RE: The consequence of choice

RE: The consequence of choice (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Yachtie -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:45:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Time for you to start putting forth some positive ideas -- quit complaining and catastrophizing. Fuck you're positive ideas. You ignore them. They don't comport with your desires. The only 'positive ideas' you listen to are those which allow you to have your cake and eat it too; defy gravity. In short, why cast pearls before swine?

Moonhead -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:51:40 AM)
So you don't actually have anything to suggest (or even somebody else's line to parrot) that might address the problems, and are just going to spend the next four years doing Private Frazer, then? [img]http://b2finc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/doomed-pic.jpg[/img]

defiantbadgirl -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:53:14 AM)
This shows how much job growth is hindered by health insurance being tied to employment.

mnottertail -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:53:32 AM)
I say, old Sir Alec Guinness in The Bridge over the River Kwai, is looking more like a cross between Mako and Dennis Hopper as he ages, innit? I believe it was star wars aged him so, like Mickey Rourke.

slvemike4u -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:55:24 AM)
Nailed it Moon [:)] These guys just don't get it.....they lost,it's really that simple. Now the word "compromise" takes on a decidedly leftist slant....after all,as the OP suggests,ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES [:D]

igor2003 -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:57:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 Okay, it's early and I'm not awake yet, so I hope I am able to articulate what I'm thinking... Most businesses only carry enough employees to accomplish what has to be done to keep up with demands for their product or service. If he was carrying 22 extra employees that his business didn't need the guy was either a saint...which I doubt...or a poor businessman. If those 22 employees were needed to maintain his businesses' level of production or service then he is harming his own business by reducing it's productivity. I'm not sure I understand how cutting his work force by nearly 20%, thereby decreasing production or service by 20%, gives him more money to pay his expenses. So, was the guy making a smart, necessary business move...or just throwing a tantrum because the guy from "kenya" stayed in office? Since it looks like his employee costs will be going up, reducing the number of employees he has will effect how much his employee costs rise. Apparently, he's getting started now in building up his reserves for when those costs rise. He's probably already weighed how his income will be effected by the cuts, and has decided that he'll contract for now to be ready for when those costs impact his business. This was a move to get himself ready for a different business environment than the one he is currently operating under, so the number of employees, production, and profit numbers very easily can point to a smaller staff keeping him afloat in the future. I must have missed the part that said he was going to use contracted help to make up for what he was losing in employee production. Or is that just what you are assuming? To me it still looks like fewer employees equals less production. Less production equals less refenue. Less revenue means he is just shooting himself in the foot because he wants to throw a fit.

Yachtie -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 8:01:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead So you don't actually have anything to suggest (or even somebody else's line to parrot) that might address the problems, and are just going to spend the next four years doing Private Frazer, then? [img]http://b2finc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/doomed-pic.jpg[/img] Screw that crap. A few here have been doing just that for the past year. Put the truth in front of you and, in the parlance of mnottertail, all you have to say is "asswipe". Tick Tock, Tick Tock. It's going to be fucking delicious, and it can't come soon enough.

slvemike4u -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 8:02:14 AM)
Igor pretty much has this one figured...it reminds me of the time he told Dr Frankenstein "it's alive,it's alive". He was right than too...a whole bunch of bad shit happened after that [:)]

mnottertail -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 8:03:22 AM)
Yeah, you need to get your watch fixed, and I haven't seen any truth come from you, but I have seen asswipe in warehouse quantity. Give me one of these truths you have so kindly laid as if it were swine before pearls.

slvemike4u -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 8:08:59 AM)
And the truth shall set you free [:)]

mnottertail -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 8:12:52 AM)
Maybe it was the hysterical right wing union thing outta DailyCaller or something from WND or Breitbart or Boortz. The credible thingie is gonna fuck him up, long time, GI.

tj444 -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 8:34:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie LAS VEGAS (CBS Las Vegas) — A Las Vegas business owner with 114 employees fired 22 workers today, apparently as a direct result of President Obama’s re-election. a couple of things.. Vegas has not been having a good time in this recovery (from what i have read), other cities, states have been doing better.. so perhaps some of those jobs were on the chopping block already.. and this was an opportunisitic blame Obama thing, at least in part.. This is not the first time that business has made adjustments in choice between hiring part-time vs full-time workers, this is just a continuation of that and another cost that factors into the choice.. Imo, if it were not for the cost difference, there would not be much reason to have any part-time jobs, I see part time jobs (& independent contractors, casual workers) as a response for many decades of new govt regs, higher costs, etc.. I read this article recently.. on what other businesses are doing in response to increasing costs.. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-law-spurs-shift-hours-022100532.html Health Law Spurs Shift in Hours If your competition is hiring more or all part-timers (or some other decision like going offshore) and their cost base is lower than yours, most businesses simply have to follow suit just to stay competitive & in business.. or a "Going-out-of-Business Sale" could be in their future.. A guy I had been chatting with for a while said to me last night that he wanted to run off to Canada with me (cuz Obama won).. he is so cute!!!.. I pointed out to him that Canada is more liberal than the US is (that did not matter to him, apparently [:D] ).. and I suggested instead that we move to turks & caicos, the bahamas, caymans or some such idylic location.. so its been decided, we will figure out which island we want to go to and he can chase me (& my pussnick) around white sandy beaches all day and night long.. [8D] (yes, I will make sure I dont get any of that sand in places it doesnt belong.. [:D] )

DesideriScuri -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 9:08:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 Okay, it's early and I'm not awake yet, so I hope I am able to articulate what I'm thinking... Most businesses only carry enough employees to accomplish what has to be done to keep up with demands for their product or service. If he was carrying 22 extra employees that his business didn't need the guy was either a saint...which I doubt...or a poor businessman. If those 22 employees were needed to maintain his businesses' level of production or service then he is harming his own business by reducing it's productivity. I'm not sure I understand how cutting his work force by nearly 20%, thereby decreasing production or service by 20%, gives him more money to pay his expenses. So, was the guy making a smart, necessary business move...or just throwing a tantrum because the guy from "kenya" stayed in office? Since it looks like his employee costs will be going up, reducing the number of employees he has will effect how much his employee costs rise. Apparently, he's getting started now in building up his reserves for when those costs rise. He's probably already weighed how his income will be effected by the cuts, and has decided that he'll contract for now to be ready for when those costs impact his business. This was a move to get himself ready for a different business environment than the one he is currently operating under, so the number of employees, production, and profit numbers very easily can point to a smaller staff keeping him afloat in the future. I must have missed the part that said he was going to use contracted help to make up for what he was losing in employee production. Or is that just what you are assuming? To me it still looks like fewer employees equals less production. Less production equals less refenue. Less revenue means he is just shooting himself in the foot because he wants to throw a fit. I used "contract" in it's "get smaller" meaning.

vincentML -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 10:15:40 AM)
~FR~ Here is a list of revenue sources for the Affordable Care Act listed by Wiki. Can anyone explain which of these will be impacting Dave's business to lead him to fire 22 workers? Summary of tax increases: (ten year projection) Increase Medicare tax rate by .9% and impose added tax of 3.8% on unearned income for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion Charge an annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion Impose a 40% excise tax on health insurance annual premiums in excess of $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family: $32 billion Impose an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion Impose a 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices:$20 billion Raise the 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion Limit annual contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion Just curious

Moonhead -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 10:19:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 Okay, it's early and I'm not awake yet, so I hope I am able to articulate what I'm thinking... Most businesses only carry enough employees to accomplish what has to be done to keep up with demands for their product or service. If he was carrying 22 extra employees that his business didn't need the guy was either a saint...which I doubt...or a poor businessman. If those 22 employees were needed to maintain his businesses' level of production or service then he is harming his own business by reducing it's productivity. I'm not sure I understand how cutting his work force by nearly 20%, thereby decreasing production or service by 20%, gives him more money to pay his expenses. So, was the guy making a smart, necessary business move...or just throwing a tantrum because the guy from "kenya" stayed in office? Since it looks like his employee costs will be going up, reducing the number of employees he has will effect how much his employee costs rise. Apparently, he's getting started now in building up his reserves for when those costs rise. He's probably already weighed how his income will be effected by the cuts, and has decided that he'll contract for now to be ready for when those costs impact his business. This was a move to get himself ready for a different business environment than the one he is currently operating under, so the number of employees, production, and profit numbers very easily can point to a smaller staff keeping him afloat in the future. I must have missed the part that said he was going to use contracted help to make up for what he was losing in employee production. Or is that just what you are assuming? To me it still looks like fewer employees equals less production. Less production equals less refenue. Less revenue means he is just shooting himself in the foot because he wants to throw a fit. One argument that's been going around over here a lot recently is that the easiest way to cut costs is by laying off staff and having their former colleagues do more work to make up for the shortfall. If they can't do a lot more work for the same salary (or in the case of one firm that was blatantly taking the piss, a pay cut), then they've given you an excuse to fire them as well. "Chutzpah" is too much like a compliment to apply to some of these folk...

Moonhead -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 10:21:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Screw that crap. A few here have been doing just that for the past year. Put the truth in front of you and, in the parlance of mnottertail, all you have to say is "asswipe". I'm not interested in your scat fetish, sweetie: save that for your sub. I'm sure she'll be delighted to wipe your arse for you...

Hillwilliam -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 10:35:28 AM)
Regarding the OP. Does this guy think for one second that he can remain anonymous? Does he think that potential customers will not possibly consider him to be disloyal? Has he considered the possibility that this could have severe negative consequences regarding his future business volume as well as his ability to attract quality employees when he wants to expand as the economy improves?

Moonhead -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 10:39:17 AM)
If he'd considered any of that, would he be pulling this crap and whining about it in the first place?

Louve00 -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 11:11:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie LAS VEGAS (CBS Las Vegas) — A Las Vegas business owner with 114 employees fired 22 workers today, apparently as a direct result of President Obama’s re-election. “David” (he asked to remain anonymous for obvious reasons) told Host Kevin Wall on 100.5 KXNT that “elections have consequences” and that “at the end of the day, I need to survive.” “I explained to them a month ago that if Obama gets in office that the regulations for Obamacare are gonna hurt our business, and I’m gonna have to make provisions to make sure I have enough money to cover the payroll taxes, the additional health care I’m gonna have to do, and I explained that to them and I said you do what you feel like in your heart you need to do, but I’m just letting you know as a warning this is things I have to think of as a business owner. I have to build up that nest egg now for the taxes and regulations that are coming my way. Elections do have consequences, but so do choices. A choice you make every day has consequences and you know what, I’ve always put my employees first, but unfortunately today I have to put me and my family first, and you watch what’s gonna happen. I’m just one guy with 114 employees — well was 114 employees — watch what happens in the next six months. The Dow alone lost 314 points today. There’s a tsunami coming and if you didn’t think this election had consequences, just wait.” Right or wrong, as a business owner he too has to make choices. He too shall reap the consequences. His is not a unique story. There are those who think the economy is turning around, that progress is being made. One person even said yesterday that the only reason the economy is down is because of government shrinkage. Not true. There's a hard lesson on its way. I have to agree with igor on this one. If that business owner was able to do with 22 less employees today, than his business was over-employed and that's just bad business. If he actually needed those 22 workers he had to let go, then his business is going to take a hit, too. So that business owner is doomed, eventually. If it comes to that, then he couldn't afford to run the business at all. People keep squawking about businesses not being able to afford to insure their employees. Either spend the money to insure them to avoid the tax penalty for not doing so. Or spend the money on the tax penalty for not insuring them. It comes down to another choice, since you're talking about choices. Just like people squawking about having to pay a tax for not insuring themselves. Either they pay for insurance or use the money to not pay for insurance by paying a penalty (tax) when tax time rolls around (or getting a tax credit for paying for insurance....again, it's another choice.) I've always believed if a business can't afford to comply with all the laws and expectations to carry on a good, legitimate, employable business, it has no business being a business. As far as personable insurance here's a link that helps those who don't understand it (hopefully) a little bit more. Health Care Reform Life sucks, doesn't it? [8\|]

Louve00 -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 11:35:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie I have to build up that nest egg now for the taxes and regulations that are coming my way. Elections do have consequences, but so do choices. A choice you make every day has consequences and you know what, I’ve always put my employees first, but unfortunately today I have to put me and my family first, and you watch what’s gonna happen. I’m just one guy with 114 employees — well was 114 employees — watch what happens in the next six months. The Dow alone lost 314 points today. There’s a tsunami coming and if you didn’t think this election had consequences, just wait.” That drop in the dow jones, btw, had nothing to do with business owner's and insurance, but everything to do with the 1% losing their tax shelters. The dow jones dropped 114 pts, and Nasdaq and S&P dropped too because of the fiscal cliff but, Markets are poised for a modest rebound, too. , so I'm not really ready to say the glass is half empty. In fact, I'm figuring, we will see AND reap the benefits at the end of this 4 years. [sm=2cents.gif]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375