To: combjelly who wrote (761121 ) 1/3/2014 3:22:22 PM From: TimF Read Replies (1) | Respond to It may have been one of his reasons. If so it was a senseless one, since there is no way the additional pay could result in enough additional employee purchases to make up more than a tiny fraction of the additional costs. It amounted to doubling (or near doubling there where a few people workers who didn't qualify for the bonuses) of the pay of most of his employees, for a tiny addition to his sales. Using the starting numbers of sales and employees (which is more favorable to the theory your supporting, since later it took fewer employees for each car produced and sold), you have 14000 employees and 170k cars sold per year. If before the raise zero employees bought his cars, and after the raise every single employee bought one per year, you would get about an eight percent increase in sales, for a 50 to 100 percent increase in employee compensation. More likely, since not every employee would buy Ford cars, and since those who did would not buy a new one every year (and of much less significance since a few of the employees would presumably already be buying the cars) the increase in sales would be less than one percent. Going forward with more sales per employee the percentage potentially gained by having more highly compensated employees would be less. In the long run maybe he got a tenth or two of a percent extra sales.
