Talk Politics

Comment

Comment by greg delany on November 16, 2011 at 5:26pm

Amen Ctyankee

The problems we are now experiencing is because of our Government. "You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves". Our, out of control Government, has trained people to think it should be a constitutional right to have anything they want for free. Where Lincoln understood man should not burden others with the tasks they could and should do for themselves. Our Government has made us lazy and envious. Those not willing to stand behind the plow demand the farmers to share the fruit of their labor without compensation or trade in return for the farmers hard work. Reaganomics worked wonders and Obamanomics reeks of the Russian Revolution theory. Take from the producers and give to the Party so we can drink better vodka! You guess which party

 

Comment by ctyankee on November 16, 2011 at 4:59pm

Hi Mr. Sailorette, 

 

  You're new here, welcome!  I'll go easy on you this time ;^)

 

Hmmm, Actually "Reganomics" begat the longest period of economic growth in US history -- I'd say it did work, rather well in fact.

 

Bush's stimulus checks were an ill conceived attempt to accomplish... something... but yeah, yo got that one right, the rich saved their's and the foolish spent theirs.  Goes to the point that rich/poor are states of mind, not lines on a balance sheet.

"Good trade policies, good labor policies, ethical business practices and development of infrastructure  are the key components to a healthy economy." We agree on the *sentiment* but somehow I suspect we're worlds apart on the *details*...

 

Free Trade, not "fair trade". No "National Labor Policies" that's a State's rights issue.  Ethics, sure, and morals too, but those are *individual* characteristics, not group-think ones -- no collective bargaining would be a good start.  Infrastructure will develop locally and expand to fill the voids where it is needed; butting infrastructure in place and expecting it to draw users smacks of Soviet-style central planning.  Hint: A healthy economy is the best care-taker of a healthy economy!  No government has *ever* created one. Governments saddle and strangle economies -- governments are the burden that damages economies.

 

Distribution of wealth *is* the function of all economies.  The wealth will naturally distribute most of itself to the most productive in society, and forsake those that do not love it!  This is the natural order of the universe!  And yes it would be nice if government allowed it to happen rather than screwing up the natural order.

 

Children can't have free healthcare because there is no such thing!  Unless you believe that pediatricians should be slaves to the State...  Because that's what you're actually demanding whether you realize it or not.  Of course you might be rationalizing it by using taxation to seize wealth form a larger population to pay the docs, but the wealth still has to be seized from someone against their will for the government to provide ***A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G*** for "free".

 

Thank you folks!!!  And don't forget to tip your servers.

Comment by Mr. Sailorette on November 16, 2011 at 3:37pm

Th Reganomics trickle down theory does not work. When Bush gave out stimulus checks the poor bought flat screen TVs made in Korea. The rich put their money away and saved it (thats why they are rich). 

Good trade policies, good labor policies, ethical business practices and development of infrastructure  are the key components to a healthy economy.

A better distribution of wealth would just be a nice thing to have.

And for god sake why cant all children have FREE health care?

 

Comment by greg delany on November 16, 2011 at 3:08pm

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

... Abraham Lincoln

Comment by Elbert Steven Rakes on October 27, 2011 at 11:27pm

To ctyankee and Mike Auto companies are going to a two tier pay starting at $14.00 per hr. with only a IRA employee self paid retirement. I work at a auto plant that won the 2010 Harbour Award because we made more (6R Transmissions) with less people then any plant in the America's.We make them for our own cars and trucks but also sell other Transmissions to put in Asia cars (Puma's) and Australia Trucks (Lion's). We did this all without the Governments HELP ( Americian's Tax Dollars)!

Comment by ctyankee on October 27, 2011 at 1:37pm

Hi Mike,

  I don't understand how you argue that the incentive is "significant"?  Regardless of what rate of pay is being offered, a $14/hr employee produces less profit(per hour) for the employer than a $50/hr employee.  While simultaneously costing the employer an irreducible expense (in $/hr) for things like workman's comp, medical insurance, dental, vision, and other things like parking places, bathrooms, cafeteria space, heating, lighting, air conditioning, etc...

 

Taking on a worker *costs* a heck of a lot more than the hourly wage conceals in it's false simplicity!  The truth is that I can't even hire a worker to move boxes for much less than $5,000 in *sunk* costs!  And that's before the worker earns me $1 in *revenue* -- never mind *profit*.

 

BTW I'm a Solar Power equipment OEM.  I employ good old-fashioned metal workers, machinists, installers, welders, carpenters, iron workers, and engineers, technicians, programmers, plus accountants, bookkeepers, clerks, etc., I also outsource some work, and subcontract other jobs too.  I pay my people well, and I expect a lot in return; and by "a lot" I mean an excellent outlook and attitude towards their work.

 

Sometimes the job *sucks* but that means the sense of accomplishment from working through the problem is enhanced.  Most of the time the job is cool, and there is *always* the opportunity to learn and grow.  Of the few employees I have 'lost' over the years, typically no one is surprised, no one is sad to see them leave, and their departure actually *decreased* the average workload of the folks that stayed.  In other words everybody won!

 

@Elbert, Believe me, I'm trying my best to create more jobs, but as I've complained in other threats, it takes a lot more than desire.  The economy is in the head, and the folks with the $$$ necessary to fuel the expansion are *terrified* of the heavy hand of government interference.  Oh and I live in Connecticut -- the root'in-toot'in-mean'est-hostil'est-'ta-business-despite-the-high-cost-a-liv'in State in the union! And one of the hardest to spell too.  ;^)

Comment by Mike Stark on October 27, 2011 at 11:35am

@ctyankee --

 

you live in an expensive state (as do I in MD) -- auto plants are moving south to pay people $14/hr. German and Japanese companies have been using our workers as the equivalent of Mexican cheap labor for quite a while now, now Hyundai is investing in Texas. How soon before Mexican companies look for cheap labor in the American south?

 

At $14 an hour this incentive becomes significant, I agree that Apple looking for six figure techies in Cupertino isn't going to be swayed one way or another. Don't know what business ctyankee is in but it seems midway between these extremes.

 

@elbert -- yep, both Bush and Obama had the good sense to listen to Gen. Petraeus, who in my mind is our best field commander since Ridgway in Korean War. The surge and drawdown is his baby.

Comment by Elbert Steven Rakes on October 27, 2011 at 2:23am

I just hope there's JOBS to be had when our Men come Marching home ! Thank for President George W. Bush for set it up, in 2008 before he left office to bring them home by the end of 2011 from Iraq. I'm with you ctyankee, America should hire Veterans but there has to be Job's available for them to work. If the economy doesn't turn around it just going to be more people on unemployment.

Comment by ctyankee on October 20, 2011 at 10:38am

Hmmm, $2400 for part time, and $4800 for full time workers.  Let's see that offsets a *MAXIMUM* of $2400 / $7.35/hr = 326.5 hrs for a part timer, and 653 hrs for a full timer -- assuming *MINIMUM WAGE*

 

BUT, since employers shouldn't pay returning soldiers minimum wage... we can compute the offset at prevailing wages...  $2400 / $21/hr = 114 hrs p-t and $4800 / $35/hr = 137 hrs for a full timer.  Or 114h / 20h/w = 5.7 weeks for a P.T. and 114h / 40h/w or 3 1/3 weeks of F.T. work.  And, when I use my rates which are closer to $50/hr regardless of FT/PT status $4800 / $50/h = 96 hrs = 2.4weeks ( 1 National Guard Reserve training interval perhaps.)

 

Please don't misunderstand me... I **WANT** to hire Veterans, in fact when we start hiring again (hopefully later this year) The ads will again have the footer inclusion "Veterans preferred -- HOOYAH"

 

But, the "jobs plan incentive" doesn't even enter into my decision of how many workers to hire, although it might influence who I hire.  And that's because, all other things being equal, I'll always hire the vet.  But when the differences clearly favors one candidate over another, I must hire the better candidate.  $4800 just isn't enough to tip the balance very much.

 

Now if only the economy would straighten out so a can start hiring again!!!

Comment by Mike Stark on October 20, 2011 at 9:56am

Jobs bill includes provisions for veterans of Iraq & Afghanistan

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 21
• …
• 113
• Next ›
• Page