|
|
The mentally disabled state of Texas (Loud and clear)
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-07-08 11:27:29
No, i just didnt feel like having a wall of text responding 3-4 pages pack to everything. Nooen has destroyed an argument yet, besides maybe any that has come out of your camp. There is a more detailed and complex reasoning behind the pricing of everything that Labor + Energy = price. You have to consider what you are making,what the costs of making these things are, what the cost of the materials are, labor, man hours, shipping, business costs, benefits cost, taxes (domestic and foreign), and a multitude of other factors. Pretty sure more "Rational debate" was held 3-4 pages ago before the "NO U LIBERAL R WRUNG" pulled up. You come in here prancing around with your feels and misinformation flaunting it around like its fact. INB4 quote and denounce cause of Liberals R stewpid and othar perples whu werked fer ets money hungreh ad Obamer es teh devil cuse i cant has bush monehs. TLDR: I (as in Enuyasha, not me) didn't bother looking at your post because I like being forcefed my facts in little bites. It is hard to read what anyone says if it is more than 140 characters. /back lurking Or, as he stated, its a wall of text outlining very basic concepts of business with a lot of inuendo and partisan BS. Why can't people discuss the facts without it becoming an "I hate liberals/conservatives" screaming match? If you're going to lurk and just throw out snyde comments, practice what you preach. I looked at the "wall-of-text" and I see that it is basic understanding of business practices. It was not partisan at all. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it partisan. Facts are not partisan, humans are. I did not say anything about liberals or conservatives in that quoted post. I just made a snide comment showing that one poster automatically dismissed another's argument because it was long. I think that is BS on itself and shows the poster's closed-mindedness.
The answers are non-sequiter... It's throw out a bunch of random basic business facts interlaced with condesention and "you guys" statements.
Or maybe it shows that a 3 post lesson on basic business is irrelevant to a debate of the higher proceses of american capitalism and class structure. Who's closed-minded?
[+]
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2013-07-08 11:28:42
[+]
 Siren.Flavin
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4155
By Siren.Flavin 2013-07-08 11:31:45
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Why does no one want to come out and just admit that our entire system is built on exploiting a peasant class? Because that is given? I think all parties in this debate understand that there will always be an underclass who is forced to do the most dangerous, most painful, strenuous jobs for little to no pay. This is the modus operandi of capitalism afterall. I'm not convinced everyone here understands that, given how much I keep hearing about how everyone should just bootstraps their way to a better situation. Thats because some of the people saying to pull yourself up did it themselves. However, it is most likely they did it back when times were different. When you could start in the mailroom, give loyalty to your company and they would be loyal to you. They'd provide retirement, benefits, and other incentives to keep you working for them. They don't realize that that is not reality anymore. If you start in the mailroom, hope you can keep your job more than a year or two. By then, you'll expect a raise if you've been doing a good job, but those at the top figure its better if you quit/get fired so they can hire somebody else at the same minimum pay. Bullsh!t, that way NEVER lead to success. At best you would get mediocrity. To be successful you must out compete everyone else. And it gets harder as you go up not easier. There is no magical "line" that if you could somehow get above that life gets easier. Instead what happens is your peer competition gets smarter, more cut throat and more devious in their attempts to discredit you and force you under them. Instead of "putting in 40" and drinking a beer your expected to put in longer hours and devote significantly more time to personal growth and knowledge expansion. Here is the hint, career growth comes from moving around and not staying in the same position for too long. Often this can mean taking jobs in different cities and even changing companies. Now I can only speak for my own chosen career field, if you want to get better job offers you need to move to different companies and work different positions. Constantly be applying to jobs in different locations and fixing up your resume. I'm always applying for jobs that I have no intention of taking just to see what the salary and benefit negotiations are like. You don't want to work at too many different places, about once every two to three years is a good pace. Work a few years at one position while spending copious amounts of personal time & money to get additional training and certification. Then apply for a position with those higher requirements that pays better. Work that job for a few more years before moving on again. If your company absolutely wants you to stay then they'll offer you a higher salary or job whenever you give them the two weeks notice. Anyone who expects to "start in the mailroom" and work at a single company for 20~30+ years is an idiot. Your accepting mediocrity and demanding a higher wage and benefits for your mediocrity. I might very well agree with you if you're talking about someone who say got the job in the mailroom and after just showing up and doing that job for some amount of time expected to just get a promotion... Though staying in one company doesn't sentance you to mediocrity... I have seen people start at or near the bottom and rise up... though it takes a lot of work and sometimes luck lol... Others find their niche and are able to stay where they are and make a good career too... hell I could stay at the job I have now for the rest of my carreer without a raise and live well... It depends on what you want too... Also, not all people are suited for management or other positions... Not everyone can jump around like that and if everyone did it would not be a good thing lol...
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-07-08 11:32:16
Unions are the main killers of business investment (how many times must I point this out). Infinitely, unless you can provide evidence. Explain why companies are flocking to "at-will" states instead of "union" states. Explain why it is very hard and expensive to start up shop in a union state than it is in an "at-will" state. Explain why the cost of living is lower in "at-will" states than "union" states? Explain why. I dare you. It's cheaper for companies to operate in at-will states and enables them to have more control over their employees... By "start up shop" do you mean start a new business venture or start up a new store or location for your business in a Union state? I know Unions very much oppose certain types of businesses that want entry in to another market... Chicago is a good example... There is a gret deal of union influence there and they've been able to lobby and restrict the construction of any super-walmart stores within city limits... though... they exist right outside the city limits in some cases lol... You can meet resistance in that way for sure... I was also unaware that this is true across the board, though I must admit I am woefully unaware of real estate prices outside of a few states... Though if it is it might have to do with the fact that at-will states also make lower wages than union states... Unions used to serve a great purpose but over time they have become as much a burden as a benefit... They still do serve a purpose but they definitely need to change in order to stay relevant and beneficial...
I just need to point out that this is an unbiased and objective assessment of unions from a very opinionated person.
By somebodyloved 2013-07-08 11:32:44
It's cheaper for companies to operate in at-will states and enables them to have more control over their employees...
And that is a bad thing? Do you really want an employee, if you were the boss, that did nothing at all? Or did things wrong? Or always come to work drunk?
Quote: By "start up shop" do you mean start a new business venture or start up a new store or location for your business in a Union state? I know Unions very much oppose certain types of businesses that want entry in to another market... Chicago is a good example... There is a gret deal of union influence there and they've been able to lobby and restrict the construction of any super-walmart stores within city limits... though... they exist right outside the city limits in some cases lol... You can meet resistance in that way for sure...
Start up shop in this case means starting a new business, not starting an extension of a current business.
Most of the US are employeed by small businesses. Not everyone works at Walmart or McDonalds, hate to burst your bubble.
Quote: I was also unaware that this is true across the board, though I must admit I am woefully unaware of real estate prices outside of a few states... Though if it is it might have to do with the fact that at-will states also make lower wages than union states...
It is true across the board. At-will states have a lower cost of living than union states. Purchasing power is greater on average (there are some exceptions, and I'm sure somebody will point out those exceptions as their counterargument instead of looking at the word "average") in at-will states than union states, because of the lower cost of living. This is not an assumption. This is fact. I would show you the source but it is more benefical for you to look it up yourself. Try DoL.
Quote: Unions used to serve a great purpose but over time they have become as much a burden as a benefit... They still do serve a purpose but they definitely need to change in order to stay relevant and beneficial...
That is what I keep saying. Glad somebody else agrees with me.
By somebodyloved 2013-07-08 11:34:50
/back lurking.
Can't spend too much time with you at the moment.
Siren.Flavin
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4155
By Siren.Flavin 2013-07-08 11:35:46
When did I say any of the things you just assumed that I implied or whatnot? lol...
I do find it funny that you pretty much fought everything I said or inserted false assumptions until the end where you completely agree with me though lol...
Edit: Also, how do you say that something is true across the board then go on to say that there might be exceptions?
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2013-07-08 11:40:26
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Why does no one want to come out and just admit that our entire system is built on exploiting a peasant class? Because that is given? I think all parties in this debate understand that there will always be an underclass who is forced to do the most dangerous, most painful, strenuous jobs for little to no pay. This is the modus operandi of capitalism afterall. I'm not convinced everyone here understands that, given how much I keep hearing about how everyone should just bootstraps their way to a better situation. Thats because some of the people saying to pull yourself up did it themselves. However, it is most likely they did it back when times were different. When you could start in the mailroom, give loyalty to your company and they would be loyal to you. They'd provide retirement, benefits, and other incentives to keep you working for them. They don't realize that that is not reality anymore. If you start in the mailroom, hope you can keep your job more than a year or two. By then, you'll expect a raise if you've been doing a good job, but those at the top figure its better if you quit/get fired so they can hire somebody else at the same minimum pay. Bullsh!t, that way NEVER lead to success. At best you would get mediocrity. To be successful you must out compete everyone else. And it gets harder as you go up not easier. There is no magical "line" that if you could somehow get above that life gets easier. Instead what happens is your peer competition gets smarter, more cut throat and more devious in their attempts to discredit you and force you under them. Instead of "putting in 40" and drinking a beer your expected to put in longer hours and devote significantly more time to personal growth and knowledge expansion. Here is the hint, career growth comes from moving around and not staying in the same position for too long. Often this can mean taking jobs in different cities and even changing companies. Now I can only speak for my own chosen career field, if you want to get better job offers you need to move to different companies and work different positions. Constantly be applying to jobs in different locations and fixing up your resume. I'm always applying for jobs that I have no intention of taking just to see what the salary and benefit negotiations are like. You don't want to work at too many different places, about once every two to three years is a good pace. Work a few years at one position while spending copious amounts of personal time & money to get additional training and certification. Then apply for a position with those higher requirements that pays better. Work that job for a few more years before moving on again. If your company absolutely wants you to stay then they'll offer you a higher salary or job whenever you give them the two weeks notice. Anyone who expects to "start in the mailroom" and work at a single company for 20~30+ years is an idiot. Your accepting mediocrity and demanding a higher wage and benefits for your mediocrity. I might very well agree with you if you're talking about someone who say got the job in the mailroom and after just showing up and doing that job for some amount of time expected to just get a promotion... Though staying in one company doesn't sentance you to mediocrity... I have seen people start at or near the bottom and rise up... though it takes a lot of work and sometimes luck lol... Others find their niche and are able to stay where they are and make a good career too... hell I could stay at the job I have now for the rest of my carreer without a raise and live well... It depends on what you want too... Also, not all people are suited for management or other positions... Not everyone can jump around like that and if everyone did it would not be a good thing lol... I gotta agree with Flavin on this, going into a job and expecting to get a promotion within a year or two is ludicrous (yay for the "I'm special" generation). Working hard and proving yourself to be willing to learn and using the skills you have gained from working there for promotion is more of the case here.
In a job market that's decreasing as more people graduate/more people lose other jobs, sometimes staying in the same position for 10+ years is better than jumping around trying to gain an advantage. Not to mention the older you get, the harder it is for you to find employment most of the time.
I'm not saying that this fails completely, seems like it worked for Saevel and good for him, but in an economy where low paying jobs are everywheremore readily available than higher paying ones and where companies will find the littlest thing to cut hours/fire you for, people just want to make money and live their lives. Staying at a job that pays 40/hrs per week with offering insurance and such for 10+ years isn't a bad thing, especially as you age.
Some people just like mediocrity, especially if it means being able to live.
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-07-08 11:43:58
And that is a bad thing? Do you really want an employee, if you were the boss, that did nothing at all? Or did things wrong? Or always come to work drunk?
This is a stretch at best. Employers are allowed to discipline and terminate people for not doing thier jobs or showing up drunk with or without union intervention. I'd like to see a single documented case where an employee was allowed to show up drunk simply because it was a union shop.
Quote: It is true across the board. At-will states have a lower cost of living than union states. Purchasing power is greater on average (there are some exceptions, and I'm sure somebody will point out those exceptions as their counterargument instead of looking at the word "average") in at-will states than union states, because of the lower cost of living. This is not an assumption. This is fact. I would show you the source but it is more benefical for you to look it up yourself. Try DoL.
This is a cop-out. Across the board means there are no exceptions. I'd also like to see some evidence that at-will employment is the only or even major factor in determining land prices.
Quote: That is what I keep saying. Glad somebody else agrees with me.
EVERYONE has said virtually the same thing. Nobody here said unions were the savior of the american people, they are bloated and choking some businesses. But people continually say that the very existance of unions is crippling the economy, which is just not true. And the biggest gaps in class and earned income are in states where at-will employment allows businesses to legally exploit the workforce. That doesn't mean they all do that, but it is a problem.
 Bismarck.Bloodrose
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2013-07-08 11:45:28
You're also sacrificing job security and certain long-term benefits of staying employed within a company for 10-40+ years. My brother started off as a dishwasher for a Tony Roma's restaurant 11 years ago, and now he's one of the most senior staff with the position of Kitchen Manager. They can't fire him unless he *** up BIG TIME.
The point about starting in the mailroom that Saevel so graciously hyper-exaggerated was the assumption that you *stayed in the mailroom for each and every one of those years* when employers will often hire from within - including hiring the mailroom clerks - for different positions within the company. *This is NOT a promotion from mailroom to another job with different skill sets*
[+]
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2013-07-08 11:53:26
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »You're also sacrificing job security and certain long-term benefits of staying employed within a company for 10-40+ years. My brother started off as a dishwasher for a Tony Roma's restaurant 11 years ago, and now he's one of the most senior staff with the position of Kitchen Manager. They can't fire him unless he *** up BIG TIME.
The point about starting in the mailroom that Saevel so graciously hyper-exaggerated was the assumption that you *stayed in the mailroom for each and every one of those years* when employers will often hire from within - including hiring the mailroom clerks - for different positions within the company. *This is NOT a promotion from mailroom to another job with different skill sets* I want to say a good example of both arguements is Walmart.
Example being: You see people that have "20 Years of service, 30 years" and so on, but still stay in a position that is "medicore" at best. Why?
Mostly because the pay they get and the aggravation they have to deal with is worth it. Why move somewhere else not knowing if it's better or worse when you can stay where you are and know you get food on the table and the bills paid?
Most store managers do indeed get paid more than associates, but the constant pressure of possibly failing the store, being moved to another one for failing, and having to manage that many people does add up to a lot of stress. Stress that the lower "mailroom" people don't want to worry about/ deal with.
Walmart does provide insurance and benefits after ONE YEAR of working there.. part time, too. For a 40 hour, full-time worker, I'm sure it's even better.
These people keep working there because they know that keeping a decent paying job and having insurance is better than going into the unknown somewhere else.
Especially as people age, because the high cost of medicine and living can be covered through having insurance.
Leviathan.Andret
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1071
By Leviathan.Andret 2013-07-08 11:54:57
There is a very very strong argument for unions: 1933 economic crisis. The crisis involves companies producing too much and not enough people to consume or rather nobody had enough money to consume products so companies had to dump their products into the oceans while people starve.
There were many reasons for it but one of them was because people were getting paid less and less. The invention of mass production allowed companies to hire unskilled workers to focus on a single task - like turning a single screw - instead of skilled workers performing on several things. This means the unskilled workers were paid very little (as their task involved little work). They had to work longer hours to make enough to pay for food. The situation worsen as companies realized that they can fire the skilled workers and get unskilled ones as they were cheaper. This is pretty much what Walmart is doing.
The circle continued until pretty much every average family had to spend all their wages on food. Savings went down, investment went down, consumption went down, the whole economy shrunk. Nobody had enough money to buy stuff except a few rich people. Goods got stuffed into storage; broken, thrown away or just rot.
Minimal wages, over time pay and unions are economic tools to prevent the economy from shrinking because of lower average wages of the average person (minus the top 20%). Also, from a taxation point of view, it is far easier to increase the average income of middle and lower class families to increase tax income rather than focus on huge corporations and the top 20% of the rich people. A government would do well to force companies to pay their workers at a higher wage then tax the worker. However this is difficult as long as your population have minimal training/education and have to compete with oversea workers.
By Enuyasha 2013-07-08 12:00:09
No, i just didnt feel like having a wall of text responding 3-4 pages pack to everything. No one has destroyed an argument yet, besides maybe any that has come out of your camp. There is a more detailed and complex reasoning behind the pricing of everything that Labor + Energy = price. You have to consider what you are making,what the costs of making these things are, what the cost of the materials are, labor, man hours, shipping, business costs, benefits cost, taxes (domestic and foreign), and a multitude of other factors. Pretty sure more "Rational debate" was held 3-4 pages ago before the "NO U LIBERAL R WRUNG" pulled up. You come in here prancing around with your feels and misinformation flaunting it around like its fact. INB4 quote and denounce cause of Liberals R stewpid and othar perples whu werked fer ets money hungreh ad Obamer es teh devil cuse i cant has bush monehs. TLDR: I (as in Enuyasha, not me) didn't bother looking at your post because I like being forcefed my facts in little bites. It is hard to read what anyone says if it is more than 140 characters. /back lurking Or, as he stated, its a wall of text outlining very basic concepts of business with a lot of inuendo and partisan BS. Why can't people discuss the facts without it becoming an "I hate liberals/conservatives" screaming match? If you're going to lurk and just throw out snyde comments, practice what you preach.
I looked at the "wall-of-text" and I see that it is basic understanding of business practices. It was not partisan at all.
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it partisan. Facts are not partisan, humans are.
I did not say anything about liberals or conservatives in that quoted post. I just made a snide comment showing that one poster automatically dismissed another's argument because it was long. I think that is BS on itself and shows the poster's closed-mindedness. I didnt respond in 3-4 pages because i would've had to respond to everything in that 3-4 pages...and i didnt feel like doing that. GTFO my reasoning with your insertions that arent relevant. If you read the post i responded to, and then my response, and then actually understood what "closed-minded" meant. Maybe it would be relevant and true. Maybe. Also, if you read the first sentence that'd be GREAT.
Im tempted to put Nicki Minaj lyrics here...very tempted...
No, i just didnt feel like having a wall of text responding 3-4 pages pack to everything. Nooen has destroyed an argument yet, besides maybe any that has come out of your camp. There is a more detailed and complex reasoning behind the pricing of everything that Labor + Energy = price. You have to consider what you are making,what the costs of making these things are, what the cost of the materials are, labor, man hours, shipping, business costs, benefits cost, taxes (domestic and foreign), and a multitude of other factors. Pretty sure more "Rational debate" was held 3-4 pages ago before the "NO U LIBERAL R WRUNG" pulled up. You come in here prancing around with your feels and misinformation flaunting it around like its fact. INB4 quote and denounce cause of Liberals R stewpid and othar perples whu werked fer ets money hungreh ad Obamer es teh devil cuse i cant has bush monehs.
TLDR: I (as in Enuyasha, not me) didn't bother looking at your post because I like being forcefed my facts in little bites. It is hard to read what anyone says if it is more than 140 characters.
/back lurking Im glad you arent me, cause you would've read the first sentence and understood my reasoning for not having snappy comebacks immediately to debunk whatever *** nonsense was being posted for 3-4 pages. BTWER!: My post is 157 words long and saevels posts havent been much larger than that (and i read them to!). Get on my level.
 Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-07-08 12:07:36
Quote: Quote: I'm well familiar with H1B1 visa's. Welcome to globalization, your competition is everyone in the world. And BTW H1B1 folk aren't "cheap", they just don't come with the overinflated sense of entitlements. Their also the drive through cashiers of the IT industry. Essentially the bottom rung of workers with the minimum skill sets required to perform the basic jobs. Most are just key pounders (IT wise) hired for bulk coding. The only people who should be worried about them are folks with no real IT skills or hobbies.
I guess that's why businesses keep asking for more H1B1 visas, because they need more crappy IT guys. That must be it.
My response was very sarcastic. I'm sorry you couldn't see that.
Quote: And you have no idea how the IT industry works. There is nearly no demand for low end work (key pounders, call technicians, FSO's, ect..) as the field is inundated with college grads who think a few courses entitles them to a job making 50K a year (highly variable based on location). H1B1's tend to have better skills for lower end work. It's not "crappy IT guys" unless your idea of IT is the local bestbuy / Applestore person. At the top end it's the exact opposite, there is a huge demand of engineers and senior administrators / programers. Google opened a plant in Prior OK and they can't fill their senior positions. Thing is, you can't use a H1B1 for a senior position, way too risky as those positions are responsible for your revenue generation. A helpdesk worker or field technician f*cks something up and it's just a bad day, a senior engineer / systems administration f*cks something up and that's millions of USD down the tube.
Also there are many sub sectors and a whole myriad of specialties. TV is wrong, there is no such thing as one "super smart computer guy who can hack anything and make any program that does everything". It's large teams of different people with different skill sets who work together.
You stated that H1B's are for IT. When I think of H1B's I think of engineers, CS, and researchers. Which, btw, is backed up by the data of who receives H1B's. The tech industry in no way shape or form made up entirely of IT guys.
There are only supposed to be 65,000 H1B's given out every year. However, that number is over double because of loopholes for people who have higher than a masters or work at universities, non-profit research facilities associated with universities, or government research facilities.
Those are not IT guys.
I'm not even touching your crap about a hacker or what-not on TV, because that *** is just insulting.
Quote: People are definitely entitled to pay for hours worked. If their not getting that it's because they entered into a salaried work agreement with their employer which is really stupid. I'm an "at-will" employee, my company can release me whenever for whatever reason. Yes, well they will just sue the companies until they get paid for those hours they worked and breaks they never got to take. Engineers/computer programmers are some of the cheapest labor resource for cost/benefit in the US because of the way the pay is set-up. Averaging 65 hours a week a year / $40,000-$60,000 = $11-$17 an hour. For highly skilled labor before taxes.
Quote: And no dumb a$$, business's moved manufacturing to cheap locations precisely because of cheap labor. It's so much cheaper to make something in China (now Vietnam) and pay for shipping and additional QA/QC/law suits then it is to build it in the USA and have a union suck all your profit out. They use offshore manufacturing because it side steps the risk of unions stealing billions of USD in profit.
You absolutely did not read what I wrote.
Public Corporations today are far too short term in outlook (1 quarter away, "gots to get my stock up so I can cash out!") rather than long term.
Lots of corporations move their manufacturing, plants, or Power Point slides (ask me, I dare you), or accounting, etc where there is cheaper labor, not because they save an amazing amount of money, but because it reflects nicely on wall st (then they cash out some stock options).
Outsourcing does not work for most public corporations long term. Most companies did not do the research (due diligence) before moving their systems and pay dearly for it with either
a) having to leave and come back to their home country with a loss
b) get gobbled up by an M&A company that sells the hell out of their assets
c) Merges with a competitor, where the only benefits are to managers who cashed out
I'm not discussing unions with you anymore because unless you can back up your belief with empirical research, it is only a belief.
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2013-07-08 12:10:22
We've missed you, Kara.
Glad you slept well. :o
Credible Hulk, away!
[+]
 Garuda.Chanti
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 12102
By Garuda.Chanti 2013-07-08 12:13:35
Valefor.Applebottoms said: »I want to say a good example of both arguements is Walmart....
These people keep working there because they know that keeping a decent paying job ....
I'm sorry. Decent paying jobs should make the employe ineligible for food stamps.
But what the last 5 or 6 pages have to do with Texas, I fail to understand.
[+]
Bismarck.Bloodrose
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2013-07-08 12:16:32
Food Stamps should also be limited to necessities instead of being allowed for use with junk food. Milk, Eggs, meats, healthy snacks. Shouldn't be used on Cheetos and other foods excessively high in sodium or sugars. Preventative measures start with what you eat, y'all.
[+]
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2013-07-08 12:20:28
Valefor.Applebottoms said: »I want to say a good example of both arguements is Walmart....
These people keep working there because they know that keeping a decent paying job ....
I'm sorry. Decent paying jobs should make the employe ineligible for food stamps.
But what the last 5 or 6 pages have to do with Texas, I fail to understand. Actually, in most cases, a lot of people that work at Walmart aren't eligible.
The ones that are keep Walmart as a 20 hrs/week (or less) job to show that they work so they can stay on them. I've seen several old co-workers that did that. Work 10-20 hours a week, then come in and buy 600 dollars worth of food on food stamps.
I'm talking people who work 40 hrs/week. And by "part-time" I mean average of 32 hours a week for work based benefits.
Sorry I didn't explain better. My bad. :|
[+]
Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-07-08 12:20:31
It's cheaper for companies to operate in at-will states and enables them to have more control over their employees...
And that is a bad thing? Do you really want an employee, if you were the boss, that did nothing at all? Or did things wrong? Or always come to work drunk?
Quote: By "start up shop" do you mean start a new business venture or start up a new store or location for your business in a Union state? I know Unions very much oppose certain types of businesses that want entry in to another market... Chicago is a good example... There is a gret deal of union influence there and they've been able to lobby and restrict the construction of any super-walmart stores within city limits... though... they exist right outside the city limits in some cases lol... You can meet resistance in that way for sure...
Start up shop in this case means starting a new business, not starting an extension of a current business.
Most of the US are employeed by small businesses. Not everyone works at Walmart or McDonalds, hate to burst your bubble.
Quote: I was also unaware that this is true across the board, though I must admit I am woefully unaware of real estate prices outside of a few states... Though if it is it might have to do with the fact that at-will states also make lower wages than union states...
It is true across the board. At-will states have a lower cost of living than union states. Purchasing power is greater on average (there are some exceptions, and I'm sure somebody will point out those exceptions as their counterargument instead of looking at the word "average") in at-will states than union states, because of the lower cost of living. This is not an assumption. This is fact. I would show you the source but it is more benefical for you to look it up yourself. Try DoL.
Quote: Unions used to serve a great purpose but over time they have become as much a burden as a benefit... They still do serve a purpose but they definitely need to change in order to stay relevant and beneficial...
That is what I keep saying. Glad somebody else agrees with me.
"At will" and "right to work" are two separate laws, stop using them interchangeably.
Since you are so fond of average. There is only a 1% difference in unemployment between "right to work states" and the other states. "Right to work" 1% lower versus non-right to work.
If you are comparing PPP across states in this manner you should do it county by county (if the US even bothers to do it this way). Your PPP in Houston, TX is different than your PPP in Crockett, TX. Most of the manufacturing jobs are not the the large cities.
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2013-07-08 12:24:54
And the biggest gaps in class and earned income are in states where at-will employment allows businesses to legally exploit the workforce. That doesn't mean they all do that, but it is a problem.
who gives a ***about gaps? ujelly? They have more than me so my life sucks boohoo!
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2013-07-08 12:25:55
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »Food Stamps should also be limited to necessities instead of being allowed for use with junk food. Milk, Eggs, meats, healthy snacks. Shouldn't be used on Cheetos and other foods excessively high in sodium or sugars. Preventative measures start with what you eat, y'all. THIS. THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.
You wouldn't believe how frustrating it was to see people buy JUST junk food for children.. nothing else.
In most cases, you can get fruits/veggies/better foods cheaper than that bag of Doritos you just bought. Just gotta shop right and look for sales.
Then again I've seen people buy McDonalds with Food Stamps when I worked there, and how the franchise wasn't fined and those people didn't have their card taken away still astounds me to this day. o.O
Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-07-08 12:26:37
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » And the biggest gaps in class and earned income are in states where at-will employment allows businesses to legally exploit the workforce. That doesn't mean they all do that, but it is a problem.
who gives a ***about gaps? ujelly? They have more than me so my life sucks boohoo!
Because you single handily create the GDP and economic status of a country?
By Drjones 2013-07-08 12:34:09
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » And the biggest gaps in class and earned income are in states where at-will employment allows businesses to legally exploit the workforce. That doesn't mean they all do that, but it is a problem.
who gives a ***about gaps? ujelly? They have more than me so my life sucks boohoo! Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't a healthy economy usually involve people having enough money to spend on buying things? If no one has money to spend then how are businesses supposed to thrive? Joe's Pizza can't be a Job Creator when no one has enough money to afford pizza delivery.
[+]
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2013-07-08 12:39:00
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » And the biggest gaps in class and earned income are in states where at-will employment allows businesses to legally exploit the workforce. That doesn't mean they all do that, but it is a problem.
who gives a ***about gaps? ujelly? They have more than me so my life sucks boohoo! Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't a healthy economy usually involve people having enough money to spend on buying things? If no one has money to spend then how are businesses supposed to thrive? Joe's Pizza can't be a Job Creator when no one has enough money to afford pizza delivery. I think it all boils down to the money we have in circulation now isn't enough to sustain the economy, and it shows.
There's large amounts of money being held in banks and such, not being used for anything, and if a small portion of that was put back into circulation we might be able to pull ourselves out of what we got into.
Just a thought, take it how you will.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-07-08 12:40:24
Because the gaps are a very serious problem lowering the liquidity and resiliance of the whole system.
You talk about paying your fair share and entitlements as the devil, try and understand the broader economic impacts of the majority of the people having the smallest slice of the pie. Lower overall tax revenue (that means less money for infrastructure and defense), extremely volatile stock market, less discressionary spending... All of those things are very detrimental to your idealistic portrayal of capitalism.
If people are continually pushed down the ladder, overall spending decreases, and the system crumbles.
Maybe we need to do some chalkboard bubble flow concepts like Glen Beck... except with some measure of sanity and reason.
AND ONCE AGAIN, I am finanically responsible and reasonably successful in my field and area. I'm not asking for handouts or crying about someone having more. I'm not projecting my failures or blaming anyone for anything. These are real issues that I don't need to personify, so attacking me with the "umadbro" crap is not relevant and only takes credibility out of your arguements.
Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-07-08 12:58:10
Labor and energy are the biggest drivers of cost. Their both essentially the same thing, how much does it cost to do X unit of work. In countries where the cost of labor is low the cost of everything else is also low. In countries where the cost of labor is astronomical, the cost of everything else skyrockets. To be productive a society needs two things, cheap energy and cheap labor.
On the income statement or balance sheet of a company you will not see energy listed unless it is a company that trades/produces/etc that fuel. You will see overhead, operations, personnel, equipment, R&D, etc.
Yes you are scientifically correct in the fact that fuel drives this world, you are not correct in the economic sense.
This is an economic/business discussion, keep that out. Energy is not a large factor in a cost/benefit analysis for most companies. It is usually under operations.
On to labor. Not all industries that are being outsourced are manufacturing. Not all industries are driven by labor (by economic means) but by R&D where labor is a very small fraction of the cost, consulting firms where labor is pretty much the only cost, to manufacturing where it is a combination of market priced commodities and labor, to service industry where labor is not the highest cost but the quality of that labor is very important.
I mentioned profit margins before. Profit margins on items are between 20-40%+ on most products mass produced (apple ipone was higher when first released, the finished product).
A lot of companies are middle men. Where they buy products from Asia, sell it to a business in the US/Western country, the US uses that component in their product, then they sell it to another business, etc until the final product is produced. Every single step of the way the 20-40%+ profit margin is being added to those items.
That is one of the largest drivers of cost right now.
Edit: the 20-40% is a very, very conservative estimate average. There are items that are well over 100%
Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-07-08 12:58:59
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » And the biggest gaps in class and earned income are in states where at-will employment allows businesses to legally exploit the workforce. That doesn't mean they all do that, but it is a problem.
who gives a ***about gaps? ujelly? They have more than me so my life sucks boohoo! Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't a healthy economy usually involve people having enough money to spend on buying things? If no one has money to spend then how are businesses supposed to thrive? Joe's Pizza can't be a Job Creator when no one has enough money to afford pizza delivery.
Of course not. The US is not a consumption economy, not at all.
/sarcasm :)
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2013-07-08 14:04:37
Income gap means none of the above mentioned things. It is a stat used for class warfare, period. There are some really rich people, therefore no one has money to spend??? What?
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-07-08 14:20:11
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Income gap means none of the above mentioned things. It is a stat used for class warfare, period. There are some really rich people, therefore no one has money to spend??? What?
I'll admit its a blanket term used in class warfare rhetoric, but it is an actual financial concern. No observant person can ignore the well documented trends. More and more new jobs and a growing amount of existing jobs sliding toward the lower end of the payscale, average household incomes decreasing while cost of living increases, less saving and less spending. The writing is on the wall. Calling out the specific use of the term doesn't change the facts.
[+]
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2013-07-08 14:34:36
I bet lower energy costs would fix a whole lot of those problems.
Jury Acquits Texas Man For Murder Of Escort Who Refused Sex
A Texas jury acquitted a man for the murder of a woman he hired as an escort, after his lawyers claimed he was authorized to use deadly force because she refused sex.
Ezekiel Gilbert shot Lenora Ivie Frago in the neck on Christmas Eve, after she denied his requests for sex and wouldn’t return the $150 he had paid her, according to the San Antonio Express-News. Under Texas law, an individual is authorized to use deadly force to “retrieve stolen property at night,” and Gilbert’s lawyers cited that provision as justification for Gilbert’s action, reasoning that Frago had stolen $150 from him by taking his money without delivering sex. In a police interview played for jurors, Gilbert “never mentioned anything about theft,” a detective told the San Antonio Express-News. Frago, who was 21, was critically injured and died several months later.
While the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida has generated notoriety for NRA-backed Stand Your Ground laws, which authorize the unfettered use of deadly force without a duty to retreat in defense of one’s person or home, Texas’ exceedingly broad law goes well beyond this, to allow deadly force in protection of any piece of “tangible” or “movable” property.
The Texas provision authorizes deadly force not only to “retrieve stolen property at night” but also during “criminal mischief in the nighttime” and even to prevent someone who is fleeing immediately after a theft during the night or a burglary or robbery, so long as the individual “reasonably” thinks the property cannot be protected by other means.
This shockingly broad statute authorizes individuals to take not just law enforcement, but punishment, into their own hands and impose death for alleged offenses that would never warrant the death penalty even if the person were convicted in court. But even in light of the expansive vigilante justice made legal by the statute, it is difficult to see how Gilbert’s behavior was justified, given that escorts are not entitled to deliver sex under the law, and delivering sex for money is an illegal transaction.
|
|
