Quote:
|
Instead of a focus on what is stated, it appears that generally people who disagree with me are more interested in trying to anticipate my intent, and think they have the ability to read minds.
|
I didn't have to "antipicate" anything - you said it plainly in your own posts.
To give you a digest:
The OP:
Quote:
Let's say you have a solid well run business with the following cost structure for a product that you sell for $100.
50% is cost of materials and overhead.
40% is the cost of labor.
10% is profit of which 5% you reinvest (Capital improvement, R&D, etc.)
A new competitor enters the market, selling the same product you sell for $85.
You can reduce the cost of materials and overhead by 5% right away by re-negotiating contracts with suppiers and vendors and going on a cost savings program.
In the first year you are willing to sacrifice profits ( and your reinvestment) to make up the 15% difference. and you lower your price to $85 to meet the competition.
In the second year your competiton lowers their price to $80. You can not lower your overhead any further, in fact inflation is going to make any future savings almost impossible. You have already lost one year of profits and sacrificed one year of re-investment in the business.
What do you do?
|
Offered Solutions
Paradise Lost; stop selling the product
Ratbastid: Reposition your product, differentiation in services or features
Infinite_Loser: Cut Labor, raise R&D
Host: Convince the Gov't to buy my product at a fixed price
None of these require labor limitations, and effectively answer "What do you do?"
At this point it didn't seem like you were satisified. Perhaps I was mistaken, but you seem to want to narrow the scope more; you ask "Would anyone cut labor costs" ?
Replies
Willravel: Yes, but at a last resort. Diversification should have been part of my business plan from the beginning.
Still not what you'd hoped? Introduce another stipulation: 'Your employees want at least a cost of living wage increase, what do you do?'
Surely now we'll admit that cutting labor is a necessity of business.
Replies
Willravel notes that your situation seems to be setup so that competition is no longer possible.
Charlatan notes that the situation is too vague: business sector, products, employee base would cause a huge variability in the possible decisions.
Dilbert suggests thugs.
ASU2003 suggests
(1) hope for the best
(2) wait them out
(3) expand or revitalize marketing plan
(4) replace labor with technology
(5) fire people
With the exception of ASU2003's 4 & 5, these are again all viable solutions to the OP, the first stipulation and the second stipulation. No one is "avoiding the situation" or "burying their head in the sand." They just refuse to accept that labor reduction should be the first and only choice.
At this point, you're still fixated. You finally come out with your REAL point for the OP:
"At some point, you have to address your labor costs if you want to stay in the market. " You suggest that
every situation eventually leads to job loss.
Four or five replies that your situation is still too generic, too black-and-white to be realistic.
Pan offers his anecdote.
Ratbastid asserts, like others, that the situation is too black-and-white.
What I hope pan and I, and other liberal entreupeneurs have demonstrated is that there are a myriad approaches to having a business succeed while still treating the staff like human beings, and not like numbers on a general leder. It may take more creativity, but it's also more fun and more rewarding, and it's WAY better than mere survival."
At this point its time to ditch the OP entirely, because it hasn't baited the labor decision yet. Your new question;
"If you have to address labor costs, how do you do it?"
Ratbastid: with sensitivity
Johnny: Again, the situation artifically forces us to address labor.
Your response:
"P.S. - The point has been made. I fully understand the liberal approach to business - denial, rejection of potential problems, and the focus on trivial matters. I have a much better understanding of how great American companies started by hard driving conservative capitalist are driven to ruin when taken over by weak liberal "head in the sand" bureaucratic types. Thank you."
Blatant attack.
Boatin asks if we should even be concerned about corporation's survival.
Rofgilead: better quality, patent your product to force the competition out
More viable solutions.
Elphaba:
"Ace, I have to question either your honesty or your ability to see a solution that doesn't correspond to your preconceived notions."
Ratbastid: Still so black-and-white
Charlatan: New marketing, diversification, other markets, outsource labor
In short, the posts have focused on two things:
(a) your solution is far too vague and generic to be of any value. The market, the employment situation, the value of the company, the products being sold, and many other factors would drastically influence the decision.
(b) you appear to be baiting us, trying to convince us that eventually labor must be decreased in order to keep a business successful. I think the majority of respondents here would agree, but disagree that it must be the first and only choice, as you seem to purport.
You asked for a way to "fix" your OP, but I do not think it can be - the ethics and business decisions of a business are unique to that business, and cannot be genericized to the point that there is a universal right and wrong way to do things.
I really think your only way to 'fix' the OP is to do exactly what you find laughable:
Quote:
|
"I could have given days worth of reading material about the specific business environment and you folks want me to believe that would have lead to better responses? That thought makes me laugh"
|
Why? That's what the majority of respondents wanted. Fortunately and unfortunately, I think you'd find that we would all agree if you gave a very specific example of a real organization, in a recent time period, with a real product, and real budgetary information. No one
wants to fire people, so I don't think you'd find any disagreement.
The only way we'll continue to disagree is if you continue to present this situation as a definitive case for "all business decisions eventually cause reductions in labor."