Why I'm not hiring

[Little-Acorn]

Sometimes I wonder if the people screaming about the "greed" of companies, even know what a company has to pay out to hire someone and give them a job.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704017904575409733776372738-lMyQjAxMTAwMDAwODEwNDgyWj.html

Why I'm Not Hiring

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits.

by MICHAEL P. FLEISCHER
August 9, 2010

With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be later—much later. Here's why.

Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.

Daniel Henninger discusses how Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan agree that Americans should send more of their paychecks to Washington. Also, Fannie and Freddie ask for more cash within weeks of an Obama pledge to end taxpayer rescues.
.Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That's the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She's lucky she doesn't live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher.

More
Some Firms Struggle to Hire Despite High Unemployment
Faces—and Fates—of the Jobless
.Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers' comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.

Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too.

Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare.

Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums—for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%.

To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my company needs sustainably higher profits and sales—something unlikely in this "summer of recovery." We can't pass the additional costs onto our customers, because the market is too tight and we'd lose sales. Only governments can raise prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences.

And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company's vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment.

A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government's message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.


Mr. Fleischer is president of Bogen Communications Inc. in Ramsey, N.J.

[Palin Rider]

Nobody said that business was EASY, Michael.

http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/ul/97410-wahmbulance.jpg

[Little-Acorn]

Nobody said that business was EASY, Michael.


There goes somebody else who doesn't get it. :lol:

Back to the subject:
Makes me wonder what Sally would prefer:

Take-home pay of $44,000, and the benefits govt has selected for her; or

Take-home pay of $74,000 (a 68% pay raise), and the opportunity to shop around for her own benefits she will pay for herself.

Did anyone offer her the chance to choose for herself? Or did government simply say, "Here's the benefits you get, period".

[Gaffer]

Nobody said that business was EASY, Michael.

http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/ul/97410-wahmbulance.jpg

I take it by that stupid remark you don't work and have no clue about business. Ever even worked a real job?

Your nothing but a post turtle.

[Sweetchuck]

BTW, it's:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b373/eastms/wambulance.jpg

[Sweetchuck]

It's really pretty simple stuff, you don't have to be a fucking rocket surgeon to figure it out. Businesses aren't hiring because they're uncertain about what's going to happen as the debt grows to astronomical proportions and the healthcare clusterfuck starts to kick in.

They're reserving cash and maintaining productivity levels in times that capacity demands more labor.

Anyone with a half of a fucking brain understands this - including the dems, which is why they're trying like hell to spin the issue.

[MtnBiker]

Nobody said that business was EASY, Michael.

http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/ul/97410-wahmbulance.jpg

Is that a bailed out GMC ambulance? Oh wait that ambulance only goes to overpaid union jobs that contribute to the DNC.

[Palin Rider]

Yes, it really is simple stuff.

If poor widdle Mikey can't bring in enough revenue to expand, he can do any or all of the following:
1. Finance the expansion
2. Get more people to buy his product
3. Get existing clients to pay more for the existing product.

If he's too stupid to figure out how to do any of these, it's HIS problem.

Not. The. Government's.

The four of you sound like a bunch of goddamned socialists. :laugh:

[Sweetchuck]

Yes, it really is simple stuff.

If poor widdle Mikey can't bring in enough revenue to expand, he can do any or all of the following:
1. Finance the expansion
2. Get more people to buy his product
3. Get existing clients to pay more for the existing product.

If he's too stupid to figure out how to do any of these, it's HIS problem.

Not. The. Government's.

The four of you sound like a bunch of goddamned socialists. :laugh:

At least we know on what side of the "those with a half brain" division you are on.

You just demonstrated that you don't understand the point.

Stick with Beavis and Butthead video clips.

[Palin Rider]

At least we know on what side of the "those with a half brain" division you are on.

You just demonstrated that you don't understand the point.

Stick with Beavis and Butthead video clips.

No defense of the point: just ad hominem attacks.

Why am I not surprised?

[Sweetchuck]

No defense of the point: just ad hominem attacks.

Why am I not surprised?

Probably because you get this kind of response often.

[SassyLady]

Yes, it really is simple stuff.

If poor widdle Mikey can't bring in enough revenue to expand, he can do any or all of the following:
1. Finance the expansion
2. Get more people to buy his product
3. Get existing clients to pay more for the existing product.

If he's too stupid to figure out how to do any of these, it's HIS problem.

Not. The. Government's.

The four of you sound like a bunch of goddamned socialists. :laugh:

1. Perhaps Mikey prefers to keep his company debt free....interest paid to bank is not money in the pocket of his employees.

2. More people buying product = more employees needed to produce product...payroll, and payroll expense is an immediate cash outlay.

3. I don't have a problem with raising the price of my product .... but I make sure my clients understand that the increase doesn't go into my pocket nor my employees ... it's going direct to the government.

And, it is the government's problem when they raise taxes to the point that it puts businesses out of business. The smart thing would be to make sure business can operate, creating products and paying employees (so the government can collect taxes). Employees spend with other companies and that money is taxed. Creating an environment that is anti-business doesn't help build the tax base .... so.....it truly is the government's problem.

[Gaffer]

Yes, it really is simple stuff.

If poor widdle Mikey can't bring in enough revenue to expand, he can do any or all of the following:
1. Finance the expansion
2. Get more people to buy his product
3. Get existing clients to pay more for the existing product.

If he's too stupid to figure out how to do any of these, it's HIS problem.

Not. The. Government's.

The four of you sound like a bunch of goddamned socialists. :laugh:

We called you out so that makes us socialists? You really can drop the moderate liberal routine, we know what you are.

[Palin Rider]

We called you out so that makes us socialists? You really can drop the moderate liberal routine, we know what you are.

The last line was a joke, you fool.

[Palin Rider]

1. Perhaps Mikey prefers to keep his company debt free....interest paid to bank is not money in the pocket of his employees.
Not in the short term, but if it helps him hire more later, so what?


2. More people buying product = more employees needed to produce product...payroll, and payroll expense is an immediate cash outlay.
It's possible to make your business more productive without increasing headcount - up to a point.


3. I don't have a problem with raising the price of my product .... but I make sure my clients understand that the increase doesn't go into my pocket nor my employees ... it's going direct to the government.
Generally, customers don't care who it's going to; they're just annoyed at not being able to keep it themselves.


And, it is the government's problem when they raise taxes to the point that it puts businesses out of business. Neither Mikey nor anybody else said that people were going out of business over this.


Creating an environment that is anti-business doesn't help build the tax base .... so.....it truly is the government's problem.
It's also anti-business to have millions of uninsured (and uninsurable) workers bankrupting public hospitals at the first stroke of bad luck with their health. Business taxes aren't the only variable here.

But thanks nonetheless for the only "real" argument so far. :salute:

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes, it really is simple stuff.

If poor widdle Mikey can't bring in enough revenue to expand, he can do any or all of the following:
1. Finance the expansion
2. Get more people to buy his product
3. Get existing clients to pay more for the existing product.

If he's too stupid to figure out how to do any of these, it's HIS problem.

Not. The. Government's.

The four of you sound like a bunch of goddamned socialists. :laugh:

There are AT LEAST 3 problems the govt is creating

1. First, business is a very competetive GLOBAL market these days. If he raises his prices, peoople will seek the same product at a lower price his sales will go down because of an overseas competitor, thus business goes down, unemployment goes up, govt revenues go down

Now the woman is on unemployment and govt funded health insurance, so the govt needs MORE money,

2. The scenario presented doesnt include the fact that when she pays her bills, more taxes are taken out, 10% or so sales tax, taxes, fees and anything else they can take when she pays utility bills, etc etc etc

3. By requiring health insurance, and it covers every little hang nail a person gets, health care costs have become over inflated. Its much easier to overcharge an insurance company rather than an individual who will pay attention to every detail on the bill.
Insurance is supposed to be for catastrophic events, i.e. something that will bankrupt you, NOT for every little detail in your life.

If people got health insurance only for large expenses and paid cash for the smaller expenses, they would pay less into the insurance bill monthly and after paying cas for their routine doctor visits, they would have a net gain at the end of the month.

[Palin Rider]

There are AT LEAST 3 problems the govt is creating

1. First, business is a very competetive GLOBAL market these days. If he raises his prices, peoople will seek the same product at a lower price his sales will go down because of an overseas competitor, thus business goes down, unemployment goes up, govt revenues go down

Now the woman is on unemployment and govt funded health insurance, so the govt needs MORE money,

2. The scenario presented doesnt include the fact that when she pays her bills, more taxes are taken out, 10% or so sales tax, taxes, fees and anything else they can take when she pays utility bills, etc etc etc

3. By requiring health insurance, and it covers every little hang nail a person gets, health care costs have become over inflated. Its much easier to overcharge an insurance company rather than an individual who will pay attention to every detail on the bill.
Insurance is supposed to be for catastrophic events, i.e. something that will bankrupt you, NOT for every little detail in your life.

If people got health insurance only for large expenses and paid cash for the smaller expenses, they would pay less into the insurance bill monthly and after paying cas for their routine doctor visits, they would have a net gain at the end of the month.

I'm not saying there aren't better approaches to health insurance.

Just that using it as an excuse not to hire is dishonest. (Bad Mikey.)

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not saying there aren't better approaches to health insurance.

Just that using it as an excuse not to hire is dishonest. (Bad Mikey.)

An owner of a business doesnt need an excuse to hire or not, they will do it based on if it will increase profits.

[Palin Rider]

An owner of a business doesnt need an excuse to hire or not, they will do it based on if it will increase profits.

My point exactly! :thumb:

[SassyLady]

Not in the short term, but if it helps him hire more later, so what?


It's possible to make your business more productive without increasing headcount - up to a point.


Generally, customers don't care who it's going to; they're just annoyed at not being able to keep it themselves.

Neither Mikey nor anybody else said that people were going out of business over this.


It's also anti-business to have millions of uninsured (and uninsurable) workers bankrupting public hospitals at the first stroke of bad luck with their health. Business taxes aren't the only variable here.

But thanks nonetheless for the only "real" argument so far. :salute:

Just curious, PR, do you think businesses should also pay for an employee's auto insurance, home insurance, life insurance, etc.?

[gabosaurus]

How interesting that taxes and health insurance have become such a huge issue during the current administration. There was little discussion of such during the previous one.

Many businesses face a very competitive hiring field to attract the best skilled workers. That is why so many large companies offer such generous benefits.
My husband works for a financial investment company that owes its survival to skilled workers who can attract big-money clients. That is why they pay well and offer a benefit package that is second to none.

If you use unskilled labor and entry level workers, obviously you do not have the same concerns. The guy in the story needs to quit whining and shore up his own company before worrying about others.

[SassyLady]

How interesting that taxes and health insurance have become such a huge issue during the current administration. There was little discussion of such during the previous one.

Gabby....taxes and health insurance have always been a concern for businesses owners....so I don't understand where you are coming from.


Many businesses face a very competitive hiring field to attract the best skilled workers. That is why so many large companies offer such generous benefits. My husband works for a financial investment company that owes its survival to skilled workers who can attract big-money clients. That is why they pay well and offer a benefit package that is second to none.

Offering a benefit package is a great recruiting tool....and should be used as such. However, with the government mandating that all businesses provide benefits, it is no longer an effective tool.


If you use unskilled labor and entry level workers, obviously you do not have the same concerns. The guy in the story needs to quit whining and shore up his own company before worrying about others.

The guy in the story is making a good point....when the government is so all over the board with tax increases and mandated benefits, it becomes difficult to make a long term plan.

[LuvRPgrl]

Many businesses face a very competitive hiring field to attract the best skilled workers. That is why so many large companies offer such generous benefits.
.

But what about small and medium size businesses, the little guy the Dems supposedly fight for?

[SassyLady]

But what about small and medium size businesses, the little guy the Dems supposedly fight for?

Oh, didn't you know, Luv, it's all show and tell.....when it comes to Dems advocating for small biz. And, Mikey isn't the only one concerned about the bouncing balls coming out of Washington. The US Chamber of Commerce is also concerned about the current anti-biz climate in Washington.

An open letter to the WH from the US Chamber of Commerce:


Washington has taken its eyes off the ball by neglecting America's number one priority--creating the more than 20 million jobs we need over the next 10 years to reemploy the unemployed and to keep pace with a growing population.
Now is the time to get back on track. In order to forestall another economic downturn and create jobs, we must work together constructively to ease uncertainty, unleash private sector investment, and generate real economic growth. We must do the following to succeed:

» Create a Growth and Jobs Tax Policy
» Restore Fiscal Health
» Expand Trade and Export-Driven Jobs
» Rebuild and Expand America’s Infrastructure
» Reduce the Burden of Regulatory Uncertainty

The business community shares the view of most Americans that the current approaches are not working. We are offering an achievable road map to greater economic growth and more jobs, and we don’t care who gets the credit. We invite leaders in government and citizens across the nation to support it.


http://library.uschamber.com/jobs

[Little-Acorn]

How interesting that taxes and health insurance have become such a huge issue during the current administration. There was little discussion of such during the previous one.
Gabby....taxes and health insurance have always been a concern for businesses owners....so I don't understand where you are coming from.
When the facts don't suit little gabby's agenda, she makes up new ones. As she has done here. It's far easier than addressing the truth.

Back to the subject:
Blitely ignoring the difficult reality faced by business owners, as leftist fanatics such as palinrider does here, is typical of the attitude we find from such fanatic liberals.

Yes, it really is simple stuff.

If poor widdle Mikey can't bring in enough revenue to expand, he can do any or all of the following:
1. Finance the expansion
2. Get more people to buy his product
3. Get existing clients to pay more for the existing product.

If he's too stupid to figure out how to do any of these, it's HIS problem.

Not. The. Government's.

"Get more people to buy his products", as though the business owner hadn't already thought of that and been doing it from Day 1, is classic. These fanatics seem to believe there are solutions to all the problems ready and waiting, and all they have to do is point them out and implement them. No difficult trade-offs necessary, such as balancing the costs of increasing their mnarketing efforts vs. the diminishing returns of cusotmers gained, need be considered.

The willful ignorance necessary for them to maintain this bizarre attitude, is a wonder of the ages.

[Palin Rider]

Just curious, PR, do you think businesses should also pay for an employee's auto insurance, home insurance, life insurance, etc.?

Depends on the cost-benefit analysis. Happier employees are more productive, so if the cost of paying for other insurances makes them happy enough and productive enough to translate into more profits...

...why not?

[Palin Rider]

When the facts don't suit little gabby's agenda, she makes up new ones. As she has done here. It's far easier than addressing the truth.

Back to the subject:
Blitely ignoring the difficult reality faced by business owners, as leftist fanatics such as palinrider does here, is typical of the attitude we find from such fanatic liberals.

"Get more people to buy his products", as though the business owner hadn't already thought of that and been doing it from Day 1, is classic. These fanatics seem to believe there are solutions to all the problems ready and waiting, and all they have to do is point them out and implement them. No difficult trade-offs necessary, such as balancing the costs of increasing their mnarketing efforts vs. the diminishing returns of cusotmers gained, need be considered.

The willful ignorance necessary for them to maintain this bizarre attitude, is a wonder of the ages.

Again, no arguments from the "reasonable right," just more ad hominem attacks. You're not helping your cause, little nut.

[SassyLady]

Depends on the cost-benefit analysis. Happier employees are more productive, so if the cost of paying for other insurances makes them happy enough and productive enough to translate into more profits...

...why not?

Wow, then why not take over paying their mortgage, their car loan, their kids school tuition, utility bills, etc. I know that if my employer were picking up all the bills coming through my house I would definitely be happy.

So, at what point do you think an employer should draw the line? Do you advocate paying all these extras on top of the wage being earned? If so, do you believe those benefits should be taxable? Imagine an employee having to pay tax on the benefit of having their auto insurance paid.

[Palin Rider]

Wow, then why not take over paying their mortgage, their car loan, their kids school tuition, utility bills, etc. I know that if my employer were picking up all the bills coming through my house I would definitely be happy.

So, at what point do you think an employer should draw the line?
Just as I said earlier: the employer has to do a cost/benefit analysis. If the extra productivity is expected to be worth more than the benefit paid out, pay it.


If so, do you believe those benefits should be taxable? Imagine an employee having to pay tax on the benefit of having their auto insurance paid.
I don't know whether it would be consistent with current tax law, but if it were TOTALLY up to me, I wouldn't want employees paying taxes on these benefits. At the end of the day, I'm basically a nice guy. :cool:

[SassyLady]

Just as I said earlier: the employer has to do a cost/benefit analysis. If the extra productivity is expected to be worth more than the benefit paid out, pay it.


I don't know whether it would be consistent with current tax law, but if it were TOTALLY up to me, I wouldn't want employees paying taxes on these benefits. At the end of the day, I'm basically a nice guy. :cool:

So, PR, do you own/have ever owned your own business? Not all individuals are motivated by the same carrot. So, even if a cost/benefit analysis is done it is based on generic reasoning. It doesn't analyze each and every individual and what makes them tick. So, what might motivate one production worker to produce more won't be applicable to all....at all times.

And, as one who has owned their own business, production will increase immediately following an implementation of raises, benefits, perks, etc. and then production has a tendency to fall back to previous norms. Do you advocate removing the benefits each time production fails to meet the expected results needed to justify the cost?

Image what that would do to morale. :slap:

[Palin Rider]

So, PR, do you own/have ever owned your own business?Yes and yes.


Not all individuals are motivated by the same carrot. So, even if a cost/benefit analysis is done it is based on generic reasoning. It doesn't analyze each and every individual and what makes them tick. So, what might motivate one production worker to produce more won't be applicable to all....at all times.True, but that's where means (averages) and medians come in.


And, as one who has owned their own business, production will increase immediately following an implementation of raises, benefits, perks, etc. and then production has a tendency to fall back to previous norms. Do you advocate removing the benefits each time production fails to meet the expected results needed to justify the cost?

Image what that would do to morale. :slap:
I don't know what business you're in, but in the circles where I've done business such things happen all the time.

If you work in a cyclic industry, you'd much rather see your bosses cut benefits than cut your job. And if the benefits don't come back when business improves, you go down the street and get a job with the competition.

I'm a gentleman, so I won't slap you.

[SassyLady]

Are you baiting me? :slap:


I think businesses should not be paying insurance benefits. Pay the employees enough to help them get their own ... that way they can choose the insurance company they want and the plan they want.

[red states rule]

Are you baiting me? :slap:


I think businesses should not be paying insurance benefits. Pay the employees enough to help them get their own ... that way they can choose the insurance company they want and the plan they want.

I told my liberal buddy and co-worker yesterday to get ready for our end of year benefit package

In October, we will have decide what benefits we want for the coming year. I told him I want him to explain to me what the reason is when we have to pay more for our medical coverage

He did not have much to say given the fact many emplyers have told their workers to get ready for the results of Obamacare

Here is more:




During the health care overhaul debate, President Obama promised repeatedly that his legislation would bring down health care costs. But according to a new survey of large employers by Towers Watson, many organizations with significant financial stakes on the line aren't betting on it. NCPA President John Goodman has the highlights:

“The overwhelming majority (90%) of employers believe health care reform will increase their organization’s health care benefit costs;”

Nearly nine in ten firms (88%) plan to pass increased costs from the law on to their employees through higher premiums;

Nearly three in four firms (74%) plan to pass the law’s higher costs on to their employees by changing plan options, restricting eligibility, or increasing deductibles or co-pays;

More than one in ten firms plan to pass on the law’s higher costs by reducing employment (12%) or reducing employer contributions to retirement plans like 401(k)s (11%);

Of those firms offering coverage, 43% are “likely to eliminate or reduce retiree medical programs” as a result of the law’s enactment.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/01/employers-expect-costs-to-rise

[Palin Rider]

Are you baiting me? :slap:


I think businesses should not be paying insurance benefits. Pay the employees enough to help them get their own ... that way they can choose the insurance company they want and the plan they want.

Why health insurance or medically necessary health care should even be for-profit industries in the first place is a mystery to me. But that's another thread, of course.

[Insein]

How interesting that taxes and health insurance have become such a huge issue during the current administration. There was little discussion of such during the previous one.

Many businesses face a very competitive hiring field to attract the best skilled workers. That is why so many large companies offer such generous benefits.
My husband works for a financial investment company that owes its survival to skilled workers who can attract big-money clients. That is why they pay well and offer a benefit package that is second to none.

If you use unskilled labor and entry level workers, obviously you do not have the same concerns. The guy in the story needs to quit whining and shore up his own company before worrying about others.

Because people like you were to busy screaming about an illegal war to hear the rest of us worried about out of control spending.

[Palin Rider]

Because people like you were to busy screaming about an illegal war to hear the rest of us worried about out of control spending.

If you were worried about out-of-control spending and not the cost of the war, then you really were insane.

[DragonStryk72]

There goes somebody else who doesn't get it. :lol:

Back to the subject:
Makes me wonder what Sally would prefer:

Take-home pay of $44,000, and the benefits govt has selected for her; or

Take-home pay of $74,000 (a 68% pay raise), and the opportunity to shop around for her own benefits she will pay for herself.

Did anyone offer her the chance to choose for herself? Or did government simply say, "Here's the benefits you get, period".

I'll take the 74k, thanks, I can invest the extra in some mutual funds, get some better groceries (goodbye ramen, hello fresh, organic meat and veggies), jesus christ, so many options. Maybe even make that much, then start my own business in a couple years

[red states rule]

If you were worried about out-of-control spending and not the cost of the war, then you really were insane.

looks to like all the anti war nuts have vanished - along with the nightly new stories how America was losing in Iraq

[red states rule]

Why health insurance or medically necessary health care should even be for-profit industries in the first place is a mystery to me. But that's another thread, of course.

If libs take the profit out of health care why the hell would anyone spend the money to medical school, invest in starting a medical practice, buy the needed equipment, rent the office space, and hire staff if they are not going to make any money?

Why would Rx companies spend millions on R&D to create new life saving drugs if they are not going to make a profit on their investments?

Liberalnomics has never wokred where it had been tried and it never will

[Missileman]

Are you baiting me? :slap:


I think businesses should not be paying insurance benefits. Pay the employees enough to help them get their own ... that way they can choose the insurance company they want and the plan they want.

EXACTLY RIGHT! Then if you change employers, you still have the same insurance policy and the pre-existing condition crap is moot.

[red states rule]

EXACTLY RIGHT! Then if you change employers, you still have the same insurance policy and the pre-existing condition crap is moot.

Obamacare "fixed" all that

Now ins companies cannot exclude people with perexisting conditions, they must cover "children" up to age 26, and emplyers are going to pass the increased cost onto their employees

So guess what?

YOUR cost of health care ins will INCREASE

Hope and change baby - it is part of the hope and change

[DragonStryk72]

How interesting that taxes and health insurance have become such a huge issue during the current administration. There was little discussion of such during the previous one.

Many businesses face a very competitive hiring field to attract the best skilled workers. That is why so many large companies offer such generous benefits.
My husband works for a financial investment company that owes its survival to skilled workers who can attract big-money clients. That is why they pay well and offer a benefit package that is second to none.

If you use unskilled labor and entry level workers, obviously you do not have the same concerns. The guy in the story needs to quit whining and shore up his own company before worrying about others.

Actually, there was discussion of it, gabs, hence why we have the Tea Party these days. It didn't spring up the moment Obama took off, or even in answer to Obama taking office. It was building up beforehand.

Also note that no one is defending Bush's policies, that when they are slapping Obama, it's for continuing to do nothing while blaming Bush for everything.

You also seem to be advocating for not hiring any unskilled workers, period. That's even more greedy than just not hiring on new people.

All in all, gabs, you missed the entire point of the article. He was talking (Yes, talking, not whining. You need to learn what the difference is) about something that he is going through at this point. Now, he did not point out any one single thing, actually, but talked about the overall added costs of hiring people. You picking one thing to harp on while ignoring the rest is vastly closer to whining than that.

Companies are having trouble hiring on, or sometimes even maintaining their current employment levels because of backdoor taxes the gov't has installed. Aside from that, we have the 2nd highest business taxes in the world, so business is just going to be slow here.

He isn't saying, you will notice, that his company is in danger, merely that he is not hiring, and why that is, supported with actual examples and facts. That's not whining, that's trying to get through to people that there is more going on than what they see.

[red states rule]

Actually, there was discussion of it, gabs, hence why we have the Tea Party these days. It didn't spring up the moment Obama took off, or even in answer to Obama taking office. It was building up beforehand.

Also note that no one is defending Bush's policies, that when they are slapping Obama, it's for continuing to do nothing while blaming Bush for everything.

You also seem to be advocating for not hiring any unskilled workers, period. That's even more greedy than just not hiring on new people.

All in all, gabs, you missed the entire point of the article. He was talking (Yes, talking, not whining. You need to learn what the difference is) about something that he is going through at this point. Now, he did not point out any one single thing, actually, but talked about the overall added costs of hiring people. You picking one thing to harp on while ignoring the rest is vastly closer to whining than that.

Companies are having trouble hiring on, or sometimes even maintaining their current employment levels because of backdoor taxes the gov't has installed. Aside from that, we have the 2nd highest business taxes in the world, so business is just going to be slow here.

He isn't saying, you will notice, that his company is in danger, merely that he is not hiring, and why that is, supported with actual examples and facts. That's not whining, that's trying to get through to people that there is more going on than what they see.

I believe deep down Gabby thinks companies are not in business to make a profit - but to pay taxes and provide free health coverage to their employees

and those companies that are not hiring are doing so only to make Obama and the Dems look bad

[LuvRPgrl]

Are you baiting me? :slap:


I think businesses should not be paying insurance benefits. Pay the employees enough to help them get their own ... that way they can choose the insurance company they want and the plan they want.

But that would give the liberals less control and power over our money, and insurance choices.

WHich is what they really want anyways, so they have to come up with their normal bullshit and scare tactics "give us your money cuz its the only way to make sure you have insurance, leave it up to the nasty, pro corp, anti child, anti woman, anti labor republicans and you will lose all insurance coverage, all benefits, your wages will go down, you will begin working 70 hour weeks at minimum wage, or below, and they will lower the minimum wages, they will employ your kids as slaves, they will employ your women as slaves, all while laughing hysterically as they count their piles of money while you starve to death"

[red states rule]

But that would give the liberals less control and power over our money, and insurance choices.

WHich is what they really want anyways, so they have to come up with their normal bullshit and scare tactics "give us your money cuz its the only way to make sure you have insurance, leave it up to the nasty, pro corp, anti child, anti woman, anti labor republicans and you will lose all insurance coverage, all benefits, your wages will go down, you will begin working 70 hour weeks at minimum wage, or below, and they will lower the minimum wages, they will employ your kids as slaves, they will employ your women as slaves, all while laughing hysterically as they count their piles of money while you starve to death"

We are seeing firsthand the resuts of liberalism. Businesses are not hiring, people are losing their jobs and homes, tax revenue is drying up for the big spending government, and what do liberals do?

Blame Bush, lie about the "Summer of Recovery" and demand those still working hand over more of their income to the government to liberals can give it to those not working

[LuvRPgrl]

Why health insurance or medically necessary health care should even be for-profit industries in the first place is a mystery to me. But that's another thread, of course.

If they werent, then competent people wouldnt be drawn to the field

[red states rule]

If they werent, then competent people wouldnt be drawn to the field

But PR's healthcare would be "free"

[Insein]

If you were worried about out-of-control spending and not the cost of the war, then you really were insane.

Who cares about the war? ITs a drop in the bucket compared to the money being pissed away. I would love for all of our soldiers to come home today and the world to be free and peace loving but that aint going to happen. What we can do at home is stop having ridiculous bailout after bailout followed up by spending program after spending program. We don't have any more money!

Is it any wonder why Greece damn near collapsed, why many European nations are looking at Greece and seeing that their model is unsustainable and therefore they are cutting back on spending? Yet we live in a country where our GDP is almost negligable and our esteemed leaders see fit to spend as much money as humanly possible. Does this not resonate at all in your brain?

Look at it simply. If a person has a certain amount of income per year and they have a high number of expenses that exceed that income, do they go out and get a dozen or so credit cards and spend to the limits in order to get out of debt? Thats not going to generate any more income for themselves. Even if they used all those credit purchases to invest in their business in an effort to make it more profitable, they just raised their bottomline making their products less affordable to people who were'nt buying them causing them to lose income in the first place. Instead, like most normal people, they cut costs. They lower payroll, cut back on uneeded expenses such as extra cars or bigger office buildings in order to lower their spending. This will get them closer to their break even point and can help to lower their bottomline. Thus they can begin to make money again.

The government may be a different entity but they operate the same just in a longer term scale. They can borrow money until the economy fails (a seemingly long time). So they will keep maxing out credit cards and passing the buck onto the consumer (taxes). This does not turn an economy around though. It handcuffs it and stifles it to the point of almost negative GDP.

Spending is the #1 concern with our economy today. IF the Democrats didn't control Congress, if we merely had a split house that didn't get anything passed, we would have been out of this recession by now.

[Palin Rider]

If libs take the profit out of health care why the hell would anyone spend the money to medical school, invest in starting a medical practice, buy the needed equipment, rent the office space, and hire staff if they are not going to make any money?

Why would Rx companies spend millions on R&D to create new life saving drugs if they are not going to make a profit on their investments?

Liberalnomics has never wokred where it had been tried and it never will

:lol:
You "foot soldiers" overuse the word liberal to the point where it's meaningless.

Why don't you liberal on down to the liberal store and pick me up a liberal of liberals? There's a good boy.

I'll pay you back out of your Bush tax cut.

[Gaffer]

:lol:
You "foot soldiers" overuse the word liberal to the point where it's meaningless.

Why don't you liberal on down to the liberal store and pick me up a liberal of liberals? There's a good boy.

I'll pay you back out of your Bush tax cut.

A more appropriate term for you would be regressive.

[Palin Rider]

A more appropriate term for you would be regressive.

I don't waste time on crap like that. Get back to me if you ever have a point to discuss.
:talk2hand:

[LuvRPgrl]

:lol:
You "foot soldiers" overuse the word liberal to the point where it's meaningless.

Why don't you liberal on down to the liberal store and pick me up a liberal of liberals? There's a good boy.

I'll pay you back out of your Bush tax cut.

and yet the liberals are running away from it like fire,,whats the new term
Progressives...

[SassyLady]

:lol:
You "foot soldiers" overuse the word liberal to the point where it's meaningless.

Why don't you liberal on down to the liberal store and pick me up a liberal of liberals? There's a good boy.

I'll pay you back out of your Bush tax cut.

Don't waste time on crap like that. Get back to us if you ever have a point to discuss.

[Agnapostate]

It's remarkable how audacious capitalists and managers are in making these claims about their own generosity when their occupations are thoroughly counterproductive to the goal of economic efficiency, as the preponderance of empirical research on the superior nature of workers' ownership and management has indicated.

[SassyLady]

It's remarkable how audacious capitalists and managers are in making these claims about their own generosity when their occupations are thoroughly counterproductive to the goal of economic efficiency, as the preponderance of empirical research on the superior nature of workers' ownership and management has indicated.

So, are you trying to tell us that you are into collectivism?

[Agnapostate]

So, are you trying to tell us that you are into collectivism?

Whatever you want to call workers' ownership and management, but I can't imagine that you didn't know that before. Regardless, it's not the topic of the thread; I was just commenting on the ironic nature of a capitalist or manager considering himself a victim with his usually generous hands tied. If his unnecessary position were eliminated, laborers would receive their due.

[SassyLady]

Whatever you want to call workers' ownership and management, but I can't imagine that you didn't know that before. Regardless, it's not the topic of the thread; I was just commenting on the ironic nature of a capitalist or manager considering himself a victim with his usually generous hands tied. If his unnecessary position were eliminated, laborers would receive their due.

I vaguely remember you ... I think you'll have to refresh our memories about why you think things run better when workers or government are in charge....and not the owner.

[Agnapostate]

I vaguely remember you ... I think you'll have to refresh our memories about why you think things run better when workers or government are in charge....and not the owner.

I never said anything about the "government," and I certainly don't consider capitalists the legitimate owners of productive resources.

Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor-Managed and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2524912)


Using meta-analytic techniques, the author synthesizes the results of 43 published studies to investigate the effects on productivity of various forms of worker participation: worker participation in decision making; mandated codetermination; profit sharing; worker ownership (employee stock ownership or individual worker ownership of the firm's assets); and collective ownership of assets (workers' collective ownership of reserves over which they have no individual claim). He finds that codetermination laws are negatively associated with productivity, but profit sharing, worker ownership, and worker participation in decision making are all positively associated with productivity. All the observed correlations are stronger among labor-managed firms (firms owned and controlled by workers) than among participatory capitalist firms (firms adopting one or more participation schemes involving employees, such as ESOPs or quality circles).

I could use abstract and verbose economic terminology to describe the phenomenon, but it's much simpler and more effective to simply say that it's a matter of the people doing things who know how they're run best.

[red states rule]

I vaguely remember you ... I think you'll have to refresh our memories about why you think things run better when workers or government are in charge....and not the owner.

This will ring a bell for you

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?26646-Political-Correctness-101&p=412123#post412123

[Palin Rider]

Don't waste time on crap like that. Get back to us if you ever have a point to discuss.

I would if you'd quit slapping me! :slap:

[DragonStryk72]

Whatever you want to call workers' ownership and management, but I can't imagine that you didn't know that before. Regardless, it's not the topic of the thread; I was just commenting on the ironic nature of a capitalist or manager considering himself a victim with his usually generous hands tied. If his unnecessary position were eliminated, laborers would receive their due.

Where did he say he's a victim, or did he actually say something along the lines of, "Here's what I'm doing and why."?

Alright, sight me one, even one example of where there being no leader at all, with no one in charge of anything has worked on a long term scale.

[LuvRPgrl]

I never said anything about

All the observed correlations are stronger among labor-managed firms (firms owned and controlled by workers) than among participatory capitalist firms (firms adopting one or more participation schemes involving employees, such as ESOPs or quality circles).


The answer is simple, go get a group of workers, put your money together, buy a company, and since your model will be more productive, you can offer a better product at a lower price and put the capitalists out of business

ALOT OF PEOPLE SEEM TO FORGET THAT A LOT OF CAPITALISTS LOSE A LOT OF MONEY, I DONT SEE THE MASSES RUSHING TO HELP THEM OUT WHEN THAT HAPPENS

[Outraged Citizen]

There goes somebody else who doesn't get it. :lol:

Back to the subject:
Makes me wonder what Sally would prefer:

Take-home pay of $44,000, and the benefits govt has selected for her; or

Take-home pay of $74,000 (a 68% pay raise), and the opportunity to shop around for her own benefits she will pay for herself.

Did anyone offer her the chance to choose for herself? Or did government simply say, "Here's the benefits you get, period".

Yeah, but then all the fat, smoking, out of shape drinkers would have to pay MORE for insurance, and that's discriminatory...

Better that the government tell us what we need, we're all just a bunch of stupid sheep

[Little-Acorn]

Yeah, but then all the fat, smoking, out of shape drinkers would have to pay MORE for insurance, and that's discriminatory...


That's like saying someone who buys a Lexus would have to pay MORE for it, than someone who buys a Corolla, and that's discriminatory.

The usual nonsense. As I think you meant it humorously.

[Agnapostate]

Where did he say he's a victim, or did he actually say something along the lines of, "Here's what I'm doing and why."?

His attempt to justify himself fails because his position should not exist, and is counterproductive to firm success, as capitalism is counterproductive to overall economic vibrancy.


Alright, sight me one, even one example of where there being no leader at all, with no one in charge of anything has worked on a long term scale.

The closest example would be the anarchist social revolution that occurred during the Spanish Civil War, principally in Republican war zones, especially Catalonia, Aragon, and parts of the Levante. It was partly destroyed by Leninist partisans through a combination of withheld Soviet financing of anarchist forces and direct violent sabotage of Aragonese communes, and finished off by the Nationalists upon their military victory. Here's a Wikipedia summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution) largely written by me.

That's the most deliberately anti-hierarchical example available, but there are other instances of experiments and ventures made successful by facets of workers' ownership and/or management. Marxist Yugoslavia (characterized by a market socialist economy), is probably the most interesting.


The answer is simple, go get a group of workers, put your money together, buy a company, and since your model will be more productive, you can offer a better product at a lower price and put the capitalists out of business

Systematic change doesn't come through personal lifestyle choices. On the systematic level, spontaneous development of workers' ownership and management is prevented by market concentration, since firm structures are dominated by the models of oligopoly and monopolistic competition. Therefore, the solution is expropriation of the means of production and enactment of workplace democracy and collective resource management.


ALOT OF PEOPLE SEEM TO FORGET THAT A LOT OF CAPITALISTS LOSE A LOT OF MONEY, I DONT SEE THE MASSES RUSHING TO HELP THEM OUT WHEN THAT HAPPENS

Limited social mobility generally constrains a person's station in life to that of their parents, as empirical research also attests to.

[LuvRPgrl]

His attempt to justify himself fails because his position should not exist, and is counterproductive to firm success, as capitalism is counterproductive to overall economic vibrancy..
R U for real?
I understand you are an anarchist?
Yet above you show tendencies for control and domination of what should and shouldnt be, the antithesis of anarchy.





The closest example would be the anarchist social revolution that occurred during the Spanish Civil War, principally in Republican war zones, especially Catalonia, Aragon, and parts of the Levante. It was partly destroyed by Leninist partisans through a combination of withheld Soviet financing of anarchist forces and direct violent sabotage of Aragonese communes, and finished off by the Nationalists upon their military victory. Here's a Wikipedia summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution) largely written by me..
Which immediately makes it very suspect.
Still doesnt display any successful organizations of any type that didnt have a central leader or management levels.


That's the most deliberately anti-hierarchical example available, but there are other instances of experiments and ventures made successful by facets of workers' ownership and/or management. Marxist Yugoslavia (characterized by a market socialist economy), is probably the most interesting..
YEa, we are all lining up to implement Yugoslavias methods into our own countries.:laugh::laugh:




Systematic change doesn't come through personal lifestyle choices.strawman, never said it does.

. On the systematic level, spontaneous development of workers' ownership and management is prevented by market concentration.
so do it on a non systematic level. Its simle, you like throwing a lot of large terms around and sound hyper intelligent, but bottom line is there are millions of opportunities in this country for a group of people to get together and start a business. Since millions of people do it as sole proprietors, there is no reason that a "group" cant do it also. Thats simple reality which flies in the face of your unsubstantiated theories


, since firm structures are dominated by the models of oligopoly and monopolistic competition..
that is simply a non sensical statement, HEY, BUT IT MAKES YOU LOOK SMART:laugh::laugh:



Therefore, the solution is expropriation of the means of production and enactment of workplace democracy and collective resource management.
SOLUTION TO WHAT? The lack of a system that a minority of people want?

So, are you really an anarchist?



Limited social mobility generally constrains a person's station in life to that of their parents, as empirical research also attests to.

[Agnapostate]

While sole proprietorships and partnerships technically constitute the majority of business firms in existence, corporations possess the greatest market shares by far, and a small number of corporations in particular are ascendant. The internal structures of these firms are hierarchical chains of command that would be condemned as dictatorial if they characterized national governments; no anarchist can support them.

[LuvRPgrl]

While sole proprietorships and partnerships technically constitute the majority of business firms in existence, corporations possess the greatest market shares by far, and a small number of corporations in particular are ascendant. The internal structures of these firms are hierarchical chains of command that would be condemned as dictatorial if they characterized national governments; no anarchist can support them.

And we all know just how efficient govt's are. They only exist out of sheer necessity, which is why libertarians like myself, oppose govt's involvement in any but those absolutely necessary functions.

You do realize there is no such thing as a true anarchist.

[Insein]

And we all know just how efficient govt's are. They only exist out of sheer necessity, which is why libertarians like myself, oppose govt's involvement in any but those absolutely necessary functions.

You do realize there is no such thing as a true anarchist.

A true anarchist would be something akin to the Joker in the Dark Knight. Living in the moment. Doing whatever came to his mind. Free Will to the ultimate extent. Doesn't really work with civilization.

[Agnapostate]

And we all know just how efficient govt's are. They only exist out of sheer necessity, which is why libertarians like myself, oppose govt's involvement in any but those absolutely necessary functions.

You do realize there is no such thing as a true anarchist.

What's commonly called "libertarianism" does not deserve the label, as its advocacy of capitalism is in fact authoritarian. Libertarianism historically applied to anarchism, not any ideology that supported capitalism. I did not mention "govt's," so don't make up strawman. I mentioned workers' ownership and management and the irony of capitalist self-justifications.


A true anarchist would be something akin to the Joker in the Dark Knight. Living in the moment. Doing whatever came to his mind. Free Will to the ultimate extent. Doesn't really work with civilization.

That's nice, but I'm referring to the political ideology as espoused by the likes of Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, not popular cultural misconceptions.

[avatar4321]

Nobody said that business was EASY, Michael.

http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/ul/97410-wahmbulance.jpg

So what you're saying here is you don't really care why people aren't hiring and fixing the unemployment problem.

It's just a political issue for you.

[avatar4321]

My point exactly! :thumb:

So the logical solution to the problem is to stop punishing people who earn a profit.

[Palin Rider]

So the logical solution to the problem is to stop punishing people who earn a profit.

People who earn a profit should sink or swim on their own, not get government assistance. That's the free market.

[avatar4321]

People who earn a profit should sink or swim on their own, not get government assistance. That's the free market.

No one is suggesting giving government assistance.

[Insein]

People who earn a profit should sink or swim on their own, not get government assistance. That's the free market.

So can we expect the government to not take as much protection money? That would kind of help in the sink or swim thing.

[MtnBiker]

People who earn a profit should sink or swim on their own, not get government assistance. That's the free market.

Yeah, but then the DNC could loose alot of UAW votes.

[Palin Rider]

No one is suggesting giving government assistance.

When they don't get assistance, you cry that it's "punishment."

[Insein]

When they don't get assistance, you cry that it's "punishment."

Where has anyone done that? Post the link to any thread on this whole board that someone called no government assistance "punishment."

[Little-Acorn]

People who earn a profit should sink or swim on their own, not get government assistance. That's the free market.
Nor should they get government punishment, i.e. removal by government of the resources they need to exist, function, and compete. Nor restrictions by government on their ability to function freely.

Some government is necessary, of course, to make sure businesses ("people earning profits") keep their promises, don't defraud or coerce others, don't get defrauded or coerced etc. And the expense of such protection must necessarily come from "people making profits", since there's nowhere else it CAN come from. To that extent, government must take resources from business, and must enact certain restrictions.

But as LuvPRgirl said, such taking and restricting should be held to a minimum. Government doesn't do anything well. But these are things that no one else can do at all... and are the reasons we create governments in the first place, as old TJ once said.

The idea that government can "help" people, is laughable. The most it can do, is keep others from hurting people. Government being as inefficient and clumsy as it is, any attempt to "help" a particular group of people, will ALWAYS result in it hurting others far more than it helps.

In the OP, a businessman described the harm that govt was doing by taking more and more from him, thus hamstringing his ability to hire people and run his business.

Whenever you get lots of snarling and denigration from govt advocates trying to claim business somehow deserves that harm, you know government is reaching beyond what it should be doing.

[Palin Rider]

In the OP, a businessman described the harm that govt was doing by taking more and more from him, thus hamstringing his ability to hire people and run his business.

And that's the dishonesty of the argument. What keeps taking more and more from him is not the government, but the very free market he works to benefit from.

The harsh reality is that all businesses must exploit human talent and labor in order to generate revenue, and that human beings get health issues. When the cost of managing those health issues rises, so does the cost of doing business, period. There is absolutely no way for businesses to avoid being affected by this trend, regardless of whether the government gets involved.

The major goal of the recent reform efforts was to prevent the cost of people's health issues from becoming too big a drain on the broader economy. It may or may not work.

Or perhaps Mikey is deliberately hamstringing his business - and encouraging other businessmen to do the same - just to get more easily corruptible people in Congress this November.

[Agnapostate]

If government is a stumbling block, which is true enough, then it stands to reason that large corporate structures with the same elements of unaccountable hierarchy and sometimes the same scale, that have been empowered by government, would not be economically ideal.

[Palin Rider]

If government is a stumbling block, which is true enough, then it stands to reason that large corporate structures with the same elements of unaccountable hierarchy and sometimes the same scale, that have been empowered by government, would not be economically ideal.

That's the reason new businesses are always starting up. Larger corporations survive only because they do certain things that no one else does better, faster, or cheaper.

[Agnapostate]

That's the reason new businesses are always starting up. Larger corporations survive only because they do certain things that no one else does better, faster, or cheaper.

Large corporations survive because they possess sufficient market power to render industries non-competitive.

[Palin Rider]

Large corporations survive because they possess sufficient market power to render industries non-competitive.

In theory, antitrust law is supposed to prevent that from happening.

[Agnapostate]

In theory, antitrust law is supposed to prevent that from happening.

The Justice Department will generally intervene to counter mergers, not firm growth, because the purpose of antitrust legislation is conceived as monopoly control and not general concentration reduction. Even in that case, they will generally target mergers that would result in a Herfindahl Index increase of more than 100 points when the industry in question already has an index of > 1800, which provides ample opportunity for the market structures of oligopoly and monopolistic competition to thrive, which is why they dominate industries today.

[DragonStryk72]

His attempt to justify himself fails because his position should not exist, and is counterproductive to firm success, as capitalism is counterproductive to overall economic vibrancy.

That wasn't the question. I asked where he made himself a victim. You have to hide behind big words, so that I won't call you on the BS, but guess what? I still got it. you avoided the question, answer it or admit you're wrong.

The closest example would be the anarchist social revolution that occurred during the Spanish Civil War, principally in Republican war zones, especially Catalonia, Aragon, and parts of the Levante. It was partly destroyed by Leninist partisans through a combination of withheld Soviet financing of anarchist forces and direct violent sabotage of Aragonese communes, and finished off by the Nationalists upon their military victory. Here's a Wikipedia summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution) largely written by me.

Okay, so here's your defense: you use a group that failed because they failed to win their civil war, supported by a wiki you wrote? Yeah, sorry, no dice. Try again.

That's the most deliberately anti-hierarchical example available, but there are other instances of experiments and ventures made successful by facets of workers' ownership and/or management. Marxist Yugoslavia (characterized by a market socialist economy), is probably the most interesting.

So in other words, there are no working examples, cause they all failed. Again with the high-handed speech. Bit of the literary coward are we?

*Large-scale* change doesn't come through personal * choices. On the *large* scale, spontaneous development of workers' ownership and management is prevented by *the number of firms and their respective shares of the total production*, since firm structures are dominated by the models of *a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers* and monopolistic competition. Therefore, the solution is *The taking of private property for public use or in the public interest* of the means of production and enactment of workplace democracy and collective resource management.


Okay, good, now that I've gotten the sentence down to using words for something other than a smokescreen, let's dive in shall. There is no oligopoly in America, as there are a multitude of sellers of various sizes, so right there, you argument is crap.

The idea that somehow the government taking away private property for the public interest is laughable at best. If government has shown anything, it's that all government is shitty with money, it just is. See, there's a limit that any business has, because they cannot vote themselves more money. Also, since all corporations are inherently a democracy (Yes, they are, each share is a vote in the company), workers can get a say just by owning stock in the company, or by unionizing. In fact, Union laws are really on the side of the union in this country.


Limited social mobility generally constrains a person's station in life to that of their parents, as empirical research also attests to.

okay, but it's worse in socialist and communist countries, so precisely why would we want the worse option.


Of course most people are going to stay around the same economic level of their parents, likely with some slight improvement, because that's the way things go naturally. Most people are not good with money, so it wouldn't matter if they had a million dollars, they'd still end up back where they started or worse. That has nothing to do with governmental style, it's just human nature.

[Palin Rider]

Of course most people are going to stay around the same economic level of their parents, likely with some slight improvement, because that's the way things go naturally. Most people are not good with money, so it wouldn't matter if they had a million dollars, they'd still end up back where they started or worse. That has nothing to do with governmental style, it's just human nature.
Any reasonably intelligent person can learn how to manage money, DS. I have yet to see a public school that makes a concerted effort to teach them how - and most private schools don't either.

Why there's hardly any discussion about adding such things to the curriculum is a mystery to me.

[Pagan]

Well my company is hiring and is also listed as one of the fastest growing company's in the Country. We're very profitable and continue to be the leader in our field, how?

1. Zero debt
2. Zero outsourcing
3. Smart and aggressive R&D
4. High retention rate due to treating their employee's well

It's not hard, basically you look and plan for the long term 10+ years out, not the "cheap and immediate gratification" that infects most of American society.

And yes we are a global player

[Palin Rider]

Well my company is hiring and is also listed as one of the fastest growing company's in the Country. We're very profitable and continue to be the leader in our field, how?

1. Zero debt
2. Zero outsourcing
3. Smart and aggressive R&D
4. High retention rate due to treating their employee's well

It's not hard, basically you look and plan for the long term 10+ years out, not the "cheap and immediate gratification" that infects most of American society.

And yes we are a global player

Is it publicly held? These days, I don't know how a public company can have all these elements without facing a hostile takeover.

[Pagan]

Is it publicly held? These days, I don't know how a public company can have all these elements without facing a hostile takeover.

Yep, we're way too expensive for a hostile take over due to things like a large amount of cash reserves. When our stock was affected by the 2008 crash what did we do?

Simple, we bought a good chunk of our stock back ;)

[Agnapostate]

That wasn't the question. I asked where he made himself a victim. You have to hide behind big words, so that I won't call you on the BS, but guess what? I still got it. you avoided the question, answer it or admit you're wrong.

Do you know how to read? The author's position is a defensive one. In reality, he shouldn't have any kind of position whatsoever, argumentative or occupational, because non-workers' ownership and management of workplaces is counterproductive, as economic theory and logic would predict and as the empirical reseach cited in this thread proves.


Okay, so here's your defense: you use a group that failed because they failed to win their civil war, supported by a wiki you wrote? Yeah, sorry, no dice. Try again.

The article that I wrote is a tertiary source dependent on numerous primary and secondary sources referenced in the article, and subject to simple modification if it was reasonably determined that it contained inaccuracies. You could go there yourself and edit the article if you found it factually inaccurate. Before I comment on the "failure," perhaps we should comment on the "failure" of capitalism in the Italian city-states where it first emerged in an era of feudalism. Did that forever doom its existence? Do you take the stance that a few centuries of capitalism and republican democracy that emerged after 200,000 years of prior human history were based on tried-and-tested experiments? Now, as to the specific "failure" itself, there is a significant difference between internal failure that leads to collapse because of underlying deficiencies of organizational principles, and external failure that leads to collapse because of an outside assault. The destruction of anarchism in Spain, the site of its most extensive successful implementation, was orchestrated by violent military action by Leninists and Nationalists. The anarchists stood opposed to Western-style republicanism, Central European style fascism, and Eastern-style Communism, and they collapsed to the combined military might of their foes. I wonder, however, whether you consider the loss of the republicans alongside the anarchists to be an example of the "failure" of representative democracy and the superiority of nationalist dictatorship.


So in other words, there are no working examples, cause they all failed. Again with the high-handed speech. Bit of the literary coward are we?

You're apparently more of an idiot than I believed. Workers' ownership and management within the context of the capitalist economy continues to exist today as a more efficient organizational model (as with the plywood cooperatives of the Pacific Northwest, the MONDRAGON corporation of the Basque Country, the factory reclamation movement in Argentina, etc.), but cannot emerge as dominant because of market concentration.


Okay, good, now that I've gotten the sentence down to using words for something other than a smokescreen, let's dive in shall. There is no oligopoly in America, as there are a multitude of sellers of various sizes, so right there, you argument is crap.

And wrong on another count, yet again. Oligopoly manifests itself in cases of a few firms dominating market shares. While it is true that numerous sellers exist, as I've emphasized myself numerous times, a small number of firms holds a disproportionately massive amount of market shares, as you might glean from consulting the Statistical Abstract of the United States. So my point stands: The primary market structures in the United States range between oligopoly and monopolistic competition.


The idea that somehow the government taking away private property for the public interest is laughable at best. If government has shown anything, it's that all government is shitty with money, it just is.

Government intervention has always functioned as an integral facet of the capitalist economy, from the Pigovian taxation required to combat negative externalities and induce leftward demand shifts by causing consumers to face the true costs of their purchases, to the anti-trust legislation intended to curb market power and reduce concentration, to provision of public and merit goods that would be undersupplied by market mechanisms. In the capitalist economy, the state is simply necessary to reduce market failure. If you wish to remove that support apparatus, I'd be right beside you there. I want capitalism to fail so that socialism can be enacted. But I doubt that the elites would oblige.


See, there's a limit that any business has, because they cannot vote themselves more money. Also, since all corporations are inherently a democracy (Yes, they are, each share is a vote in the company), workers can get a say just by owning stock in the company, or by unionizing. In fact, Union laws are really on the side of the union in this country.

This is moronic laissez-faire utopianism with no applicability to the realities of the capitalist economy. If "all corporations are inherently a democracy," there would be no incentive for employee stock ownership plans to emerge as a mechanism of spurring greater efficiency in some firms. The pinnacle of productivity will be accomplished by the solution of workers' ownership and management of the means of production.


Of course most people are going to stay around the same economic level of their parents, likely with some slight improvement, because that's the way things go naturally. Most people are not good with money, so it wouldn't matter if they had a million dollars, they'd still end up back where they started or worse. That has nothing to do with governmental style, it's just human nature.

If you thought that distributive justice was a characteristic of the modern capitalist economy, you'd have to argue that open aggression in the phase of primitive accumulation of capital that caused the property relations of feudalism to replicate themselves, centuries of government preference of specific central interests over others, a web of protective tariffs and quotas, etc., culminated in a state of affairs that was still generally reflective of what the "free market" would produce. That would completely undermine every single criticism you have of liberal democratic capitalism and state intervention, as well as your pretensions of favoring "laissez-faire" capitalism.