Obama Wins - Layoffs Starting

I still can't believe a guy came on here saying his boss is firing people for having Obama stickers. Sadly, as much as it smells of BS, it wouldn't shatter my worldview if we found this to be true.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.


The irony is that by his use of the derogatory name "Obummer", you can tell he is butthurt over Obama winning the election. So BS or not, he came on here to make a POINT. To say "Look, Look! People are going to lose their jobs because of Obama where I work too! Include me in this thread!!!!"

Yet he was in such a hurry to slander Obama, and to add to this thread, that he didn't realize he was proving the point that so many are trying to make.....that these "scares" are politically motivated, and therefore illegal.

Last I checked, it was a big no no to fire someone in this country because of a non-offensive, political bumper sticker.



I would love to know which Company you work for I'm sure most of ATS would, as well!

Government Spending > Taxes = (-) savings (-) investing

It's not that hard people...

Originally posted by MrPlow

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by ararisq

 

Two hours after the election was called, my boss came into the break room and announced that gas has gone up .45 cents.

I work at a logistics company and fuel is our lifeblood. I'm seeing layoffs in my future as well.

For those that do not get it...

When the cost of transporting food, commodities or what have you, goes up...so does everything else.

Everybody had best tighten their belts...again.

Only problem is- Obama's Presidency has no control over the price of gas...at all. Zilch

So, your boss is an idiot and you work for a ridiculous company. It's probably best if you look for a new job regardless.

I already addressed this. Prices did not go up. I accept that for now. The holidays are another matter though...and I don't blame Obama for that, it is a given in todays day and age.

As for my boss being a idiot, maybe you are right, but he has been doing his job for 18 years and knows what it is about. I think his emotions got the best of him.

And as for working for a ridiculous company, They pay bonuses (non-union by the way) and provide very good benefits for their workers.

As far as I am concerned, this is how a company should be run.

reply to post by ararisq


actually that is inaccurate. Those salaries will serve to compensate for any monetary hits that will be taken by investors and top positions. The top cannot be touched but lower tiers can be downsized and have their wages cut. You will be asked to do more with less.

The business will not suffer, the employees will. The retaliation of the so called "rich"
will be to take it out on the people. You tax them more and they will just take more from the people to compensate. they do not lose out at all just the middle guy gets screwed.

Layoffs were already projected in my company.... and last year they cut half the work force for every location accross the country... and guess who got millions in bonuses and bought a nice property. hmm the CEO wonder where the salaries for those jobs went to.. hmmm

I work for a big computer company and ever since Obama has been in office we have seen layoffs come in spurts. I have been there for about 12 years now and it has never been this bad. I am really scared to see what another 4 years will bring. I just hope some good decisions are made for us as a country to get us back on top and not falling like a brick.

reply to post by jtma508


You are spot on. It is a scare tactic. Now the rich corporations will come to Washington with their pockets hanging out of their pants asking for money! AND they'll still lay people off. It's all a scam as you have pointed out quite well.

Edit to add: They lay people off to get people to scream so that government will lower taxes. However, government won't lower taxes because they keep growing too fast to keep fed. It's all a joke.

reply to post by Indigo5


You're so wrong. Both sides are equally bad. Until people figure that out nothing will ever change.

reply to post by jtma508


Jtma....heres how is really goes. I'll use my company as an example. Our annual sales are about $60MM Our payroll is about $15MM After COGS, expenses and overhead, the company makes about $6MM in profit. We already know were in a recession. Sales are flat, so we can't forecast any increases in sales at all. Now along comes Obummer, with his Obummercare and a tax increase and he wants to increase personal taxes on the owners of the investment company that owns my company, cause they have to pay their fair share, you know. And when its all said and done, it's gonna cost us $12MM more a year just to maintain the status quo, which means we're operating at a loss of $6MM No way the investment company will allow that, so guess what???? Layoffs, big time. And yes, the lucky ones WILL be expected to do more with less.

But that's OK. Cause Mr. Obummer has all the answers. He's gonna get me a free phone, and an EBT card, and food stamps, and everything!!!! I just can't wait.

Think I'm using "scare tactics"??? Nope. We've already been told.

The economy started failing decades ago with the WTO summits going the wall street way and corporate imperialism way out of control. Both the democrats and republicans know the solutions but the idea is to sink the ship and install a libertarian dictatorship.

Free trade was never the answer and it never will be. Global currency, global government via UN run by the billionares and trillionares is just around the corner. The smaller parties keep talking about it but no major media runs their ideas to the public. It is like talking to the wall and the message being heard only by you....

Oh well!

Hear in Indiana fast food and many other businesses are cutting all employees schedules to part time in order to avoid insurance hikes. I tend to side with the fellow that said it is all just self fulfilling propchacy. Just to clarify, I didn't vote this year for the only way to see results is by contributing to politics on a local level. We all see where that got Washington and Colorado. Obama is no worse than the rest, and I have to say Rebpublicans are going to have to change their entire ideology. Interesting times we live in, wouldn't you say?

reply to post by ararisq

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by ararisq

 

Two hours after the election was called, my boss came into the break room and announced that gas has gone up .45 cents.

I work at a logistics company and fuel is our lifeblood. I'm seeing layoffs in my future as well.

For those that do not get it...

When the cost of transporting food, commodities or what have you, goes up...so does everything else.

Everybody had best tighten their belts...again.

Funny, because I work for a logistics company, and we're growing like gangbusters. Plus, we typically make more money the higher fuel goes, because there is a margin between what we charge our customers for fuel surcharge and what we need to pay in higher rates when fuel is higher.

Also, tell your boss not to worry about the almost-half-a-penny uptick in gas prices right after the election, it's already down another full penny compared to what it was before the election, and down about 32 cents over the past month.

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
Government Spending > Taxes = (-) savings (-) investing

It's not that hard people...

Lets not forget that 911 was an inside job that led to many bogus wars. All imperialist wars in nature by hookwinking/lying to the american public constantly. TSA/DHS/Patriot Act usurping the constitution, controlling people and creating unnecessary abnoxious beauracracy.

Then the bailouts. How many tax payers agreed to them? Where their voices even heard? Why in capitalism would the government bailout private business? This is antithetical to common sense and creates the illusion "hey you fail, NO PROBLEM...the government will save you!" Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad!!!!!!

If I open a restaurant and fail, can I call up obummer? Or will he hang up on me, since I own A SMALL BUSINESS that does not contribut enough to his party?

And lets not forget that the federal reserve and irs are unconstitutional. The federal reserve will not even allow an audit of where bailouts are going and IF business is paying back their loans with interest.

Give me a break. One liners are too shallow to add substance to a meaningful exchange. Yet they are common! They annoy me enough to want to respond though, because if no one challenges this horse manure people get wrong impressions. We have too much misinformation circulating already.

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
How is Obama making businesses lay off it's employees? Where is the connection?

That's how you get more sheeps..
..more government dependent people.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc

LOL. Your charts did not mention any sepcifics.

Wow...didn't look at the link did you? Can't figure out if you are ignorant in this claim or dishonest? Actually stopped caring either way...

edit on 8-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

They really just divide up the cost of a gallon by percentages, it does not address the cost of the percentages nor the underlying costs that make those portions. Regulations of fuel delivery trucks and taxes upon them incerase the transportation costs for example--something that you ignore entirely. Of course you conveniently blew off all of my links. Intellectually dishonest?

Originally posted by primus2012

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by primus2012

Invest in the consumer class by increasing their payroll taxes? That is happening as well in 2013. People will have less to spend.

No...it could happen and whether or not it does or not is dependant on the GOP dominated house. After the GOP's losing steak ever since the 2010 mid-terms, the likelyhood that they will "hostage take" the middle class again is pretty slim, but regardless not sure how rebuts the fact that the middle class, not the "wealthy" drive the economy?

I do agree that the middle class drives the economy, but that is based on their ability to drive (fill up the ol gas tank), earn, and spend, which ties back to jobs, taxes, and surplus dollars in their pockets. Increasing taxes on income and revenue are hindering measures placed on the economy at large.

We should let the consumers decide the tax revenue. I like the idea of a flat tax or fair tax on goods and services at the time of purchase, and fed/state/local take their share at that time. No income/revenue/profit tax period. IRS would become obsolete and go bye-bye. The middle class would truly drive the market then. Companies would flee other nations to come here and set up shop.

Well, that would definitely help encourage savings as opposed to encouraging consumption, which is probably a good thing, but imagine how high those taxes on the groceries would be. The problem with that type of tax (though not everyone considers it a "problem") is that suddenly the person earning $40,000/year is paying 40% of their income in taxes, while someone earning $45M/year is paying more like 0.03% of their income in taxes.

Yes, it would probably help to expand our economy and plant more jobs here in the U.S., but there would be some loooong years of suffering and starvation while the bottom 90% struggle to cope with the massive increase in tax burden.

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by MsAphrodite

 

Gee. Well I must be stupid then. As must my employer. They just keep expanding and hiring quarter-on-quarter. I don't know how we're managing to stay in business. Our CFO must be a fool.

I guess you are in the Food, Energy, or Communication business then?
Where are the jobs?

reply to post by longlostbrother

The people this MIGHT affect are people on a basic minimum wage that are the only source of income in their families (at least two adults), but you'd have to show that Wal-Mart is intentionally hiring people like that to have a case, and you can't. They'd also be trying to fire people whose spouses got jobs, as this would push them off government support of any kind. And you can't do that either.

Here you go LLBro:

Because Walmart employs part-time and relatively low paid workers, some workers may partially qualify for state welfare programs. This has led critics to claim that Walmart increases the burden on taxpayer-funded services.[46][47] A 2002 survey by the state of Georgia's subsidized healthcare system, PeachCare, found that Walmart was the largest private employer of parents of children enrolled in its program; one quarter of the employees of Georgia Walmarts qualified to enroll their children in the federal subsidized healthcare system Medicaid.[48] A 2004 study at the University of California, Berkeley charges that Walmart's low wages and benefits are insufficient, and although decreasing the burden on the social safety net to some extent, California taxpayers still pay $86 million a year to Walmart employees.[49][50]

On September 4, 2008, the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice ruled that Wal-Mart de Mexico, the Mexican subsidiary of Wal-Mart, must cease paying its employees in part with vouchers redeemable only at Wal-Mart stores.[51]

en.wikipedia.org...

A robust set of research findings shows that Wal-Mart’s entry into local labor markets reduces the pay of workers in competing stores. This effect is largest in the South, where Wal-Mart expansion has been greatest.

Wal-Mart could raise wages and benefits significantly without raising prices, yet still earn a healthy profit. For example, while still maintaining a profit margin almost 50% greater than Costco, a key competitor, Wal-Mart could have raised the wages and benefits of each of its non-supervisory employees in 2005 by more than $2,000 without raising prices a penny.

www.epi.org...

Originally posted by Alxandro

Originally posted by Sissel
People are being traumatized by an election in all of this. HELLO? It's the end of the fiscal year for most companies....this happens every year, no matter who is in the hot seat.

Until companies figure out their next quarterly budgets, this always happens. Get over it.

No, I disagree, Republicans handle defeat a lot better than Democrats ever will.
This is because we know we can't always get what we want and don't cry an whine about it when we don't.
We were hoping for the best outcome, but now we'll have to prepare for the worst.
I suggest you do the same.

You can't be serious. Look at just about any political thread on this site and what you see is the exact opposite. Republicans don't handle defeat well at all, and they handle victory even worse. When I say "Republicans" I refer to the type that seems to dominate the party now and the type that seems to dominate ATS. They are a huge reason why Obama won and if they don't wake up and smell reality, or just fade into history to join other outdated modes of thought, their party will continue to lose.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc

LOL. Your charts did not mention any sepcifics.

Wow...didn't look at the link did you? Can't figure out if you are ignorant in this claim or dishonest? Actually stopped caring either way...

edit on 8-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

They really just divide up the cost of a gallon by percentages, it does not address the cost of the percentages nor the underlying costs that make those portions. Regulations of fuel delivery trucks and taxes upon them incerase the transportation costs for example--something that you ignore entirely. Of course you conveniently blew off all of my links. Intellectually dishonest?

What a load of hogwash

Do you really think there is any motive for corporations to reduce cost and therefore profit?

There is no real competition in that market, period, it is a farce that you have bought into.

Originally posted by dogstar23

Originally posted by primus2012

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by primus2012

Invest in the consumer class by increasing their payroll taxes? That is happening as well in 2013. People will have less to spend.

No...it could happen and whether or not it does or not is dependant on the GOP dominated house. After the GOP's losing steak ever since the 2010 mid-terms, the likelyhood that they will "hostage take" the middle class again is pretty slim, but regardless not sure how rebuts the fact that the middle class, not the "wealthy" drive the economy?

I do agree that the middle class drives the economy, but that is based on their ability to drive (fill up the ol gas tank), earn, and spend, which ties back to jobs, taxes, and surplus dollars in their pockets. Increasing taxes on income and revenue are hindering measures placed on the economy at large.

We should let the consumers decide the tax revenue. I like the idea of a flat tax or fair tax on goods and services at the time of purchase, and fed/state/local take their share at that time. No income/revenue/profit tax period. IRS would become obsolete and go bye-bye. The middle class would truly drive the market then. Companies would flee other nations to come here and set up shop.

Well, that would definitely help encourage savings as opposed to encouraging consumption, which is probably a good thing, but imagine how high those taxes on the groceries would be. The problem with that type of tax (though not everyone considers it a "problem") is that suddenly the person earning $40,000/year is paying 40% of their income in taxes, while someone earning $45M/year is paying more like 0.03% of their income in taxes.

Yes, it would probably help to expand our economy and plant more jobs here in the U.S., but there would be some loooong years of suffering and starvation while the bottom 90% struggle to cope with the massive increase in tax burden.

A modest sales tax applied to every product and service would not result in someone paying 40% of their salary in taxes alone. If you took home 40k, and the flat tax on goods and services was at say 10%, how much tax would you pay if you spent all 40k at once? 40% or 10%? Sure they will be paying more sales tax then they are used to, but they will also have a heckuva lot more money to spend than they are used to.

Yes a millionaire would be paying a smaller % of their income vs someone who made 40k, but likely their tax contributions would be high 6 to low 7 figures in total dollar amount. I see nothing unfair about that. People live within their means. Millionaires/billionaires spend alot of money.

Flat tax, fair tax, means exactly that. Everyone pays the same. The "that's not fair" argument can no longer be used. No more complaining about the tax loopholes that the rich hide behind every year. No income tax evasion. Constant stream of revenue for the greedy Fed. Everyone wins, nobody loses. (the people that are on social assistance will still get their help and this won't affect them if that's what you are worried about).