|
Archer -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 6:52:09 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
Each job created in the US costs the employer about 100,000 a year, more if it's to be a "Living wage" middle class job.
How did you come up with this number.
So where if not through the corporations do you expect to provide the money for people to live.
Are you actually suggesting that corporations are the only employers in this country?
Are you actually suggesting that corporations are even the majority employers in this country?
Now I know you read the part where I said I did not believe this since you quote it just a few lines down. (Maybe you're looking only to be contrary here?)
Most folks don't have what it takes to work as their own independant contractor anymore.
I could understand you saying that you are not competent to be self employed but don't you find it more than a little presumptuous to speak for some 300 million people you do not know?
So if you bankrupt the corporations you eliminate how many jobs and if you make it a goal to do so you have to include the solution to the jobs loss you incure as a result.
Perhaps you are unaware of just what a corporation is? If I am mistaken then perhaps you might tell us just how a corporation differs from a company or a partnership or a sole proprietor? Once you have looked up the definitions then please tell us how replacing corporations with some other business model would cause the job loss you speak of.
OK now I know you're being contrary, LOL
But Yes I am aware I am mixing terms, Have an LLC, work for an S Corp, Contract for Large Corps.
Hammer the large Corps and you end up with alot of down stream effect.
If My largest Multi million dollar Client corp goes under, the effect on the S corp I work for would be staggering revenues dropping by likely half. Replacing that amount of revenue would take alot of time and effort, likely it would put us out of business or force us to cut staff by 1/3 at least.
As to who removal of Corps is going to get rid of jobs the simplest model for that is, without the protection of investors there is no way the levels of capital required can be raised to the point where you get the economies of scale that increase the number of employees they can support and stillmaintain profit.
Now I know that small companies make up the vast majority of jobs in the country however they provide services to who
They provide services and goods to the same people that the corporations do.
Not always true, the number of clients I personally get that are individuals is near 0% very few individuals have a need for the services of the company I work for.
Those few jobs we get that are individual are just short of unprofitable.
Many times their customers are those larger companies. I know my companies clients are by and large multi million or larger companies.
Now you have lost me. Are you talking about companies or corporations.
OK I'll clarify for you, Small companies (more specificly service based companies) in large part have customers that are larger companies.
(I provide service to companies that are 5 -20 times the size of the company I work for) Often the case in the world of consulting. In this case the specific format of companies is not pertinent trying to make it so is likely to be confussing.
To simplify Small businesses (<50 employees) very often produce component goods for larger companies or provide services to them. The number of individual customers that order or require component parts is negligable, the number of individuals that require consulting in areas of business that are not core to their own product again negligable.
Best example to show the effect I am describing would be the Base Closures that happened in the 80's and 90's local economies were decimated in many cases because the small businesses that were in the area lost their customers (who were held in place by the military bases)
If they go away then not only the jobs in that company disappear but all the jobs in my company as well as not a small number of our sub contractors jobs as well.
You have arrived at this "well reasoned" conclusion by steps that evade me. Perhaps you might disabuse me of my ignorance.
The result of hammering the corporations is often missed in terms of who it effects most. How many folks were hammered when World Com went under due to bad management/ theft? How many were lost with Enron?
You appear to be saying that we should not prosecute criminals because they use their stolen money to strengthen the economy. Please tell me that I read this wrong.
Yes you are reading it wrong, it was used as an example only to show the effect of closing a large corp for whatever reason.
Who really suffered when those corporations went under? It wasn't the big guys it was the employees.
Here you appear to be saying that going to prison is not all that bad a gig?
Compared to the price the employees paid the white collar prison those guys went to likely was easier and almost assuradly shorter in duration than the recovery of what the employees lost.
You just can't punish the company without the employees ending up getting the short end.
Once again you seem to not understand the intrinsic differences between a corporation and a company. You seem to be saying that criminals should not be punished because they put money into the economy.
No I think you are reading into what I said. I said that the punishment of the corporation or the company is not the solution, but rather that punishment should be for the individual in most cases. Although there are some real problems with corporations and their board of directors and the votes fo the sharholders at times.
I'm all for having some strong individual consequences for those who take the illegal short cuts, and I have no illussion that Free Market is the end all be all. But it is in my opinion more efficient at fair distribution of wealth than any other monetary system.
You clearly fail to understand the very nature of a corporation. You have consistently, in your discourse, used the term "free market" "company" and "corporation" interchangeably. This is intellectually dishonest and grammatically incorrect.
The terms were used interchangably when the difference was not an important factor in the point being made. Regardless of format (LLC, S Corp, C Corp) individuals work for companies large and small. However statistics tell us that the vast majority of them work for small business. Regardless of format the most profitable customers for small business companies are other companies, usually a few steps above them in matters of revenue per year and or employees.
Large Corporations represent the top of the chain their products are usually the final products, consumed by individuals. If you reduce the top of that chain into capital investment levels people are willing to risk without the protection of the corporate shield then you reduce money all along that chain.
|
|
|
|
