their GP% is and how it affects their wage increases.

Posted: 3/18/2013 8:52:40 AM EDT

[#8]

Yes. And I know their profit margin from my work as well.

We're both doing well.

Posted: 3/18/2013 8:52:50 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:

True as stated, but what does an "employer's market" mean? That there is a surplus of labor, correct? Have you ever wondered why that may be the case? Burdensome, onerous regulations on employers reduce the quantity of labor demanded and minimum wage legislation and the like increase the supply. Not to mention labor is not even close to homogenous, so when you add in all the distortions caused by irresponsible monetary policy and social engineering legislation, it's easy to see why there might be a misallocation of labor.

Theres a surplus of labor because employers sent thousands of jobs overseas to be done in countries with no workplace safety rules, environmental rules, etc

If they produce a better product for the same price, or a like product at a cheaper price, we are better off importing from them. The answer is to specialize in those areas where we have a comparative advantage. I'm sorry to say that in the 21st century, that doesn't mean making T-shirts and auto parts. But the answer most certainly is not to erect more barriers to entry (as we've been doing for a long time) into the market for domestic suppliers or to enact protectionist legislation which harms domestic consumers and importers of intermediate capital goods.

Posted: 3/18/2013 8:55:30 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

So if it weren't for .gov mandates and taxes that is how much you'd make over your current pay.
.

There is no guarantee of that. Its more likely the business owner would keep that money for himself

It's a false dillemma (spelling?) anyway. If there were no taxes we would have no roads, public service, bridges, et cetera. People expect all this shit for free but without slavery it's not possible. Not saying the gov. isn't bloated but taxes are a necessary evil and I have no problem paying them within reason.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you realize that in the first half of the 19th century in the U.S., there were more than 10,000 miles of private roads constructed without income taxes? Did you know that on a per capita GDP basis this exceeds even the Eisenhower interstate system? There are still numerous private roads today.

They have to be paid for somehow, be it by toll, income tax, property tax, city resale tax, gasoline use tax, what ever you want to call it, it has to be paid for. If i'm missing how we get these roads and public services for free then enlighten me, i'm always up to learn something new if i'm wrong.

I still think our tax rate is too high but with my deductions and writeoffs I don't pay that much so I feel like mine is pretty fair.

Built with money from private sources. Tolls pay for use.

Can you be more specific, I guess i'm not comprehending the numbers behind it. What sort of private sources paid for it and how did they get their money back with a profit?

Look up the Dulles Greenway and Chicago Skyway for just two case studies if you're really interested. Basically, private sources invest the capital needed for construction and become shareholders in the venture. Future toll proceeds are the source of revenue.

ETA: I believe there's also some cases of local HOAs developing private roads without tolls for use, but I can't recall where or with what frequency. Of course it is impossible to determine to what extent this sort of thing would be implemented as the demand has been suppressed by our current system. Quantifying demand for a service currently provided almost exclusively by government monopoly is very difficult to say the least.

Posted: 3/18/2013 8:56:52 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Other thank what it costs to print my paycheck, nothing.

So your employer doesn't pay any SS or workman's comp insurance on you?

I highly doubt that.

im 1099 with zero bennies or comp. my employer does not use me unless a customer hires my services.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:09:23 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

If they produce a better product for the same price, or a like product at a cheaper price, we are better off importing from them. The answer is to specialize in those areas where we have a comparative advantage. I'm sorry to say that in the 21st century, that doesn't mean making T-shirts and auto parts. But the answer most certainly is not to erect more barriers to entry (as we've been doing for a long time) into the market for domestic suppliers or to enact protectionist legislation which harms domestic consumers and importers of intermediate capital goods.

We are better off keeping the jobs here in the USA. Overseas sources are too prone to disruption, and we need to be more self sufficient
We'll never be able to meet the low wages you find overseas.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:14:03 AM EDT

[#13]

I know i save them more than i cost them. they are the ones coming out good.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:15:05 AM EDT

[#14]

And now you know why every company in the country is going to stop paying for healthcare and make you go on the rolls for Obamacare. In my company or oughly 90,000 employees, the penalties would be about 270 million dollars, the healthcare cost now are 2.2 billion. I suck at math, but.....

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:18:48 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If they produce a better product for the same price, or a like product at a cheaper price, we are better off importing from them. The answer is to specialize in those areas where we have a comparative advantage. I'm sorry to say that in the 21st century, that doesn't mean making T-shirts and auto parts. But the answer most certainly is not to erect more barriers to entry (as we've been doing for a long time) into the market for domestic suppliers or to enact protectionist legislation which harms domestic consumers and importers of intermediate capital goods.

We are better off keeping the jobs here in the USA. Overseas sources are too prone to disruption, and we need to be more self sufficient
We'll never be able to meet the low wages you find overseas.

I don't disagree that many jobs have been eliminated because they can't be done in the USA cost effectively. Part of this is due to the factors you've mentioned, such as environmental protections, workplace safety regulations, and the like. But to the extent that these additional costs provide an actual benefit, it's not a bad thing that we've driven production of certain goods overseas. The primary economic objective of any individual, or household, or even country is to satisfy as many desires as possible at the lowest cost. If I can purchase a Chinese shirt for $10 or an American shirt for $15, why would I pay an additional $5 which could be spent elsewhere and satisfy otherwise unsatisfied wants? If the domestic manufacturer cannot compete, for whatever reason, those resources will be liquidated and employed in a more competitive industry and we will become wealthier.

Also, that $10 I sent the Chinese cannot be spent to purchase goods in China. They must either purchase American exports or, if they are inclined to purchase goods at home, find a holder of yuan who wants to purchase dollars. Those dollars then are spent back in the USA.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:23:33 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

I don't disagree that many jobs have been eliminated because they can't be done in the USA cost effectively. Part of this is due to the factors you've mentioned, such as environmental protections, workplace safety regulations, and the like. But to the extent that these additional costs provide an actual benefit, it's not a bad thing that we've driven production of certain goods overseas. The primary economic objective of any individual, or household, or even country is to satisfy as many desires as possible at the lowest cost. If I can purchase a Chinese shirt for $10 or an American shirt for $15, why would I pay an additional $5 which could be spent elsewhere and satisfy otherwise unsatisfied wants? If the domestic manufacturer cannot compete, for whatever reason, those resources will be liquidated and employed in a more competitive industry and we will become wealthier.

Also, that $10 I sent the Chinese cannot be spent to purchase goods in China. They must either purchase American exports or, if they are inclined to purchase goods at home, find a holder of yuan who wants to purchase dollars. Those dollars then are spent back in the USA.

We need the skills and industry to stay in the USA.

It is short-sighteed to say that just because its cheaper NOW to have these jobs overseas that we should just allow everything to be made overseas.

We are going back to the days when the colonists didn't have native industries and had to import everything, except we've traded England for China and we are voluntarily doing it to ourselves, whereas the colonists had it dictated to them

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:25:18 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Other thank what it costs to print my paycheck, nothing.

So your employer doesn't pay any SS or workman's comp insurance on you?

I highly doubt that.

ever hear of a 1099 earner?

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:26:43 AM EDT

[#18]

My boss says I cost them $24 per hour, this includes insurance, benefits, etc... When I tell him I make $23.95 per hour he gives me the

and doesn't understand. He says "well, that's what corporate tells me each one of you cost per hour".

That must be the average but I still don't think that is correct.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:30:05 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I don't disagree that many jobs have been eliminated because they can't be done in the USA cost effectively. Part of this is due to the factors you've mentioned, such as environmental protections, workplace safety regulations, and the like. But to the extent that these additional costs provide an actual benefit, it's not a bad thing that we've driven production of certain goods overseas. The primary economic objective of any individual, or household, or even country is to satisfy as many desires as possible at the lowest cost. If I can purchase a Chinese shirt for $10 or an American shirt for $15, why would I pay an additional $5 which could be spent elsewhere and satisfy otherwise unsatisfied wants? If the domestic manufacturer cannot compete, for whatever reason, those resources will be liquidated and employed in a more competitive industry and we will become wealthier.

Also, that $10 I sent the Chinese cannot be spent to purchase goods in China. They must either purchase American exports or, if they are inclined to purchase goods at home, find a holder of yuan who wants to purchase dollars. Those dollars then are spent back in the USA.

We need the skills and industry to stay in the USA.

It is short-sighteed to say that just because its cheaper NOW to have these jobs overseas that we should just allow everything to be made overseas.

We are going back to the days when the colonists didn't have native industries and had to import everything, except we've traded England for China and we are voluntarily doing it to ourselves, whereas the colonists had it dictated to them

I'm speaking purely of the economic welfare brought about by specialization and trade, without regard to the national security concerns inherent in having such a great share of our imports originating from a country with interests which are arguably often at odds with our own.

Would you propose we erect further barriers to trade such as import tariffs? Or subsidies to make domestic manufacturers more "competitive?"

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:31:28 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

So if it weren't for .gov mandates and taxes that is how much you'd make over your current pay.
.

There is no guarantee of that. Its more likely the business owner would keep that money for himself

The business's competition would be willing to pay you a larger chunk of it if you are worth it.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:32:30 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Theres a surplus of labor because employers sent thousands of jobs overseas to be done in countries with no workplace safety rules, environmental rules, etc

And the reason they did this is because the federal government isn't funding itself the way they should. Through tariffs. If the federal government would do what it's supposed to, then the American people would say "we don't want to have to live in a mud hut to hold job x." So the federal government would impose tariffs that make it to where it costs the same to hire an American or somebody living in a mud hut. Problem solved.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:32:31 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

My boss says I cost them $24 per hour, this includes insurance, benefits, etc... When I tell him I make $23.95 per hour he gives me the

and doesn't understand. He says "well, that's what corporate tells me each one of you cost per hour".

That must be the average but I still don't think that is correct.

Corporate is probably including the cost of your gross wage in addition to the "employer share" of Social Security and Medicare taxes, state and federal unemployment taxes, worker's compensation insurance, health benefits, 401(k) matching, and paid vacation and sick leave time.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:32:51 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

So if it weren't for .gov mandates and taxes that is how much you'd make over your current pay.
.

There is no guarantee of that. Its more likely the business owner would keep that money for himself

It's a false dillemma (spelling?) anyway. If there were no taxes we would have no roads, public service, bridges, et cetera. People expect all this shit for free but without slavery it's not possible. Not saying the gov. isn't bloated but taxes are a necessary evil and I have no problem paying them within reason.

There are ways of raising enough revenue to run the fedgov as outlined in the Constitution without confiscatory tax rates or income taxes.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:34:35 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Theres a surplus of labor because employers sent thousands of jobs overseas to be done in countries with no workplace safety rules, environmental rules, etc

And the reason they did this is because the federal government isn't funding itself the way they should. Through tariffs. If the federal government would do what it's supposed to, then the American people would say "we don't want to have to live in a mud hut to be hold job x." So the federal government would impose tariffs that make it to where it costs the same to hire an American or somebody living in a mud hut. Problem solved.

Tariffs cause more problems than they solve and on net balance actually cause a decline in the overall standard of living below that which could be achieved with free and open trade.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:34:46 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Theres a surplus of labor because employers sent thousands of jobs overseas to be done in countries with no workplace safety rules, environmental rules, etc

And the reason they did this is because the federal government isn't funding itself the way they should. Through tariffs. If the federal government would do what it's supposed to, then the American people would say "we don't want to have to live in a mud hut to be hold job x." So the federal government would impose tariffs that make it to where it costs the same to hire an American or somebody living in a mud hut. Problem solved.

And then all those other countries would retaliate with their own tariffs, and trade both ways would grind to a halt. Resulting in enormous impacts on consumer welfare (read: everyone).

Some of you fail at basic economics.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:36:40 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you realize that in the first half of the 19th century in the U.S., there were more than 10,000 miles of private roads constructed without income taxes? Did you know that on a per capita GDP basis this exceeds even the Eisenhower interstate system? There are still numerous private roads today.

Do You really want EVERY road to be a toll road? I don't.

Every road currently IS a toll road.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:36:44 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Theres a surplus of labor because employers sent thousands of jobs overseas to be done in countries with no workplace safety rules, environmental rules, etc

And the reason they did this is because the federal government isn't funding itself the way they should. Through tariffs. If the federal government would do what it's supposed to, then the American people would say "we don't want to have to live in a mud hut to be hold job x." So the federal government would impose tariffs that make it to where it costs the same to hire an American or somebody living in a mud hut. Problem solved.

Tariffs cause more problems than they solve and on net balance actually cause a decline in the overall standard of living below that which could be achieved with free and open trade.

You assume we have "free trade" with any of the third world nations we do business with. Their governments manipulate currency and standards of living for a competitive advantage. So the theories you learned in econ 101 don't exactly hold up. The government should fund itself the way they were initially set up to. By defining what Americans say is fair and making everybody play by our rules if they want to play in our sandbox.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:37:50 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Theres a surplus of labor because employers sent thousands of jobs overseas to be done in countries with no workplace safety rules, environmental rules, etc

And the reason they did this is because the federal government isn't funding itself the way they should. Through tariffs. If the federal government would do what it's supposed to, then the American people would say "we don't want to have to live in a mud hut to be hold job x." So the federal government would impose tariffs that make it to where it costs the same to hire an American or somebody living in a mud hut. Problem solved.

And then all those other countries would retaliate with their own tariffs, and trade both ways would grind to a halt. Resulting in enormous impacts on consumer welfare (read: everyone).

Some of you fail at basic economics.

The basic premise is that "all other things are equal" when you make an economic comparison. How are "all other things equal" when China is maipulating currency to garner favorable trade deals with us?

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:39:12 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

You assume we have "free trade" with any of the third world nations we do business with. Their governments manipulate currency and standards of living for a competitive advantage. So the theories you learned in econ 101 don't exactly hold up. The government should fund itself the way they were initially set up to. By defining what Americans say is fair and making everybody play by our rules if they want to play in our sandbox.

Yeah, that'll work well.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:39:40 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

So if it weren't for .gov mandates and taxes that is how much you'd make over your current pay.
.

There is no guarantee of that. Its more likely the business owner would keep that money for himself

It's a false dillemma (spelling?) anyway. If there were no taxes we would have no roads, public service, bridges, et cetera. People expect all this shit for free but without slavery it's not possible. Not saying the gov. isn't bloated but taxes are a necessary evil and I have no problem paying them within reason.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you realize that in the first half of the 19th century in the U.S., there were more than 10,000 miles of private roads constructed without income taxes? Did you know that on a per capita GDP basis this exceeds even the Eisenhower interstate system? There are still numerous private roads today.

They have to be paid for somehow, be it by toll, income tax, property tax, city resale tax, gasoline use tax, what ever you want to call it, it has to be paid for. If i'm missing how we get these roads and public services for free then enlighten me, i'm always up to learn something new if i'm wrong.

I still think our tax rate is too high but with my deductions and writeoffs I don't pay that much so I feel like mine is pretty fair.

Built with money from private sources. Tolls pay for use.

Can you be more specific, I guess i'm not comprehending the numbers behind it. What sort of private sources paid for it and how did they get their money back with a profit?

Look up the Dulles Greenway and Chicago Skyway for just two case studies if you're really interested. Basically, private sources invest the capital needed for construction and become shareholders in the venture. Future toll proceeds are the source of revenue.

ETA: I believe there's also some cases of local HOAs developing private roads without tolls for use, but I can't recall where or with what frequency. Of course it is impossible to determine to what extent this sort of thing would be implemented as the demand has been suppressed by our current system. Quantifying demand for a service currently provided almost exclusively by government monopoly is very difficult to say the least.

I grew up in a community that was responsible for the roads. Parts of the HOA dues went to their upkeep.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:40:25 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Theres a surplus of labor because employers sent thousands of jobs overseas to be done in countries with no workplace safety rules, environmental rules, etc

And the reason they did this is because the federal government isn't funding itself the way they should. Through tariffs. If the federal government would do what it's supposed to, then the American people would say "we don't want to have to live in a mud hut to be hold job x." So the federal government would impose tariffs that make it to where it costs the same to hire an American or somebody living in a mud hut. Problem solved.

Tariffs cause more problems than they solve and on net balance actually cause a decline in the overall standard of living below that which could be achieved with free and open trade.

You assume we have "free trade" with any of the third world nations we do business with. Their governments manipulate currency and standards of living for a competitive advantage. So the theories you learned in econ 101 don't exactly hold up. The government should fund itself the way they were initially set up to. By defining what Americans say is fair and making everybody play by our rules if they want to play in our sandbox.

When a central bank devalues their currency, it is actually a SUBSIDY to importers in other countries funded by a TAX on holders of their own currency. The United States benefits from Chinese currency manipulation. Don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:40:41 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You assume we have "free trade" with any of the third world nations we do business with. Their governments manipulate currency and standards of living for a competitive advantage. So the theories you learned in econ 101 don't exactly hold up. The government should fund itself the way they were initially set up to. By defining what Americans say is fair and making everybody play by our rules if they want to play in our sandbox.

Yeah, that'll work well.

Seems to be working really well for the agendas of the nations we engage in "free trade" with. We just need to know what they want/need from us and make sure they understand those things are off the table if they don't play by our rules. The same way they are holding us in fear over t-shirts and slap chops now.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:41:03 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If they produce a better product for the same price, or a like product at a cheaper price, we are better off importing from them. The answer is to specialize in those areas where we have a comparative advantage. I'm sorry to say that in the 21st century, that doesn't mean making T-shirts and auto parts. But the answer most certainly is not to erect more barriers to entry (as we've been doing for a long time) into the market for domestic suppliers or to enact protectionist legislation which harms domestic consumers and importers of intermediate capital goods.

We are better off keeping the jobs here in the USA. Overseas sources are too prone to disruption, and we need to be more self sufficient
We'll never be able to meet the low wages you find overseas.

I agree with the sentiment, however, the fedgov has made a business environment that will not sustain those jobs here.

Want the jobs to come back? You have to change the fedgov policies to make it attractive to do manufacturing in the USA again.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:41:33 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:

We use 1.6X an employees salary.

Pretty much what I was taught in biz school. 99% of employees either don't know this, can't comprehend it, or deny it is true.

At my old employer they only review they did every year was to show us our total cost.

I was actually pretty cheap

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:41:51 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You assume we have "free trade" with any of the third world nations we do business with. Their governments manipulate currency and standards of living for a competitive advantage. So the theories you learned in econ 101 don't exactly hold up. The government should fund itself the way they were initially set up to. By defining what Americans say is fair and making everybody play by our rules if they want to play in our sandbox.

When a central bank devalues their currency, it is actually a SUBSIDY to importers in other countries funded by a TAX on their own domestic manufacturers. The United States benefits from Chinese currency manipulation. Don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.

If you define benefit as "we can buy more cheap as seen on tv crap" then yes, we benefit from them having the labor market their way.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:47:57 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You assume we have "free trade" with any of the third world nations we do business with. Their governments manipulate currency and standards of living for a competitive advantage. So the theories you learned in econ 101 don't exactly hold up. The government should fund itself the way they were initially set up to. By defining what Americans say is fair and making everybody play by our rules if they want to play in our sandbox.

When a central bank devalues their currency, it is actually a SUBSIDY to importers in other countries funded by a TAX on their own domestic manufacturers. The United States benefits from Chinese currency manipulation. Don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.

If you define benefit as "we can buy more cheap as seen on tv crap" then yes, we benefit from them having the labor market their way.

Chinese goods are usually valued in yuan. The Chinese producer is interested in selling his goods only to make an income so that he may purchase either consumer or capital goods. Given that the producer lives in China, the only currency that is generally valuable to him is the yuan. An American, on the other hand, usually only holds dollars, because that is the most widely accepted unit of currency in the particular area he usually trades in. It thus becomes necessary for the American to buy yuan from someone interested in holding dollars, so that the American can turn around and use the yuan to buy the goods from the original Chinese producer. The price of the yuan in dollars, or vice versa, is known as an exchange rate. The dollar–yuan exchange rate is decided roughly by the supply and demand of either unit.

The People's Bank of China increases the supply of yuan as a way of devaluing it, allowing an American to buy more yuan for the same dollar. This makes Chinese goods cheaper, thereby attracting foreign buyers. Now, this is where many economists, including Paul Krugman, get confused. Krugman writes,

The more depreciated China's exchange rate — the higher the price of the dollar in yuan — the more dollars China earns from exports, and the fewer dollars it spends on imports.
Well, not exactly. By making Chinese goods cheaper through inflation, the People's Bank of China is effectively subsidizing the American importer. Think of it this way. The Chinese producer fabricates Widget X, which before inflation is on the market for eight yuan. Let us assume that at this point the natural, market dollar–yuan exchange rate is one to four, which means that Widget X effectively costs two dollars (one dollar buys four yuan, and the widget costs eight yuan).

However, China's central bank steps in and inflates the yuan, causing the exchange rate to change to one to eight (one dollar to eight yuan). Now Widget X will cost the American consumer only one dollar. The winner is clearly the American, who purchased the good for half of the original price. The loser is the Chinese producer, despite now having eight yuan; each yuan is really worth half as much as before inflation. In effect, inflation cheated the Chinese producer out of half of the value of the good being sold. Although this example does not represent real-world changes in the exchange rate, the point stands. Over the long run, it becomes clear just how injurious currency devaluation is to the Chinese economy.

-Source: http://mises.org/daily/4256

Our options are:

A)erect tariffs, which cheat American consumers out of a lower cost of living and raise costs of production for domestic manufacturers who use imported Chinese intermediate goods (see Smoot-Hawley tariff). This course of action also runs the risk of retaliatory tariffs being imposed on American exports.

B)Devalue our currency, which robs holders of dollars of their purchasing power and has a deleterious effect on credit and loans

C) Do nothing

D) Attempt to make the United States a more attractive place in which to do business.

Listen to this podcast: http://files.libertyfund.org/econtalk/y2010/BoudreauxChina.mp3 . It will change your perspective on foreign currency devaluation.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:51:47 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I don't disagree that many jobs have been eliminated because they can't be done in the USA cost effectively. Part of this is due to the factors you've mentioned, such as environmental protections, workplace safety regulations, and the like. But to the extent that these additional costs provide an actual benefit, it's not a bad thing that we've driven production of certain goods overseas. The primary economic objective of any individual, or household, or even country is to satisfy as many desires as possible at the lowest cost. If I can purchase a Chinese shirt for $10 or an American shirt for $15, why would I pay an additional $5 which could be spent elsewhere and satisfy otherwise unsatisfied wants? If the domestic manufacturer cannot compete, for whatever reason, those resources will be liquidated and employed in a more competitive industry and we will become wealthier.

Also, that $10 I sent the Chinese cannot be spent to purchase goods in China. They must either purchase American exports or, if they are inclined to purchase goods at home, find a holder of yuan who wants to purchase dollars. Those dollars then are spent back in the USA.

We need the skills and industry to stay in the USA.

It is short-sighteed to say that just because its cheaper NOW to have these jobs overseas that we should just allow everything to be made overseas.

We are going back to the days when the colonists didn't have native industries and had to import everything, except we've traded England for China and we are voluntarily doing it to ourselves, whereas the colonists had it dictated to them

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with the sentiment to an extent. What I would argue is that our values need to change such that we factor in the long term costs of this into the cost-benefit analysis.

A big part of the problem is that no one thinks "what if" costs anything.

Posted: 3/18/2013 9:58:54 AM EDT

[#38]

I work for the government, so my direct employer really doesn't care how much I cost. I kid I kid.

But in all reality, I have a good idea how much more I cost that just my salary (because I can see my employer paid costs on my paycheck stub), but I can only guess at how much more would need to be added for the employee overhead costs that I don't see such as workman's comp, etc. Also, I'm sure there are some additional indirect operational costs, such as needing a HR department, that would need to be factored in (after all if an employer didn't have all those employees they really don't need an army of HR managers now do they). Since I waive my healthcare and dental insurance at my work I probably cost my employer (and the tax payers) a lot less than my fellow employees. I'm covered via my wife's insurance, so I figured waiving my own saved the tax payers some money since double coverage really was not that great a benefit to me. Sucks that the government won't negotiate a dollar value for waiving insurance and give it to me in salary like my private sector employers would (when I worked in the private sector). As a government employee if you waive a benefit you simply lose it (at least with my employer).

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Do you know your true cost to your employer? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us