Article: "Why I'm not hiring"

[JustRalph]

The guy in this article is being excoriated by many on the left for mixing healthcare with the cost of taxes. No matter how you slice it, he stands behind his numbers and does it really matter what category you put them in? They all seem to come out of the same two pockets, his and hers.

He is also being called an evil capitalist........ :lol:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704017904575409733776372738-lMyQjAxMTAwMDAwODEwNDgyWj.html

http://s.wsj.net/img/wsj_print.gif

Why I'm Not Hiring
When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits.
By MICHAEL P. FLEISCHER

With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be later—much later. Here's why.

Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.

Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That's the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She's lucky she doesn't live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher.

Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

more at the link

[NJ Stinks]

Sally pays less than $200 a month for health & dental insurance.

Sweet.

As for the rest of it, is there anything new here? Employers are never guaranteed state or federal taxes won't go up. And I'm guessing the writer was against a public option and that's where he could have saved the most with healthcare reform. (In fact, healthcare is this guy's biggest problem.)

Sally probably gets back at least $2,000 in income tax refunds from her state and federal returns. She's got Medicare and SS to look forward to. And if she gets laid off or hurt/sick, she's covered. That's good stuff that has to be paid for.

At the next Republican convention I suggest they use that Dire Straits song "Money For Nothing" as the theme song. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

The guy in this article is being excoriated by many on the left for mixing healthcare with the cost of taxes. No matter how you slice it, he stands behind his numbers and does it really matter what category you put them in? They all seem to come out of the same two pockets, his and hers.

He is also being called an evil capitalist........ :lol:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704017904575409733776372738-lMyQjAxMTAwMDAwODEwNDgyWj.html

http://s.wsj.net/img/wsj_print.gif

Why I'm Not Hiring
When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits.
By MICHAEL P. FLEISCHER

With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be later—much later. Here's why.

Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.

Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That's the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She's lucky she doesn't live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher.

Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

more at the link
I don't think this guy is an evil capitalist. I think he is an idiot and a crybaby. And anybody who agrees with him? Well you can all take comfort in the fact that I don't think you are crybabies.
This guy makes it sound like Sally gives up her money and sees no benefit from that money. No true at all. For the $2376 she pays for medical and dental insurance she receives care at a rate much below what she would otherwise pay. If she is young she probably won't be using her insurance much right now, but she will be using it more and more as she gets older. Also, anyone of any age can have a catastrophic illness. So, by paying that $2376 Sally is being protected against possible payments of $100,000s.
For $126/year and $149/year Sally guarantees that if she loses her job or if she is hurt on the job, she will have some money coming in until she regains employment or until she recovers from her injury.
By paying $856 for Medicare Sally guarantees she will receive medical treatment during her Senior years. A time at which she will have a greater need for such treatment.
The $1893 Sally pays to the state of New Jersey, paves the street in front of her house and the streets she takes to work. It also built and maintains the sewer system which means Sally doesn't have to visit the outhouse on those cold Jersey winter nights. Sally's children can attend schools because of those tax dollars.

As for the money which Sally sends to the Federal goverment; the $3661 she contributes to Social Security will return to her in the form of a monthly benefit when she retires. It is very likely she will receive more in benefits than she contributed.

The $6250 Sally pays in federal income tax is her share of the cost of running a complex society. It pays for national defense; for interstate roads; for food and drug safety; for occupational safety; for our court system; for regulation of commerce; for a myriad of services which benefit Sally and all of us.

Sally's boss cries about the "extra" $15,000 which he must pay her in addition to the $44,000 which he pays her before deductions. The truth is the $59,000 is Sally's actual remuneration. Salary plus Benefits is what Sally is paid for her labor.
Sally's boss makes it sound like he is upset Sally is not receiving the full $59,000. The question is, "If he did not have to pay those benefits, would he pay Sally the extra $15,000?" He would not.

[mostpost]

Sally pays less than $200 a month for health & dental insurance.

Sweet.

As for the rest of it, is there anything new here? Employers are never guaranteed state or federal taxes won't go up. And I'm guessing the writer was against a public option and that's where he could have saved the most with healthcare reform. (In fact, healthcare is this guy's biggest problem.)

Sally probably gets back at least $2,000 in income tax refunds from her state and federal returns. She's got Medicare and SS to look forward to. And if she gets laid off or hurt/sick, she's covered. That's good stuff that has to be paid for.

At the next Republican convention I suggest they use that Dire Straits song "Money For Nothing" as the theme song. :rolleyes:
You said a lot of what I said and you said it more succintly. I need to hire your editor. :D

[NJ Stinks]

You said a lot of what I said and you said it more succintly. I need to hire your editor. :D

Don't worry, Mostpost. Sooner or later both of us are going to be edited here out the wazoo! :lol:

[delayjf]

And I'm guessing the writer was against a public option and that's where he could have saved the most with healthcare reform. (In fact, healthcare is this guy's biggest problem.)

Curious, are there any healthcare plans being considered or proposed in the US where the cost is NOT paid at least in part by ones employer?

[HUSKER55]

I think that what is crushing the system is that there are too many "exemptions" and not everyone is paying into the system.

I don't see anyone fixing those two from either side of the aisle.

If those two were fixed then it would be interesting to see what tune got played.

I am not in favor of a national sales tax but I don't see anyone coming up with a better solution.

Until that happens the people who pay are going to complain.

The real problem is how many people are there who don't pay taxes like her who should be paying taxes.

[lsbets]

The uncertainty out there is a massive drag on employment. While there is a never a guarantee that taxes won't go up, there is a very strong possibility now that they will. I know, you guys on the left have said Obama won't let them go up except for on the top earners, but so far there has been no action by Congress to extend any of the taxcuts, and it doesn't appear there will be. With all of the uncertainty, it is impossible for employers and investors to evaluate risk, and the rewards seem minimal right now. Uncertain risk vs. minimal rewards with an administration that appears hostile to business keeps money on the sidelines. A lot of money. Much more than the government could invest on another "stimulus". Set the rules and cut all the anti business rhetoric. While it might sound good politically, the rhetoric is killing us economically. Allow the people with money to determine what the risk is and know what the costs are. That is the only way we will get unemployment down, but I hold out little hope for an administration that came into being with nothing but rhetoric to abandon the rhetoric and do the right thing. Instead of growing government, we need to let the private sector grow itself.

[Black Ruby]

A segment that gets me are some that are on disability. Among my poker buddies, 3 are on disability. The most recent got disability because his ankles are shot. He has spent the last 38 years overeating, drinking more than a 750ml bottle of booze per day, and weighing about 325 because of it. So last year, he started getting disability. He's able to play golf 5-6 days a week, he has a college degree. The second guy lived a similar lifestyle, lots of junk food, would go out on his breaks at Ford, drink a quart of beer and smoke a joint on his short breaks, two quarts of beer and a couple joints at lunch. Not quite as big, but couldn't work on his assembly line job any more, and got disability even though he's got a master's degree and could have worked a desk job. The third guy doesn't drink like the other two, but retired from a quasi-government job, and is so overweight he can barely walk and couldn't fit in an office chair, so he's getting disability, too.

I have to think that there are millions of cases like this that the rest of us are paying for. Hell, I'm thinking about gaining 75 pounds and applying for disability myself!

[DJofSD]

The author was on Kudlow's program on Monday. The segment might be online at Kudlow's web site.

[cj's dad]

Edited for brevity -

Sally's boss cries about the "extra" $15,000 which he must pay her in addition to the $44,000 which he pays her before deductions. The truth is the $59,000 is Sally's actual remuneration. Salary plus Benefits is what Sally is paid for her labor.
Sally's boss makes it sound like he is upset Sally is not receiving the full $59,000. The question is, "If he did not have to pay those benefits, would he pay Sally the extra $15,000?" He would not.

Mostie,

Sit down, take a deep breath, relax, and pinch yourself but you are 100% correct. :faint:



As a one time union negotiator, our committee proposed something similar to the company and we were turned down immediately.

[skate]

If me id do the very same ting.

[Tom]

A few FACTS.

Taxes are going UP. Period. For EVERYONE. Excessively.
Govt restrictions and regulations are going to increase.

This government hates business, hates success,and has no clue how things really work.

Their ONLY solution to everything is to take from someone to give to another, with a healthy slice of going to themselves in the transactions.

[mostpost]

A few FACTS.
You mean opinions

Taxes are going UP. Period. For EVERYONE. Excessively.
The only planned income tax increase does not effect 97% or 98% of taxpayers. For those it does effect, taxes would merely return to the levels of the '90s. You remember the 90's? The longest sustained period of growth in our history.
Govt restrictions and regulations are going to increase.
They probably are, but isn't that as much the result of people trying to game the system in so many ways as it is government wanting to interfere.

This government hates business, hates success,and has no clue how things really work.
By this government, I assume you refer to the Obama administration. Democrats hate business. Republicans support business because business creates jobs. So the story goes. HR5297 is before the congress right now . HR 5297 provides for the US Treasury to capitalize smaller banks which would lend to small business. This is not a gift. It is a loan. The interest on the loan when repaid would be used to pay down the public debt. HR5297 would also provide tax breaks for small businesses which hired new employees. So we have a bill which has three things Republicans claim to love. 1. Support for small business. 2. Reduction of the public debt. 3. Tax breaks. All but three Republicans voted against HR5297 in the House and Senate Republicans are filibustering the bill in the Senate.

Their ONLY solution to everything is to take from someone to give to another, with a healthy slice of going to themselves in the transactions.
No, we don't hate success. We love success. We want everyone to be successful. Unlike you, we don't think that someone else's success diminishes ours.

[lsbets]

So when did the Dems pass a bill extending most of the Bush tax cuts mosty? They didn't. Is there an effort to do so under serious consideration? Is Congress coming back into session to do so?

Nope.

As of right now everyone in America is getting a tax increase unless this Congress takes action. That is a fact, everything else is conjecture.

[jballscalls]

$59k a year is a nominal take home?? jeesh

[Mike at A+]

No, we don't hate success. We love success. We want everyone to be successful. Unlike you, we don't think that someone else's success diminishes ours.
We don't hate success either. We want everyone to be successful too. The difference between us and you is that we believe that success is EARNED and NOT MANDATED.

[NJ Stinks]

I don't know if this is in the works or not but:

Perhaps the Dems are waiting until Congress reconvenes on September 13th. Then the tax cuts that expire at the end of the year will be addressed. If Republicans vote to let all the tax cuts expire in protest because only the top 2 or 3% of the wealthiest people in America will lose their tax cuts, this vote could be a disaster for the GOP so close to the November elections.

Just a thought.

[JustRalph]

inching ever closer to Europe

[mostpost]

We don't hate success either. We want everyone to be successful too. The difference between us and you is that we believe that success is EARNED and NOT MANDATED.
You are confusing survival with success. We believe it is our duty to aid people in surviving; in having a minimal place to live; enough food to feed their family; the opportunity to get a job. That's not success; that is survival. You think certain people feel they deserve success without working for it. We think people understand they have to work to be successful.

You say success is earned not mandated, yet your actions belie that claim. You give tax breaks to businesses which move their operations overseas. You fight against a minimum wage. You fight to destroy unions. You don't tax the wealthy commensurate to their wealth. You oppose regulations in safety and environment. All these things serve to mandate continued success for people who are already successful.

Yet, not following those policies does not appreciably diminish their chances for success. It merely mandates that those people pay their share of supporting the society in which they live.

[mostpost]

So when did the Dems pass a bill extending most of the Bush tax cuts mosty? They didn't. Is there an effort to do so under serious consideration? Is Congress coming back into session to do so?

Nope.

As of right now everyone in America is getting a tax increase unless this Congress takes action. That is a fact, everything else is conjecture.
Here is my prediction. The Democrats will introduce a bill which extends the tax cuts for those earning less than $200,000 ($250,000 for a couple). The Republicans will oppose the bill because it does not include the upper 2%. The Republicans will ignore the fact that extending the tax cuts for the wealthy will cause a $700B increase in the deficit. A deficit which will be even larger if all the tax cuts are extended.

[mostpost]

inching ever closer to Europe
Hey pal, if you want to talk about Continental drift, start a new thread. Sheesh. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Rise Over Run]

Hey pal, if you want to talk about Continental drift, start a new thread. Sheesh. :bang: :bang: :bang:

I'm not a geologist, but I play one on TV.

Actually, I do have a degree in geology, and the North American plate is moving further away from the Eurasian plate, not closer.

[Mike at A+]

You are confusing survival with success. We believe it is our duty to aid people in surviving; in having a minimal place to live; enough food to feed their family; the opportunity to get a job. That's not success; that is survival. You think certain people feel they deserve success without working for it. We think people understand they have to work to be successful.

You say success is earned not mandated, yet your actions belie that claim. You give tax breaks to businesses which move their operations overseas. You fight against a minimum wage. You fight to destroy unions. You don't tax the wealthy commensurate to their wealth. You oppose regulations in safety and environment. All these things serve to mandate continued success for people who are already successful.

Yet, not following those policies does not appreciably diminish their chances for success. It merely mandates that those people pay their share of supporting the society in which they live.
I'm not confusing anything. I am all for helping people to survive. Especially those who are physically disabled. But for those who screwed up early on in life and have no marketable skills, there are plenty of minimum wage jobs they can do to survive. Survival doesn't include home ownership. Some people are destined to rent apartments. Others who simply don't want to work but are able end up in homeless shelters. That is survival. Maybe not your idea or mine of survival since we didn't screw up in life and can afford more.

I personally don't give tax cuts to anyone. But I also know that it's tax incentives that create jobs. Obama doesn't seem to understand that. I don't believe in a minimum wage. None at all. It should be ZERO. Employers and employees are capable of negotiating whatever wages they wish to pay and receive. Employers who offer little get little in return. More demanding employers will offer more and get the talent they desire. Wealth should not be taxed at all. Income should be taxed once and that's it. No double dipping under my system. Unions USED TO be a good thing. Some of them still are. But many of them are bloodsucking extortion artists. Those are the ones *I* oppose. I most certainly DO favor safety regulations. But accidents STILL HAPPEN.

[Mike at A+]

Here is my prediction. The Democrats will introduce a bill which extends the tax cuts for those earning less than $200,000 ($250,000 for a couple). The Republicans will oppose the bill because it does not include the upper 2%. The Republicans will ignore the fact that extending the tax cuts for the wealthy will cause a $700B increase in the deficit. A deficit which will be even larger if all the tax cuts are extended.
Republicans will oppose the bill because it is a job killer. By not extending the Bush tax cuts for EVERYONE, there will be a net loss of jobs because small business will suffer most. People earning $200K/yr. working for someone will suffer less. Unless of course they lose their job because their employer is forced to make cuts. Even some Democrats are advising Obama to keep the cuts in place, maybe for their own selfish reasons of being re-elected but voters will see right through them.

[highnote]

I don't believe in a minimum wage. None at all. It should be ZERO. Employers and employees are capable of negotiating whatever wages they wish to pay and receive.

You might find it interesting to read the book or watch the movie "The Grapes of Wrath".

Also, here's an interesting link to West Virginia coal mining of the 1930s:

http://www.wvpics.com/wv%20coal%20mines.htm

Also, to the point about Sally -- Warren Buffett has a lower tax rate than Sally. A flat tax would actually be more equitable in this case -- but probably not in many cases.

[Mike at A+]

You might find it interesting to read the book or watch the movie "The Grapes of Wrath".

Also, here's an interesting link to West Virginia coal mining of the 1930s:

http://www.wvpics.com/wv%20coal%20mines.htm

Also, to the point about Sally -- Warren Buffett has a lower tax rate than Sally. A flat tax would actually be more equitable in this case -- but probably not in many cases.
Read it in high school. I know where you're going. Times have changed a lot. Businesses that want to survive and people who want to work will agree on a wage. Good businesses will find talented workers. Untalented workers will find work. It boils down to personal responsibility, adherance to rules, dedication to one's education and self betterment. We may all be created equal but there's no guarantee that we stay that way. It would be nice if everyone put in the same effort and we all were dedicated to self betterment but there are too many factors that result in diverse outcomes.

[Rookies]

Read it in high school. I know where you're going. Times have changed a lot. Businesses that want to survive and people who want to work will agree on a wage. Good businesses will find talented workers. Untalented workers will find work. It boils down to personal responsibility, adherance to rules, dedication to one's education and self betterment. We may all be created equal but there's no guarantee that we stay that way. It would be nice if everyone put in the same effort and we all were dedicated to self betterment but there are too many factors that result in diverse outcomes.

Nonsense. Forget about Steinbach, then. Try: 'The Jungle". That's why there is the panoply of labour law in Western countries. Capitalism would and did work children into the grave. The game of capitalism is to make as much profit for as little possible wage and other associated cost. If big/ medium biz could employ Martians they would. They will go wherever governments allow them without penalty and seek out the lowest possible wage to make a finished product.

These other virtues you mention are important to self development, but not necessarily pre-eminent in developed worlds.

[Tom]

No, we don't hate success. We love success. We want everyone to be successful. Unlike you, we don't think that someone else's success diminishes ours.

So you can TAKE it from them! :D
Being a Union boy, you probably don't know this but money dosen't grow on trees - some people have SKIN in the game of businesses - they have actually invested in them. What about when your lack of effort diminishes someone else's?

[Tom]

So when did the Dems pass a bill extending most of the Bush tax cuts mosty? They didn't. Is there an effort to do so under serious consideration? Is Congress coming back into session to do so?

Nope.

As of right now everyone in America is getting a tax increase unless this Congress takes action. That is a fact, everything else is conjecture.

And that is only one tax. What about all the state taxes that go up as a direct result of the Grand Kenyen's policies?

[delayjf]

Capitalism would and did work children into the grave.

That's where Unions served their purpose. Today we have laws and regulations to take care of those issues. Haven't seen or heard of anyone getting worked to death recently - especially Union workers. If anything, it's now the opposite, money for nothing.

[Tom]

What are some other things capitalism has done?

Built the greatest nation in the world.
Cured countless diseases
Improved food production world-wide
Transportation, medicine, food, nutrition, hunger erradication........all the good stuff that government re-distribution of wealth has never come close to achieving.

You do know that children under communism are still slaves today, right?
Women, too, right?

[Tom]

Hey mostie, how many people are you hiring?

[JustRalph]

What are some other things capitalism has done?

Built the greatest nation in the world.
Cured countless diseases
Improved food production world-wide
Transportation, medicine, food, nutrition, hunger erradication........all the good stuff that government re-distribution of wealth has never come close to achieving.

You do know that children under communism are still slaves today, right?
Women, too, right?

Post of the week ! Capitalism = Incentive to produce! The things Tom listed above are all results of that incentive.

[ElKabong]

the author is right, most employers are apprehensive about hiring

I post less now b/c I'm working much longer hrs, including weekends. Reason=
we're busy as hell but the corp won't hire b/c of a fear of a pullback not too far away.

It w/b stupid to hire more folks now just to let them go in a few months- costs a lot of money to let people go...so a lot of us are workingmuch more hrs

Thanks obama..Thanks dims. Stupid ****ing morons with your "healthcare victory" bullshit

[menifee]

Reminds me of Reagan's quote about Liberals and government:

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. ~Ronald Reagan (http://moralmidnight.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/if-it-moves-tax-it-if-it-keeps-moving-regulate-it-and-if-it-stops-moving-subsidize-it-ronald-reagan/)

That is essentially what the government has done to employment in the private sector. When times were good, it poured taxes on employment (payroll, withholding, etc). Then it started mandating certain requirements (workers comp., unemployment insurance, health insurance mandates in MA). Now that it has killed employment, it subsidizes it by paying people not to work through extensions of unemployment for 99 weeks plus.

It's amazing to me that Obama and the Dems are surprised that unemployment remains high. When you keep providing incentives for people to remain unemployed and impose legislation that is so complicated that no business (big or small) knows what the rules of the game are or will be, you are not creating the conditions for economic growth.

[Mike at A+]

Nonsense. Forget about Steinbach, then. Try: 'The Jungle". That's why there is the panoply of labour law in Western countries. Capitalism would and did work children into the grave. The game of capitalism is to make as much profit for as little possible wage and other associated cost. If big/ medium biz could employ Martians they would. They will go wherever governments allow them without penalty and seek out the lowest possible wage to make a finished product.

These other virtues you mention are important to self development, but not necessarily pre-eminent in developed worlds.
You are confusing monopolistic capitalism with competitive capitalism. The latter gives individuals choice as to where they wish to work and under what conditions. The former goes far back in time when living in a specific area meant lack of choice and possibly harsh conditions. The ironic part of all this is that if Obama continues the threatening anti-business rhetoric, it will result in fewer choices for job seekers and the distinct possibility of a return to the days of working people "into the grave".

[riskman]

Going back to Sally and her employer, is not Employer contributions to a small business health insurance plan generally 100% tax deductible ? Someone here could probably answer this question.

[Mike at A+]

Going back to Sally and her employer, is not Employer contributions to a small business health insurance plan generally 100% tax deductible ? Someone here could probably answer this question.
Possibly deductible but not a tax credit if I remember correctly. Two very different animals.

[Tom]

Virtually all chrome plating in NYS is coming to an end quickly. Most are already shut down. Soon, the only ones who can afford to do this type of work will be large conglomerates with deep pockets, who will pass the cost along to......guess who! Many jobs and small busniesses will face a bleak future.

Thank you, Mr. Obama.

mmmm mmm mmm

[DJofSD]

Pretty soon the line Willey Nelson utters in Electic Horseman will not be understood.

[skate]

You are confusing survival with success. We believe it is our duty to aid people in surviving; in having a minimal place to live; enough food to feed their family; the opportunity to get a job. That's not success; that is survival. You think certain people feel they deserve success without working for it. We think people understand they have to work to be successful.

You say success is earned not mandated, yet your actions belie that claim. You give tax breaks to businesses which move their operations overseas. You fight against a minimum wage. You fight to destroy unions. You don't tax the wealthy commensurate to their wealth. You oppose regulations in safety and environment. All these things serve to mandate continued success for people who are already successful.

Yet, not following those policies does not appreciably diminish their chances for success. It merely mandates that those people pay their share of supporting the society in which they live.

Oh yah, me too, i'm for Slavery also...:rolleyes:

What happens, when your kids grow up and you keep on giving support?

Now, do yah think, just maybe you are creating something other than a Tweaking Meth Head.

belie? When does the Belie become real, since we've been on this path "GIVING" for a Long Long Long time?

I'm asking, do you keep giving, as in giving FULL Financial expenses?
Do you give until you Ruin a Black Society? Which is just what happened.

[Hanover1]

Im not hiring as Im only down to 1 head in the shed for a friend of mine. Most all my friends have scaled way back on horseflesh as a result of ongoing costs in their other businesses. The have left the business......

[chickenhead]

I'm getting laid off in October due to a reshuffle and me not wanting to move to San Jose.

Job interview today. Hope it goes well, I need it!

[Tom]

Good luck, chick....:ThmbUp:

[skate]

I'm getting laid off in October due to a reshuffle and me not wanting to move to San Jose.

Job interview today. Hope it goes well, I need it!


Oh yah sure, with the Name ChickenHead, you're gonna nail a job.

[mostpost]

You are confusing monopolistic capitalism with competitive capitalism. The latter gives individuals choice as to where they wish to work and under what conditions. The former goes far back in time when living in a specific area meant lack of choice and possibly harsh conditions. The ironic part of all this is that if Obama continues the threatening anti-business rhetoric, it will result in fewer choices for job seekers and the distinct possibility of a return to the days of working people "into the grave".
Your so-called "Competitive capitalism" leads to "Monolithic capitalism."
In this era of unfettered capitalism, large chains such as Wal Mart, Home Depot and Office Max make it next to impossible for small indepedent entrepreneurs to survive.
Before long all the jobs in a particular retail industry are controlled by three or four mega chains. Then where does a job seeker go for the best deal? Answer; there are no best deals. Wal Mart does not have to pay fair wages because the other big box stores won't pay fair wages either. By allowing these companies to get so big and to act without restraint we have abdicated our rights as workers.

[Mike at A+]

Your so-called "Competitive capitalism" leads to "Monolithic capitalism."
In this era of unfettered capitalism, large chains such as Wal Mart, Home Depot and Office Max make it next to impossible for small indepedent entrepreneurs to survive.
Before long all the jobs in a particular retail industry are controlled by three or four mega chains. Then where does a job seeker go for the best deal? Answer; there are no best deals. Wal Mart does not have to pay fair wages because the other big box stores won't pay fair wages either. By allowing these companies to get so big and to act without restraint we have abdicated our rights as workers.
Why shouldn't WalMart be allowed to get big? After all, look how big Obama is making the government. WalMart sells products and provides jobs. Consumers have the choice to buy or not to buy at WalMart. They compete with supermarkets, clothing stores, electronic stores, drug stores and other types of stores. They often have the best prices but not always. They may not carry the brands you prefer. Considering the number of people they employ - and they do pay excellent salaries to PEOPLE WHO BRING DESIRED SKILLS to the table - WalMart does much more good than harm to our economy. They also employ PEOPLE WITH LITTLE OR NO SKILLS which keeps them off unemployment. Remember, we're all born equal but we don't remain that way for a number of reasons. If anyone employed by WalMart feels that they aren't getting an appropriate wage, they can take their skills (or lack thereof) elsewhere. If every WalMart in America shut their doors tomorrow, the Obama unemployment rate would skyrocket and the land currently occupied by the stores would turn into weed fields. Is that what you'd like?

[DJofSD]

Power to the people!

[DJofSD]

The only thing allowed to get big is government.

[skate]

my girl friends say different:)

[Native Texan III]

Why shouldn't WalMart be allowed to get big? After all, look how big Obama is making the government. WalMart sells products and provides jobs. Consumers have the choice to buy or not to buy at WalMart. They compete with supermarkets, clothing stores, electronic stores, drug stores and other types of stores. They often have the best prices but not always. They may not carry the brands you prefer. Considering the number of people they employ - and they do pay excellent salaries to PEOPLE WHO BRING DESIRED SKILLS to the table - WalMart does much more good than harm to our economy. They also employ PEOPLE WITH LITTLE OR NO SKILLS which keeps them off unemployment. Remember, we're all born equal but we don't remain that way for a number of reasons. If anyone employed by WalMart feels that they aren't getting an appropriate wage, they can take their skills (or lack thereof) elsewhere. If every WalMart in America shut their doors tomorrow, the Obama unemployment rate would skyrocket and the land currently occupied by the stores would turn into weed fields. Is that what you'd like?

I think to be balanced you have also to look at the supply side to the Walmarts. They need huge and consistent supplies of consistent products. That rules out the small businesses. They cut the prices they pay to suppliers to the bone and blackmail them into paying for special promotions or they lose the contract. If things don't sell well they renege on the orders. They put pressure on suppliers not to supply competitors or they lose the contract. They import a huge amount from China and 3rd World. They buy out and close any smaller firm that looks too smart. All that puts the people you don't see out of work and kills new start ups that the country desperately needs. Are you saying that Walmart has now joined the too big to fail club?

[Mike at A+]

I think to be balanced you have also to look at the supply side to the Walmarts. They need huge and consistent supplies of consistent products. That rules out the small businesses. They cut the prices they pay to suppliers to the bone and blackmail them into paying for special promotions or they lose the contract. If things don't sell well they renege on the orders. They put pressure on suppliers not to supply competitors or they lose the contract. They import a huge amount from China and 3rd World. They buy out and close any smaller firm that looks too smart. All that puts the people you don't see out of work and kills new start ups that the country desperately needs. Are you saying that Walmart has now joined the too big to fail club?
I don't think that WalMart needs or wants anything Obama has to offer. WalMart is too SMART to fail. Can't beat those $4 prescriptions after paying $50 in CVS.

[JustRalph]

They buy out and close any smaller firm that looks too smart. All that puts the people you don't see out of work and kills new start ups that the country desperately needs. Are you saying that Walmart has now joined the too big to fail club?

They are making the same arguments about Google now.

Google is a monster that can eat anything it wants because of the incredibly giant amount of money it has on hand. Apple is trying to keep up

an example is an application called "Siri" that runs on the Iphone/Ipad. Siri was purchased by apple as a pre-emptive move to keep it off android (it is speculated) so Google went out and bought 3 other companies doing similar things and combined them and is working to bring about a bigger company to put the Original "Siri" company out of business. It's a dog eat dog world and you better be the biggest dog.......... a few are too big to fail now. They can't possibly fail.....they are flush with money

[ElKabong]

Chick,

Best of luck to you. Any company would be lucky to have you. Finding one that'll take a shot right now will be tough but keep banging away. You'll succeed