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.

 

No Mr. Romney, Rich People Do Not Create Jobs

page: 13
60
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by LanceCorvette
You ever get a job from a poor person?

Yep, thought so.


I was a "poor person" and I built my business myself, with zero tax breaks or help from anyone. The idea that only rich billionaires create jobs is complete BS able to be debunked by any statistics from any country. Please try harder.


Yeah, we're talking about jobs, not self-employment. You're a business owner, not an employee.

Maybe you could try just a little harder.




posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


Ahh, well that is just insane. Could you maybe find a different inspector who doesn't have a grudge, or do they have areas? Either way I do agree there are too many regulations on some things, but others seem to get a free pass for whatever reasons. I also believe we need tariffs on imported goods, not just from China but every country. We simply can't compete with cheaper labor and lax regulations from around the globe.

On topic though, I feel like a lot of people in this thread seem to be missing the point of the OP. It's not about "stealing" from the rich to pay the poor. It's asking American companies to do the right thing and earn slightly less profits and pay their workers better/invest in their business here/expand here. I understand the economy sucks right now but it just makes logical sense that more money for consumers = more consumption. I like the analogy someone said earlier, the businesses are the ying, to the consumers yang. It's a symbiotic relationship, or at least it's supposed to be.

What we're seeing today are huge multinational corporations, with the same legal rights as people without the criminal consequences or morality, literally taking over the marketplace. They might call themselves American companies but they hold no allegiance to the US, only to ever expanding profits.

I feel the NWO is going to be a corporatocracy much like what is seen in the movie "Idiocracy" only on a global scale. All the masses are to these soulless entities are biological robots capable of complex actions and consuming the products they help produce. If they also collude with government/central banks they can get any laws passed they want to and keep the masses locked into a debt based currency that can NEVER be paid back in full. Dang, it seems like we're almost there already.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01
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.


Instead people start steeling from their employers. They did a study which concluded almost all general labor feels the company owes them more then they get so they simply steel whenever and whatever they can, pulling down their employers and slowing growth and adding cost to general public.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63

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.



have you ever gone to a website to look for jobs and look for the average salaray of certain jobs?? ?


Typically EVERY job has a range of pay. And that range is influenced by where you live in the country(world).
In one city if you have a certain kind of job and you are unhappy with it... and you try to get into another company doing the same job...... YOU WILL GET ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME THING. And if the company you are looking to move to wishes it they can tell you that you are new you will start at starter pay OR they not give you all the perks you have accumulated in your other company.

really?? are you serious?? do you even have a job???

To get a better job you have to have certifications, education, and training... that costs money.. if you need a better job because you are not making ends meet.. how the hell are you going to find extra money for education and training?? how about the time?? My job used to have tuition assistance and that went out the door the first chance they had to get rid of it.

Guess what?? in the industry i work in before de regulation EMPLOYEES HAD IT WAY BETTER. GUESS WHAT?? After de regulation employees are goign down the drain.(customer too they do not invest in their infrastructure) GUESS WHAT!? THE COMPANY STARTED MAKING RECORD PROFITS AND PAYING HUGE DIVIDENDS not because they got better at doing their business but because they took from the laborer and stopped investing in their company. just paying out to investors, ceos and execs.

Look at what walmart does?? it exploits cheap labor over seas and then instead of paying better here since they can sell cheap products for higher profit they exploit cheap labor here. And the worst part is that this model spreads and kills dozens of business owners who are then payed minimum wage to work for one business owner.

this is garbage.. do you even work?"?? I have a great job and no finacial problems but I can at least see the problems that we have in this country when it comes to big buisness exploiting the laborer.
edit on 18-10-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thov420
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


Ahh, well that is just insane. Could you maybe find a different inspector who doesn't have a grudge, or do they have areas? Either way I do agree there are too many regulations on some things, but others seem to get a free pass for whatever reasons. I also believe we need tariffs on imported goods, not just from China but every country. We simply can't compete with cheaper labor and lax regulations from around the globe.

On topic though, I feel like a lot of people in this thread seem to be missing the point of the OP. It's not about "stealing" from the rich to pay the poor. It's asking American companies to do the right thing and earn slightly less profits and pay their workers better/invest in their business here/expand here. I understand the economy sucks right now but it just makes logical sense that more money for consumers = more consumption. I like the analogy someone said earlier, the businesses are the ying, to the consumers yang. It's a symbiotic relationship, or at least it's supposed to be.

What we're seeing today are huge multinational corporations, with the same legal rights as people without the criminal consequences or morality, literally taking over the marketplace. They might call themselves American companies but they hold no allegiance to the US, only to ever expanding profits.

I feel the NWO is going to be a corporatocracy much like what is seen in the movie "Idiocracy" only on a global scale. All the masses are to these soulless entities are biological robots capable of complex actions and consuming the products they help produce. If they also collude with government/central banks they can get any laws passed they want to and keep the masses locked into a debt based currency that can NEVER be paid back in full. Dang, it seems like we're almost there already.


Yes inspectors have territories , and we tried to go over his head about the unfairness, remember the business was functioning as a restaurant up until the date of the sale as it was!

Everything has gone wrong as you said with the example, here a small town, we used to have a covered walk mall, it went on for several blocks and then there was many other areas full of businesses.

Walmart came we had a new Kmart also for a year and they closed. Walmart took all the business and they closed the whole of the mall. We have left a small office supply a book store and few others hanging on. We have 4 stores that sell groceries....We have a small hardware, Ma-Pop type,
Last year came Home depot. This year we have Walmart going Super, they will now sell food. So they will close some of the grocery stores.

The main problem is initially they hire about the same amount of people that was working in the mall stores and the grocers. But they keep the same number of employees and need no more. The small stores would have room to grow without the large chains and eventually the growing town population would have more jobs and maybe higher pay.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by Sparky63
 


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.

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


"There is not one single honest good reason for an employer to make more off workers labor than the worker."
Are you for real?

Usually when people start a small business they've invested a HUGE part if not ALL their saving and often they've to put their house in collateral for a business loan (start-up loan). On top of that the business owner have ALL the stress and the pressure to make it happen. If the owner take a bad decision or does a bad business move he will lose everything over night! If the employee is lazy and got fire the employee will lose only his job.

So if I'm looking at your system where employees should do as much as the business owners: If the business shutdown and go to chapter 11 and go bankrupt the business owners should be able to cease all saving, houses and properties of their employees to help to "share" and redistribute the benefits because according to you they did all the work. The only problem in this case is that the benefits to redistribute have a negative value due to bankruptcy.

Beside that you'll have to start thinking out of the box and open yourself to the world just to see how things really work! Learning skill DO NOT MEAN going to school. You can learn anything you want. Just do it. Get a book, read online, practice and surround yourself by motivated skillful people. It is that simple! If you like something and want to do it stop complaining and do it.

Below is a list of some of the most successful people in human history that did not attend college. If you want to see a video on the collapse of college tuition rates and the devaluation of a college degree, click here to read that article and watch those videos:

overmanwarrior.wordpress.com...

S. Daniel Abraham, billionaire founder of Slim-Fast.
Ansel Adams, photographer. Dropped out of high school.
Christina Aguilera, singer, songwriter. High school dropout.
Hans Christian Andersen, short story author, fairy tales.
John Jacob Astor, multimillionaire businessman.
Carl Bernstein, Watergate reporter, Washington Post.
Yogi Berra, baseball player, coach, and manager.
Timonthy Blixseth, billionaire founder of Yellowstone Club.
Daniel Boone, explorer, frontier leader.
Ray Bradbury, science fiction author.
Richard Branson, billionaire founder of Virgin Music.
Sergey Brin, billionaire founder of Google.
Edgar Bronfman Jr., billionaire heir to the Seagram liquor fortune.
John Carmack, cofounder of Id Software.
Andrew Carnegie, industrialist and philanthropist.
Scott Carpenter, astronaut.

For more go here:
overmanwarrior.wordpress.com...



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


I believe you are misunderstanding my positions on several things.

No the lowest skilled employee of a company should not be paid equally to all other employees. I am saying that all workers should be better paid in perportion to the companies profits.

For example, the guy sweeps the floor should be paid less then the guy running the injection molding machine, and the shift supervisor should make more than the mold operator.

Their overall pay though should be based off the companies profits. If a company, let's say domioes pizza, makes $500,000,000 in profits, before labor is deducted, should pay at least $250,000,000 in labor costs to their employees, totalled across all regular employees. As they are the people making the company the money to begin with, they deserve a fare cut of the total profits paid in the form of wages. If the company only paid $100,000,000 in labor, instead of giving only the execs a huge bonus they don't need as their already filthy rich, they should be required to pay in perportion of the job held by each employee. The extra $150,000,000 in the form of quarterly or annual bonuses.

As when a company does well it shouldn't only be the owners and execs that see a bonus, but those performing the work that actually makes the money.

For example. Yes the president and Board of a company have a place, and perform an imortant function, but they do not make the companies money, the guy delivering the pizzas, rolling the dough, selling the pizzas, serving the customers, are the people actually making the money, they deserve a chunk of the pie spread across all of them also.

I said half, as the owner would still get to make $250,000,000 a year profit, which is quite substantial, and the people actually making this $250,000,000 for him would get an equal share, just divided up amongst themselves according to the importance of their job. So everyone would be treated well and paid well for their efforts, not just the owner.

As he didn't actually make any of this money, reguardless of his duties, as he doesn't perform the function of making serving or delivering the pizzas that all the revenue is derived from. He simply had the ieda of starting the business, and getting it going, and overseeing the daily operations of all assets involved. Which $250,000,000 a year profit seems pretty comfortable. Pay for doing IMHO.

I don't see how paying half a company making over a million a years profits to all employees isn't fare, as it is still leaving the lions share to the owner, thus leaving him plenty of profit.

It only helps those that live in poverty, and doesn't really hurt the owner, he is still rich beyond these people imaginations, and more than able to buy a 10th house, a 3rd yacht, and another rolls royce.

While improving productivity beyond any other know incentive system, as every worker will work harder to cut waste and improve profits, as it now directly benefits them. As well as now having dispsable income to spend on other goods and services, which creates more jobs and provides more income for other sectors, wich once again improves the overfall life of every single working American iin a real meaningful way, overnight.

With the added benefit of now reducing welfare and other handout programs to near 0 as everyone will want to work, so they can also benefit from the new system.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
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.

Btw, if there's anyone out there with some financial resources who would like to provide seed capital or angel financing (with a rather significant return) for the development and release of an utterly extraordinary and much needed Internet-marketed product which requires no manufacturing or distribution (except in electronic form), feel free to PM me to discuss. Initial capital required for R&D product development is only about 5K with an additional investment (once the product is in hand) to build the website and start marketing. One way or another, within about a year, you will see a banner ad appear right here at ATS, mark my word. I've previously commissioned and produced something similar (at a much lower level) which I made available for free and has been accessed and utilized by well over 250,000 people, and the demand for what I have in mind will by far exceed that number by many orders of magnitude. Help me help us save the world?



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by votan
 


When my wife told me she was pregnant with our first child I panicked. I was in a dead end job with no future but I was content because I made enough to pay the bills. All that changed when she dropped the bomb on me. I went back to school and got my degree. I went to night classes I paid for everything myself. I now make 5 times was I was making 23 years ago.
Don't tell me that if people are not satisfied with their jobs that there are not any options. It is simply not true.
I have 250 employees that depend on the knowledge and skills I acquired to keep them employed.
edit on 10/18/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Just an observation:

This thread is chuck full of those mocking the OP with his 6 hours of research on trickle down. "That it is not enough, snark-snark, economics are complex, tisk-tisk."

Well then, what is the real answer? Last time I checked (disclaimer: I am far from an expert) there is no unified law of economics. No guaranteed method to make it all work like a Swiss watch.

There have been plenty of business owners claiming they create jobs and plenty of job holders claiming they are simply selling the employer their time/effort/skills. One without the other is pretty pointless (businesses of one person asides) and even more ridiculous without customers who can pay for what that business has to offer. Plenty of haters against the government, who by the way provides an environment for a business and market to do their things. Granted they can screw it up just like any of the other players in this dance.

That sounds HIGHLY interdependent to the non-economic PHD candidate. Take out one element and the whole thing falls apart.

Sounds like one of those things that requires a dynamic balance. No moral high ground anywhere. Although it surely can be taken advantage of by any of the elements thus screwing over the balance.

So what is the answer? I ask you, most esteemed contributing members to this thread who write two sentences highlighting everybody else is jacked up or stupid or a communist or a an idiot....



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
edit: never mind
edit on 18-10-2012 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

Their overall pay though should be based off the companies profits. If a company, let's say domioes pizza, makes $500,000,000 in profits, before labor is deducted, should pay at least $250,000,000 in labor costs to their employees, totalled across all regular employees. As they are the people making the company the money to begin with, they deserve a fare cut of the total profits paid in the form of wages. If the company only paid $100,000,000 in labor, instead of giving only the execs a huge bonus they don't need as their already filthy rich, they should be required to pay in perportion of the job held by each employee. The extra $150,000,000 in the form of quarterly or annual bonuses.


Don't forget about the profits that the shareholders are expecting. They invested their hard earned cash in a business that they expect to grow and expand.
The huge bonus' are often necessary to keep the best executives working for them instead of their competitors.
I just don't think it should be up to you or anyone else to decide what is fair for a business you do not own. But thanks for your explanation.

I think it is commendable that you are concerned for people and want them to have a decent living. But in my opinion most of that depends on their own effort, hard work, wisdom and judgement.
Trying to reinvent our economic model is not the answer in my opinion.
edit on 10/18/2012 by Sparky63 because: spelling

edit on 10/18/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 

"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."

What then would be the incentive for anyone to invest the huge amount of time and risk and money to start a business. You stop being an employee and do all that in order to make more then employees!

Where do you think they would get the money to save and grow to make a business larger and hire more?

Generally you work your butt off many many years way more work and stress then any employee and MAYBE it will pay off and let you retire early like my sister and her husband who bought a Radio Shack, built it up with 18 hr days and retired with all they need.

My sister and her husband were getting food stamps when they were offered the chance to buy the Radio Shack with a relative half and half, a store that was losing money every year for many years...and they sold every last thing they had and move thousands of miles with a little kid...the risk is one not many would have taken!

It was very very hard and a long time before they had anything and their hours were twice any of the employees no vacations no insurance, but they turned that dump into a million dollar business and sold it for a million 10 years later.
edit on 18-10-2012 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 

In your example if the economy were bad or like our case the tourists don't come and you run a business that is making barely enough to pay the bills, if you split the profit and the 15 workers each get a share it would not be as much as welfare per person!

The way it works is our workers get THEIR money no matter how bad things are, the owner is the one that goes without as his product and rent and utilities and labor all MUST be paid or there IS no business. The worker is safe in his wage as long as there is still a job to give him.
My husbands wages dropped $10,000 this year but his workers still get their wages and the state mandatory raise which causes one job to be cut and everyone else to work harder!



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Not all rich people create jobs, but the job creators are in fact rich people, although I guess that depends on your definition of rich. I have never been employed by someone that makes 40K a year.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I see most of you commenting negatively about my "plan". However you all seem to share the same idea, that making and hoarding billions of times more resources than anyone could evern need or even use, is fine somehow.

Profits are not more important than people, profits are not living beings, this is like saying a car is worth more than millions of people lives. It is nonsensical to me, no object is more important than a single life, ever.

Also of worthy mention is the "I did it" or "look at how many have" arguement. That's all well and good, but look also at how many haven't and tried much harder, failing through nothing but bad luck. Or the fact there is simply not enough room in the good jobs for everyone qualified, or capable. So many of you act like all the poor of the country are just lazy and or dumb, this has not been my experience at all.

Lazy? Most people work a minimum of 50 or more hours a week, more if the cheapo compnay will allow more overtime( I know I do). Yet they still can't earn enough to get by, even for those with 2 jobs. This assumption is idiotic.

Dumb? I know many very intelligent people that are doing very bad at the moment, it isn't a matter of brains, it is a matter of decent pay, and decent jobs.

I don't see how you guys figure it can't work just fine for a company to pay an adequate wage for those doing the work that makes the money to begin with, it is quite obvious to me.

The problem only occurs when all companies don't do this, as one gets greedy and exploits the workers, than another greedy individual sees this and follows suit, until the entiire country is full of companies working people like slaves for peasants wages.

There is no escape for most, as there isn't anywhere to go that acts differently, so you screwed where you are now, why start over for less by another that will screw you over also?

To the memeber who responded to me that anyone can pick up a book and acquire new skills. Are you kidding? I must have missed the part on the application where it asks what skills you have read about, as the only thing they respect, is a certificate from a college or university. It takes more than most make a year working to go to any. There is no options for 99% of people in this system.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
That's right!

I make $9.16/hr. Obviously I am able to build factories and have McDonalds franchises.

Boy, if you had a brain you'd take it out and play with it.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 

My example would only effect a business with over a million a year in profits. So a business doing bad would not be involved, as it wouldn't be clearing a million a year if it was.

Also my "plan" isn't a fix all cure all, it is a good starting off point that needs some imporvements, and other adjustments.

However I believe it is a much better version than minimum wage, and it is variable across all sectors, as the profits of the business would determine their pay.

Instead of forcing all businesses to pay minimum wage, which isn't enough anyways, it should be closer to $15 at least. It would force businesses that do very well to pay very well to their workers.

For example walmart would be paying workers closer to $50,000 or $60,000 a year instead of the less than $15,000 most are making now. As they are making plenty of money, they are just hoarding it for their already billionaire owners(like they need another penny) and their investors.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Well Capitalism works, for the lowest bidder. A system, that gets better and better at moving more money into less and less hands, can only stutter in doing so.

If ways are found for those whom have the means of production, to keep more money out of more hands, then their own success will hit the economy at large and in the end their own business, as there simply is less money to go around.

What we need is a scheme where those who "won" at capitalism spend their money on 20 yachts, hundreds of sports car, so that enough money can start to trickle down. Maybe we can get them into Yacht racing, or car racing?



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Didn't Bill Gates start Microsoft from his own home as a college dropout and programmer? And what about Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, who started out much the same way more as electronic hobbiests with a great idea, working up the first PC on a part time basis out of Steve's garage?

Honestly I find the whole idea that everyone has to work FOR someone else ie: a rich person, that all are dependant on that, to be somewhat repulsive.

The little guy with an idea, he's the one who'll move the world and create the next wave of new jobs and innovation.

Same thing with the founders of Yahoo. Albert Einstein he was a patent office clerk when he changed the world.

C'mon people, we're not all at the mercy of the rich, many of whom are a-holes who think themselves a cut above the rest.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join