Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The consequence of choice


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The consequence of choice Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 12:00:36 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00
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.


Or, is it possible that by laying off 22 employees, that he'll have to work a few extra hours and accept a smaller business gross/profit? Yes, his business is going to take a hit, losing the production of those 22 employees. Were they providing more productivity than they were being paid? I have no idea. It's entirely possible that he could have laid off those 22 employees 3 or 4 years ago, but decided to keep them on so they weren't fucked in the recession. Since he gauged the business climate to not be conducive to his business growing back to where he needed those 22, he finally had to lay them off.

How is that such an incredible possibility to consider?

My ex's employer will be paying approximately 2 months of premiums as the "Cadillac Tax." The penalty for not insuring their employees is not quite 2 months of premiums. The owners have decided to continuing to offer these benefits (and pay 100% of the premiums for the employees) because of how much they value their employees. Instead of a penalty of 2 months of premiums, they are going to pay 14 months of premiums. Not all companies are out to wring every last cent out of their employees.

quote:

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.


Yet, we bail out GM and Chrysler when their business models failed. Do you not see the duplicity in this?

quote:

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?


I wonder if they'll update that video to take the increased costs into account. My guess is they won't.



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Louve00)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 12:15:19 PM   
JeffBC


Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
There's a hard lesson on its way.

Sure there is. But the real question is "what IS that lesson and will we all read the tea leaves in time?"

I presume from your post that you believe the lesson will be that the "job creators" will stop "creating jobs" now that they fear for the economic climate? Honestly dude they haven't been creating any jobs to speak of anyway and the jobs they have been created have crap jobs that don't support a person anyway. So I don't see it as any real loss that at least some of them are going to take their ball and go home... they started in that posture to start with. This story has "too big to fail" written all over it but in small.

~J



_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 12:33:29 PM   
Louve00


Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline 		DesideriScuri, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Businesses that decide to insure all their employees, instead of paying what you say amounts to 2 months of premiums in penalties, are businesses that have provided for themselves enough to withstand provisions. Not only that, they will have tax breaks (small businesses will) for abiding with the law and doing that. I don't know the full situation of the example of the business owner in this thread. The picture was painted that he didn't pad his business enough to withstand this law. And my thoughts on that are, if a business runs itself on a week by week, or month by month basis, then it has as much a chance to run into problems as any regular joe. So as they say...suck it up buttercup. Or, as you say, make sacrifices to make your business work, if your business is your livlihood and means that much to you. If he was keeping 22 people on his payroll just because he felt sorry for them in this depression, then where was his compassion when he let them go, now? Apparently he wasn't willing to sacrifice for himself and his employees.


I also agree with you about your point on GM and ALL the bailouts (banks and businesses on Wall St, included). Many have said that the bail outs were needed for the sake of us...the peons. That we would suffer and conditions for us would be unbearable. They said more jobs would be lost and the tax payer would have to be making do with a lot less than we are now. They said their businesses were too big to fail. Yet...if they took all the money and instead of distributing it to bad businesses as in the shenanigans Sach's Goldman were conducting and the rest of the failed businesses...and divided all that money amongst all the tax payers (us)..who did nothing but pay our bills and live our lives day in and out, the same way as always, we wouldn't have any problems today and we would be buying and building the economy back, there'd be no failing mortgages...and the people who made it all happen to get us in this mess would be wishing they wouldn't have done it. Maybe I am too naive to know how that would have gone wrong, but big business screwed the tax payers, so it was the tax payers that should have gotten bailed out and let the crooks mosey on off into the sunset.

As far as the video taking into acct the price increases. Since the exchanges won't be available until 2013, I (we all) can only hope they did or will take that into account. If they want it to work, they're going to have to.

_____________________________

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 1:26:40 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Tick Tock, Tick Tock. It's going to be fucking delicious, and it can't come soon enough.


How well did that tic tock mantra that you posted over and over again in the run up to the election work for you?
Now your post are pimping the fear mongering with tick tock.
Sounds more like little boys whistling while they walk through the grave yard at night.
Tick tock indeed

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 2:32:47 PM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Do you hire people based on what things are like now, or in the future? When were those employees hired, and under what predictions of the economic future were they hired? These employees weren't hurting his business right now, but in the future, when, say, Obamacare regulations and tax increases hit, it very well may be true that his employee costs will negatively effect his business' fiscal stability.

Unless you are in the same business, in the same situation, you very easily could be completely and utterly clueless as to his business model.


Actually one doesn't need to know anything about his business model. He claims he cannot continue to employee a certain number of people at fair and legal wages and benefits. Well, then he needs to restructure. Pure and simple. If he is not collecting enough revenue to pay proper wages, then something is wrong with his business model. One shouldn't go into business with the expectation that one will be able to exploit labor and pay them less than what they are entitled to.

I know lots of businesses that are continuing to grow. I know people who have landed new jobs within the last few months. And they are being paid competitive wages. So, some business models are, in fact, thriving.

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 2:39:48 PM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline 		Indeed. There are several businesses near me. I thought of them immediately.

One had 65% growth just this last year. Now up to nearly 40 employees. AND, they treat their employees great. Insurance, competitive wages, etc. Big fat bonuses at year end.

Another, larger company, also growing. They are now over 400 employees. And are building a fourth building on their compound this next year. Insurance, good pay, many extra bennies most companies do not even think to offer.

_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 2:52:11 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00
As far as the video taking into acct the price increases. Since the exchanges won't be available until 2013, I (we all) can only hope they did or will take that into account. If they want it to work, they're going to have to.


Well, the video was posted in 2010. It gave the initial scoring of the ACA by the CBO, which has gone up significantly. That was the point I was making, but I did catch your angle. I smiled at it, even.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Louve00)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 3:01:14 PM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
There's a hard lesson on its way.

Sure there is. But the real question is "what IS that lesson and will we all read the tea leaves in time?"

I presume from your post that you believe the lesson will be that the "job creators" will stop "creating jobs" now that they fear for the economic climate? Honestly dude they haven't been creating any jobs to speak of anyway and the jobs they have been created have crap jobs that don't support a person anyway. So I don't see it as any real loss that at least some of them are going to take their ball and go home... they started in that posture to start with. This story has "too big to fail" written all over it but in small.

~J


Ultimately the lesson will be that government cannot spend beyond it tax revenue. As to tax revenue, that is a discussion that needs to take place. One cannot simply say we want X therefore tax and get it. X can far outstrip the ability to tax. What do we want and how much are we willing to spend to get it.

Also, the lesson that will be learned is that all businesses need to compete on an even playing field. Lobbying must end. Tax breaks must end. Favoritism must end. Government choosing winners and losers must end. Regulations must be fair and across the board. Pulling from the future to spend today must end.

We need people of character in elected office, not the criminal class. Stupid must stop.

Job creators will not create jobs till they see it's beneficial to do so. Job creation (private sector) is not altruism. It's taking risk. To many think John Doe should create a business as to give them a good paying job, plus all the benefits they deserve. They're owed it, and someone other than themselves need provide it. It don't work that way.

As an aside, the government could create 20 million jobs tomorrow digging ditches and filling them in. No risk to it in one sense but it sure would not create anything upon which to pay the bills. Well, the taxpayers could pay them till they can't.

Honestly dude they haven't been creating any jobs to speak of anyway and the jobs they have been created have crap jobs that don't support a person anyway.

And why is that? Do you actually know? (rhetorical. I know you don't)

Laugh at me all you want. I find it enjoyable for I know one thing. The last laugh shall be mine.


_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to JeffBC)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 4:00:51 PM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline 		fr

(CNSNews.com) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Wednesday that if the $16.394 trillion current legal limit on the federal government's debt must be raised in the next few months by another $2.4 trillion, “We’ll raise it."

That would set the debt limit at $18.794 trillion.


Harry! Harry! Harry! Come on Harry, say it -

YES WE CAN!

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 4:47:14 PM   
erieangel


Posts: 2237
Joined: 6/19/2011
Status: offline 		Interestingly, even the tax-payer supported nonprofit for which I work has been growing, even in this era of budget cuts to social services. They did close one program and the county sent that program to another agency, with a restructuring on how it is run. But that program had been burdensome, especially in the public schools, under the previous model. The case management and independent living services programs have grown. They were able to do this by reaching out to the community, increasing donations and through grants from local, state and federal agencies. They are in such good shape this year that the CEO has floated the possibility of wage increases for the first time in 3 years; they want to cover the difference if pay roll taxes go up in Jan. They were also able to absorb the entire rise in health care premiums, so for the first time in the 5 years I've been with the agency, I've not seen a increase in my health care costs. And they are now offering health care to part time employees--that was paid for through an agreement with the board of directors who gave up their stipends in exchange for a small pay decrease from the CEO.

(in reply to LaTigresse)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 4:50:43 PM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Ultimately the lesson will be that government cannot spend beyond it tax revenue. As to tax revenue, that is a discussion that needs to take place. One cannot simply say we want X therefore tax and get it. X can far outstrip the ability to tax. What do we want and how much are we willing to spend to get it.


As a matter of pure economics and financial policy it is not true that government can't spend beyond its tax revenue. It can. It's called a deficit spending. And X as an amount contains certain value judgments. There is money to pay for many things quite effectively if we choose to not spend on other things. The debate is not really about the amount of X, but what ought and ought not to make up X.

quote:

Also, the lesson that will be learned is that all businesses need to compete on an even playing field. Lobbying must end. Tax breaks must end. Favoritism must end. Government choosing winners and losers must end. Regulations must be fair and across the board. Pulling from the future to spend today must end.


I completely disagree with this. Are you going to eliminate things like patents? There are many regulations in place that favor certain people - and intentionally so. Otherwise innovation dies. The notion of an even playing field only works if you think dying businesses deserve the same support (or lack thereof) as innovative growing ones. For example, in growth industries where we lack the technical talent we have to allow immigration. Government money funds a tremendous amount of medical and technical research in the country - and necessarily so. Again the issue here is not that of government support. The issue is about trying to determine what makes sense to support, and understanding that different things will need support at different times. If we only fund those things that people can make a profit from, we lose valuable learning and research that serve as the building blocks to commercial products.

quote:

We need people of character in elected office, not the criminal class. Stupid must stop.


Agreed. We also need people of character in the business world and not highway robbers. Monitoring and prosecuting illegal and unethical business behavior requires a strong government (and requires funding).

quote:

Job creators will not create jobs till they see it's beneficial to do so. Job creation (private sector) is not altruism. It's taking risk. To many think John Doe should create a business as to give them a good paying job, plus all the benefits they deserve. They're owed it, and someone other than themselves need provide it. It don't work that way.


Capitalists get rewarded for taking risk. That's the way the game works. No risk, no reward. So if someone thinks a business venture will not be beneficial to them - they shouldn't pursue it. They should find something else that has the risk/reward pairing that they are more comfortable with. If you eliminate all risk for entrepreneurs, well then it isn't entrepreneurship anymore. Companies like Microsoft, Apple and Facebook didn't start because the government told them they could exploit American workers to achieve what they wanted.

quote:

As an aside, the government could create 20 million jobs tomorrow digging ditches and filling them in. No risk to it in one sense but it sure would not create anything upon which to pay the bills. Well, the taxpayers could pay them till they can't.

Honestly dude they haven't been creating any jobs to speak of anyway and the jobs they have been created have crap jobs that don't support a person anyway.


There is nothing wrong with true make work projects as a transitional form of employment as an entire economy restructures itself. Think of the work projects from the 30s - many of which went to create important and meaningful things. Anyone who thinks that a large economic transition of the kind that we are about to go through happens overnight is misinformed. It will take time. Anyone who thinks honest work is beneath them doesn't get any respect from me. Part of America's problem is that no one wants to do the "dirty" work anymore. It isn't a money issue, by the way. I know immigrants who labor at working class jobs who are able to support their families. They work those jobs because some Americans refuse to do that kind of work. Which would be fine if those Americans were willing to train themselves to do something else. But that requires rethinking our educational system. And that is going to require government spending. Big time.

quote:

And why is that? Do you actually know? (rhetorical. I know you don't)

Laugh at me all you want. I find it enjoyable for I know one thing. The last laugh shall be mine.



The last laugh will be neither yours or anyone else's on this board, because none of us will really be around long enough to truly see the bad results of some of the decision making that we've made as a society. And in the afterlife, when I look at the earth and its woes, I, for one, will not be laughing. I don't actually see what's happening as a laughing matter.

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 5:16:17 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline 		Two things struck me as I read the article to which the OP linked.

quote:

“I explained to them a month ago that if Obama gets in office that the regulations for Obamacare are gonna hurt our business,

Have those regulations been written yet? I wonder how he calculated that he needed to lay off exactly 22 employees.


quote:

“Well unfortunately, and most of my employees are Hispanic — I’m not gonna go into what kind of company I have, but I have mostly Hispanic employees

I wonder why he felt the need to stress his employees' ethnicity.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 5:20:46 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Tick Tock, Tick Tock.

Oh, dear God. Please not that weary meme again.


quote:

It's going to be fucking delicious, and it can't come soon enough.

What's going to be "fucking delicious"?

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 5:23:28 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		 'Till the whip comes down"


This abuse,blackmail and con-thuggery is about as close the dictionary definition of fascism as you can get.



I see some organized and well directed boycotts ahead.....targeting the corporate fascists and other anti-Americans....

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 5:32:36 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline 		FR

I recently read two fascinating books* about life in the U.S. a century ago. Both authors described the bitter conflict between labor and capital, and at least one actually called it a "war." I thought that noun seemed a little strong at first, but the more I read, the more apt it seemed. Apparently the battle continues today. Main Street defied Wall Street's choice for President, and now the empire strikes back.

* James MacGregor Burns, The Workshop of Democracy
Page Smith, America Enters the World

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 5:41:40 PM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
Apparently the battle continues today. Main Street defied Wall Street's choice for President, and now the empire strikes back.


That's hysterical. They're both Wall Street


_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 5:43:48 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		The 99% won last Tuesday buddy.....not Wall Street....


At least we know that conservatives making pretend survived the election.....

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 11/8/2012 5:45:48 PM >

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 5:46:45 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
Apparently the battle continues today. Main Street defied Wall Street's choice for President, and now the empire strikes back.


That's hysterical. They're both Wall Street



The 22 folks who just got laid off were "Wall Street"?

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 5:48:44 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

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.”


Obvious reasons being? That he doesnt want to be targeted for being an utter asshole? Just my guess. You can be assured his employees wont be quiet ;)

But, yeah, its his choice. Its also his choice to pay unemployment wages.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: The consequence of choice - 11/8/2012 5:49:26 PM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
Apparently the battle continues today. Main Street defied Wall Street's choice for President, and now the empire strikes back.


That's hysterical. They're both Wall Street



The 22 folks who just got laid off were "Wall Street"?


There, I bolded it for you.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The consequence of choice Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094