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.

 

Obama: "Profits have to be shared by workers" ... Idiodic Statements for $500 please!

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by gncnew
 


You should take a class on accounting. Even a basic one. Workers dont get a share of profits. Wages are a business expense and they come out of the equation before you calculate "profits." Just sayin'. If you are going to be calling people ignorant, at least understand roughly what your OP is about.


Wait wait wait... do you understand where "business expenses" come from? The profit. LOL. I promise I understand completely where and how you track the money for a company.

But a line item in your Deltek system does not a philosophy make. We don't hire no more folks if we don't has no more monies.

We can catagorize the expense any way we like - but increased profits equal increased salaries and/or capital expansion. So when I give you a raise because it's been a big year - my "business expense" just became your profit sharing...

don't try to dilute the thread with dippy crap like that...

Now - those darn IT folks we had to hire - THEY are the real "business expense"... and strait overhead at that... no direct charge... lets fire the whole lot of em!




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeverHunter
What do you expect from that communist faggot.


Dude - really? Are you just playing Moderator bait?

Mods - please?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



I am not saying that moving more into a protectionist stance would be bad. but a full move to protectionist tactics would send out delicate and damaged economy toppling. It is a major lesson that led up to the Great Depression, as trade was stifled both ways, leaving the US with little influx of money (stagnation), among other stresses.

Even worse, we have the added issue of a tarnished flag, and some attractive offers from other nations like China (who will build a whole city for you if you can move in at least 25k jobs). We risk losing major industries if our government goes too far into a protectionist stance.

Now, this may be a good thing if you think a full "reset" is the only real medicine. Me? I am just about ready to move out to the mountains. I will have some major dental work in the next couple of months. After that, i am ready for whatever happens.

You share my advantages of a strong intellect, good size, and plenty of physical capability. I feel confident in whatever faces me, short of an ELE.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints

There are not many small businesses that are doing well. They are being run out of business. The businesses that are doing great are businesses that don't employ many and they are making many of their profits by reducing their overhead by closing down facilities and consolidating with less employees. Meanwhile, laws have made it harder and harder to build facilities that employ laborers.


Small businesses are not doing great for the same reason your average American is not doing great. You have mistaken what side you are on.

When corporate America goes in and fights to promote "business" they could care less about small businesses. You are their competition. Do you need it to be made more clear than that? Just like "labor" is the competition. You see they know you CANT afford, as a small business, to move overseas. They bank on that. It allows them to produce more cheaply than you ever can, and run you into the ground. And yet who do small businesses side with? The people trying to run them into the ground. Not the consumers who could buy from them, and grow their business.

You have to know where your interest lies, if you want to win the game. You cant act in your own best interest if you dont know what that is. The problem is, most people get their information from TV, which is propaganda, rather than from books or courses and study of the topic. The media is owned by large corporate interests. What you learn from that source is what their interests are, and they tell you that their interest is your interest. In business, this is a ridiculous concept.

Apparently, no one understands the competitive nature of business, despite their almost universal acclaim of free market competition. They people telling you what you should want are not your friends. They are your competition, and what they are telling you you should want is probably in THEIR interests not yours.

As a small business owner, your best interests would have been to prevent the influx of illegal labor, (because this would have keep your customers wages high enough to buy your product) and you would have been against NAFTA, because this would have forced your competitors, the big boys, to play closer to your terms. Sure, they would still have economies of scale on their side, but you would have stood a chance.

Dont blame labor for the fact that you voted yourself into a hole. Labor had it right the whole time. Protect labor, protect small business, protect your national economy. That formula is why we boomed after the depression, but corporate America has been attacking it since it was put in place, and finally they have done enough damage to that system to crash the US economy. And they are doing fine.


Originally posted by badgerprints
The other side of that coin is that the politicians...including Mr Obama...have passed innumerable laws that allow the corporations to profit by removing jobs from the US. They also have retracted many of the former legal protections America used to have. Getting down to basics these laws used to forbid illegal trusts, usury and fraud but now those very things are basic methods of operation between business and politics with the people as the ones who are the victims of these crimes.


The second sad truth is that its not Obama's fault. We, collectively, have been lazy asses politically, and we are reaping what we sowed. We have allowed, in large because of the fact that we have confused our competitors interests with our interests, via the media, the corporate buyout of our electoral system. And what a surprise in light of that, that the government acts for them and not for us.

You cannot blame our politicians for that. Thats on us. We are/were too busy watching reality TV to spend even a hour a week educating ourselves on our own political system, economy, etc., so we can vote wisely. Nor do we spend an hour a week knocking on doors, or marching at city hall. Its on us. A government by the people and for the people requires.........................people. And we have been MIA.

We could take the nation back in no time if we all just shut off our TVs and went to work, politically, to do that. But we wont.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
OP... there are just too many people in the world for the current Capitalism Corporate Fascist Plutocratic Oligarchy to work like you think it should anymore.

You are neglecting factors such as outsourcing, automation, medical advances(technology in general), and perhaps most importantly: The Banking System.

Current trending is less jobs for more people. Especially in America, where the manufacturing base is sent overseas. On top of that, we are supposed to borrow money from the FED at interest whenever we need to provide the basic societal needs, instead of printing debt free currency from the Treasury?! That is ludicrous.

We are evolving past the need for this type of monetary economy. We have to embrace the other half of our evolutionary heritage, Cooperation. It is dangerous to think in the social darwinist "survival of the fittest" ideology.

The only thing keeping us from evolving is the Machiavellian power structure, corporate greed, bought politicians, and ideologues such as yourself.

People die every day that this system lives on.

The 21st century will see(and is seeing) a renaissance of mass proportions, accompanied by revolutions worldwide - while the previous societal paradigm squirms to keep its dominance over the masses.

My 2c.



What is it with this misguided moral code of altruism that many today believe in? The basic principles of altruism propose that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty.You guys try to hide behind superficialities such as whether you should give a dollar to a homeless beggar man or not, when that moral dilemma is not the real issue!
The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dollar. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dollar by dollar, from any beggar man who might choose to want without the need to produce. The issue is whether the need of others is above your own and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. A man man of self-esteem should answer: “No.” The Altruistic man says: “Yes.” The statist socialist says yes and allows the state to take his wealth with the misguided perception that it is for the good of all. The true story is that he is allowing himself to be robbed.

Nanny, Nanny may I partake of the teet?
Alas! No dear boy, it is all dried up!
But Nanny, there were only 45 million of us on it!




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew

This is the kind of moronic statement that only makes sense to the minimum wage and the stupid.

A job is not a right - it's a privilege. And you can only expect to enjoy that privilege so long as you make more money than you cost your bosses. This is a very simple concept. But it seems even our uber-educated president is clueless about how the world actually works outside of government.


Just see how far you get trying to run a company without workers! Only in the fantasy novels of Ayn Rand is a boss capable of doing that, of being anything other than a parasite on his workers' efforts.
Unions are a good thing - and it's only because of Unions that bosses pay workers enough to live on. If you were a worker (or had ever been one) you'd know that.
Randbot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vicky



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew
When you get a raise at work ... do you immediately go out and pay your waitresses more money on a tip?


Well, really now.

You never frequent Gentlemen's clubs, do you.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

I am not saying that moving more into a protectionist stance would be bad. but a full move to protectionist tactics would send out delicate and damaged economy toppling. It is a major lesson that led up to the Great Depression, as trade was stifled both ways, leaving the US with little influx of money (stagnation), among other stresses.


There is not perfect agreement that protectionism caused or exacerbated the Depression. There is a lot of debate over what caused it, and protectionism is but one theory. Many of the people who didnt see this crash coming claimed that. But how good is their judgment, in retrospect? People also started protectionist rumblings a decade or so before this crash, but this time, the government did not give in to them, at all, and in fact opened the gates wider. And it crashed again. I would argue that protectionist cries from the people are like a canary in a coal mine. They should alert you that there is trouble brewing.

Globalization is a common denominator in both economic crashes, the Depression and this one, but you dont see many people considering that as a cause, do you? I would argue that globalization, and its crippling and immediate impact on wages, played a huge role in both crashes, along with easy lending at high rates of interest, etc.

I think nations SHOULD be protectionistic. Nations are competing groups, competing entities. Corporations are competing entities and they are protectionistic. What sort of fool would argue corporations should not pursue protectionist policies? Of course you should protect the interests of the group you belong to. Its the most basic common sense, which is why people both leading up to the depression and this collapse called for it.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


You are right, we should be somewhat protectionistic. But we have come so far down this path, we are put in a position of deciding whether or not to continue to try to prop up the current systems (and maintain some level of comfort), or face a total "reset", which could set us back critically.

I don't see people, especially Americans, being willing to give up their new baubles so easily. they will fight and cling until the bitter end. If this is the actual goal, protectionism will only kill the US while making China supremely powerful. Our corporations have already started to abandon ship. When they are taxed on their own products at our ports, you will see a mass Exodus.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew


Wait wait wait... do you understand where "business expenses" come from? The profit. LOL. I promise I understand completely where and how you track the money for a company.


I do. I have three years of business school with accounting as my core, before changing to and graduating in philosophy. Heavy on the economic, political, ethical philosophies as one might expect considering what I had switched from. And my grades were exceptional, so the "dippy" comment isnt working with reality, unfortunately.


Originally posted by gncnew
But a line item in your Deltek system does not a philosophy make. We don't hire no more folks if we don't has no more monies.


Then you didnt pay attention in cost accounting either. You dont make hiring decisions on last years profits. A company that has had losses three years running might be advised to hire more. Decision making at that level is just not as simple as "more profit means we hire more people next fiscal year."


Originally posted by gncnew
We can catagorize the expense any way we like - but increased profits equal increased salaries and/or capital expansion. So when I give you a raise because it's been a big year - my "business expense" just became your profit sharing...


Umm ok, If you are handing out raises based on this years profits, you are a fool. Bonus, maybe. But you havent even pinned down the cause of the increase in profits and you are already talking raises? What if it was just increased sales based on a one off event? Now you are committed to paying higher wages for the same amount of people, even when sales come back down to normal. And watch employee moral come crashing down when you slash those wages, cowboy. Or why would you be paying more to each employee when what would have really grown your business was to hire two more at the same basic rate?



Originally posted by gncnew
don't try to dilute the thread with dippy crap like that...


Yeah. Lol. You must have a really good product and a really good staff, because you dont really seem to have a good grasp on the basics.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jokyuketsuki53
I declare no matter what he may say to the contrary Obama is a Socialist with a One-World-Order agenda he is desperately trying to push through before he is out of office. It seems to me that he is doing one hell of a job too. Shame on Americans for sitting idly by and letting this happen!!!



Its no secret; no matter how many times or how passionately you libs deny it. But after watching "food inc" some of these corporations need to go (monsanto etc..)along with their lobbyists who live in the revolving door cycle on the hill

Waters:"uh...uh...uh.." priceless..
edit on 7-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Your statement is bicycle theory, and you arent alone in proposing it.

Basically, it states that "if we dont keep doing what we are doing, the system will fall over." Think about that. Just logically, dont get too complex. Is it really your best bet to keep going just because you have invested a lot in something? Is that true if you have invested in a Ponzi scheme? You should just keep investing even once you see its not panning out or it is a fraud? Any kind of investing? In a product that no one wants to buy? In a habit that is hazardous to your health?

And as for the technical theory, bicycle theory, the example I always use is, ok, lets say its a given that you will fall over if you quit going forward. Is that really such a bad outcome if you are headed for a cliff? Skinned knees, maybe a broken wrist or arm vs falling off a cliff?

Neither of those statements mean that we should bail out of that strategy just because times are rough. But we do need to really look ahead and see where we are headed before we decide that full steam ahead is the right strategy. And, we need to be very clear who "we" are. Unless you are an owner of a corporation, (major stockholder) or a CEO, your interests and the interests of a corporation are not the same. In fact, odds are, you are competitors.

What is good for corporate entities and the financial elite may well be globalization. But is it good for the majority of humans? Is it good for the humans in the competitive group YOU belong to? Where does your interest lie? Personally, while I am taken with the idea of "one non-competitive humanity" I do not believe it is possible, or desirable for the masses, of which I am one. At the very least, the logic is faulty that simply because we have come so far this way, we should keep going. Sometimes its good to stop and evaluate your trajectory. Sometimes its wise to turn and run the other way. We need to figure that out.
edit on 7-2-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
More on topic I worked in a plant that didn't have "profit sharing" but something they said was "even better" "gain sharing"!
once a quarter we'd shutdown production; pull up all the chairs and have a big meeting where office"pukes" ( please excuse the term) term threw up power point slides explaining the formula; the numbers and the "magic number"to exceed to receive our cut in "gain sharing"..funny once they subtracted" the cost of doing business " we always fell just short by.2% or so.9 (Oh you guys... almost made it!).It didn't go over well and colored my view of the front office for years.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


That reminds me of this video. WARNING, cursing in this video, dont watch it if you are offended.




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Your statement is bicycle theory, and you arent alone in proposing it.

Basically, it states that "if we dont keep doing what we are doing, the system will fall over." Think about that. Just logically, dont get too complex. Is it really your best bet to keep going just because you have invested a lot in something? Is that true if you have invested in a Ponzi scheme? You should just keep investing even once you see its not panning out or it is a fraud? Any kind of investing? In a product that no one wants to buy? In a habit that is hazardous to your health?

And as for the technical theory, bicycle theory, the example I always use is, ok, lets say its a given that you will fall over if you quit going forward. Is that really such a bad outcome if you are headed for a cliff? Skinned knees, maybe a broken wrist or arm vs falling off a cliff?

Neither of those statements mean that we should bail out of that strategy just because times are rough. But we do need to really look ahead and see where we are headed before we decide that full steam ahead is the right strategy. And, we need to be very clear who "we" are. Unless you are an owner of a corporation, (major stockholder) or a CEO, your interests and the interests of a corporation are not the same. In fact, odds are, you are competitors.

What is good for corporate entities and the financial elite may well be globalization. But is it good for the majority of humans? Is it good for the humans in the competitive group YOU belong to? Where does your interest lie? Personally, while I am taken with the idea of "one non-competitive humanity" I do not believe it is possible, or desirable for the masses, of which I am one. At the very least, the logic is faulty that simply because we have come so far this way, we should keep going. Sometimes its good to stop and evaluate your trajectory. Sometimes its wise to turn and run the other way. We need to figure that out.
edit on 7-2-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)


:Listen, i am just kind of free wheeling it here. Supposing based on what i see as the probability. I have been very clear that, after March anyway, i am all for whatever happens.

My personal view, if it matters, is that i am a hardcore, 1776 "liberterian" (i use quotes because i do not really observe political parties as legitimates sources of power...it isn't in the constitution, and they should have none of it). Being such, I would rather see us use good old American ingenuity to set the example for the rest of the world. All wars of aggression should be ceased, and their perpetrators tried for war crimes. This would include just about every person who has served in DC and is still alive....but the population is a little thick and we could use some culling of the elite for the evils they have done.

The fiat money system should be outlawed, and usury stifled to a point of being mutually beneficial and less like a leech infestation. Corporations should no longer be given legal status as individuals, and money does not equal free speech (meaning get money out of politics).

We should spend no more than 30% more than the next nation when it comes to defense spending (we spend 1000% more than China, at least in 2008, with 685 billion vs 65 billion).

Laws should be removed and prisons filled with sexual predators and murderers. Doing time for something that creates no victim is ridiculous. And what is with the tax code? Consumption tax. it is the way to go. Business could come out pretty nicely, and it would remove the enormous tax burden that the middle class carries in this country (due to tax credits for the poor, and tax shelters for the rich).

I am happy living with my internet and computer. I am also happy living off the land with the stars as my blanket. I have done both throughout my life, and can adapt easily to either environment....once this dental work is complete that is. LOL. Damned sulfa drugs ruined my teeth as a toddler.

But like Einstein said: madness is repeating the same steps and expecting different results. I think we need to simplify, simplify, simplify our domestic agenda while putting all foreign agendas on hold (to the greatest extent possible, and in increasing measures).
edit on 7-2-2011 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
what is so wrong about companies paying their employees better? the big businesses and corporations are hoarding the profits!! then when employees want to be paid better the companies take off to where they can get away with paying their slaves peanuts! i do not consider myself a socialist or a capitalist although i am left leaning. lets look at the two economic systems

socialism > social > society > working together > helping each other > helping the weak > humanity.

capitalism > capital > money > the strong survive > survival of the fittest > greed > animal law.

i say if you want to live like an animal, go crap in the woods and we will take away your soap and deodorant. then you can fend for yourself and live with the animal laws. i myself choose to be more humane. the year is 2011 humans are not cavemen, we should abandon the survival of the fittest crap.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
No, it makes perfect sense.
This is Union speak/language.

To Socialism we march.


And to corporatism we arrive



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I dont disagree with a lot of your wants. I share many of them. The solutions to our problems, and the understanding of them, is not really all that simple, however. Its not impossibly complex, but it sure isnt simple.

Read the Republic someday. Plato is still, by far, the best thinker on the topic of how to order a just and good society that allows human happiness of any human ever born. His system tends to make many people recoil, because it is one in which freedom is limited. But it is a myth that human beings want freedom. Human beings are actually happiest in the arms of a good and loyal shepherd, who wants the best for his flock. Hence the popularity of Jesus as well.

We like the sound of freedom, but we do not really do well in democracy. We dont have the inclination, most of us, manage it. Human beings are pack or troop animals and we have a majority of subordinates, with a small number of natural leaders at any given time. We need to accept that about ourselves if we are ever to have a chance at a good society.

The trick is to set up the system so that only those who care the most for the group (and who are smart enough to do the job) can ever lead. If you dont do that, if you dont set it up right, you inevitably have the worst of humans rise to the position.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew
reply to post by buster2010
 





The problem here is the greed of the people that run the company.


Ahhh, you mean like you and me? If you've got a 401k - you just became that greedy SOB running the company...

Never forget that the companies are run by lots and lots of people... only Apple and Microsoft are run by one dude sitting on a pile of cash.



LOL How does a 401 make anyone greedy? Are you looking for the government to take care of you when you get old? And companies are hardly run by lots and lots of people they are run by the board of directors just like Apple and Microsoft. In every company you will find there are just a few people that are calling the shots and when you look at how much they are paid compared to the average worker that's when you can see the greed.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 





Before you rant into your socialistic diatribe: When you get a raise at work ... do you immediately go out and pay your waitresses more money on a tip? What about for movie rentals? Do you volunteer to pay more for each film? How about gas? Do you give the gas attendant more for each gallon now that you're making more?


Apologies if someone has already addressed this, I confess to not reading through the whole post.

But you are comparing a decent living wage with inanimate objects or paying for a service, not doing a job or bearing the responsibilty of an employer.

A decent living wage is not too much to ask for, are we not all Americans?



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join