Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
So you are saying, those who can't, teach? Is that you Joe Biden?


Here is an article talking about the explosion of part time workers. Predictable for those who live in reality. Health changes spur test of more part-time workers - Businessweek

Good news, college grads! You can work at McDonalds, Olive Garden AND Taco Bell after graduation! Maybe between the three you will be working full time.

The move to the growth of part-time work pre-dates the obama administration. It's all about greed. Businesses figured out a long time ago that if they hire part-time employees, they don't have to pay benefits -- healthcare, vacation, etc. The question is what to do about it.

This is one reason why a single payer healthcare system would work better for businesses. Take employers out of the business of paying for employee healthcare altogether. I would think that would be a boon for businesses and remove a lofty expense from their balance sheets. Perhaps if they didn't have to pay for employee healthcare, employers would hire more people -- probably full-time. Of course, that is probably a bridge too far given the current political climate. But, it seems to me this would result in a lot of jobs. And, just like everyone keeps saying, "It's all about jobs."
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
So you are saying, those who can't, teach? Is that you Joe Biden?


Here is an article talking about the explosion of part time workers. Predictable for those who live in reality. Health changes spur test of more part-time workers - Businessweek

Good news, college grads! You can work at McDonalds, Olive Garden AND Taco Bell after graduation! Maybe between the three you will be working full time.

In addition to Go Irish's post, Wal-mart and grocery store Chains puposefully keep its employees less than 40 hours per week so as not to have to pay benefits. They also hire people who are unhealthy or have a higher probability of dying, take insurance policies out on them and them cash in when they die. You may have heard of them. They are called "Dead Peasant" Insurance policies where the corpration is the beneficiary. That is reality....
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
How about you google, academic rankings by state and spending per pupil per state. Look at the very bottom of those lists. Shockingly they look rather similar. One flawed study doesn't prove ****.

Only Switzerland spends more money on education per pupil than the U.S. Difference is Switzerland ranks in the top 10 in reading, math, and science while the U.S. is outside the top 10 in all three, according to PISA tests and data from 2011. Why?

1) Switzerland doesn't have social problems we do here in the U.S. (divorce, illegal immigration, language issues, cultural problems, crime, etc).

2) When it comes to Switzlerand and countries like Denmark, they're very de-centralized in terms of funding and policy. They don't have a federal Dept. of Education running the country. They're divided by "districts" geographically. These districts determine BY THEMSELVES the following: curriculum, hiring/ firing of teachers, salaries, and generating money to fund their education system.

3) Money is not the solution. You can literally drop $20 million cash on LA, Chicago, NY, and backwoods Mississippi tomorrow. Not going to change the attitude and culture.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
In addition to Go Irish's post, Wal-mart and grocery store Chains puposefully keep its employees less than 40 hours per week so as not to have to pay benefits. They also hire people who are unhealthy or have a higher probability of dying, take insurance policies out on them and them cash in when they die. You may have heard of them. They are called "Dead Peasant" Insurance policies where the corpration is the beneficiary. That is reality....

You are referring to COLI and BOLI (Corporate Owned Life Insurance and Bank Owned Life Insurance). These are investment vehicles with utilizing the tax advantages of life insurance (proceeds are not taxable to the beneficiary). They insure agains THOUSANDS of employees with no discrimination on just picking fat or sick people. Thanks to actuary science, they get a predictable, tax free return on investment. The bigger the pool of insureds the better the predictability of returns. At the end of the day, companies can get a tax free return on otherwise taxable investments, less the insurance companies spread to provide the tax free wrapper.

Guess what lower corporate rates would do to the COLI and BOLI market?
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Maybe they should require benefits for anyone working over 20 hours, instead of 30? That would really drop the unemployment rate.

You see, making something more expensive (in this case full time employment) gives you LESS of it. Econ 101 folks, it actually does apply to the real world.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
An employer could offer health benefits to anyone it wants, but giving eligibility to people working under 30 hours per week would just about double the cost from the insurer, in addition to presenting a litany of other administrative and other headaches.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Maybe they should require benefits for anyone working over 20 hours, instead of 30? That would really drop the unemployment rate.

You see, making something more expensive (in this case full time employment) gives you LESS of it. Econ 101 folks, it actually does apply to the real world.

Lets see what Ford did in 1914...
"On January 5, 1914, the Ford Motor Company took the radical step of doubling pay to $5 a day and cut shifts from nine hours to eight, moves that were not popular with rival companies, although seeing the increase in Ford's productivity, and a significant increase in profit margin (from $30 million to $60 million in two years), most soon followed suit.

Henry Ford's $5-a-Day Revolution - Press Release

ECON 101.....yawn. Does Econ 101 use the Laffer Curve as well?

The End of the 40-Hour Work Week - Yahoo! Finance
This article comments on how in the long run companies may actually suffer for the current trend of keeping people below 40-hours per week while forcing higher wage earners with benefits to work more hours at their pay rate. Interesting.
 
Last edited:
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Lets see what Ford did in 1914...
"On January 5, 1914, the Ford Motor Company took the radical step of doubling pay to $5 a day and cut shifts from nine hours to eight, moves that were not popular with rival companies, although seeing the increase in Ford's productivity, and a significant increase in profit margin (from $30 million to $60 million in two years), most soon followed suit.

Henry Ford's $5-a-Day Revolution - Press Release

ECON 101.....yawn. Does Econ 101 use the Laffer Curve as well?

The End of the 40-Hour Work Week - Yahoo! Finance
This article comments on how in the long run companies may actually suffer for the current trend of keeping people below 40-hours per week while forcing higher wage earners with benefits to work more hours at their pay rate. Interesting.

Apples and oranges, BIG TIME.

Ford's efficiency in producing automobiles lowered the price of cars from something only the elite could afford, to something that the middle class could finally enjoy as well. That was the true miracle. That is capitalism at its finest. It is only secondary that he realized that we should stop paying people like peasants so they can afford stuff too; but that was back when Ford dominated the market and employed sooo many people (and had wild profits). It's asinine to think that can apply today. Honestly it's insanely foolish. If paying people more meant that they'd get more people to buy your product--they would!

The miracle of the free market is the reduction in production costs, so more people can afford it. Even if Ford doubled the pay of his workers, if he didn't develop a method of manufacturing cars at a fraction of the previous price, it would be irrelevant.

Did ANYONE watch a moment of the three Yale lectures of capitalism that I posted??
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Apples and oranges, BIG TIME.

Ford's efficiency in producing automobiles lowered the price of cars from something only the elite could afford, to something that the middle class could finally enjoy as well. That was the true miracle. That is capitalism at its finest. It is only secondary that he realized that we should stop paying people like peasants so they can afford stuff too; but that was back when Ford dominated the market and employed sooo many people. It's asinine to think that can apply today. Honestly it's insanely foolish. If paying people more meant that they'd get more people to buy your product--they would!

The miracle of the free market is the reduction in production costs, so more people can afford it. Even if Ford doubled the pay of his workers, if he didn't develop a method of manufacturing cars at a fraction of the previous price, it would be irrelevant.

Did ANYONE watch a moment of the three Yale lectures of capitalism that I posted??

That was my point. He was more efficient. It allowed him to run 3 shifts and produce more. That was his business model. Today's business models are to cut salaries, cut employees and benefits thereby making profits increase but as a byproduct producing less effective and efficient employees. The 2nd article points out that may be to a company's deteriment. I dont see how it is asenine. The middle class having disposable income means more products can be bought.......less people with less money means less things get bought. I dont think it is apples to oranges. If economics is such a science, they are comparable.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
As a business, you're never going get back 100% of an increase in pay -- it's not like your workers spend all their money at your shop, and don't save any.

And if you double the pay of the drive-thru window guy, it's not like you're going to have twice as many customers drive through. Sure, he may work harder, but you're not seeing a dollar-for-dollar return on that increase in pay either.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
As a business, you're never going get back 100% of an increase in pay -- it's not like your workers spend all their money at your shop, and don't save any.

And if you double the pay of the drive-thru window guy, it's not like you're going to have twice as many customers drive through. Sure, he may work harder, but you're not seeing a dollar-for-dollar return on that increase in pay either.

I would never claim they would and neither did Ford...he understood "what good is proucing a service if people cannot afford to buy them?" I guess you are misunderstanding the past and current business model aspect of my point and RDUs simplistic statement that ECON 101 works in the real world. Physics 101 works in the real world as well, but only to an extent though and given certain operational boundaries (assumptions).
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Maybe they should require benefits for anyone working over 20 hours, instead of 30? That would really drop the unemployment rate.

You see, making something more expensive (in this case full time employment) gives you LESS of it. Econ 101 folks, it actually does apply to the real world.

That isn't alwas true and you know it. Part of the reason that benefits are down right now is the economy. Many companies cut back on benefits during the recession and since there isn't currently a lot of mobility in the employment market right now, they don't feel a need to increase benefits. As unemployment goes down, and employers need to become competitve again, they will have to offer something to make themselves more appealing (such as higher pay, better benefits, better work hours, etc).

The real question becomes who should pay for the insurance. If a person is working 20 hours for wal-mart and doesn't have insurance and they get sick and end up in the emergency room, somone has to pay for it. First it is the hospital, but they will pass that cost along to insurance companies in the form of higher costs for insured individuals, then insurance companies pass it along to you. So you are now paying for the fact that the person works for wal-mart at minimum wage and Wal-Mart doesn't have to help them with insurance (thus padding their profits, executives bonuses and more 20 hour Wal-Mart employees). So then should the government provide insurance for them? That way they can go see a doctor instead of going to the ER thus cutting healthcare costs? or do we leave them uninsured so we still eat the cost but at a higher rate? or do we force businesses to cover them thus costing us some jobs and higher prices on products? None of these are exactly appealing options.

So how do you solve this problem? I see all of the criticism of the healthcare law but no one wants to give a real answer to fix it. Look at Romney, he wants to keep all of the popul provisions that cost money (keeping children on insurance till 26yo, covering preexisting conditions etc., but how the Hell is that going to control costs without widening the base of insured individuals so that insurance companies aren't either jacking ups costs or start losing money?

I think there should be a rule from now on. Someone running for office should not be allowed to criticize an idea of the opponent if they don't have a concrete plan of their own to put out there. That would shut up Romney real quick.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Yes, I am definitely misunderstanding whatever your point is.

Today's business models are ecouraging the decrease of the middle class and its purcahsing power as opposed to to the business models of yore that actually increased the middle class and its purchasing power.

Also economics is not as simplistic as ECON 101. A dollar in the door is not a dollar in your pocket and a dollar out your pocket is not a dollar in someone elses.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
Today's business models are ecouraging the decrease of the middle class and its purcahsing power as opposed to to the business models of yore that actually increased the middle class and its purchasing power...

Ok, I get it. We should pass national legislation mandating that business only use a "business model of yore".
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Why are minimum wage jobs more susceptible to companies hiring part-time instead of full time if not to avoid the increased labor costs of benefits? Raising minimum wages reduces benefits and full time employment offered by employers to these low wage workers (on top of reducing total workers employed). Fair or not, it is an absolute fact. The "trend" has been happening for decades for the same reason, minimum wages have been increasing for decades along with the cost of providing benefits.

The advent of healthcare and pension benefits was a dodge of wage controls, i.e. CAPS, imposed by government. Can't pay higher wages so I'll give benefits to, in effect, pay workers more. Just like caps, floors such as minimum wage have unintended consequences.

Cackalacky - you just made the argument that making something more expensive increases demand. I suspect 47% agree. Pure folly in theory and practice. Your Ford example ignores the issue that those are not minimum wage jobs and never have been. A top notch burger flipper is probably not worth as much as two mediocre ones. Some forms of work have much more marginal profitability and productivity from a marginally improved worker than others. That would be Econ 201.
 

RallySonsOfND

All-Snub Team Snubbed
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
91
Today's business models are ecouraging the decrease of the middle class and its purcahsing power as opposed to to the business models of yore that actually increased the middle class and its purchasing power.

Also economics is not as simplistic as ECON 101. A dollar in the door is not a dollar in your pocket and a dollar out your pocket is not a dollar in someone elses.

Today's business models are the same as they have always been. Minimize cost, maximize profit. Increase units until marginal cost=marginal benefit
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
That was my point. He was more efficient. It allowed him to run 3 shifts and produce more. That was his business model.

That's free-market capitalism. Nothing more, nothing less. Ford was not unique.

Today's business models are to cut salaries, cut employees and benefits thereby making profits increase but as a byproduct producing less effective and efficient employees.

So false. This broad-brush description is absurdly ignorant. Plenty of businesses increase salaries and add employees.

But, as a crucial aspect of capitalism, the efficiency of capital-intensive machinery/technology replaces workers. Email replaces the need for more postal workers, ATMs replace the need for more bank tellers, etc etc. That is Karl Marx's point. You are worth less as a result of technological advances. But the decrease in costs crushes price equilibria simultaneously.

American worker efficiency dwarfs that of the rest of the world. That's why skilled manufacturing has been more resistant to globalization. Do not claim that employees are less efficient, that is simply wrong.

The 2nd article points out that may be to a company's deteriment. I dont see how it is asenine. The middle class having disposable income means more products can be bought.......less people with less money means less things get bought. I dont think it is apples to oranges. If economics is such a science, they are comparable.

I think the army of business professionals knows a little bit more about what will and what will not have a positive or negative effect on their operation. And even when they're wrong, they adjust with astounding quickness.
 

tadman95

I have a bigger bullet
Messages
2,846
Reaction score
248
That's free-market capitalism. Nothing more, nothing less. {/B}Ford was not unique.



So false. This broad-brush description is absurdly ignorant. Plenty of businesses increase salaries and add employees. [/B]

First, Ford was unique at the time.

Second, So false? Buster you can't be that naive to believe that isn't true.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Cackalacky - you just made the argument that making something more expensive increases demand. I suspect 47% agree. Pure folly in theory and practice. Your Ford example ignores the issue that those are not minimum wage jobs and never have been. A top notch burger flipper is probably not worth as much as two mediocre ones. Some forms of work have much more marginal profitability and productivity from a marginally improved worker than others. That would be Econ 201.

No I did not. I made the argument that Ford and people who copied him had a business model that encouraged economic growth. His model paid a large enough base (minimum) salary to its employees that also encouraged productivity. The higher wages increased the ability for the employees to purchase more things..... not just a car.

I disagree with your burger flipper analogy. If you have ever worked in the restaraunt industry, you will clearly know that not to be the case with kitchen staff (minimum wage or just above) or wait staff, who here in SC make $2.13 per hour, which you will notice is much less than the federal minimum wage. Not theory, not ECON201, but reality. There are clearly those who work harder than those who do not. Those who do not do not last long in the work place or they do not move up. They are not any more immune to low productivity than anyone else.

The margin of profitability as you put it is clearly in the hands of those who issue the paychecks. If I want a hard worker, I will pay him more, but why be surprised to get less work from someone I pay him less.

Now, higher earners are expected to work more while earning the same and those who want to work work less hours with less opportunity for benefits. That is not conducive to productivity or worker morale or any other measure of financial success.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Today's business models are the same as they have always been. Minimize cost, maximize profit. Increase units until marginal cost=marginal benefit

but how you do that is the point. Not every business or market is the same.
 

tadman95

I have a bigger bullet
Messages
2,846
Reaction score
248
It's 100% false regarding commission-based employees alone. Their pay is tied to their efficiency, by definition.

If you think companies have not devised and executed strategies to reduce/eliminate full time employees in lieu of part time temporary with lesser pay and no benefits you're crazy or so misinformed it's embarrassing.

The fastest growing company in our area is a temp agency and there's a reason for that. It's what companies are looking for.

As far as commission based positions, it effectiveness, not efficiency.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
It's 100% false regarding commission-based employees alone. Their pay is tied to their efficiency, by definition.

If you go into a c0mission based employment arrangement you clearly know its a risk reward situation. once again an employer makes the call on whether to hire you at salary, commission, minimum wage etc...
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
If you think companies have not devised and executed strategies to reduce/eliminate full time employees in lieu of part time temporary with lesser pay and no benefits you're crazy or so misinformed it's embarrassing.

The fastest growing company in our area is a temp agency and there's a reason for that. It's what companies are looking for.

As far as commission based positions, it effectiveness, not efficiency.

What are you talking about? Who told you I think that? Cadalacky?

And how does "efficiency" help a bottom line, a la Ford, if the salesmen aren't selling? And who cares? What are they "efficient" at? Shining their shoes?
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
First, Ford was unique at the time.

He was unique to the field. Not to the philosophy of what he was doing. Take a step back, it's no different than what any capitalist has done. From all the way back to Eli Whitney's cotton gin crushing the price equilibrium of cotton and absolutely blowing up the market because it became affordable. Clothes used to actually cost something. Now it costs almost nothing to make a cotton shirt.

Second, So false? Buster you can't be that naive to believe that isn't true.

That what isn't true? Businesses have always used the least amount of people and manhours to accomplish a goal. That's not unique to today. You all are acting like the businessmen of yesteryear had the middle class at heart and now the Gordon Geckos are running around stealing the cash. It's not different, technology is replacing workers--or in this case, government regulation is squashing hiring. But by and large people are paid what they are worth and that is determined by the market, for better or for worse.

A criticism of massive multi-national corporations shutting down operations and moving them overseas is so-so for me. On one hand, if we believe in free-trade and abolish trade restrictions and now foreign companies are selling a similar product here that is cheaper--you must move, or you fail. That is fact and unchangeable; we should at least recognize that usual lower prices that come along with it. On a side note, I find it hypocritical for the political party that promotes an end to global poverty and suffering and whats to promote economic growth in the third world, is also the first one to bitch and moan when an operation leaves the states for it.

Still, if your criticism is of workers being replaces by foreigners/machines, then you should have joined the bandwagon that supports small businesses. Small businesses cannot replace replace workers with heavy machinery so easily, and they don't build foreign factories, but they do hire American and produce in America for Americans.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
If you think companies have not devised and executed strategies to reduce/eliminate full time employees in lieu of part time temporary with lesser pay and no benefits you're crazy or so misinformed it's embarrassing.

The fastest growing company in our area is a temp agency and there's a reason for that. It's what companies are looking for.

As far as commission based positions, it effectiveness, not efficiency.

office-space-two-bobs.jpg

what do you mean?
 
Top