It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Ohanka
Being a power company it should be government owned as public utility from the start with so there aren’t parasites at the top to make such decisions.
originally posted by: pexx421
Almost all utility companies 20 years ago were public.
As to usps, I never have any problems with their service. I find them, ups, and fedex to be generally interchangeable.
Sure, but this doesn’t explain the divergence between productivity and wages that happened in the 70’s and has increased since then.
Pharma has been allowed to manipulate legislation that has enabled them runaway profits with no corresponding increase in the value of their products.
This, along with health insurance and predatory healthcare profiteering, have greatly inflated the labor costs of the American worker.
And there’s another factor as well. Another poster stated that we all work together, and if a company does well the owner profits, the shareholders profit, the execs profit, and the workers profit. But that’s not true. If the company profits now, for the vast majority of Americans, what happens is the execs profit. The owner or shareholders profit. The managers profit. But the workers make the same they would working for any other x,y, z company that does the same kind of work.
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: neo96
as a small business owner, you have to operate a efficiently as possible. If you can sub out your labor, and save money, it's what you do. You don't go into business to make everyone else rich, you try to make yourself money and in turn, those who helped you will reap the profits as well. But you have to put in some time and effort. asking for the moon on day 1 likely will result in this.
originally posted by: neo96
Their in for a rude awakening. If they do
Especially having to pay self employment taxes and ALL of their social secuirty and medicare TAXES. Ontop other taxes.
Except your analogy is missing something. That businesses have a certain amount of control over the supply and demand market. They largely control how loose or strict our immigrant worker policy is, or our regulations on outsourcing, etc.
As to YOUR ability to bargain. Well, hey that’s cool! But I hope you realize that the majority of Americans don’t have that.
Or, they can do that, but every other similar job is paying y, so they’ll just be turning down this job to get a similar offer from that.
If agreeing or declining a certain salary is the extent of bargaining and worker representation to you, then you clearly don’t understand the issues.
What I do know - any company that does not have a employee profit sharing plan is the spawn of satan. Every business should share a percentage of it's profits with it's employees. It would fix stagnant wages and solve so many problems for people who are struggling to provide for themselves and their families.
Corporations can write off all of their expenses - independent contractors? Nope, not even close.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
Independent contractors can be corporations... why would anyone start contracting without incorporating? That's like begging for someone to take everything they ever thought about owning. I wouldn't dream of starting a business without incorporating!
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl
So if the independent contractor is a corporation, it cannot write off things that a corporation can?
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: vonclod
They got greedy, figured being unionised meant "cash cow"
I'm on the fence with some unions..they definitely had their place, and served a needed purpose. Now..meh.
Unions worked and were a smart move when things like free trade, overreaching labor and environmental regulations, and "living wage" minimum wages didn't exist in the United States. With those policies firmly entrenched, however, all unions do is add yet another reason for companies to go outside the US borders to produce their good and/or service in one of the many, many countries out there which do not over-regulate their companies and do not mandate minimum wages.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: pexx421
Sure, but this doesn’t explain the divergence between productivity and wages that happened in the 70’s and has increased since then.
That is simply the economies of scale coming into play. As the global marketplace increased, so did the scale, and the companies made more profit. The workers did not because they didn't demand it. That's where Unionization works out well, if the workers at a company choose to collectively demand better wages. The caveat, of course, is the caveat that caught the workers in this issue: the demands must be reasonable. The workers do not get all of the pie. If they demand all of the pie, the pie disappears.
Pharma has been allowed to manipulate legislation that has enabled them runaway profits with no corresponding increase in the value of their products.
Different issue. Industries should not be manipulating legislation, but to accomplish that we have to get away from identity politics and look at politicians in terms of their policies and effectiveness, not in terms of political party affiliation or personal attributes.
In other words, good freakin' luck.
This, along with health insurance and predatory healthcare profiteering, have greatly inflated the labor costs of the American worker.
Again, different issue (in this case a direct result of governmental interference combined with insurance permeating the industry).
And there’s another factor as well. Another poster stated that we all work together, and if a company does well the owner profits, the shareholders profit, the execs profit, and the workers profit. But that’s not true. If the company profits now, for the vast majority of Americans, what happens is the execs profit. The owner or shareholders profit. The managers profit. But the workers make the same they would working for any other x,y, z company that does the same kind of work.
Of course! It's called the Law of Supply and Demand!
But what you are missing is that working for a company is not a marriage. It is an ongoing commitment by both parties involved. You are offering your services in exchange for money, period. We have somehow decided that this isn't enough, and all workers must have benefits. Those benefits are part of your compensation! If you should be making $40 an hour, but the benefits cost $20 an hour, you will only see $20 an hour in cash. If the minimum wage is $7 an hour, and you are worth $20 an hour, but the benefits cost a company $15 an hour, you cannot work for less than $22 an hour actual cost, and that's $2 an hour you are costing your employer just by making minimum wage!
In that case, the company isn't going to hire workers, or they will have to raise their profit margin and their goods will cost more. If their goods cost more, they won't sell as many and won't need as many workers. That's the spiral that has been occurring, and the companies are caught in the middle... they have to pay their bills, too, including stockholders, so there's not much money left to work with, and then the workers complain because there's not much money left to hire them.
Not to mention that just having a job is profit! No one is guaranteed a job. Having one is a lot more profitable than not having one. All one needs to do a job is clean, appropriate clothing and themselves... everything else is profit. The company has to pay for office space, equipment, overhead, management, and still somehow make a product that will sell at a price people will pay... their income is certainly not all profit.
Someone above mentioned that the workers should just start doing contracting and get paid that way. That is exactly how I started my company. The place I was working at was not treating me fairly, so I quit, got a business license, and started contracting (I eventually was contracting for the company I left). Did I make more as a contractor? Yeah, something like 3 times as much! But I did without health insurance; I had no retirement; and I spent more than what I was making in office space, equipment, materials, overhead, and fees and regulations. In the end? I would have probably been better off if I was still an employee, at least at first.
It just doesn't work the way you think it does, and it will never work the way you think it should. Try to force it to work like you think it should, and it'll just stop working... like the employees at the solar power company found out.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: neo96
Their in for a rude awakening. If they do
Especially having to pay self employment taxes and ALL of their social secuirty and medicare TAXES. Ontop other taxes.
Ummm... paying both sides of FICA and all of Medicare is the definition of 'self-employment' taxes.
Yes, it sucks, and is one of the many ways that Corporations actually have more Rights than people do. Corporations can write off all of their expenses - independent contractors? Nope, not even close.
Not at the point the income devolves onto the flesh and blood person, correct.