No. Massively subsidised by the eu. Get your facts right!
Thatcher Dead
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
- Status
No. Massively subsidised by the eu. Get your facts right!
Also there are layers of subsidies, some of them are given for farmers to grow hedgerows n stuff for nature purposes, I view those subsidies as reasonable as it's like paying for parks (though of course some abuse the system as they always do).
Farmers are heavily funded but what annoys me with these farmers is they have been crying that we should all buy british ......yeah I suppose so but why do these farmers use machinery NOT made in Britain..why do these farmers NOT employ british workers and would rather use cheap labour?????? ...... I will do what the farmers do and go for the cheapest option
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
Its just a marketing spiel bodge. Buy British, British is best. Yeah okay, Parma ham and cheese and Argentine/Uruguayan beef.
Im not a fan of their agitation for GM foods, chemicals, pesticides and killing off bees. Its just business to most of them apart from the small bio farms, all about yield and cost. Not about quality end product or future generations food supply. Potatoes spliced with arctic fish, people getting peanut allergies eating tomatoes. Beef isnt even from cows.
I grow as much as possible these days apart from staples like bread, rice, pasta and only eat meat like deer and boar usually off a local hunter.
Im not a fan of their agitation for GM foods, chemicals, pesticides and killing off bees. Its just business to most of them apart from the small bio farms, all about yield and cost. Not about quality end product or future generations food supply. Potatoes spliced with arctic fish, people getting peanut allergies eating tomatoes. Beef isnt even from cows.
I grow as much as possible these days apart from staples like bread, rice, pasta and only eat meat like deer and boar usually off a local hunter.
M
mdf290
What I said if you want to read it again was
'Pick a figure that greater than your existing daily output by say by 20%.
Offer a bonus on top of their wage to finish in a set time that will increase their earning potential but actually save you money in item cost. ie if they make 20% more stuff you will earn how much more profit? How much can you save in overheads and wages by making more stuff in the same time. Half that figure and that sets your bonus for them achieving the target. Their wages increase but so does your profit. '
Do I have to explain why that is actually profit sharing? If I do then you have no place in a discussion about cost related workforce management.
You know the more polarised opinions I hear about Margaret Thatcher, the more I think about what Oscar Wilde once said:
"There's only one thing worse than being talked about...
...and that's not being talked about."
"There's only one thing worse than being talked about...
...and that's not being talked about."
No, massively subsidised by Thatcher before she got the rebate from Common agricultural policy, get your facts right!
2 points for me there -
First of all the above method may increase the company's share of profit by more than 10%, as you are also likely to be reducing some indirect costs if they make 20% more stuff (and don't have to shelf it etc.)
Secondly the above scheme may generate profit and the strategy is to pay for the increased wage out of those profits, but until the final profit /loss for the year is known is it profit sharing or an incentive /productivity bonus, as we have already given out the 20% increase regardless of a bottom line figure.
For example, we have a 20% increase in output but the cost of copper (or fuel or whatever) goes up or down by 5%.
It may even be that a firm does not expect to make a profit that year due to investment, write offs etc but still increases wages/bonus/productivity incentives as part of a long term strategy
M
mdf290
My above example was based on the fact that the company already knows it is making a profit due to updated weekly management information. The actions of increasing productivity will automatically increase profit if the company is already in profit at current levels with only 1 proviso.
Quality must remain the same and any increase in worker throughput must include increased vigilance on quality assurance.
No point rushing to make extra product if the end result is rushed tat.
In regards to the percentages then they were just a guide as every industry works on different profit margins. It was just to explain a principle.
There are other times when you might offer bonuses for increased production and the effect of increasing staff costs will not be met by the increase in output. For example paying overtime to complete an important order on time.
My posts were in response to Norcon suggesting that his staff costs were controlled by not paying overtime and setting daily work targets based on quantity.
My response to that was indicate a better way to increase productivity as the method he described was open to staff abuse by output being dictated by the pace the workers work at.
In years gone by new staff would be 'talked to' by coworkers if they were a little eager when they started work by outperforming the existing staff. Factory output was then in effect dictated by the staff.
There are occasions when you cannot actually speed staff up regardless of circumstances.
For example I used to have workers operating large bandsaws to cut shapes in sheet materials usually half inch chipboard fastened into sets of 5 deep marked with a pattern to follow.
Telling those workers to speed up or have the pressure applied by staff waiting for their product was dangerous as they operated by pushing the workpiece around a blade in close proximity a blade that would cut a 2and a half inch thickness of chipboard would easily saw through a finger without even noticing.
This was managed by ensuring the number of employees operating those machines kept ahead of factory output and this involved seasonal planning.
As a previous Financial director I am flabbergasted by your comment relating to whether my suggestion was a profit share as the company wouldn't know whether it had made a profit until the end of the year.
Any company that cannot predict with a reasonable amount of accuracy its profit based on output on a weekly basis deserves to go bust or is in the wrong business.
The figures are all there . . fixed overheads - variables - oncosts - staff wages - heating light and power - etc etc etc.
Anyone with more than three years experience of accounting within an industry should be able to estimate within a very small margin using just a scrap of paper and a pen what difference increasing productivity would make to the weekly profit and how much could be shared back to the employees.
My weekly profit forecasts were always within around 3% of the actual profit generated at year end and the reason my figures didn't tally with the auditors was usually because of the accountant suggesting different strategies to deal with a the allocations at the year end and what we could pull forward or hold back according to new accounting rules.
Actually you forgot to add in loans to overseas subsidiaries (real or invented) to turn an operating profit into a loss thus avoiding any tax bills...
Actually you forgot to add in loans to overseas subsidiaries (real or invented) to turn an operating profit into a loss thus avoiding any tax bills...
aka 'management speak bull'...
Actually you forgot to add in loans to overseas subsidiaries (real or invented) to turn an operating profit into a loss thus avoiding any tax bills...
The subsidiary would pay interest on the loan which would actually increase profits (well depends on lost opportunity of course but that's not part of the equation here, that could go either way)
You need to google
1) Balance Sheet
2) Profit and Loss account
Simple stuff, getting to grips with those would help you talk sense on here.
Another tip:
What the multinational is doing is shifting cash offshore to a lower tax regime and doing this by paying 'royalties' to that offshore company that owns said intellectual property.
So the money paid is an expense, not a loan, so acts to decrease profits in the higher tax regime country.
That's a future lesson for you. First you need to learn the basics
Nope.
Google wrote
If you have evidence that farmers were massively subsidised by Thatcher before or after the rebate then post up the evidence or STFU.
The rebate today is worth 4 billion euro. Another victory for the Baroness and the UK as a whole not recognised by the lefties.
The leftie socialist haters hate Margaret Thatcher because she reminds them they are wrong about everything.
Google wrote
All hail Thatcherism.
- Status
Similar threads
