Wage disparity and GDP growth

[DixonHur 10837]

39 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

God dammit people.

Economy is the best on earth and continuing to get better and immigration was purposely scuttled by trump.  This isn't hard.

The problem isn't that the economy isn't growing, it's that the growth is disproportionately benefiting the elite.  The vast majority of Americans aren't reaping the rewards of the economic growth.

World's top 1% gained $42 trillion over the last decade, taxes at record lows

[immamac 41615]

15 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

The problem isn't that the economy isn't growing, it's that the growth is disproportionately benefiting the elite.  The vast majority of Americans aren't reaping the rewards of the economic growth.

World's top 1% gained $42 trillion over the last decade, taxes at record lows

The stock market isn't the economy. We are talking in terms of real macroeconomics measurements like GDP. 

Speculative personal paper wealth is virtually meaningless economically unless it's used in trade or commodities. You aren't wrong with your statement that wealth is growing disproportionately it's just that and GDP aren't really connected in any real way. You can't speculatively increase GDP. 

[DixonHur 10837]

11 minutes ago, immamac said:

The stock market isn't the economy. We are talking in terms of real macroeconomics measurements like GDP. 

Speculative personal paper wealth is virtually meaningless economically unless it's used in trade or commodities. You aren't wrong with your statement that wealth is growing disproportionately it's just that and GDP aren't really connected in any real way. You can't speculatively increase GDP. 

Never said it was.

Tell me, who do you think is seeing the benefit of the 2.8% growth in the economy?  The low-level workers, or the executives?

[immamac 41615]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Never said it was.

Tell me, who do you think is seeing the benefit of the 2.8% growth in the economy?  The low-level workers, or the executives?

Unemployment is still pretty low. GDP is a measurement of total productivity so I would say it actually shows that large portions of the employed population are productive. You are conflating 2 things that don't have anything to do with each other. Compensation and productivity are not connected in any way. 

[DixonHur 10837]

8 minutes ago, immamac said:

Unemployment is still pretty low. GDP is a measurement of total productivity so I would say it actually shows that large portions of the employed population are productive. You are conflating 2 things that don't have anything to do with each other. Compensation and productivity are not connected in any way. 

No offense, but you're understanding of economics and finance is shockingly bad.

Unless, of course, you either think the added productivity does not lead to increased revenue, or that those generating the increased production should not be compensated for their efforts.

[immamac 41615]

8 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

No offense, but you're understanding of economics and finance is shockingly bad.

Unless, of course, you either think the added productivity does not lead to increased revenue, or that those generating the increased production should not be compensated for their efforts.

It's not. You can conflate things all you want it doesn't make them true. 

Compensation doesn't decrease with bad earnings, revenue or shrinking businesses for executives or for the majority of employees. There's a TON of examples of this being true and very few examples of real wages shrinking or being cut vs eliminating roles in periods of economic downturn. 

People with high compensation and the majority of that compensation in a speculative asset aren't driving the economic productivity. 

This isn't hard to understand. Are they linked? Sure the way that money goes things together, but they aren't tied together the way you are implying. In fact in the last recession we had the highest wage growth we've seen in quite some time.

We aren't disagreeing on there being a fundamental problem and Kamala Harris and her proposed administration working to solve that problem. It's just not tightly coupled with economic output is all I'm saying. 

 

[DixonHur 10837]

16 minutes ago, immamac said:

It's not. You can conflate things all you want it doesn't make them true. 

Knowing your lane is important.  I have a Texas MBA and have worked in corporate development and finance for most of my adult life, so just trust I know how shit works in this area.  When I have a server question, you'll be #2 on my call sheet ( @rage-a-holic is my first call since I've known him since we were 18) ...

16 minutes ago, immamac said:

Compensation doesn't decrease with bad earnings, revenue or shrinking businesses for executives or for the majority of employees. There's a TON of examples of this being true and very few examples of real wages shrinking or being cut vs eliminating roles in periods of economic downturn. 

Ever heard of layoffs?  When the economy declines mid-level employees are statistically the most effected demographic.  But when they economy is good, they see no increase in wages.  However, executives and upper management get bonuses when profits increase, and these bonuses are usually upwards to 20-30% of base salary.  If the profits decline their bonuses may only be in the 15-20% range... boo-hoo.  The wage gap is real, and getting wider, whether or not you'd like to admit it.

For example, my salary is about 8x more than the average employee in my company, my boss' base salary is 8x mine, and his boss makes 5x his...this is salary only and does not including bonuses or stock-based compensation.  That's not a brag, it's just to illustrate how wide, and frankly disgusting, the wage gap is in corporate America from the average worker to the top.

16 minutes ago, immamac said:

People with high compensation and the majority of that compensation in a speculative asset aren't driving the economic productivity. 

As indicated above, this is simply not true... even in terms of stock grants and options.  The increase/decrease in the value may be speculative, but the value at the time of grant or purchase is real.  Worst case scenario the pay is in the form of options... usually at a ridiculously low value.  For example, I once got options at $1/share when the company was trading at over $100.  That's not an insignificant immediate gain.  Why are low level employees not afforded this same opportunity?

17 minutes ago, immamac said:

In fact in the last recession we had the highest wage growth we've seen in quite some time.

Not true.  The wage increase happened after the recession, which is exactly what you would expect.

[immamac 41615]

7 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Knowing your lane is important.  I have a Texas MBA and have worked in corporate development and finance for most of my adult life, so just trust I know how shit works in this area.  When I have a server question, you'll be #2 on my call sheet ( @rage-a-holic is my first call since I've known him since we were 18) ...

Ever heard of layoffs?  When the economy declines mid-level employees are statistically the most effected demographic.  But when they economy is good, they see no increase in wages.  However, executives and upper management get bonuses when profits increase, and these bonuses are usually upwards to 20-30% of base salary.  If the profits decline their bonuses may only be in the 15-20% range... boo-hoo.  The wage gap is real, and getting wider, whether or not you'd like to admit it.

For example, my salary is about 8x more than the average employee in my company, my boss' base salary is 8x mine, and his boss makes 5x his...this is salary only and does not including bonuses or stock-based compensation.  That's not a brag, it's just to illustrate how wide, and frankly disgusting, the wage gap is in corporate America from the average worker to the top.

As indicated above, this is simply not true... even in terms of stock grants and options.  The increase/decrease in the value may be speculative, but the value at the time of grant or purchase is real.  Worst case scenario the pay is in the form of options... usually at a ridiculously low value.  For example, I once got options at $1/share when the company was trading at over $100.  That's not an insignificant immediate gain.  Why are low level employees not afforded this same opportunity?

Not true.  The wage increase happened after the recession, which is exactly what you would expect.

You don't even know who I am or what I do. You think surly is my job? You think I do "servers"? 

The fact that you told me to know my lane when you have no idea who you are talking to is the funniest part outside of thinking an MBA makes you somehow able to link compensation to macroeconomic productivity. 

You do you mr smarty pants MBA, let me know when you make it to the big leagues as an executive at a fortune 500. 

[DixonHur 10837]

35 minutes ago, immamac said:

You don't even know who I am or what I do. You think surly is my job? You think I do "servers"? 

You're right, I don't know what you do outside Surly, but I've seen your photo, which tells me you're probably not giving many board presentations.

35 minutes ago, immamac said:

You do you mr smarty pants MBA, let me know when you make it to the big leagues as an executive at a fortune 500. 

Ummm ok, but we're gonna need a time machine.

[immamac 41615]

Just now, DixonHur said:

You're right, I don't know what you do outside Surly, but I've seen your photo, which tells me you're probably not giving many board presentations.

Ummm ok, but we're gonna need a time machine.

You are just so confidently incorrect it's fascinating. It's almost like you live in a little bubble where people tell you that you are great. Now conflating my appearance to ability or experience in a board room. Do you read anything before you hit send? 

[DixonHur 10837]

Just now, immamac said:

You are just so confidently incorrect it's fascinating. It's almost like you live in a little bubble where people tell you that you are great. Now conflating my appearance to ability or experience in a board room. Do you read anything before you hit send? 

Ok, tell us what you do for a living outside Surly, and enlighten me with your dearth of macroeconomic knowledge. 

I have an assessment of the viability of a billion-dollar project due tomorrow so the sooner I can get your help the better.  Thanks in advance.

Perhaps after that you can explain the law to @Brisketexan and @TwiceHorn.

[immamac 41615]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Ok, tell us what you do for a living outside Surly, and enlighten me with your dearth of macroeconomic knowledge. 

I have an assessment of the viability of a billion-dollar project due tomorrow so the sooner I can get your help the better.  Thanks in advance.

Perhaps after that you can explain the law to @Brisketexan and @TwiceHorn.

I'm not hard to find on LinkedIn lol. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33708]

take it elsewhere!

 

[DixonHur 10837]

5 minutes ago, C-Man said:

It's almost as pathetic as Trump and Biden arguing over golf skills at the debate.

 

Almost.

I'm just worn out by @immamac claiming to be an expert on every single topic.  The guy's knowledge apparently knows no bounds.

I guess we're lucky to have such a polymath in our midst.

I'd just like to go back to the days of him sharing pics of his hot sister.

Edited July 25 by DixonHur

[immamac 41615]

Just now, DixonHur said:

I'm just worn out by @immamac claiming to be an expert on every single topic.  The guy's knowledge apparently knows no bounds.

I guess we're lucky to have such a polymath in our midst.

Expert? I just said that GDP growth and wage disparity aren't intrinsically connected and you flexed an MBA and didn't make a salient point lmao. It's not expert to say that 2 things that are apples and oranges are apples and oranges. That doesn't mean I know much about apples or much about oranges or fruit. It just means I can tell the difference between two different things at a basic level. 

[SimonBolivar 10673]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

take it elsewhere!

 

Can we get an admin in here to clean up this offtopic fight...wait, shit.

[G650 13195]

Just now, SimonBolivar said:

Can we get an admin in here to clean up this offtopic fight...wait, shit.

Story of our life, amirite

[Pato del Muerto 52035]

6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Ok, tell us what you do for a living outside Surly, and enlighten me with your dearth of macroeconomic knowledge. 

Majority owner at texags. 

[mdmost 42316]

7 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Ok, tell us what you do for a living outside Surly, and enlighten me with your dearth of macroeconomic knowledge. 

I have an assessment of the viability of a billion-dollar project due tomorrow so the sooner I can get your help the better.  Thanks in advance.

Perhaps after that you can explain the law to @Brisketexan and @TwiceHorn.

You might be taking this a bit too serious 

[DixonHur 10837]

1 minute ago, mdmost said:

You might be taking this a bit too serious 

You're not wrong.  

It's a cumulative thing that's been bubbling up.  I have a lot of dumb takes, but when confronted on them by someone with expertise in that area, I defer to them.

He either doubles down on the idiocy, moves the goal posts or says the other person is too dumb to argue with... not just in this instance, but consistently and it's irritating.  

Anyway, you are correct... I need to regain my focus, and that of the thread.  

Rant over.... now

[StassneyHorn 6429]

How many times do we have to post wage gains for blue collar workers since COVID or stats on real wages to show nobody cares about your librul bullshit Dixon.

[royiv 9044]

24 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I'm just worn out by @immamac claiming to be an expert on every single topic.  The guy's knowledge apparently knows no bounds.

I guess we're lucky to have such a polymath in our midst.

I'd just like to go back to the days of him sharing pics of his hot sister.

Dude, he’s Jesus, the literal son of God. We’re lucky to be in the presence of greatness and that he chose to return as the admin of a message board focused on UT sports. Even if he’s wrong by whatever metric you’ve been taught in the past, accept the new teachings as the word of God.

[sidis 9659]

1 minute ago, royiv said:

Dude, he’s Jesus, the literal son of God. We’re lucky to be in the presence of greatness and that he chose to return as the admin of a message board focused on UT sports. Even if he’s wrong by whatever metric you’ve been taught in the past, accept the new teachings as the word of God.

i went to the surly tailgate before the wyoming debacle with 4th&five, his wife, and my wife. my wife has no idea this place exists and is highly confused as to what's going on. i hand immamac a hundred bucks and grab some brisket (which to this day i am still amazed that imma could make such a tasty brisket) and booze and linger around the edges. my wife, confused, asks me wtf is going on and so i tell her all these people congregate on the internet and call each other dipshits over inconsequential banalities and occasionally lose their minds over sports. i point to imma and add that he administrates the site and that's why i handed him the money. anyway, my wife, who is recovering from growing up in an adventist family says "you know, for a guy that fancies himself as having a fairly enlightened perspective on the history of christianity, i find it pretty amusing that you are apparently loosely part of a congregation of idiots that are led by jesus christ himself." i chortled.

but yes, the economy is humming while at the same time, is not egalitarian in the distribution of the benefits. both are completely true.

[immamac 41615]

2 minutes ago, sidis said:

i went to the surly tailgate before the wyoming debacle with 4th&five, his wife, and my wife. my wife has no idea this place exists and is highly confused as to what's going on. i hand immamac a hundred bucks and grab some brisket (which to this day i am still amazed that imma could make such a tasty brisket) and booze and linger around the edges. my wife, confused, asks me wtf is going on and so i tell her all these people congregate on the internet and call each other dipshits over inconsequential banalities and occasionally lose their minds over sports. i point to imma and add that he administrates the site and that's why i handed him the money. anyway, my wife, who is recovering from growing up in an adventist family says "you know, for a guy that fancies himself as having a fairly enlightened perspective on the history of christianity, i find it pretty amusing that you are apparently loosely part of a congregation of idiots that are led by jesus christ himself." i chortled.

but yes, the economy is humming while at the same time, is not egalitarian in the distribution of the benefits. both are completely true.

Yeah I wasn't even saying he was wrong that it was an issue it's just not GDP = wage growth and that wage growth = more disparity that's not how the math maths. Both things are true. 

Productivity is higher, which is good. 

[elfenix 34075]

4 hours ago, immamac said:

The stock market isn't the economy. We are talking in terms of real macroeconomics measurements like GDP. 

Speculative personal paper wealth is virtually meaningless economically unless it's used in trade or commodities. You aren't wrong with your statement that wealth is growing disproportionately it's just that and GDP aren't really connected in any real way. You can't speculatively increase GDP. 

I can pledge against it and get lower interest rates because my net worth is higher. 

[Captainant 26902]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

Yeah I wasn't even saying he was wrong that it was an issue it's just not GDP = wage growth and that wage growth = more disparity that's not how the math maths. Both things are true. 

Productivity is higher, which is good. 

I think the real issue at hand is that productivity gains are not evenly distributed or enjoyed. Rather than the employees seeing a wage increase commiserate with their increase in productivity, we see the shareholders reap that benefit more often than not.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33708]

that's just good ole capitalism, baby! Woohoo! USA! USA! *pew pew pew*

[immamac 41615]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I think the real issue at hand is that productivity gains are not evenly distributed or enjoyed. Rather than the employees seeing a wage increase commiserate with their increase in productivity, we see the shareholders reap that benefit more often than not.

understanding-the-labor-productivity-and-compensation-gap.pdf

[fattyflattie 4633]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

I think the real issue at hand is that productivity gains are not evenly distributed or enjoyed. Rather than the employees seeing a wage increase commiserate with their increase in productivity, we see the shareholders reap that benefit more often than not.

What is keeping the employees from becoming shareholders? 

[David Dennison 17754]

11 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

What is keeping the employees from becoming shareholders? 

Depends on the employee.

[safe sex 11603]

3 hours ago, sidis said:

i went to the surly tailgate before the wyoming debacle with 4th&five, his wife, and my wife. my wife has no idea this place exists and is highly confused as to what's going on. i hand immamac a hundred bucks and grab some brisket (which to this day i am still amazed that imma could make such a tasty brisket) and booze and linger around the edges. my wife, confused, asks me wtf is going on and so i tell her all these people congregate on the internet and call each other dipshits over inconsequential banalities and occasionally lose their minds over sports. i point to imma and add that he administrates the site and that's why i handed him the money. anyway, my wife, who is recovering from growing up in an adventist family says "you know, for a guy that fancies himself as having a fairly enlightened perspective on the history of christianity, i find it pretty amusing that you are apparently loosely part of a congregation of idiots that are led by jesus christ himself." i chortled.

but yes, the economy is humming while at the same time, is not egalitarian in the distribution of the benefits. both are completely true.

Up until now I literally thought you were a woman, and had not seen any indication in any of your posts that I've read to suggest otherwise. 

First, I didn't know that KJP is a dyke, and now I find out that my online gender scanner is busted. 

FUCK  something is wrong with me. 

[sidis 9659]

13 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Up until now I literally thought you were a woman, and had not seen any indication in any of your posts that I've read to suggest otherwise. 

First, I didn't know that KJP is a dyke, and now I find out that my online gender scanner is busted. 

FUCK  something is wrong with me. 

[Captainant 26902]

52 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

What is keeping the employees from becoming shareholders? 

Why don't the poor people just stop being poor and buy tens of thousands of shares like executives and the investor class does? Have they even HEARD of bootstraps??

[fattyflattie 4633]

Your view is not owning 10’s of thousands of whatever share makes you poor?  This is going to be a surprise to millions of Americans with 7 figure portfolios who don’t have a single allocation of “10’s of thousands of shares”.   

[Captainant 26902]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Your view is not owning 10’s of thousands of whatever share makes you poor?  This is going to be a surprise to millions of Americans with 7 figure portfolios who don’t have a single allocation of “10’s of thousands of shares”.   

My view is that the people who benefit as shareholders when companies steal from their employees are those that hold considerable numbers of shares, which is not the working class people were talking about. 

Also, Americans with 7 figure portfolios are the far and away exception. Probably not in your circles, which is why you think it's normative 

[fattyflattie 4633]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Also, Americans with 7 figure portfolios are the far and away exception. Probably not in your circles, which is why you think it's normative 

I’m speaking about their primary retirement accounts, not some secondary or tertiary play account.  Maxing out your 401 with any semblance of a match works wonders after 15-20 years.  It’s not some crazy formula for the elite - quite the contrary.  

The biggest difference I see, and this is purely anecdotal, is Sr execs never seem to not be working. Joe 6 pack leaves at 1700 and doesn’t think about his job again until the next AM , while the execs are still working, ensuring that they earn some crazy pay, but also ensuring joe 6 pack isn’t laid off at Christmas.  More anecdotal, joe 6 pack doesn’t give a single fuck about the viability of the company, as long as his check hits Friday. The execs seem worried about his image if the company fails, or being replaced.   I’ve been with the president of my company at 3 places (as our careers grew) - he’s a brilliant guy with an insane motor. But I can’t count the days he’s realized while we’re on the phone at night, that he went the full day/evening without seeing his family (when we were wfh).  Hell I quit sending him stuff after midnight because it would be immediately followed with a lengthy call.  I take my wife to the limits with my work, I don’t know how some of these guys do it. Also, major props to the guys who start businesses that get big and demand ALL of your time and energy.  Keeping it all together is work in itself.  The guys that make 400x the average worker, eh.  But 10-15x, I understand that all day long.  

[Captainant 26902]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m speaking about their primary retirement accounts, not some secondary or tertiary play account.  Maxing out your 401 with any semblance of a match works wonders after 15-20 years.  It’s not some crazy formula for the elite - quite the contrary.  

Genuinely, most of the adults I knew growing up did not make enough to max their 401k. I know my household didn't growing up. Do you think the median American worker bringing home $45k/yr is able to contribute max to their 401k?

 

Yeah no shit, the best way to make money is to have money. The problem tends to be starting that process of building when the majority of America is fighting to keep heads above water

[fattyflattie 4633]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Do you think the median American worker bringing home $45k/yr is able to contribute max to their 401k?

I guess we’d have to quibble about the difference between 45k and 54k.  I was able to fully contribute our max coming out of school. But a simple understanding how it would look after a few years was a huge motivator to continue.  I did wait too long to get a house though, that’s where most of my peers that separated did so.   It also didn’t dawn on me just how free the money has been for the last few decades.  Partial credit, dummy, for sure.  

[David Dennison 17754]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Do you think the median American worker bringing home $45k/yr is able to contribute max to their 401k?

An even better question is are the millions of hourly wage employees able to do this? 

[HornOnTheBayou 8852]

30 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m speaking about their primary retirement accounts, not some secondary or tertiary play account.  Maxing out your 401 with any semblance of a match works wonders after 15-20 years.  It’s not some crazy formula for the elite - quite the contrary.  

The biggest difference I see, and this is purely anecdotal, is Sr execs never seem to not be working. Joe 6 pack leaves at 1700 and doesn’t think about his job again until the next AM , while the execs are still working, ensuring that they earn some crazy pay, but also ensuring joe 6 pack isn’t laid off at Christmas.  More anecdotal, joe 6 pack doesn’t give a single fuck about the viability of the company, as long as his check hits Friday. The execs seem worried about his image if the company fails, or being replaced.   I’ve been with the president of my company at 3 places (as our careers grew) - he’s a brilliant guy with an insane motor. But I can’t count the days he’s realized while we’re on the phone at night, that he went the full day/evening without seeing his family (when we were wfh).  Hell I quit sending him stuff after midnight because it would be immediately followed with a lengthy call.  I take my wife to the limits with my work, I don’t know how some of these guys do it. Also, major props to the guys who start businesses that get big and demand ALL of your time and energy.  Keeping it all together is work in itself.  The guys that make 400x the average worker, eh.  But 10-15x, I understand that all day long.  

[fattyflattie 4633]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

An even better question is are the millions of hourly wage employees able to do this? 

Of course not.   That is a case of pay commensurate to skills, though.  Potatoes don’t demand high pay, news at 10.  

[royiv 9044]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Joe 6 pack leaves at 1700 and doesn’t think about his job again until the next AM , while the execs are still working, ensuring that they earn some crazy pay, but also ensuring joe 6 pack isn’t laid off at Christmas.  More anecdotal, joe 6 pack doesn’t give a single fuck about the viability of the company, as long as his check hits Friday. 

Joe Six Pack’s ratio of fucks given about the company he works for is directly correlated to the fucks about him by the company he works for. Treat people fairly and they tend to GAF. Treat people like shit and they tend to not GAF.

[Horn Dogg 3726]

The argument with immamac is kind of funny.

[safe sex 11603]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Of course not.   That is a case of pay commensurate to skills, though.  Potatoes don’t demand high pay, news at 10.  

No wonder nurses are always shitty to you. 

[fattyflattie 4633]

40 minutes ago, royiv said:

Joe Six Pack’s ratio of fucks given about the company he works for is directly correlated to the fucks about him by the company he works for. Treat people fairly and they tend to GAF. Treat people like shit and they tend to not GAF.

Somewhat agree, but think it's chicken and egg.  I would posit the amount of give a fuck for the people we're discussing extends far beyond their career, and started way earlier in their lives, directly correlating to their current station. 

[fattyflattie 4633]

1 minute ago, safe sex said:

No wonder nurses are always shitty to you. 

Nurses are well paid professionals.  And, I've had plenty of good nurses.  Enough to identify the dog shit others. 

[Pods 7462]

10 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Nurses are well paid professionals.  And, I've had plenty of good nurses.  Enough to identify the dog shit others. 

Yeah, the rest of us see plenty of good posters. Enough to identify the dog shit posters such as yourself. 

[fattyflattie 4633]

3 minutes ago, Pods said:

Yeah, the rest of us see plenty of good posters. Enough to identify the dog shit posters such as yourself. 

Hrrrrr. Good one!!1!

[immamac 41615]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Hrrrrr. Good one!!1!

It was a pretty sick burn. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13295]

Too many, low skilled employees can only offer one thing: their time. And unfortunately most employers value time the least of all skills or offerings.  If you have to use your muscles and especially your mind, you have the ability to earn more. And some have decided to ignore these facts, or they’ve never been taught it.

at my work, we pay developers a great salary to build tools so that customers can self service their accounts more and more. It used to be that we were satisfied helping the customers call the support staff. Or building efficient support staff processes. Now the support team is looked as handling difficult situations or for the few customers that prefer to call. Those last support agents will earn more individually but the company spends less on support operations. 

Edited July 26 by Nice Guy Eddie