The failings of the conservative movement

[Capper Al]

Those who align themselves with what is called the conservative movement in the US are doing themselves and the country a disservice. They should be acting as the Loyal Opposition picking at the details of the path that the majority has chosen to take helping to correct our journey. Instead they attempt to derail efforts that the voting public want. This just makes them look bad and lose elections. It does nothing for moving America along towards forming a more perfect union. Get over it. Social Security is here to stay. It solved the problem of working people not saving toward retirement and the problem of people ending up in poor farms. America does not need to revisit these issues because of some ideological cause.

[Tom]

Oh boy, another I HATE THE RIGHT thread.

Al, you are 180 degrees off course.
It is NEVER anyone's duty to NOT follow their beliefs and oppose those they believe are wrong. That goes for your side when WE are in charge.

btw, the majority oppose Obama care.

[Clocker]

btw, the majority oppose Obama care.

They don't know what is good for them. Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC said so, so it must be true.

[DJofSD]

Those who align themselves with what is called the conservative movement in the US are doing themselves and the country a disservice. They should be acting as the Loyal Opposition picking at the details of the path that the majority has chosen to take helping to correct our journey. Instead they attempt to derail efforts that the voting public want. This just makes them look bad and lose elections. It does nothing for moving America along towards forming a more perfect union. Get over it. Social Security is here to stay. It solved the problem of working people not saving toward retirement and the problem of people ending up in poor farms. America does not need to revisit these issues because of some ideological cause.
Carl Rove, Jr., I presume?

[Robert Goren]

Oh boy, another I HATE THE RIGHT thread.

Al, you are 180 degrees off course.
It is NEVER anyone's duty to NOT follow their beliefs and oppose those they believe are wrong. That goes for your side when WE are in charge.

btw, the majority oppose Obama care.They did not vote that way in the last election.

[BlueShoe]

So we conservatives should just quit struggling and give in to socialism? Sorry, ain't gonna happen. :ThmbUp: So Marxism aids in forming a more perfect union? Wrong again, in spite of what MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, et all keeps telling us. :mad:

[DJofSD]

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.


Winston Churchill

[Tom]

They did not vote that way in the last election.

You have no idea how they voted.
There were more than one issue in the election - show me your data that says this was the one most wanted.

[Clocker]

They did not vote that way in the last election.

They voted that way in 2010. By 2012, ObamaCare was no longer on the table, and there was no serious chance of change to ObamaCare or to Washington. Lots of people on both sides stayed home. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if people don't want to go out and vote, you can't stop them.

There is going to be another swing to the right in 2014 to reflect what people have learned about what is in that law, and to reflect 6 years of economic stagnation under this regime.

[Valuist]

Those who align themselves with what is called the conservative movement in the US are doing themselves and the country a disservice. They should be acting as the Loyal Opposition picking at the details of the path that the majority has chosen to take helping to correct our journey. Instead they attempt to derail efforts that the voting public want. This just makes them look bad and lose elections. It does nothing for moving America along towards forming a more perfect union. Get over it. Social Security is here to stay. It solved the problem of working people not saving toward retirement and the problem of people ending up in poor farms. America does not need to revisit these issues because of some ideological cause.

In the meantime, plenty of unions who helped get Obama elected, are now realizing that Obamacare will be a big mistake.

[DJofSD]

In the meantime, plenty of unions who helped get Obama elected, are now realizing that Obamacare will be a big mistake.
Add to that the realization that big government will be exempt from the ACA.

[mostpost]

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.


Winston Churchill
That quote was from a speech which Churchill gave at the Harrow school on October 29, 1941. It was a speech about World War II and resisting Nazi aggression. If you really think that Churchill would be so obstinately stubborn and stupid as to never compromise on anything, you are a fool.

Churchill was a statement and a patriot. He would have never undermined his nations government in order to secure personal political power. He would be appalled to know you are misusing one of his inspirational speeches to justify your intransigence.

[mostpost]

In the meantime, plenty of unions who helped get Obama elected, are now realizing that Obamacare will be a big mistake.
That is hyperbole to say the least. There are union leaders who feel that a few aspects of Obamacare need to be fixed. That does not mean they want it repealed.

These union leaders feel the 30 hour rule has given employers an incentive to reduce the number of full time employees. So they are looking for an alternative method to determine which businesses need to abide by Obamacare. The interesting fact here is that a survey of small businesses showed that only 17% of them felt they would be affected by the law.

There were also concerns over certain non profit insurance plans administered jointly by unions and companies and whether members of those plans would be eligible for subsidies.

There are many aspects of the ACA which unions have no problem with such as; no preexisting conditions, no premium increases because of illness, no dropping from coverage if you get sick, coverage of preventive services, the establishment of exchanges to provide affordable coverage.

The unions are also objecting to the delay in mandating employer coverage. In case you can't figure it out, that would be in favor of Obamacare.

[mostpost]

Add to that the realization that big government will be exempt from the ACA.
There is nothing in the ACA which exempts members of Congress. There are no bills pending which would exempt them. In fact an amendment by Sen. Grassley, which was passed takes members of Congress and their staffs out of the FEHB plan and places them in the exchanges.

Federal employees can remain in FEHB, but that is the same as an employee of a company with a Health Insurance plan being able to remain in that plan.

[Clocker]

There is nothing in the ACA which exempts members of Congress. There are no bills pending which would exempt them. In fact an amendment by Sen. Grassley, which was passed takes members of Congress and their staffs out of the FEHB plan and places them in the exchanges.



You are correct. The exemption is not in the bill. It is in the decision of the government to subsidize government workers in the exchanges. It may not be a de jure exemption, but it is certainly a de facto exemption.


Congress to get Obamacare exemption: report (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/congress-to-get-obamacare-exemption-report-2013-08-02?dist=tcountdown)


The link is to a WSJ article, so it is obviously right wing propaganda.

[mostpost]

You are correct. The exemption is not in the bill. It is in the decision of the government to subsidize government workers in the exchanges. It may not be a de jure exemption, but it is certainly a de facto exemption.


Congress to get Obamacare exemption: report (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/congress-to-get-obamacare-exemption-report-2013-08-02?dist=tcountdown)


The link is to a WSJ article, so it is obviously right wing propaganda.
Here is the complete story.
When the ACA was being debated, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa-one of the dumbest men in America-had an idea. he would offer an amendment which would require members of Congress and their staffs to leave the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan and purchase the insurance through the exchanges that were being set up under the ACA. Grassley, the genius, knew that the amendment would be rejected by the Democrats and he, and his fellow Neanderthals, could then characterize them as being elitists who would not subject themselves to the same laws as all Americans.

The Democrats, being much smarter than a bag of grass clippings and therefore much, much smarter than Grassley, did not fall for it. They approved the amendment.

As a result, members of Congress and, more importantly, members of their staffs were now required to purchase insurance through the exchanges. People who previously had up to 72% of their premium covered by the Federal government as their employer, now had to pay 100% of their premium.

In other words, Sen. Grassley's politically motivated amendment increased the premiums of those staff members fourfold. It was not as if they had a choice in the matter. The decision of the OPM to continue government contributions in the same vein as before is the only fair one.

ETA: It is not an exemption. Congress and it's staffers should have been allowed to retain theircoverage through FEHB just as other government employees are allowed to keep that coverage; and just as employees of private companies are allowed to keep that coverage.

[Clocker]

Congress and it's staffers should have been allowed to retain theircoverage through FEHB

Oh, you mean like Obama promised and didn't deliver? It doesn't matter how it happened or why it happened, that doesn't change the fact that it happened.

just as employees of private companies are allowed to keep that coverage

So you are saying that no worker in the private sector who likes his current health plan has lost it, or is going to lose it, under ObamaCare?

[mostpost]

Oh, you mean like Obama promised and didn't deliver? It doesn't matter how it happened or why it happened, that doesn't change the fact that it happened.



So you are saying that no worker in the private sector who likes his current health plan has lost it, or is going to lose it, under ObamaCare?
No worker who has a private sector health plan will lose it because of Obamacare. Obamacare does not require a private sector worker with a health plan to leave that plan. Obamacare does not require a private company to stop offering healthcare. Any companies that use Obamacare as an excuse to stop offering healthcare are doing just that. Using it as an excuse.

[Valuist]

Oh, you mean like Obama promised and didn't deliver? It doesn't matter how it happened or why it happened, that doesn't change the fact that it happened.



So you are saying that no worker in the private sector who likes his current health plan has lost it, or is going to lose it, under ObamaCare?

Clocker-

You are a welcome addition to the forum.

[mostpost]

Clocker-

You are a welcome addition to the forum.
He's just more of the same. The same reliance on biased, unreliable sources. The same unreasoning worship of the so called free market. The same unreasoning fear of government. The same isolating a tiny part of an opposing argument and thinking that proves the entire argument wrong. Clocker is new, but he is just more of the same.

[mostpost]

Oh, you mean like Obama promised and didn't deliver? It doesn't matter how it happened or why it happened, that doesn't change the fact that it happened.
Of course it matters how it happens. It also matters that characterizing it as a government exemption for Obamacare is a complete mischaracterization.

[Robert Goren]

The failings of the conservative movement
What conservative movement? Bill Buckley must be spinning in his grave at what calls itself the conservative movement. The conservative movement today consists of the leftovers of Nixon's Southern Strategy, Tax Protesters, Religious Nuts and a some Libertarians thrown in for good measure. The uniting factor right now is their hatred of Obama. Most of them would have to look up ever other word Buckley used if they read anything he wrote.

[Clocker]

No worker who has a private sector health plan will lose it because of Obamacare. Obamacare does not require a private sector worker with a health plan to leave that plan. Obamacare does not require a private company to stop offering healthcare.

ObamaCare does not require a private company to stop offering health insurance, but it can price the company out of the market, so that the only rational action for the company is to stop providing it and let the employees go to the exchanges. And a lot of people with employer provided insurance have lost it when they were cut back to part time jobs.

You are using the same argument as before. You are correct that ObamaCare does not literally require that any employer drop the coverage. But as ObamaCare drives the costs up and makes the continued coverage financially disastrous for the employer, the result is the same. And the goal is the same. The goal is to migrate people to the exchanges. Obama and the Kool Aid drinkers hate private health insurance. They can't get the single payer system they want, so they are moving in that direction in steps.

I ask you again, are you claiming that no one has lost or will lose their employer provided health insurance as a result of ObamaCare? If not by the regulations, then by the forced financial consequences?

[Capper Al]

The failings of the conservative movement
What conservative movement? Bill Buckley must be spinning in his grave at what calls itself the conservative movement. The conservative movement today consists of the leftovers of Nixon's Southern Strategy, Tax Protesters, Religious Nuts and a some Libertarians thrown in for good measure. The uniting factor right now is their hatred of Obama. Most of them would have to look up ever other word Buckley used if they read anything he wrote.

A true and real conservative would say after 50 years social security proved itself instead of wanting to change it. By the fact that they want change with a program this instated means that they are liberals (aka progressives) of a different color. They agrue for change not stability. They can't call themselves the party that doesn't want to educate our children, deny us health care, and let us die in the poor farm. So they call themselves conservatives.

[Clocker]

The same unreasoning fear of government.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif


Pick one:

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." -- Barack Obama

[Clocker]

The same unreasoning worship of the so called free market.

Would that be the so called free market where a small business doesn't have to worry about incurring huge financial obligations if it hires a 51st employee?

Would that be the so called free market where an employee and an employer can decide between themselves whether part time or full time work is in the best interests of both?

Would that be the so called free market where the government doesn't create investment bubbles by requiring lenders to issue sub-prime mortgages?

Would that be the so called free market where disasters like Solyndra and the Chevy Volt don't happen because no one with an I.Q. above room temperature would invest a cent in them?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Robert Goren]

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif


Pick one:

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." -- Barack ObamaToo bad Jefferson didn't really believe that. He thought it only applied to people with white skin. He "owned" black people and use the government to steal land from Native Americans.

[mostpost]

Pick one:

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." -- Thomas Jefferson

Barack Obama
Why do I have to pick one? Is that some kind of law you made? You seem to think that one cannot agree with one without disagreeing with the other. That is because you do not understand what Jefferson is saying and you don't understand what Obama is saying.

First Jefferson; "A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another,"
That does not just mean injuring by attacking, it also means injuring by neglect or indifference. Regulating working conditions is a part of governments duty to protect its citizens. In Jefferson's time there were no mass production industries. If there had been he would not have condoned making people work in unsafe conditions.

Preventing one man from shooting another is only one way in which government shall restrain men from injuring one another. Requiring safety guards on machines and providing safe disposal of hazardous waste are a few of the others.
shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement,
Taking this at face value would mean that Jefferson was okay with allowing those with the most power to prevail in all disputes. That is the antithesis of Democracy. Every dispute between management and labor would be won by management. Every grievance by a worker would be cast aside.

and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.
While this undoubtedly refers to taxation, it could also refer to substandard wages. Jefferson understood that no business ever survived without workers.

Obama:
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." -
Obama is correct and Henry Ford was correct. When you pay your workers enough to buy your products, it benefits them and it benefits you. Spreading the wealth around doesn't mean confiscating something ownership deserves. It means transferring something that should never have been theirs back to its rightful owners.

[Clocker]

That is because you do not understand what Jefferson is saying and you don't understand what Obama is saying.

Amazing. In the last day or so you have designated yourself as the only qualified interpreter of the works of Adam Smith, Winston Churchill, Thomas Jefferson, and Barack Obama. I am in awe of the depth and breath of your expertise.

Spreading the wealth around doesn't mean confiscating something ownership deserves. It means transferring something that should never have been theirs back to its rightful owners.

And you are also qualified to determine whether something I own is something that never should have been mine? Without regard to the rule of law? How, pray tell, were you endowed with that wisdom and authority?

[newtothegame]

Too bad Jefferson didn't really believe that. He thought it only applied to people with white skin. He "owned" black people and use the government to steal land from Native Americans.
You know Robert, you are really starting to come across as a "loon" with your non stop racially interjection into everything and every thread.......

It really is appearing like you have some racial tensions built up....try a drink....

[mostpost]

Would that be the so called free market where a small business doesn't have to worry about incurring huge financial obligations if it hires a 51st employee?
If that small business has anywhere near fifty employees, it should have already been providing a health insurance plan for its employees. Then the addition of one or two employees would not be a huge burden. If you try to tell me that the business does not offer such insurance because it can not afford to, I will tell you it should structure its entire compensation package so that it can afford it. In other words, does it offer higher salaries instead of health insurance or does it keep the money saved as excess profit. If the latter than I have no qualms about requiring them to provide health care coverage.

Would that be the so called free market where an employee and an employer can decide between themselves whether part time or full time work is in the best interests of both?
This is nonsense. In the best interest of both? What about when the choice is in the best interest of one and not the other. What if the employee wants to work full time but the employer wants him to work only part time-perhaps because the employer does not want to provide health care insurance? Who is going to win that argument every time? And the so called free market has nothing to do with it.

Would that be the so called free market where the government doesn't create investment bubbles by requiring lenders to issue sub-prime mortgages?
Sub-prime mortgages were a small part of the housing crisis. The major part was unsecured derivatives and mortgage companies betting against mortgages they sold in order to cash in on the bets and foreclose on homes.
A properly regulated banking industry would have prevented those disasters

Would that be the so called free market where disasters like Solyndra and the Chevy Volt don't happen because no one with an I.Q. above room temperature would invest a cent in them?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Yours is not an inquiring mind, it is a stultified mind that parrots the same garbage the cons have been parroting here since I joined this board in.....whenever it was I joined.

[newtothegame]

Amazing. In the last day or so you have designated yourself as the only qualified interpreter of the works of Adam Smith, Winston Churchill, Thomas Jefferson, and Barack Obama. I am in awe of the depth and breath of your expertise.



And you are also qualified to determine whether something I own is something that never should have been mine? Without regard to the rule of law? How, pray tell, were you endowed with that wisdom and authority?
Although you are relatively new here clocker, ( and I appreciate your efforts), you are now becoming wise beyond your years in learning that MOSTY is the know all, end all, resident lol.

[JustRalph]

Amazing. In the last day or so you have designated yourself as the only qualified interpreter of the works of Adam Smith, Winston Churchill, Thomas Jefferson, and Barack Obama. I am in awe of the depth and breath of your expertise.



And you are also qualified to determine whether something I own is something that never should have been mine? Without regard to the rule of law? How, pray tell, were you endowed with that wisdom and authority?

He's got a closet full of light blue shirts and and dark blue shorty pants. Be careful, he knows his stuff.

[Clocker]

He's got a closet full of light blue shirts and and dark blue shorty pants. Be careful, he knows his stuff.

I got it. Need to slow down here before we do something rational. ;)

[mostpost]

Amazing. In the last day or so you have designated yourself as the only qualified interpreter of the works of Adam Smith, Winston Churchill, Thomas Jefferson, and Barack Obama. I am in awe of the depth and breath of your expertise.
There are many qualified interpreters of those gentlemen. You just don't happen to be one of them.



And you are also qualified to determine whether something I own is something that never should have been mine? Without regard to the rule of law? How, pray tell, were you endowed with that wisdom and authority?
If you own something because you did not pay someone a fair wage; if you own it because you did not provide safe working conditions; if you own it because you did not provide basic benefits, then it was never yours and you have it because you stole it.

How do we determine that you did not provide these things? If you told your employee, these are the conditions of your employment; take it or leave it, we will assume you are not paying a fair wage, not providing safe working conditions, not providing basic benefits and we will assume your are claiming a share of the profits that rightfully belong to those employees/

If you have negotiated these factors with an employee who has equal borrowing power we will assume you have entered into a fair contract with that employee and all the profits of the business are rightfully yours.

[newtothegame]

:lol: If you own something because you did not pay someone a fair wage; if you own it because you did not provide safe working conditions; if you own it because you did not provide basic benefits, then it was never yours and you have it because you stole it.

How do we determine that you did not provide these things? If you told your employee, these are the conditions of your employment; take it or leave it, we will assume you are not paying a fair wage, not providing safe working conditions, not providing basic benefits and we will assume your are claiming a share of the profits that rightfully belong to those employees/

If you have negotiated these factors with an employee who has equal borrowing power we will assume you have entered into a fair contract with that employee and all the profits of the business are rightfully yours.
Looks like a whole lot of ASSume to me ....:lol:

[JustRalph]

If you own something because you did not pay someone a fair wage; if you own it because you did not provide safe working conditions; if you own it because you did not provide basic benefits, then it was never yours and you have it because you stole it.

How do we determine that you did not provide these things? If you told your employee, these are the conditions of your employment; take it or leave it, we will assume you are not paying a fair wage, not providing safe working conditions, not providing basic benefits and we will assume your are claiming a share of the profits that rightfully belong to those employees/

If you have negotiated these factors with an employee who has equal borrowing power we will assume you have entered into a fair contract with that employee and all the profits of the business are rightfully yours.

And who the hell are you to set the conditions for either the employee or the employer? Christ! You are a batshit dyed in the wool socialist who honestly would prefer a left wing dictator. Right?

[newtothegame]

And who the hell are you to set the conditions for either the employee or the employer? Christ! You are a batshit dyed in the wool socialist who honestly would prefer a left wing dictator. Right?
Ding ding ding...we have a winner....!!!!

[LottaKash]

And who the hell are you to set the conditions for either the employee or the employer? Christ! You are a batshit dyed in the wool socialist who honestly would prefer a left wing dictator. Right?

Damn Ralph, that statement knocked my tin-foil hat clean off, and then I fell right out of my chair....Bless you..

[Clocker]

And who the hell are you to set the conditions for either the employee or the employer?

We can't just allow people to go around making contractual agreements between consenting adults. Can you imagine what that would lead to? Have you any idea of how many regulators and lawyers and union leaders would be out of a job if we allowed that? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gif

[riskman]

"As of July 2013, in the House of Representatives, there are 234 Republicans, 206 Democrats
(including 5 Delegates and the Resident Commissioner), and 1 vacant seat. The Senate has 46
Republicans, 52 Democrats, and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42964.pdf

Capper Al-The American voters elected this Congress so how do you reconcile your statement"the conservative movement in the US are doing themselves and the country a disservice. They should be acting as the Loyal Opposition picking at the details of the path that the majority has chosen to take helping to correct our journey. Instead they attempt to derail efforts that the voting public want. This just makes them look bad and lose elections."

The voting public did not choose a Democratic House and the Dems hold a 6 seat Senate edge.

[Clocker]

If you own something you didn't build that.

Fixed for political correctness.

[Tom]

Clocker-

You are a welcome addition to the forum.

Yes, I was thinking that same thing.
Functional minds are always welcome. And so rare! :lol:

[Tom]

If you have negotiated these factors with an employee who has equal borrowing power we will assume you have entered into a fair contract with that employee and all the profits of the business are rightfully yours.

It will be a fair agreement when the workers start putting up risk capital like the owners do. Until then, you, me, and everyone else is....wait for it......

EXPENDABLE.

Whatever delusions you may have, you are not at all important to the post office, never were. You were a number - one of millions. Any day you could have disappeared and there would have been no problems for the USPS. They would have replaced you with any one of a million others and gone on.

You unions boys are such greedy bastards - you think you have a right to the profits of someone else's risk, yet where are you when there are losses> Are you cutting back on pay and bennies? :lol:

Right now, ALL postal employees should be working for free!

[GaryG]

Jeff (lsbets) who owns a coffee company in Texas laid this one out a long time ago. He said that he pays his employees in relation to the value of their services to the company. If an employee thinks he is worth more than the going rate he can go on down the road. That is how a free market works you know.

[Tom]

Yes, and if that employee really is worth more, finding a job will be a snap.

[Clocker]

Jeff (lsbets) who owns a coffee company in Texas laid this one out a long time ago. He said that he pays his employees in relation to the value of their services to the company. If an employee thinks he is worth more than the going rate he can go on down the road. That is how a free market works you know.

The other side of the coin is that the market determines how much an employer has to pay to attract and keep good help. An employer can't arbitrarily decide to pay below market wages or he won't be able to get anyone to work for him. Labor is an economic commodity, just like food or clothes or capital. The price (wage) is determined by supply and demand.

There has been a lot of hype over the years about Henry Ford's munificence toward his workers. It may be true that Ford cared about his employees. But it is also true that working on the assembly line was a miserable job, and Ford had a very high turn-over rate until he paid enough to retain his workers.



After the success of the moving assembly line, Henry Ford had another transformative idea: in January 1914, he startled the world by announcing that Ford Motor Company would pay $5 a day to its workers. The pay increase would also be accompanied by a shorter workday (from nine to eight hours). While this rate didn't automatically apply to every worker, it more than doubled the average autoworker's wage.

While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition—labor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high—newspapers from all over the world reported the story as an extraordinary gesture of goodwill.


After Ford’s announcement, thousands of prospective workers showed up at the Ford Motor Company employment office. People surged toward Detroit from the American South and the nations of Europe. As expected, employee turnover diminished. And, by creating an eight-hour day, Ford could run three shifts instead of two, increasing productivity.



Emphasis added.

[Capper Al]

The other side of the coin is that the market determines how much an employer has to pay to attract and keep good help. An employer can't arbitrarily decide to pay below market wages or he won't be able to get anyone to work for him. Labor is an economic commodity, just like food or clothes or capital. The price (wage) is determined by supply and demand.

There has been a lot of hype over the years about Henry Ford's munificence toward his workers. It may be true that Ford cared about his employees. But it is also true that working on the assembly line was a miserable job, and Ford had a very high turn-over rate until he paid enough to retain his workers.



Emphasis added.

Look out any window and the world seems flat to you, clocker. You seem to have an understanding of micro economics and are sophomoric about it. In your scenario is a given that employers will easily give higher wages to compete with other employers. It doesn't happen that way. You yourself know if you can pay someone $10/hour verses $20, as an employer you'll do it. You might not like major league sport salaries, but if it were left to the owners, the players would only being playing the game for the love of the sport not money.

[Robert Goren]

Jeff (lsbets) who owns a coffee company in Texas laid this one out a long time ago. He said that he pays his employees in relation to the value of their services to the company. If an employee thinks he is worth more than the going rate he can go on down the road. That is how a free market works you know.I knew a café owner who thought the same thing. A waitress wanted a % of the sales at her tables in addition to her tips. The owner took a look around and saw some his waitresses doing nothing while she was busy as she could be. He thought to himself and I will quote as best as I can remember what he said to me " the customers come here for the food and the other waitresses can pick up the slack" Besides he was mad that she had made the demand. He refused her offer and she left and so did 40% of business ( his number although I think it is high) and he ended up closing. I once told me " I was never more wrong in business". If you are in a small business, you better know why your customers are your customers. The owner eventually was able to get together enough money to open another café, but it took him 7 years of working 3 jobs. He found niche in the after the bars close crowd. This time, he fired waitresses that nobody want, not the ones everybody wanted. He made a ton of money off the drunks, sold out at good price and retired in Vegas to play in low limit poker games. I think he still out there. The waitress has moved around some, working in several cafes and her customers still follow her. I think she finally got her % deal at last one. She told me last spring she was getting ready to retire and give her feet a much needed rest. I think one of customers is a sharp stock broker who has help her in her investments as well. I doubt if she is 50.

[delayjf]

MostPost

Where is it written that my employer is responsible for my healthcare? Why are you and I as individuals not responsible for our own healthcare?

[Tom]

I knew a café owner...

:faint: :faint: :faint:

[Clocker]

Look out any window and the world seems flat to you, clocker. You seem to have an understanding of micro economics and are sophomoric about it. In your scenario is a given that employers will easily give higher wages to compete with other employers. It doesn't happen that way. You yourself know if you can pay someone $10/hour verses $20, as an employer you'll do it.

Sophomoric???

You either didn't understand what I said or you are purposely distorting it. I didn't say that employers "easily give higher wages". What I said was that there are market forces on both sides of the employer-employee relation, and that business owners cannot arbitrarily and unilaterally set wages. Many posts here implied that greedy bosses don't pay "fair" wages. My point is that employers are not able to arbitrarily set low wages to maximize profits, that workers have some market power as well.

When I taught undergraduate economics, my sophomores understood that.

[Clocker]

Where is it written that my employer is responsible for my healthcare? Why are you and I as individuals not responsible for our own healthcare?

Employer provided health care is a result of a market artificially distorted by government regulation.

From Wiki:
Employer-sponsored health insurance plans dramatically expanded as a direct result of wage controls imposed by the federal government during World War II. The labor market was tight because of the increased demand for goods and decreased supply of workers during the war. Federally imposed wage and price controls prohibited manufacturers and other employers from raising wages enough to attract workers. When the War Labor Board declared that fringe benefits, such as sick leave and health insurance, did not count as wages for the purpose of wage controls, employers responded with significantly increased offers of fringe benefits, especially health care coverage, to attract workers.

And once granted, of course, any benefit eventually becomes an entitlement.

[mostpost]

Sophomoric???

You either didn't understand what I said or you are purposely distorting it. I didn't say that employers "easily give higher wages". What I said was that there are market forces on both sides of the employer-employee relation, and that business owners cannot arbitrarily and unilaterally set wages. Many posts here implied that greedy bosses don't pay "fair" wages. My point is that employers are not able to arbitrarily set low wages to maximize profits, that workers have some market power as well.

When I taught undergraduate economics, my sophomores understood that.
Yes, there is a market in the employer-employee relation, but you don't understand what that market is in the present economy. It is not a market of employers competing for workers. It is a market of workers competing for jobs. There are now more workers looking for jobs than there are jobs available. Therefore, workers are willing to pay more for those jobs. They do this by accepting lower salaries and benefits.

In this economy employers can pick and choose and look for the best economic benefit from their hires. They will pay what costs them the least.

[Mike at A+]

Yes, there is a market in the employer-employee relation, but you don't understand what that market is in the present economy. It is not a market of employers competing for workers. It is a market of workers competing for jobs. There are now more workers looking for jobs than there are jobs available. Therefore, workers are willing to pay more for those jobs. They do this by accepting lower salaries and benefits.

In this economy employers can pick and choose and look for the best economic benefit from their hires. They will pay what costs them the least.
Well the circle is complete. We're back to 0bamacare and the damage it has done to the job market. Employers are scared shitless because they have no clue about their future under this dictator. They will either stand pat, cut jobs, hire part time workers or keep their staffs below whatever number they need to stay below to avoid complying with this job killing law.

The most priceless comment of the week was by the acting IRS chief Danny Werfel. He DOESN'T WANT 0bamacare because he likes the plan he has now. That is RICH!

[Clocker]

you don't understand what that market is in the present economy.

You don't understand that there is not a single homogenous labor market in the economy. The market for unskilled labor right now has high supply and low demand. And that demand is distorted and artificially restrained by government regulation.

The markets for skilled labor may or may not be competitive, depending on supply and demand in various markets.

[newtothegame]

Yes, there is a market in the employer-employee relation, but you don't understand what that market is in the present economy. It is not a market of employers competing for workers. It is a market of workers competing for jobs. There are now more workers looking for jobs than there are jobs available. Therefore, workers are willing to pay more for those jobs. They do this by accepting lower salaries and benefits.

In this economy employers can pick and choose and look for the best economic benefit from their hires. They will pay what costs them the least.
And what YOU don't understand is that business runs in cycles. Just as unemployment does. The market, when out of equilibrium, ALWAYS resorts back to equilibrium. In your world, the balance would always be shifted towards the employee...in the real world, it is always shifted towards a balance.

Lets say you own a business...any business where there is a market (meaning buyers and sellers) competing. Why is it so hard for you to understand that an employer can not lowball an employee as the employee would just go down the road to where the pay was what the market determines it is???
In order for the wages to all be low balled, you would have to have collusion on the part of the employers. This is not likely (and against the law) for several reasons. First and foremost, businesses want to be successful and in order to do so, they must differentiate themselves from the competition. This can either be done through products or through services and or employees. By having the employees as part of the equation, employees must be paid accordingly to attract the best and brightest. Otherwise, you will end up with McJobs!

The reverse holds true as well....if an employer does not fulfill these needs, ultimately he or she will go out of business. You see, it you receive bad employee service at a place of business, you will not patronize that establishment with your business. It is in the best interest of the employer to hire "qualified" staff and pay them "fairly" in order to retain them.

[newtothegame]

[QUOTE=mostpost]Yes, there is a market in the employer-employee relation, but you don't understand what that market is in the present economy. It is not a market of employers competing for workers. It is a market of workers competing for jobs. There are now more workers looking for jobs than there are jobs available. Therefore, workers are willing to pay more for those jobs. They do this by accepting lower salaries and benefits.

In this economy employers can pick and choose and look for the best economic benefit from their hires. They will pay what costs them the least.[/QUOTE I could of sworn "someone" had a ton of shovel ready jobs........
You're not telling me this was a fallacy was it???

[Robert Goren]

:faint: :faint: :faint:His name is Gary Schmidt. The waitress's name is Barb. I don't know her last name. Unlike the conservatives here, I do not make up stories. Get over it!

[Tom]

There are not enough shovels out there to dig a hole deep enough to bury Obama's BS in.

[mostpost]

Well the circle is complete. We're back to 0bamacare and the damage it has done to the job market. Employers are scared shitless because they have no clue about their future under this dictator. They will either stand pat, cut jobs, hire part time workers or keep their staffs below whatever number they need to stay below to avoid complying with this job killing law.

The most priceless comment of the week was by the acting IRS chief Danny Werfel. He DOESN'T WANT 0bamacare because he likes the plan he has now. That is RICH!
I looked in the dictionary and beside "Clueless" there is a picture of you. The plan Werfel-and you-has now is Obamacare. But Obamacare is also the exchanges and the opportunity for people who did not have healthcare to have it now.

You say employers don't know what to expect under Obamacare, yet the law is quite clear about how many employees you must have to be under the law and what the penalties are for noncompliance and what subsidies you would be eligible for. Anyone who claims they are confused is either not paying attention or is using their ignorance as an excuse to cut benefits they are already paying.

[Clocker]

Employers are scared shitless because they have no clue about their future under this dictator.

Come on! You know all those rich, greedy capitalist pigs are lying about that. They just don't want to share their wealth with the oppressed lower classes, and are using ObamaCare as an excuse for not investing.

They are sitting on cash in a financial market that pays a real interest rate near zero, while losing out on the billions of dollars they could make investing that money and creating new jobs. They are just doing it because of their racial hatred of Obama, trying to make him and the rest of the libs look bad.

I know that's true, because I read it on the internet, and everything on the internet is true.

[Tom]

Says you?

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/31/economic-growth-remains-too-slow-because-of-policy-uncertainty/

[Robert Goren]

If government run health insurance is so bad, why don't the congressmen and senators abandon it and go in to the free market to get their plans? Or better yet self insure and go without any? Is there even one Tea Party congressman who does either of those two?

[newtothegame]

If government run health insurance is so bad, why don't the congressmen and senators abandon it and go in to the free market to get their plans? Or better yet self insure and go without any? Is there even one Tea Party congressman who does either of those two?
The better question is why are our congressional reps EXEMPT from it and keeping their own plans??? Why are exemptions being handed out right and left to unions??

[Clocker]

You say employers don't know what to expect under Obamacare, yet the law is quite clear

Is that the law that is quite clear that the administration has to put the employer mandate into effect on 1/1/2014? Perhaps you could explain that to the administration. It doesn't seem that clear to them.

[Clocker]

Says you?

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/31/economic-growth-remains-too-slow-because-of-policy-uncertainty/

His mind is made up. Don't confuse him with facts.

[Tom]

Is that the law that is quite clear that the administration has to put the employer mandate into effect on 1/1/2014? Perhaps you could explain that to the administration. It doesn't seem that clear to them.

Just another law being ignored.
If Obama care is so great, why is it being put off until AFTER the mid-term elections? :lol:

[Mike at A+]

I looked in the dictionary and beside "Clueless" there is a picture of you. The plan Werfel-and you-has now is Obamacare. But Obamacare is also the exchanges and the opportunity for people who did not have healthcare to have it now.

You say employers don't know what to expect under Obamacare, yet the law is quite clear about how many employees you must have to be under the law and what the penalties are for noncompliance and what subsidies you would be eligible for. Anyone who claims they are confused is either not paying attention or is using their ignorance as an excuse to cut benefits they are already paying.
Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. I said "Employers are scared shitless because they have no clue about their future under this dictator." I DID NOT SAY "employers don't know what to expect under 0bamacare". MY statement is reflective of 0bama's ATTITUDE toward businesses in general and more specifically toward SUCCESSFUL businesses that wish to remain successful.

Nice try but you lose again. YOU are the clueless one. YOU are not paying attention. I didn't use any big confusing words.

[mostpost]

Says you?

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/31/economic-growth-remains-too-slow-because-of-policy-uncertainty/
That is just another of the Cbama is evil crowd saying the same thing they all say with no proof.

[Tom]

That is just another of the Cbama is evil crowd saying the same thing they all say with no proof.

Which is exactly what your post was.
Where is your proof?

[Clocker]

"Employers are scared shitless because they have no clue about their future under this dictator." I DID NOT SAY "employers don't know what to expect under 0bamacare". MY statement is reflective of 0bama's ATTITUDE toward businesses in general and more specifically toward SUCCESSFUL businesses that wish to remain successful.



Economic Stagnation Explained, at 30,000 Feet (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/carter-economic-stagnation-explained-at-30-000-feet.html)

The start of the article, written by a Yale law professor:



The man in the aisle seat is trying to tell me why he refuses to hire anybody. His business is successful, he says, as the 737 cruises smoothly eastward. Demand for his product is up. But he still won’t hire.

“Why not?”


“Because I don’t know how much it will cost,” he explains. “How can I hire new workers today, when I don’t know how much they will cost me tomorrow?”



The Yale professor concludes:
Recessions have complex causes, but, as the man on the aisle reminded me, we do nothing to make things better when the companies on which we rely see Washington as adversary rather than partner.

[Capper Al]

Sophomoric???

You either didn't understand what I said or you are purposely distorting it. I didn't say that employers "easily give higher wages". What I said was that there are market forces on both sides of the employer-employee relation, and that business owners cannot arbitrarily and unilaterally set wages. Many posts here implied that greedy bosses don't pay "fair" wages. My point is that employers are not able to arbitrarily set low wages to maximize profits, that workers have some market power as well.

When I taught undergraduate economics, my sophomores understood that.

Did you make economic models with goverment, private sector, leaisure demand, and technology in grad school? This is pretty basic stuff. You didn't jump in on the macro stuff. Therefore, I'm calling BS on you.

[Tom]

Is that something like "Tag, your'e it?"

[Clocker]

Did you make economic models with goverment, private sector, leaisure demand, and technology in grad school? This is pretty basic stuff. You didn't jump in on the macro stuff. Therefore, I'm calling BS on you.

I haven't seen any macro discussion here that makes any sense, let alone any that was worth commenting on. It is fruitless to discuss the macroeconomic effects of labor policy with people who do not understand the microeconomics of wages. So I generally ignore such discussions.

Not that I much care about what you call BS on, but after I left academia, I worked in the private sector doing econometric modeling and forecasting at the macro level. Just mentioned as a caution about jumping to conclusions.

[JustRalph]

Jeff (lsbets) who owns a coffee company in Texas laid this one out a long time ago. He said that he pays his employees in relation to the value of their services to the company. If an employee thinks he is worth more than the going rate he can go on down the road. That is how a free market works you know.


He closed the business. Said he got tired of the crap and taxes etc. cashed out and went off the grid. I don't want to speak for him. But he decided to drop out

[JustRalph]

I knew a café owner who thought the same thing. A waitress wanted a % of the sales at her tables in addition to her tips. The owner took a look around and saw some his waitresses doing nothing while she was busy as she could be. He thought to himself and I will quote as best as I can remember what he said to me " the customers come here for the food and the other waitresses can pick up the slack" Besides he was mad that she had made the demand. He refused her offer and she left and so did 40% of business ( his number although I think it is high) and he ended up closing. I once told me " I was never more wrong in business". If you are in a small business, you better know why your customers are your customers. The owner eventually was able to get together enough money to open another café, but it took him 7 years of working 3 jobs. He found niche in the after the bars close crowd. This time, he fired waitresses that nobody want, not the ones everybody wanted. He made a ton of money off the drunks, sold out at good price and retired in Vegas to play in low limit poker games. I think he still out there. The waitress has moved around some, working in several cafes and her customers still follow her. I think she finally got her % deal at last one. She told me last spring she was getting ready to retire and give her feet a much needed rest. I think one of customers is a sharp stock broker who has help her in her investments as well. I doubt if she is 50.

I've been around the restaurant business for 30 years. Never has a waitress ever had that much influence. That bitch was a hooker or madam.

[johnhannibalsmith]

.... That bitch was a hooker or madam.

:lol:

I came oh-so close to posting almost the exact same thing when I read that post earlier.

[Clocker]

I've been around the restaurant business for 30 years. Never has a waitress ever had that much influence. That bitch was a hooker or madam.

Or a dealer.

I go to a restaurant for the food. Wait staff is pass/fail in my book. A bad one might drive me away, but anything above acceptable doesn't affect my choice of restaurant, only the level of tip. If a great waitress leaves and an acceptable one replaces her, I'm still going there for the food.

[PaceAdvantage]

No worker who has a private sector health plan will lose it because of Obamacare. Obamacare does not require a private sector worker with a health plan to leave that plan. Obamacare does not require a private company to stop offering healthcare. Any companies that use Obamacare as an excuse to stop offering healthcare are doing just that. Using it as an excuse.Oh...that was rich...you're going to blame the private sector for Obamacare forcing employees to have to seek out other plans once they lose their employer's coverage.

Oh my...you are a hoot and a half!!

The administration should hire you as their spin doctor czar...

[PaceAdvantage]

I knew a café owner who thought the same thing. A waitress wanted a % of the sales at her tables in addition to her tips. The owner took a look around and saw some his waitresses doing nothing while she was busy as she could be. He thought to himself and I will quote as best as I can remember what he said to me " the customers come here for the food and the other waitresses can pick up the slack" Besides he was mad that she had made the demand. He refused her offer and she left and so did 40% of business ( his number although I think it is high) and he ended up closing. I once told me " I was never more wrong in business". If you are in a small business, you better know why your customers are your customers. The owner eventually was able to get together enough money to open another café, but it took him 7 years of working 3 jobs. He found niche in the after the bars close crowd. This time, he fired waitresses that nobody want, not the ones everybody wanted. He made a ton of money off the drunks, sold out at good price and retired in Vegas to play in low limit poker games. I think he still out there. The waitress has moved around some, working in several cafes and her customers still follow her. I think she finally got her % deal at last one. She told me last spring she was getting ready to retire and give her feet a much needed rest. I think one of customers is a sharp stock broker who has help her in her investments as well. I doubt if she is 50.jJvTDmvrDQI

[TJDave]

I've been around the restaurant business for 30 years. Never has a waitress ever had that much influence.

I've known lots of characters like that. Usually more bartenders but plenty of both. Most are smarter than to demand a kickback as they usually get a great deal in leasing the restaurant/club without having to pay rents/utilities/taxes or product. ;)

[Robert Goren]

I've been around the restaurant business for 30 years. Never has a waitress ever had that much influence. That bitch was a hooker or madam. I know of 3 super waitresses in Lincoln alone. There might be more. They are not hookers or madams. But these super "whatever" do not exist as only as waitress. I think they are more common in sales. I have a GP doctor who is in a practice with 5 other doctors. You have to wait 6 weeks to see her. You can see any of the other doctors the next day or more likely the same day. Look around and you will see these "super workers" people all over the place. I first notice it in the parking business where we had a cashier increased business 35% on his shift whenever moved him to a different garage. I won a bunch of lunch bets from the other managers on whether he could do it when we moved to a "dog" garage.

[JustRalph]

I've known lots of characters like that. Usually more bartenders but plenty of both. Most are smarter than to demand a kickback as they usually get a great deal in leasing the restaurant/club without having to pay rents/utilities/taxes or product. ;)

Bartenders are a whole different animal. I agree.......

[delayjf]

I first notice it in the parking business where we had a cashier increased business 35% on his shift whenever moved him to a different garage. I won a bunch of lunch bets from the other managers on whether he could do it when we moved to a "dog" garage.

Curious, how was the cashier at a parking garage able to do that?

[Robert Goren]

Curious, how was the cashier at a parking garage able to do that? That is a good question and one for which I don't have an answer. It has must have something to the personality of the cashier. I have an even stranger cashier story. We had a cashier die of cancer. He had several of his customers attend his funeral and two spoke at it. I talked to each of them after them service and none knew him outside of his job. Figure that one out, if you can, because I haven't a clue.