No Mr. Romney, Rich People Do Not Create Jobs

What built and made American Great are dead and gone and their children have become spoiled idiots.

edit on 18-10-2012 by MajorKarma because: (no reason given)

I AGREE AT 10000000%

The only way that things will change in the United-States in the future will be by pain. I mean intense, strong, constant wicked pain. That's the ONLY way people will learn something. People need to suffer to understand what they've and what they're losing right now. Most of the people do not understand the sacrifices that the founding fathers and the people in the past had to do to build what we've right now. The reality is not in the TV.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


"Should be" this, "Should be" that.


More socialist thinking. Who is paying the professors to teach? Do you think they are willing to teach for free? Or you want to go full communist and have the govt pay them in food vouchers and cramped apt living arrangements? Well then who gives the govt money to pay for all this? Money from
people in other countries who make money using Capitalism? Could you just study economic systems a bit before making suggestions?

reply to post by MystikMushroom

If I owned 20 McDonald's, and made over a million a year I could probably afford to build a new one and hire some people. However, if I find that overal revenue from my 20 McDonald's is down, what incentive to I have to build and expand?

IMO, that is a flawed example, because you begin with someone already owning 20 McDonald's.

20 McDonald's must certainly employ quite a few people already,
but how did this person get to the point of being able to buy the first store? 2nd? 10th?

Then we need to focus on creating the next class of success stories such as this individual.

Help me buy my first of twenty McDonald's!

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Sparky63

 

I have a woman who sits on her behind all day answering the phones.

If you are her boss I bet she would love to get up and walk with a boss having that marrow minded attitude.

She sits on her behind all day because you do not value her or it seems intend to train her to do other work.

She answers the phone because people like to talk to people not machines and if she was replaced by a machine then you may find yourself sitting on your behind all day when your business collapses when you customers go elsewhere

She sits on her butt all day because that's what is required to do her job. It was not a jab at her work ethic. There is nothing narrow minded about describing the low skill level her job requires. That is just a fact of life. As far as training her for other work, she is not interested in doing more. And since I still need someone to direct calls, we have developed a perfect business relationship. I pay her what I think she is worth, and she can accept it or find another job. We also contribute to her 401k and provide health insurance for the time being.
I have a file cabinet full of applications of people more than willing to fill her seat and push some buttons.

I'm happy and she is happy. When she becomes too unhappy she will find another job and life will go on.

Could you just study economic systems a bit before making suggestions?

edit on 18-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I'll drink to that! The worse thing is those people have the right to vote and that is scary.

reply to post by chameleonwalker


Yes of course, thinking a man deserves to make a fare share of the profits for his work, when compared to the profits made by the company, has to be communism right? Where do you get that idea? If not for minimum wage being passed, our grandparents would have been working for pennies and hour while companies made billions of dollars a year in profits.

There is absolutely no reason a company should make more than the employess, when the employees make all the mney possible. Without their work, their would be no company, their would be no profits, they deserve a fare wage.

And yes, it is an employers job to pay fare compensation for fare work performed. Thinking it is ok to pay a worker $7.25 an hour when their labor makes $1,000 or more an hour for the company is the problem, we wouldn't be here if right now discussing this if the status quo worked in the first place.

We would be living the high life, with no welfare for anyone willing to work, as they would already make enough to live on.

The problem is, though we are in this mess, we do need to move a new direction, we do need to make a system that more justly rewards the many, not the few.

Very few people will pay a fare wage fr work performed unless forced to, this is greed, and greed is destroying lives for no reason.

What I am proposing is not communism, and has never been tried before, this is a new concept, never before attempted.

It is simple, if walmart makes, after expenses, $100,000. the regular non salaried workers deserve, to have paid between them $50,000. The company keeps half, the workers get the other half, the company still makes plenty, and the workers get their fare cut, half.

Now the upper execs and salaried employees would be paid out of the companies side of the profits, as these are the highest paid, and receive large salaries and bonuses, so shouldn't count towards the workers total pay, as they are paid very large salaries and bonuses, so this would keep their pay in check.

Also ut would make it much more profitable to start your own business that sit at the board of one, so it would breed by necessity, competition, as many more businesses would pop up, to try and get the pay top execs want, by building a business, instead of working for one.

reply to post by MystikMushroom

The rich will harvest and hoard still more and more, and whatever drops are left trickle down that's all.

Whereas middle class, well educated entrepreneurial people with energy and great ideas, they are the ones who will grow the economy and build out the next wave of multi million and billion dollar enterprises. I myself plan to start just such a business within the next couple of years, with the aim being to channel money from the rest of the world to Americans, and Canadians, in need of supplemental income and revenue streams.

I also intend to give away anywhere from 10-50% of all profits to the cause of siting clean water filtration systems in the third world, both because it's the right thing to do, and, because it's a brilliant marketing gimick sure to inspire other corporate initiatives along the same lines.

The rich generally just want another yacht, another house, some more watches, cars, clothes and hot women, and they'll harvest profits to the best of their ability to get even richer, for the most part. I too of course want those things, especially the hot women or woman, singular, but I will NEVER do so at the expense of my primary purpose which is to be most helpful to others in a way that honors and preserves that which is in our enlightened mutual best interest.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by chameleonwalker

 

Yes of course, thinking a man deserves to make a fare share of the profits for his work, when compared to the profits made by the company, has to be communism right? Where do you get that idea? If not for minimum wage being passed, our grandparents would have been working for pennies and hour while companies made billions of dollars a year in profits.

There is absolutely no reason a company should make more than the employess, when the employees make all the mney possible. Without their work, their would be no company, their would be no profits, they deserve a fare wage.

But if the employee doesn't think the wage is fair, he or she can quit and find a better job, or acquire more valuable skills. The employees are not slaves, forced to work and accept whatever the employer offers.
As long as there are plenty of potential employees who want the job, the company will continue to exist. Government needs to get off the back of businesses and leave them alone. The last thing business need is more government involvement and regulations. What you are describing is a proven economic destroyer. Pick any socialist country and see for yourself.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Are you just stuck in the 50s during the red scare?

Yes of curse the government should pay for it, out of the taxes they already pay for higher education, but instead of it going to investors pockets it should go to only the school, and the teachers. Who are paid a fare wage, around y figures sounds about right, but it wouldn't only be up to me, as the students themselves would also have a say, everyone would.

It will seriously lower the taxes paid now in subsidies that don't even pay for an education, they pay greedy investors, not for education.

For thousands of years universities taught for the sake of spreading knowledge, only in modern times is it solely for profits.

The current model obviously doesn't work, so we need a new one, one that has the ability to work, not just keep trying to drive a bent nail into a board hoping for the best.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


Regarding the disparity in pay between the owners and executives and the hourly employees.
If a CEO or other key executive is replaced or quits it can dramatically affect a company for the good or bad. It can make the difference between expanding, hiring more people or laying people off.
Now compare that to the guy who sweeps the floors who quits or is fired. He can be replaced at a moments notice and no one will blink an eye. Now that doesn't mean that sweeping the floor is not necessary but it is not a key position that affects the companies profitability.
Why should this guy's pay be compared in any way to someone who has a key position, whose decisions and activity drastically affect the companies bottom line?
As human beings all people are equal, but we are talking about business. And in this setting, not all people are equal.
That is reality and basic truth of life.
Any political system that tries to circumvent this reality is doomed to failure.

reply to post by chameleonwalker


Yes we have risked all, our home maxed credit, all on the line and my husband actually brings home less then his main employee after taxes. And by the way to your responder, he does most of the work himself.

Oregon keeps raising the min wage and if they keep it up with business so bad most people may lose their businesses and then who will hire all those workers.

reply to post by Sparky63


What you are saying would be dead accurate in a perfect world, however this one is not.

People can't just "get new skills" as it required money they can't get to go to school, and pay the bills while they do, to get them. The people don't have any money for this in the first place or they all would.

Government intervention is the only reason we made it this far before the current situation occured, as they froced the employers to pay a wage that allowed dispossable income in the first place, think about the situation before minimum wage, there were few who paid their employees enough to live on, and many who had mney scams where they paid in "company money" good only at the over priced company stores, ensuring debt slaves so the people who worked their fingers to the bone everyday wouldn't be able to feed their families unless they took loans to buy the goods needed.

There is not one single honest good reason for an employer to make more off a workers labr than the worker.

Right now, everywhere in this country, workers can't just go get a better job, their are none to get, and the ones that can get them, pay walmart mcdonalds pay. This doesn't even pay enough to live on, let alone go to schol and get better skills, or in anyway raise themselves out of poverty. Yet these same businesses, make billions upon billions ff their workers labor.

The problem isn't workers, it is employers, and their unsatable greed for more more more, even though they already have more than enough, millions of times more than their workers, who make the money possible in the first place.

The rich create serfs.


Walmart creates jobs by buying from china and paying crappy. Simply by buying in china and selling here they could afford to pay their employees better but they do not.

Instead they expand and make more crappy jobs and continue to make a profit off exploiting cheap labor in china (other countries) and cheap labor in their stores in the USA.

Businesses are in the business of making money not creating jobs that give you a good lively hood. if you happen to make a good living off their wages it is an unintended result. That is what they do and I really do not have a problem with that. However the laborer should not be put in a position where they have but no choice to work for crappy wages.

Businesses exploit the fact taht you need a job because of your debt and your family. They exploit this and that is why they are able to get away with the crap they do. I bet many of us if we had our wages cut today we would not quit but simply whine about our job a little bit more. The reason why is because if you leave your job most other companies will exploit that you are new to their company to low ball you, they will quote a bad economy to low ball you, and chances are you will lose perks like any payed vacation you reached to get in your many years in one company. Not to mention that wages for new people are going down compared to where they were if you started i a company many years ago. Pensions?? gone 401k matching gone... regardless of what your opinions are on those things... they are gone. Not to mention that technology has not only made it easier to de skill workers it has made it so fewer laborers are needed. so much is working for "job" creators and not for the laborer.

I think the laborer should not allow a business to exploit the work force. except big business has done an exceptional job at pitting the laborer against each other which benefits them.

the corruption of unions has not helped, and all the pricks who think a business actually cares about them because things are going well for them are really naive.

Businesses do not have to be loyal to you. heck when i had a business i didn't care that much about employees if it was hurting my bottom line. Think about it, if all you have in your pocket for the rest of the week is a twenty and then you were told to give away half you would be upset. Now imagine how a business owner looks at employees when they begin encroaching on their bottom line. They will not look at their bad business decisions and cut their pay they will cut you the employee.

The only way to change things around is if employers have to compete to get employees instead of employees competing to get employers. Except as long as we have debt and a family we need to care for we are basically at their mercy and they know.

There will never be a solution for this

Originally posted by Sparky63
But if the employee doesn't think the wage is fair, he or she can quit and find a better job, or acquire more valuable skills. The employees are not slaves, forced to work and accept whatever the employer offers.

If company B,C,D,E and F are paying the same low wage as company A, then yes, employees are forced to work and accept whatever the employer offers. If as an employer you can not afford to pay an employee a living wage then you do not have a viable business and should should not expect we the people to subsidize you.

As long as there are plenty of potential employees who want the job, the company will continue to exist.

And this is why businesses like high unemployment. With more or less full employment companies have to make working for them more appealing by higher pay and better benefits.

Government needs to get off the back of businesses and leave them alone. The last thing business need is more government involvement and regulations. What you are describing is a proven economic destroyer. Pick any socialist country and see for yourself.

We the people are Government. Not Us the businesses.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by chameleonwalker

 

Yes of course, thinking a man deserves to make a fare share of the profits for his work, when compared to the profits made by the company, has to be communism right? Where do you get that idea? If not for minimum wage being passed, our grandparents would have been working for pennies and hour while companies made billions of dollars a year in profits.

There is absolutely no reason a company should make more than the employess, when the employees make all the mney possible. Without their work, their would be no company, their would be no profits, they deserve a fare wage.

And yes, it is an employers job to pay fare compensation for fare work performed. Thinking it is ok to pay a worker $7.25 an hour when their labor makes $1,000 or more an hour for the company is the problem, we wouldn't be here if right now discussing this if the status quo worked in the first place.

We would be living the high life, with no welfare for anyone willing to work, as they would already make enough to live on.

The problem is, though we are in this mess, we do need to move a new direction, we do need to make a system that more justly rewards the many, not the few.

Very few people will pay a fare wage fr work performed unless forced to, this is greed, and greed is destroying lives for no reason.

What I am proposing is not communism, and has never been tried before, this is a new concept, never before attempted.

It is simple, if walmart makes, after expenses, $100,000. the regular non salaried workers deserve, to have paid between them $50,000. The company keeps half, the workers get the other half, the company still makes plenty, and the workers get their fare cut, half.

Now the upper execs and salaried employees would be paid out of the companies side of the profits, as these are the highest paid, and receive large salaries and bonuses, so shouldn't count towards the workers total pay, as they are paid very large salaries and bonuses, so this would keep their pay in check.

Also ut would make it much more profitable to start your own business that sit at the board of one, so it would breed by necessity, competition, as many more businesses would pop up, to try and get the pay top execs want, by building a business, instead of working for one.

If you would like to start a business like that then jump to it. Maybe you cant get the funding to do it yourself so sell the idea to someone who does and make a little money. Thats all fine and good. The problem is that you think your system is the best and that EVERY business should use it because it meets your expectations of what fair is. You are so convinced of this that you want the government to use force to compel every business to adopt it.


The issue here and with most of you anti-business types is that you make the mistake of thinking that the job belongs to the worker. It does not.
The job belongs to the employer.
I have tasks that I need completed in order to make my department function. I could spend the time myself but I would be doing just these tasks and so I would not be available to accomplish other things better suited to my abilities. So I look at how long those tasks will take to accomplish. I determine that I need 12 man hours a day to perform the basics. I know that it will take somewhat longer when I take into consideration delays and outside factors so I need two people or one really good person to perform these tasks. At that point I define the job description and a rate of pay. That rate of pay is determined based on the market. The market is based on what other similar positions are being paid. So that means that someone with the skill set I need is worth what the market has determined they are worth. The market rate is based on what those people are willing to take as pay in exchange for their labor. I am not just pulling a number out of my nether regions when I set a rate of pay. I then post this job and take applications. Once I look at candidates I pick the top three based on skills and I interview them. I look at a lot of factors when I decide which of the candidates I will offer the job too. When i decide I call them up and offer them the job and tell them the rate of pay. If they accept that rate of pay then they will take the job.

Thats it.

This is how a persons rate of pay and their job status is established. If you accept the rate of pay then you have the job. If you think you are worth more money for that skill set then you have the opportunity to make that case in the interview. If i agree I may have some additional incentives that I can give you (additional time off so forth). If I disagree I will offer the job to the next candidate.
There is no one forcing you to take less money than you are worth.

reply to post by Char-Lee


When the inflation will start to kick in for good it's going to be REALLY hard. The stupid California state thought that by raising taxes, minimum wages and imposing business fees at every level will bring more money to the state. Well because of their social & communist way of thinking California was losing 5.4 business per week in 2011.


mjperry.blogspot.com...

Compared to last year, California tax collections for February shriveled by $1.2 billion or 22%. The deterioration is more than double the shocking $535 million reported decline for last month. The cumulative fiscal year decline is $6.1 billion or down 11% versus this period in 2011.
www.breitbart.com...

A lot of people are leaving the state for a more friendly business state like Texas, Utah, New Mexico or Arizona.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Are you just stuck in the 50s during the red scare?

Yes of curse the government should pay for it, out of the taxes they already pay for higher education, but instead of it going to investors pockets it should go to only the school, and the teachers. Who are paid a fare wage, around y figures sounds about right, but it wouldn't only be up to me, as the students themselves would also have a say, everyone would.

It will seriously lower the taxes paid now in subsidies that don't even pay for an education, they pay greedy investors, not for education.

For thousands of years universities taught for the sake of spreading knowledge, only in modern times is it solely for profits.

The current model obviously doesn't work, so we need a new one, one that has the ability to work, not just keep trying to drive a bent nail into a board hoping for the best.

Is Van Jones stuck in the 50's? He is a self-proclaimed communist, radicalized while in prison. He is just one of many hovering about this socialist admin, so don't bother to play that idiotic game with me.

Of course the govt should pay for it? Only in the world of communism. Govt does pay for our elementary schools already, but continuing education is another story. But now you want govt to pay for Universities too, and their room and board as well?

reply to post by BritofTexas


We the People, so yes, we the People pay for everything. For some reason Socialists think that We must pay for Them no matter what stupid *^&%) they come up with.

Originally posted by chameleonwalker
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

When the inflation will start to kick in for good it's going to be REALLY hard. The stupid California state thought that by raising taxes, minimum wages and imposing business fees at every level will bring more money to the state. Well because of their social & communist way of thinking California was losing 5.4 business per week in 2011.


mjperry.blogspot.com...

Compared to last year, California tax collections for February shriveled by $1.2 billion or 22%. The deterioration is more than double the shocking $535 million reported decline for last month. The cumulative fiscal year decline is $6.1 billion or down 11% versus this period in 2011.
www.breitbart.com...

A lot of people are leaving the state for a more friendly business state like Texas, Utah, New Mexico or Arizona.

Another thing they do is let people accumulate sick and vacation time. when they retire the news said they leave with about $350,000 in saved sick and vacation time.

If my husband is ill he stays home with no pay. If he wants his meager 3 day vacation once a year he goes when it is arranged for the other workers to cover or he does not get to go.

With the amount of .Gov workers we are talking ridiculous sums for what? People to not be sick?

reply to post by BritofTexas



So Company A,B,C,and D are all paying the same rate of pay and that forces you into accepting what they offer?
Well you are right for a short period of time you may have to work for less money than you think you are worth. Again however no one is forcing you to stay in that line of work. Are you always destined to be a shoe maker if that is what you have trained to do?

I began working right out of highschool at a garden center doing hard manual labor. I made 5.25/hr. I didnt go to college then. So I guess that means I am still working in the garden inductry making 8.00/hr today right?
I should have just stayed at that job and just kept demanding more money from my employer and voting for politicians that would give me more government goodies right? Because I was worth it with nothing more than a HS diploma right?

BUZZZZZ
Wrong. I kept getting more training and better jobs and finally went to college. I made myself better. I even changed into a few different careers over the years. Today I manage a small team of people and I make about 6 times the money I did right out of HS. If I can do this then so can anyone.
Its not the responsibility of your employer to make you better. Its not the responsbility of government to make you better.
Its yours.