Thread: What are we coming to or I don't believe it!

Originally Posted by scotishcavalir

As for lazy kids these days, I do not see what the problem is. Why would anyone wish to try to produce for an employer that cares more about their profits and shareholders then it does for their employees. I have a good friend who has worked for a large chain company. in her 4 years of employment she has gone from 8 dollars and hour to just about 12. they provide no benefits for her, and keep her below 32 hours a week for that very reason. she has had to pick up a second job just to make ends meet, and she considers herself lucky. She is also collage educated.

Because when there is no profits, there are no shareholders. When there are no shareholders, there are no businesses. And when there are no businesses, there are no jobs. As a person that works, I keep my work with the company I work for on a business relationship. I understand that if the company fails and does poorly, my services will no longer be needed. On the other hand, because of the self serving nature of BOTH the business and myself, I offer no loyalty to the business. If I find a better job or circumstances that I prefer, I move on.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

Because when there is no profits, there are no shareholders. When there are no shareholders, there are no businesses. And when there are no businesses, there are no jobs. As a person that works, I keep my work with the company I work for on a business relationship. I understand that if the company fails and does poorly, my services will no longer be needed. On the other hand, because of the self serving nature of BOTH the business and myself, I offer no loyalty to the business. If I find a better job or circumstances that I prefer, I move on.

The problem is in many circumstances the corporation is rich beyond avarice and all those profits go to the top employees (meaning officers) and investors and when it comes to the employees they get dirt. Why? because the employees are at the mercy of the company. Exactly what happened long ago and gave rise to the Union mvmt.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

And in spite of our problems, yes many of us do feel that this is the greatest nation on earth. Thank you for taking a shot at our country and its people. I can't ever remember anyone making any such remarks about Belgium and its people. Nor would I want to. Comments like this invite the worst kinds of responses.

That could be part of the problem, believing that you have the greatest country in the world, and not being able to be too critical about the system. Too much pride can be a handicap in that respect.

OTH I myself don't believe that I live in the greatest country in the world, a good one possibly but not without problems. I would not consider telling others constantly that I lived in the greatest country in the world even if that was so. That would invite the worst kinds of responces I am sure.

Bob

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

The problem is in many circumstances the corporation is rich beyond avarice and all those profits go to the top employees (meaning officers) and investors and when it comes to the employees they get dirt. Why? because the employees are at the mercy of the company. Exactly what happened long ago and gave rise to the Union mvmt.

There is a problem in Canada right now in that many companies are sitting on capital and are just not investing any of it in new hires or capital expansion projects, at least not in Canada anyway. They still get better tax breaks than I do regardless of not generating any new employment here. To be sure corporate executives are being well remunerated but the employees are still looking over their shoulders trying to figure where the next cuts to their wages, benefits or pension are going to happen. Unions are so weak right now that they have little positive impact in the process.

Bob

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

The problem is in many circumstances the corporation is rich beyond avarice and all those profits go to the top employees (meaning officers) and investors and when it comes to the employees they get dirt. Why? because the employees are at the mercy of the company. Exactly what happened long ago and gave rise to the Union mvmt.

Well, yeah. The profits go to those that risked their money by investing in the company. That was the deal they signed up for when they invested their money. When the employees took the job there, their pay was what they signed up for. There's room in that model to share profits with the employees as well, but that is an individual business decision not a right on behalf of the employees. Want to know why big business takes its operations offshore? Because of this kind of thinking and action. At the end of the day, business has choices. If the circumstances become such that profits can be significantly better by going offshore, they will. Now you're probably thinking Im some guy high up on the corporate ladder that is looking down at the working people with disdain. I'm not. I'm just like everyone else dragging my butt to work every day (or working from home). I just understand that my company exists to make profits not to ensure I'm happy. And you might be thinking that I believe that there should be NO restrictions on business either. But that is also not true. But there's a difference between having SOME regulations and saying that they owe their employees x amount of profits and benefits. To restrict profits is to restrict investment. Now that union movement is run by radicals who would like to bring capitalism and our free society to a grinding halt. They continue to tax the system in the hopes that they will break it and force a socialist change in our country.

Imho, as long as those investors and the companies are taking all the tax benefits they can, they should also feel their responsibility for the society, country and it's people that gave those benefits and were part of making their profits possible.

Aka if the company is about to outsource it's production to some distant cheap labour country, say China or India, there should be a possibility for a country to take back all or some of the economic aid and benefits it has given.
Harmonizing your tax policy with other countries is another method of course. This is what is going on in EU and i'm (mostly) all for it.

Originally Posted by Sailor

Imho, as long as those investors and the companies are taking all the tax benefits they can, they should also feel their responsibility for the society, country and it's people that gave those benefits and were part of making their profits possible.

Who's to say that they don't but perhaps the person standing there wanting more? Many of the companies I've worked for were quite generous in their contributions to charities of all sorts. But I'm sure there were plenty of employees who still wanted more money, more stock options, more vacation time, and better benefits. In a society that is increasingly hostile toward the business community and capitalist structure that has brought this country and many others a great standard of living, its no surprise that corporations are ever looking for new places to operate. And the reason why THIS country has not taken back all or some of the economic benefits for companies outsourcing is that it, for now....for the time being, still respects private property. But that's changing.

Originally Posted by Razorfeld

Somewhere in today's paper I scanned an article where someone was reporting instances of the parent(s) of some twentysomes were calling their childs' bosses to complain about their child not getting a raise or promotion!! I could swear an old sailor's blue streak right about now, but being relatively civilized all I can think is are they still changing the kid's diapers and doing their homework. head for the hills civilization is crashing all around us.

The same thing occurs today in higher education. They intervene to monitor the progress of the course work and/or usually when their son or daughter does not get the grade they think that they deserve.

They're called "Helicopter Parents."

Originally Posted by crouton976

Gugi, you really don't know me nor do you know exactly what my beliefs are.

I don't think I've been assuming anything about your personal beliefs, if it seems like that I apologize for not expressing myself correctly. The last thing I want is to imply anything about anybody - I am not partial to making judgments about motives or creating conspiracy theories. I try to state my arguments as directly and clearly as possible.

Of course, you are absolutely right that as long as the federal tax rates are universal it is all constitutional. But this country does not live with the constitution of the 19th century - as you noted there are plenty of amendments, and all of those were passed through the proper process, i.e. ratified by 75% of the states. So you can't blame it on a political party.

The reality however is not simple black & white - it never has been. Say you pass a federal subsidy (tax credit or direct) to peanut farmers and it will apply to every peanut farmer in NY, of which there are almost none. Or you pass a tax exemption on specific trading - it will apply to every trader in Georgia the same way it applies to traders on Wall Street. In other words you can trivially transfer federal money to specific localities without running afoul of the constitution.
See, US is a federation, not confederation but you have systematic issue of certain states being subsidized by others. It's not about NY paying more taxes than GA because it is larger or makes more products. It's about GA being economically dependent on NY for its standard of living. Year after year people in Georgia pay certain amount of taxes to the federal government and the federal government provides services worth more than the money they've gotten. That extra money comes from my state because we get less worth in services than we pay in taxes.
One other example - Alaska, the biggest moocher. They get a lot of money from their natural resources, which they proceed to distribute to their people. Instead of putting them towards say building infrastructure. Instead they have all these other states pay for building their infrastructure.

I guess one view is that a fool and their money are soon parted, and if certain states allow others to get more than their fair share of benefits, the problem is of those dumb ones.

Part of being a society and a nation is to share stuff and help each other. I just don't like when things get politicized and people cry foul over stuff that helps others, while not minding at all the stuff they get themselves.
The worst is when people ask the same thing for themselves when they deny it to others (e.g. disaster relief - last year politicians from the middle of the country who keep taking federal money for their areas year after year decided to deny money when other states ended up in their situation).

Again, I'm not arguing against you, or whatever beliefs you may have - I am arguing for addressing the actual problems, and for applying the same standards to the same situations. You will probably notice that I have no interest in addressing ideological banter and refuse to engage with posts that fall into that category. If I'm quoting something from your posts, it is because I think it's a rational argument worthy of discussion.