600 index and its union wage rate (Fearless Blue)

I am pretty sure this is too high. I for one am not going to have 30 hr wage rates.
40 grand for a worker is way too much.
I am not going to be like crazy arse ford motor or GM but then I don't need to worry about union. If I was ford motor I would flip the bird at the labor unions and cancel the union.
2b 100% 150 mil sal
2.6B 130% 800 mil plus 30% material consumption
I plan on going 200 wage rate the auto salary

What in the world are you talking about? >_>
Are you complaining about high salaries? I run most of my corporations in my own countries at 1000+, sometimes up to 1600. High salaries are beneficial to countries and their owners. It increases production and income tax too which is based on salary. State-owned corps can benefit from higher salaries too, up to a certain point...

that is not really the point. company profit and market value are what matter

Higher salaries can actually increase a companies profit and market value to an extent...certainly with salaries above 200. Although I would argue that market value is of limited importance as there is not much of a market at all for corps valued at over 100B or so.

Actually, a few years after Ford started as a company, Henry increased wages from $2.50 a day to $5 a day, which was unheard of at the time.
Because of that increase, absenteeism decreased which in turn increased productivity and increased profits for Ford.

In SC the same applies.

I have found the salaries in the 250 range are actually most profitable for country owned-companies, and in the 300 range for CEO-controlled-corporations. Wages above this are merely subsidies for the countries. Occasionally when I am manipulating my indexes, I will raise salaries above this level, but only in my own countries.

For those of you who like high salaries you must take into consideration, but increased costs of your government and military salaries. These also are real costs that need to be calculated.

Plato, please explain how 250 salaries are most profitable for country owned companies?

In order to determine which salary level is best for a country corporation, one must express the net effect of salaries in terms of corporate earnings. Basically, synthesizing all relevant factors onto the corporation page.

Income Tax, Health Contributions, and Education Contributions are all determined by salaries (evidenced by the corresponding graphs). Together, they comprise roughly 45% of total salaries (not perfectly). Given the fact that the salaries of government workers are 25% less than corporate workers and there will generally be fewer government workers. I use the conservative rule of thumb that 33% of a countries worker will be employed by the government.

This means that if corporate workers earn $100, government workers will be paid 75% of half that, or $38. When calculating an increase in corporate salaries. Therefore, the final salary cost for state companies is 55% (not earned back by country) of 140% (including government salaries) of state salaries This is only about 77% of the salary cost displayed on the corporation page.

If the number of corporate workers is equal to government workers, true salary cost is $100 (corporate salary) + $75 (government salary). This means that final salary cost for state companies is 55% of 175% or roughly 96% of the salary cost displayed on the corporation page. Still lower, and I do not believe this situation occurs often.

Now, this means that thus far only 77% of salary (with 33% of workers in govt) and 96% of salary (with 50% of workers in govt) displayed on the corporation page is really lost (even considering government salaries). I do not imagine that SS costs, being lower than the lowest salary, generally would have much of an effect.

Given this data, I take the bold position that:

When the number of government workers does not exceed the number of corporate workers: if the corporation shows increased profits at a higher salary, then the country has increased profits.

Since government workers generally do not exceed corporate workers, the corporation profit page can even be construed as a pessimistic indicator of overall country profit in deciding salaries.

Since the corporation page for state companies generally shows increased profits at increased salaries, one can assume increased salaries are better.

I worked these numbers out empirically by having a bunch of otherwise identical Oil and Electric corps with a wide variety of salaries from 30 to 900. I then mapped salaries to net profits. These graphs showed profits topping out in the 250 - 300 range. Treasurer also had similar results.

I also mapped salaries against production and found that salaries increase much faster that production. So it takes a larger salary increase to go from 137% to 141% than from 117% to 121%. Both represent 4% increases to production but from 137% to 141% comes at a higher cost.

This only applies to Country owned corps as CEO salaries do not effect the Salary index. A point increase in corporate salaries must result in at least a 3/4 point rise in government salaries, or weapons start deactivating. However, you want to figure it, this can be viewed as a direct cost.

The GM has tweaked production levels in the last 2 years to increase corp size and profitability, so these numbers may have changed, but I wouldn't expect by much.

my country on LU makes 25B a month nothing amazing i know but i only have 10CEOS corp and the rest states and i have index's in the 94% in employment 150 in SS and 250 in ed n tran and i pay my country workers 500 across the board im hoping to bump to 800 soon and im making killing all my nukes r profitable hell they r even Public OFFERED and making BILLION....so i guess what im saying is anyone who says higher sals arent worth it well im in the market for a new dealer can i get what u smoking?