CEO's blame layoffs and reduced hours on Obama re-election

[Rukentuts]

That's why they needed Snowe to sign off on Obamacare, a republican.

They need to go back to when Filibusters meant talking for hours on end like Strom Thurmond.

[melodramocracy]

I sometimes wonder what the world looks like through the eyes of someone who truly believes this. I would imagine it's a pretty scary place.

He said nothing incorrect, and it's actually not very scary at all. In fact, once one wraps their brain around the idea that politics have FAR less influence on their lives than the decisions they themselves make on a daily basis, it becomes easier to simply ignore 80% of what you hear anyhow. Once you realize that wealth is NOT some sort of infinite pie model, and that one person getting rich is at the cost of someone, somewhere else, it becomes simpler to make financial decisions (and to likewise take the wealthy off the pedestal our society puts them on).

[Sunseeker]

He said nothing incorrect, and it's actually not very scary at all. In fact, once one wraps their brain around the idea that politics have FAR less influence on their lives than the decisions they themselves make on a daily basis, it becomes easier to simply ignore 80% of what you hear anyhow. Once you realize that wealth is NOT some sort of infinite pie model, and that one person getting rich is at the cost of someone, somewhere else, it becomes simpler to make financial decisions (and to likewise take the wealthy off the pedestal our society puts them on).

If you do that, then you blow neo-liberal financial theology right out of the water, which basically says that money isn't a game of winners and losers, but of winners and bigger winners.

[Masark]

Once you realize that wealth is NOT some sort of infinite pie model

Oh, it is semi-infinite (large enough that it may as well be infinite from an individual human's scale), but barring outside factors, money tends to act like mass and is subject to gravity.

For example, if you look at the planets of our solar system



The "top 25%" (top 2 of 8) of planets make up 92% of the mass.

compare



Top 20% make up 93% of the wealth.

[usiris]

For $200M (the cost of a single F-35), they could easily replace every bridge in downtown Minneapolis that is currently dated between 1914 and 1918.

I really wish they would, some are just utter shit.

[Rukentuts]

Oh, it is semi-infinite, but barring outside factors, money tends to act like mass and is subject to gravity.

Think of it like conservation of energy. The total amount of "potential wealth" and "used wealth" is finite. Inflation changes numbers, but that doesn't change the fact that wealth is only ever exchanged; never created.

---------- Post added 2012-11-15 at 01:20 PM ----------

I really wish they did, some are just utter shit.

I commute on the Midtown Greenway, and I go under like 20 bridges that look like they'll be falling down within the next 10 years.

[Deleted]

Think of it like conservation of energy. The total amount of "potential wealth" and "used wealth" is finite. Inflation changes numbers, but that doesn't change the fact that wealth is only ever exchanged; never created.

I think it's important to point out that merely extracting the raw materials and outputting human labor is not the main source of wealth. The real wealth is created when these are arranged in their most effective use.

[Rukentuts]

I think it's important to point out that merely extracting the raw materials and outputting human labor is not the main source of wealth. The real wealth is created when these are arranged in their most effective use.

It isn't created. If you make a great supply-chain for example, that means are just spending less.

If you find a way to extract purer ore, you are just extracting more of the "potential wealth" than you would have before.

[Deleted]

It isn't created. If you make a great supply-chain for example, that means are just spending less.

If you find a way to extract purer ore, you are just extracting more of the "potential wealth" than you would have before.

Well, everyone can look at it from their own perspective. But potential wealth is meaningless if it is sitting 100 meters below the surface or in the hands of someone else.

Value (=wealth) is created when goods are exchanged between two persons and both are better off as a result. If I like metallica and you like iron maiden, but i have an iron maiden cd and you have a metallica cd, swapping cd's will create value (=wealth) for us both.

Likewise, the values of a couple grams of cedar, rubber and graphite in separate locations are much lower than the value of a pencil. Wealth is created when these materials are brought together.

[Rukentuts]

Well, everyone can look at it from their own perspective. But potential wealth is meaningless if it is sitting 100 meters below the surface or in the hands of someone else.

Value (=wealth) is created when goods are exchanged between two persons and both are better off as a result. If I like metallica and you like iron maiden, but i have an iron maiden cd and you have a metallica cd, swapping cd's will create value (=wealth) for us both.

Likewise, the value of a couple grams of cedar, rubber and graphite is much much lower than the value of a pencil.

I'm talking monetary value, not sentimental value.

Raw materials cost lower than the finished product because of manufacturing processes. This process uses labor. Keep in mind, your paycheck doesn't mean wealth is created. It means wealth has been transferred from your employer to yourself.

[Laize]

So millions of people should lose their jobs, just because Obama hates the military?

No, those thousands (not millions) of people should lose their jobs because we spend way too damn much on the military to begin with.

[Rukentuts]

No, those thousands (not millions) of people should lose their jobs because we spend way too damn much on the military to begin with.

Holy fuck I agree with Laize.

[Laize]

Oh, it is semi-infinite (large enough that it may as well be infinite from an individual human's scale), but barring outside factors, money tends to act like mass and is subject to gravity.

For example, if you look at the planets of our solar system



The "top 25%" (top 2 of 8) of planets make up 92% of the mass.

compare



Top 20% make up 93% of the wealth.

That's called the pareto principle (And the bottom pie graph is wrong, the top 20% hold closer to 80% of the wealth) and there's really nothing wrong with that.

[Rukentuts]

That's called the pareto principle (And the bottom pie graph is wrong, the top 20% hold closer to 80% of the wealth) and there's really nothing wrong with that.

There is why the lower class' rate income rates of growth are dwindling and the highest earners' are skyrocketing.

And I'm back to disagreeing with Laize. I knew it couldn't last

[Masark]

That's called the pareto principle (And the bottom pie graph is wrong, the top 20% hold closer to 80% of the wealth) and there's really nothing wrong with that.

So you're going to look at the data and insist that it is wrong in favor of a simplified estimate from over a century ago that fits better with your ideology.

That's certainly conservatism in a nutshell.

80/20 is a general guideline and observation, not proclamation of "how things should be" or a goal to strive for. In the USA, it's about 93/20, as shown. In Norway, it's about 71/20 (pg 17).

[Felya]

That's called the pareto principle (And the bottom pie graph is wrong, the top 20% hold closer to 80% of the wealth) and there's really nothing wrong with that.

It is wrong, because it should show that the middle class is not being adequately compensated for their work.

[Grizzly Willy]

That's called the pareto principle (And the bottom pie graph is wrong, the top 20% hold closer to 80% of the wealth) and there's really nothing wrong with that.

I'm interested in hearing why this is.

[Laize]

There is why the lower class' rate income rates of growth are dwindling and the highest earners' are skyrocketing.

And I'm back to disagreeing with Laize. I knew it couldn't last

There really isn't anything wrong with a Pareto distribution.

Even in socialist countries like Sweden, their wealth follows a Pareto distribution.

The issue is that if the top 20% earn 80% of the income, they should also pay 80% of the taxes.

Money going out should follow a Pareto distribution as well.

[smelltheglove]

They need to go back to when Filibusters meant talking for hours on end like Strom Thurmond.

totally agree. if you want to stifle the government process you should at least have to work for it imo. not just say "FILIBUSTER!!!" and call it a day

[araine]

They are only required to provide health care for people who are working full time. So these billion dollar companies only hire people at part time to save money and not give anyone health care.

And they have done that for YEARS before Obama was even considering running for any office in Washington. You see nothing really is changing in regards to healthcare except that healthcare companies cant cherry pick the customers and send the sick and costly ones to the curb ( you know the ones that cost money for you i mean god forbid we treat those as well since it hurts the quarterly report for some greedy snop in the top 1%)

Companies have hired 29hrs a week crap to dodge healthcare benefits for DECADES folks dont let them try to lie to you and say it is Obamacare doing it. Thanks to Obamacare they will still have a chance to get affordable healthcare which the companies have REFUSED for DECADES with the less than 29hrs a week hirings.

It proves what the #1 prio for greedy companies is, It is GREED. per papa johns own estimate it is 14cents per pie to cover all workers he has. indepentant studies have put it between 3.5 and 4.8 cents per pie. But FACT remains he blows 4 times that amount on his 2 million NFL giveaway. It isnt about the money that it is costing to insure workers it is about GREED folks plain and simple GREED.