No Mr. Romney, Rich People Do Not Create Jobs

page: 16
60
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


I think by bringing up Google you add a good point to this discussion.

I know people in the IT world that would die for a chance to work for that company. That kind of loyalty is good for the owners/shareholders.

I don't know this for an absolute fact, but I bet people at Google put in extra hours without getting paid, just because they believe in the company, appreciate their compensation, and realize how lucky they are.

And that just might be the reason they are so successful.




posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 

They have even made documentaries about googles business model,and compared it to walmarts, then talked about the difference and the way employees at google are so much happier than at walmart. Which is why their productivity is so high.

I know a couple of people that basically told me the same, saying in effect "I would die , kill, sacrifice my first born etc.." to work for google. It is the model all should follow IMHO. But most won't, as their blind greed overpwers any and all evidence to the contrary about productivity.

Which is why I suggested a model that would force them to be more worker friendly, it is the only way I can see that will coerce business owners into paying better, besides raising the minimum wage constantly to keep up with inflation. Which isn't the same, as it is less dependent on the success of the company, and forces many small businesses that can't afford it to comply, which closes their doors.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Maybe you should consider stepping out of your comfy box and create something that people can use. Oh wait, you are waiting for that to magically happen. Never mind.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


wealth "reaquisition"? Sounds like theft to me. How dare anyone win at the game. Relabeling with fancy "economic" labels obscure the basics.

Gov't is a corporation just like the rest. Vote in their board of directors CEOs, so on just like the rest. Trouble is no oversite for the gov't. Unless you count "we The People"....who's personal agendas are just as bought and paid for as any politician's.

The left don't really want to tax the wealthy, it's a lie! If they did, they'd go after the "Foundations", the trust's, all the buried exemptions that keep the super-wealthy untouched.

Increase the income tax rate? The capital gains rate? You miss them and hit the average Joe trying to achieve the American dream. Pathetic. Now further obscured by pedantic, hairsplitting, new names for good old capitalism soley to confuse the masses into thinking this brilliant plan will "get even" with the "idle rich" when it does nothing of the sort. They remain dug in like ticks and the real producers are handed even more crosses to bear and result is even further destruction of the most amazing economy the world has ever seen.

The evidence is all around us, the unemployed, the massive welfare growth.

Give me Romney, at least there's an a chance of change. Four more Obama years and we will grid-lock into oblivion.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueAjah
Trickle down economics works.

The trouble is, our current system has a major hole in the pipelines. It is no secret that what should be trickling down to American citizens is going overseas. THAT is the problem. The solution is not to tax the rich more. The wealthy people and companies are the ones who are going to hire. We just need to find a way to encourage them to hire Americans.

Our country has become ridiculously dependent on foreign countries. Our country has deteriorated into a dependent that does not know how to fend for itself, and would fall apart if other countries, especially China, decided to pull the plug on us. Right now, China could start charging anything they want for most items used in manufacturing, as well as manufactured goods, and we would be stuck paying it, because there is no way to get it "Made in the USA".

Trickle down works just fine - if you trickle down to where it belongs - here in the USA, to our people who need jobs.


The right wing made a pact with Maoist leaders. Started in 1972 - right wing president Nixon. They did away with the gold standard too. Then Reagan continued their work and made laws protecting for example US workers from being fired and their jobs outsourced to anywhere cheaper - preferably a slave country .

So how exactly are you going to "encourage"?
Lots of people work for about 50 cents per hour in China.
Are you ready to compete with that?

How exactly are you going to "encourage" entrepreneurs to hire people for even minimum wage against 50 cents per hour?
If you can pull that off, all my attention is yours.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Outsourcing Illinois jobs to China linked to Mr. Romney:

[url=http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012/07/06/bain-owned-company-outsourcing-illinois-jobs-to-china-employees-want-mitt-romney-to-intervene/]Source[ /url]

BTW I love Chinese people and culture. But this system is bad for them too.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 

They have even made documentaries about googles business model,and compared it to walmarts, then talked about the difference and the way employees at google are so much happier than at walmart. Which is why their productivity is so high.

I know a couple of people that basically told me the same, saying in effect "I would die , kill, sacrifice my first born etc.." to work for google. It is the model all should follow IMHO. But most won't, as their blind greed overpwers any and all evidence to the contrary about productivity.

Which is why I suggested a model that would force them to be more worker friendly, it is the only way I can see that will coerce business owners into paying better, besides raising the minimum wage constantly to keep up with inflation. Which isn't the same, as it is less dependent on the success of the company, and forces many small businesses that can't afford it to comply, which closes their doors.



Did you know about this today?

Google plunges dragging down the NASDAQ



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
In all the BS being spouted here we are missing a single important point: If there are no people who can afford a product then it can not be sold. This is the problem. Demand is what creates jobs, if there is no demand because the people are too poor then you have no jobs.


Yep, there is a demand for The Kardashians, Hello Kitty, and XBOX 360's...
Who know why..

There is no demand for Electric Cars.. Because they are to expensive, and have too short range.

I have a demand for Lunch right now..
..so I'll be back later. :-)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by artnut
Can someone please define "rich"? Is it someone who has made a million over the years? Is it someone making 200k a year? I am just seeing a disconnect somewhere because different numbers are thrown around, and they mean different things to different classes.


Everything is relative..

If you make 10x more than me, you are rich.
If you are 30 years older than me, you are old..
If you are 15 cm taller than me, you are tall..
And so on...



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
You ever been offered a job by a poor man? Just sayin....


That sums up the whole thread..


End of story, without people with money to hire people
that need it then there will be no one with money..

Usually someone with a little more money hires you and someone with a little more money
then them hires them and someone with more money had hired them and so on..

When you run your own business then you have to have more capitol then the people
you hire or they could not work for you...

Simple economics..



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


Not really a problem with Google or their business, just another illustration of what is wrong with the investing culture of the Country.

Google: Hey we made a profit.
Investors: But you didn't make as large of one we thought you could
Google: But we do have opportunities opening up in the near future.
Investors: But you still didn't make what we thought you should.
Google: But we still made money, and have an eye to make more.
Investors: Well maybe if you cut some costs (fire some people or outsource to China or India) we will consider backing you again, you let us down. And now it is time to prove yourself.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
If a company makes over a million in profits a year, reguardless of size, their payroll should be directly tied to how much money they make, either in a hourly pay rate, or quarterly or yearly bonuses, to make up the difference.

For example, if a cmpany makes a million in profits in a year, and only paid out, $100,000 in payroll they should be reuired to pay bonuses to their employees of $400,000. Thus half the money would go to those actually making the money for the company( the workers) and the other half would go to the owner(s). Thus everyone is taken care of, and everyone gets to profit from the hard work involved in making the company profittable.


And...
You also need to add, that the company itself will need some money back in to it.
To be able to run in the future.
You need to re-invest in the company's structure, and inventory, and perhaps add more employees.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mishmashum

Originally posted by beezzer
So you want wealth redistribution. You want to punish success and reward people who have done nothing to earn it.

I fully grasp your concept, sir. I just disagree with it.


You poor confused rabbit.

It's not wealth redistribution.

It's wealth reacquisition.

For it to be redistribution the obscenely wealthy (talking billionaires--not some pathetic multi-millionaire) would have had to "earn" or "produce" the wealth they possess.

A third generation Walton hardly worked hard to earn their lot in life.

Also ... rabbit stew is very tasty.



*rubs his stomach*


Hmm...


According to Forbes, there are 403 billionaires in the US, as of March 2010.
This Forbes 2011 400 list gives the top 400 details :
www.forbes.com...


403 ...



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


Not really a problem with Google or their business, just another illustration of what is wrong with the investing culture of the Country.

Google: Hey we made a profit.
Investors: But you didn't make as large of one we thought you could
Google: But we do have opportunities opening up in the near future.
Investors: But you still didn't make what we thought you should.
Google: But we still made money, and have an eye to make more.
Investors: Well maybe if you cut some costs (fire some people or outsource to China or India) we will consider backing you again, you let us down. And now it is time to prove yourself.


This is a valid point.

The ideology and greed present in today's investors very well may play a part in how the working middle class got shafted.

Now, I have my hand in the market via my 401k. Maybe I should look at my asset allocation, and start writing letters "as a shareholder" to these companies.

I've noticed a disturbing trend on my 401k statements. Any assets I have in foreign companies seems to be up, or at least staying neutral. Any stock I have in American companies seems to be loosing or staying neutral.

It would appear that companies that invest outside of the USA are making money vs. the ones that invest here.

If the rich are going to drink the water, and pee it out onto us in the hopes that we'll grow and give back to them --they are mistaken. That kind of crap for brains thinking can only be propped up and sustained for a limited time.

If we the "worker ants" are to blame and not the rich for the mess we are in (because we are lazy and incompetent, looking for freebies and handouts
) -- then we need to come up with a sollution that doesn't piss off the rich.

I guess we just have to accept lower pay, less benefits, longer hours, worse working conditions, and an overal marginalization of the working class.

The message I hear from my opponents is: "Don't like it? Start a company!" But wait, you don't have any money because you work for crap wages and have a $120,000 student loan that never goes away.


edit on 19-10-2012 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by Maxmars
 


wealth "reaquisition"? Sounds like theft to me. How dare anyone win at the game. Relabeling with fancy "economic" labels obscure the basics.

Gov't is a corporation just like the rest. Vote in their board of directors CEOs, so on just like the rest. Trouble is no oversite for the gov't. Unless you count "we The People"....who's personal agendas are just as bought and paid for as any politician's.

The left don't really want to tax the wealthy, it's a lie! If they did, they'd go after the "Foundations", the trust's, all the buried exemptions that keep the super-wealthy untouched.

.....

The evidence is all around us, the unemployed, the massive welfare growth.

Give me Romney, at least there's an a chance of change. Four more Obama years and we will grid-lock into oblivion.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

You bring up many good points.

The first question we have to ask is a simplistic one. What exactly is wealth?

Most don't really gravitate towards the fundamentals but I will... being the verbose Mod that I am.

We are taught that economics is the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. (at least according to Wikipedia, but that is closest to correct anyway.)

Notice that in this most basic definition... money, or currency, does not appear. Why? Because it is an invention of representative value. It used to be that "hard" currency had a value pegged to some form of commodity... In the U.S. that no longer holds true. Money has evolved (or revolved) to be a virtual representation of something ... and it's "true" value is determined by the actions of whatever institution we accept as having the authority to implement monetary policy (In nearly all cases - it is a central bank.) Such entities can, for the purposes of influencing the business cycle, devalue or inflate currency. We have a system (again, nearly global) where private companies known as banks get to "decide" when and whether to do that. It is a function that belongs properly in the hands of the people... through their governments.

Neither Mitt nor Barak have any intention of challenging that paradigm. Until such time as it is clearly understood what they have been doing, we cannot hope to contain the chaos... and they will not tell us because they are "private" corporations operating under the guise of governmental authority - they have privacy rights.

Wealth redistribution is what they do for a living. It has been this way since the inception of a monopoly which condones "fractional reserve lending" while affording the lenders a monopoly on monetary policy. Hence the need to remove the "quasi" governmental status of the central bank, and allow direct real-time audits to take place... something they fear since it would affect "speculation" which drives Wall Street gambling (to the detriment of lesser economic producers like small business and actual "human" citizens) (as opposed to immortal corporate constructs.)

Knowing the 'virtual' nature of wealth allows us to realize that we are attempting to hammer with rubber nails. They can change the circumstances of any corrective strategy - most often in favor of the most influential among them.

Taxation is far more simplistic than any high level politician or economically indoctrinated "scholar" cares to admit. Tax is a means to support the government's actions (which ideally are a reflection of those whom it serves.) the first clear indicator of the loss of control over the fiscal policy can be seen in the incredibly arcane and monstrously applied IRS policies (by the way the IRS is subordinate to the central bank we call "the Fed"... ahem.)

Were there NO taxes whatsoever, who would produce the goods and services the public requires? A free market. We have no "free" market... the market is being pumped and restricted both domestically (by private bankers) and in the foreign arena (by politically-appointed diplomats.)

Note that neither operates on an agenda to serve the public as a whole. They intercede on the foundation of capitalism as perpetual middlemen.... THAT is our problem to resolve. Politicians mean not to... this works for them and their "party." Capitalism can and does work... if they would allow it.

But that means they would not be able to "help" their favorite businesses, ventures, and "influence" peddlers.

Democratic and Republican politics is ultimately about business and ONLY business. The rest is just marketing... thank you Madison Avenue manufacturers of consent.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 19-10-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by slatibartfast
Trickle-down story: As a kid I sold vinyl bumperstickers at Dead shows designed using legal, non copyrighted materials. First batch cost us $100 for 400 stickers, we sold them on our own for a buck a piece and made a tidy profit very quickly. Next batch (because the sticker was selling well) we bumped it up to 1000 for $200 and I had a couple of younger guys offer to buy 100 for $50 so they could go out and sell them. Totally did that and still sold lots for a buck.

Next year it was $1000 for 10,000 stickers (template, set up cost/labor materials get cheaper the more you buy...). We even got permits for some of the East Coast cities (Usually a phone call and about $30 at City Hall-same as the fine if you ain't got a permit...) Typical pyramid sales concept that paid for lots of tickets, hotels and amenities. Cash, cash, cash. Everybody wins.

Idea-follow-through-DEMAND=profit=jobs=spending

Life was so simple then... Where did we go wrong...


Well..
This is what went wrong:
The Kids Lemonade stand shut down. Needed a $400 permit!

Clearly, you can't run a simple small profit business nowadays.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ABNARTY
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....


I have given this some thought to try and come up with an analogy that best fits the situation.
Yes you are right things are very interdependant.
So the best I came up with overnight was a game of Baseball.
There are two teams in baseball. The Business and The Customers. Now dont take this to literally since many of the players on one Business team are players on a different Customers team, its an analogy so play along. The Umpires in the game are the free market. Now thats it really in order to have a game you only need those three things. You can conduct the game in the middle of any open field. The government however wants to build a special field for the game. They are not content to just build a field. They want to put a fence around it. They want to put in bleachers and anouncers boxes. They want to sell concessions and charge entry fees. Pretty soon you end up with an entire league of teams and some of them have huge stadiums with expensive seating and special boxes that elite fans can sit in. Entry tickets cost an arm and a leg and to get a beer and a hot dog will set you back an hour of work. Now all this may make the game more enjoyable and its nice but its expensive and really not needed. In fact most of us who are relegated to just sitting in the stands while the game is played would much rather participate in that game. You can do that in that old empty field without a problem. Even with all that being the case its not really so much of a bad things until something happens. When the people who built that big field decide they really want to make sure that the game is entertaining they replace the umpires with their own people. Then we have a problem. The thing about it is that replacing of the umpires almost always happens before the big fancy field gets built.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tomten
 


I had commented a couple pages back, about how the employees would be motivated to reinvest in the company. As when it does better they do better, which would only reinforce the cycle again and again.

Unlike the modern system where when the companie does well only the owner(s) and investors profit, the employees get jack. Which is why they slack off and don't do as well as they could, as their only motivation, is keeping their job, so it only requires as little effort as necessary to retain it.

The problem is the people at the top fail to understand the same principles that drive them, when someone works hard and gets rewarded, they will work even harder for a bigger reward. When someone works hard and gets nothing but to keep their crap pay another day, well they will be motivated to work no harder than necessary.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


I know a few people personally that IMHO are "under employed" -- meaning that they are earning less than they could be, and working in a position that doesn't fully utilize their skill set. And they are actually HAPPY.

The way they explain it, "It's not all about the money, if you hate your job all day and have to drag yourself in there, the extra money really isn't worth it."

They love their jobs because they are valued even if they are paid less than what they could make. They work harder for that lower wage because they love what they do.

Perhaps this is another puzzle piece? Those statements show me that when workers feel like they are valued, they put in extra effort. They begin to love the product/service they sell. Yes, they can even be a bit "brain washed" into loving their company -- but it's a good thing in my eyes to the employer. They become some of the biggest advocates for that company.

I can attest to that in regards to the oil industry. There are so many people I know personally that are completley brainwashed that their company Exxon/Chevron/BP/Shell is the best thing in the world. They are also paid very well, have nice insurance coverage, bonuses, ample paid vacation.

Guess who gets out there at the city council meetings? Guess who calls in the morning radio shows? Guess who writes letters to the editor of the newspaper? These very same people!

This goes hand in hand with some of the comments made about Google. In regards to Google's stock dropping...meh, markets move up and down. Google going down the other day is just another market fluctuation based on some numbers that the shareholders didn't find acceptable. They are still making money and are not going away.

I've never met a Google employee, maybe there are some reading this? Perhaps one could create an account and tell us about the workplace enviroment and how it plays a part in company productivity?





new topics
top topics
 
60
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join