quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

“Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill)”

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/18/free_lunch_how_the_wealthiest_americans
or
via Real video stream:
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2008/jan/video/dnB20080118a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=33:40

-----

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole monetary system is a giveaway to the banks. The military is a giveaway to the defense contractors, etc.

For decades I have just watched things go from bad to worse.

Until we start talking back the money we are giving away to those that don't even need it, I can't begin to care about this area of politics as pertains to any other kind of "welfare" program. You don't start by taking away safety nets first, you start by taking away the programs that grotesquely enrich the already vastly wealthy!

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?

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.



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.

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.


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.

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?

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Griswold 

Well, while I'm not a fan of the state paying for the sports dome in Seattle (as they did) and then handing all the revenue to the owner of the Seahawks (Paul Allen....#3 or 4 in wealth in the US), as to welfare programs....to the rich or the poor...

I'd much rather see it be given to someone who'll create jobs, as opposed to someone who will enable the local crack dealer to increase his business ahead of his own personal growth plans for this fiscal year.
I am curious as to why you think all poor people spend their welfare checks on crack?
Are you suggesting that rich people don't do drugs?


Both groups (rich or poor) are taking something for nothing.
Why do humans form themselves into societies?
Is it only so the the wealthy can have more money that they can neither count nor spend?

Only one will create jobs with the stipend....which will clearly help the poor one get out of the grip of poverty.
Are you suggesting that this creating of "jobs with the stipend" is some sort of benevolent behavior on the part of the wealthy?  I thought that the reason a person started an enterprise and employed others was so that the entrepreneur could make money.  If I missed something in Econ 1A please disabuse me of my ignorance.


Pick your devil.
I can understand why you might characterize some money grubbing parasite, who uses their wealth and power to aggrandize themselves at the expense of society at large, as a devil but why do you characterize those less fortunate than yourself as devils?

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

BTW the 100,000 number is simple to reach Sallary is generally found to be about 50%
So middle class job total compensation of 100,000 would yield a $50,000 a year job.

It's a rule of thumb only but that's where it comes from for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Actually, I do run a business with employees so I know that Archer is basically full of baloney. His numbers are radically off base. He's also ethically cracked on this topic.

Question: how many $50-100K jobs is Wal-mart creating?

Yeah, I thought so...

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Try to stay focused, we are discussing handouts to billionaires. These people don't need our money so maybe they could oblige us all by keeping their hands out of our pockets.

It's not envy. It's the economic stupidity of it all. Anyone in favor of it is clearly completely whored out to some tiny 1% special interest group.

How many $50-100K jobs does a ballpark generate?

Uh huh...

-----

BTW, I am not prepared to set out my personal financial information here. But if you care to show an enterprising lead here, feel free to tell all. Start with your SS number.