Page 25 of 64 FirstFirst ...
15
23
24
25
26
27
35
... LastLast
  1. #481
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So how does the free market prevent people from being crushed under the heels of large corporations, to where they can't take a day off because they are barely scraping by working three part time jobs? You are claiming that in a system where we have high unemployment somehow corporations are going to increase the wages or offer better benefits for low level positions? I'm not sure why you think that?
    Why aren't all corporation right now paying the minimum wage and giving out the minimum legally mandated benefits to all their employees?

    Oh right, because there's a labour market. In which supply and demand meet. The lower the wage becomes, the more there is demand for the labour, the higher it becomes, the more there is supply for that particular labour. This means that the corporation can't "crush people under their heels", as there are always other competitors who are willing to hire people if the price is right.

    It's not the corporations fault if you can't take a day off because you have too low income. Your labour is simply not worth a lot in that case.

  2. #482
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Grummgug View Post
    I think I'd prefer it if europe and Canada gave the US free health care in exchange for all the free military service they've been providing for almost 100 years. Its so easy for them to sit back and pretend they don't need to spend on military when they know if anything bad happens, America will rush in and protect them and clean it up (Bosnia for example).

    How about a little give back? We protect europe, europe pays for American health care. Fair trade?

    Or America could make deep cuts to its military to pay for health care. Of course, that drives up the costs to europe when it comes to military spending.
    U'r serving as protection to Europe? Really, you came up with that? USA entering WW2 is a bit more complicated that that, but i'll give you hint. Your country entered to protect its loans. While big oil companies were selling oil to all sides up to a point.

    As a bystander I dont see USA as defender of democracy across the world I see it as protector if corporate interest. Same shit happened on much lower scale in exYU from where i come from. Independence war wasn't supposed to happen here but it did. It came down to money. They all wanted money and you would be surprised how profitable wars can be for bankers/weapon manufacturers and other corporate business.

    Almost entire world order is wrong today. We are a culture of money, we are indirectly thought to value money and praise to it, to ignore basic human compassion and decency. Like someone said why will layoffs happen. Because business exist to make only money, nothing else. While that remains the same, we as a world will not advance. They are used to make obscene amounts of money and if anyone or anything endangeres that they will take it out on their workers first, then on customers.

    All this world needs is to tone down on its greed,lust or obssesion for money and power and fill that "void" with good old common decency.

    ot: imagine all those greedy ceo pricks instead of lust for money had lust for learning, and all time they spend on increasing profit they spend on physics/chemistry/math. i bet we would have teleporatation and space travel in no time.

  3. #483
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkrulerxxx View Post
    People are boycotting companies like this because of what reason?? business??

    Newsflash, this is just the beginning and it's going to happen when obamacare forces companies to adapt to this new thing.

    You can't be mad for companies wanting to make profits, that's how business works. you vote for obamacare, expect the shitstorm to be happening.
    Company has several other options. They could either create something profitable for them to do but instead they decided to take the don't have to think-way out with layoffs.

  4. #484
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Why aren't all corporation right now paying the minimum wage and giving out the minimum legally mandated benefits to all their employees?

    Oh right, because there's a labour market. In which supply and demand meet. The lower the wage becomes, the more there is demand for the labour, the higher it becomes, the more there is supply for that particular labour. This means that the corporation can't "crush people under their heels", as there are always other competitors who are willing to hire people if the price is right.

    It's not the corporations fault if you can't take a day off because you have too low income. Your labour is simply not worth a lot in that case.
    For skilled labour, yes. But in a global labor market, the US cannot compete on a large majority of unskilled jobs, and as robotics becomes better and better, those same unskilled people are more and more out of jobs. So they can do local service jobs for shitty wage because their is a huge glut of unskilled workers without jobs.

    Just for my curiosity, Diurdi, are you against a Tax-Payer Funded Single Payer Health Care system?

  5. #485
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    But in a global labor market, the US cannot compete on a large majority of unskilled jobs, and as robotics becomes better and better, those same unskilled people are more and more out of jobs. So they can do local service jobs for shitty wage because their is a huge glut of unskilled workers without jobs.
    The US isn't "supposed" to compete in that market either. In an industrialized nation such as the US, the vast majority of unskilled jobs will be in the service sector - handling tasks that robots cannot perform efficiently. These are however only entry-level jobs. As a person grows and gets more experienced, he/she is no longer unskilled labor.

    If your labor isn't worth much, you shouldn't be paid much. If this low pay isn't high enough, you might want to implement supporting welfare measures.

    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore
    Just for my curiosity, Diurdi, are you against a Tax-Payer Funded Single Payer Health Care system?
    Yes. Tax-payer funded healthcare should only be for those without the means to purchase basic healthcare on their own.

  6. #486
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The US isn't "supposed" to compete in that market either. In an industrialized nation such as the US, the vast majority of unskilled jobs will be in the service sector - handling tasks that robots cannot perform efficiently. These are however only entry-level jobs. As a person grows and gets more experienced, he/she is no longer unskilled labor.

    If your labor isn't worth much, you shouldn't be paid much. If this low pay isn't high enough, you might want to implement supporting welfare measures.

    Yes. Tax-payer funded healthcare should only be for those without the means to purchase basic healthcare on their own.
    So what is your stance on Obamacare? It is forcing everyone to involve themselves in the Insurance Market, and having the Federal Gov pay for those who are 'too poor' to afford the premiums? Is it _the_ 'free market' answer to trying to make sure your citizens have healthcare?

  7. #487
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Bantokar View Post
    You really don´t know much about the world outside the US do you?

    Try looking at most other "western" countries where taxes, regulation of corporations and expenses are higher. Guess what, our wages are a lot higher as well. Do you honestly believe that giving cooporations free reigns and just believing in their good nature will make things better? yeah turned out real well giving the banks and insurance industry a free pass to rape the world economy, thank you for starting the global economic crisis.
    This. The Americans who listen to Faux News and drink the Right's Kool Aid are pretty ignorant of the rest of the world and economics in general. Obama/Clinton are responsible classical Republicans along the same vein of Reagan and Taft who promote small business and sought to bring down big business because they know big business tries to take any shortcut it can and exploits local communities, hiring as few people as possible to make profit from the most people as possible. Most of us fiscally responsible and knowledgeable Americans breathed a sigh of relief when Mittens was thoroughly defeated.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  8. #488
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So what is your stance on Obamacare? It is forcing everyone to involve themselves in the Insurance Market, and having the Federal Gov pay for those who are 'too poor' to afford the premiums? Is it _the_ 'free market' answer to trying to make sure your citizens have healthcare?
    No, Obamacare is a horrible policy. It doesn't tackle the real cost drivers of the US healthcare market. Its effect will probably be the opposite: higher costs.

  9. #489
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    No, Obamacare is a horrible policy. It doesn't tackle the real cost drivers of the US healthcare market. Its effect will probably be the opposite: higher costs.
    What do you view as the real cost drivers of the US healthcare market. If you say litigation I'm going to get mad.

  10. #490
    Yes i agree cut the hours of those poor people why should poor people have money

    only rich people should be allowed to buy the cheap crap that themselves produce and sell

    oh wait thats right the economy is based upon people buying shit not having shit sit on the shelfs gathering dust

    the reason why the consumer society came about was because poor people found that they could afford to buy little luxuries that make life worth living thus powered the capitalist society that we belong too thanks to socialist policy's and the rights that workers won through struggle

    The rich capitalists need to take a step back and learn to throw a dog a bone before the dog bites him back!

  11. #491
    Welcome to neoliberalism which made capitalism this abomination of what it once ment to be. To all the people who agree with it just think if you were the fired employee. This system wont hold on for much longer 10 maybe 20 years before it will all fall down, nihil novi.

  12. #492
    Dreadlord Vexies's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    lost somewhere in the corn fields of middle America
    Posts
    991
    Its effect will probably be the opposite: higher costs.
    Its not a probably its a definite. My insurance rates are raising next year to cover the added costs of Obama care, got to love that crap.

    To those vilifying companies for having to layoff employees to cover the costs of this horrible system.. what did you expect to happen? Do you really think any business is going to except making less money? That is what they are in business for..

    A companies job is to turn a profit and to be MORE not less successful than the year before. If not you look for was to ensure you at the very least break even and do your best to not lose ground. Layoffs and restructuring to avoid having to pay this travesty was the obvious and only choice. But then she sheep forget that right? and making money is bad right? cause everyone works for the good of man right? lol

    Like that ever has or ever will work anywhere.

  13. #493
    Quote Originally Posted by Waaldo View Post
    What a bunch of children. If Romney got elected the same thing would be happening.
    This is a nice thought, but Romney was against Obamacare. So there's at least a better chance that it wouldn't be happening.

    You're right though, it is partially because Obama wants to keep Obamacare + get rid of the Bush tax cuts on millionaires. Both are going to cut into their bottom line.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-14 at 07:05 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Vexies View Post
    Its not a probably its a definite. My insurance rates are raising next year to cover the added costs of Obama care, got to love that crap.

    To those vilifying companies for having to layoff employees to cover the costs of this horrible system.. what did you expect to happen? Do you really think any business is going to except making less money? That is what they are in business for..

    A companies job is to turn a profit and to be MORE not less successful than the year before. If not you look for was to ensure you at the very least break even and do your best to not lose ground. Layoffs and restructuring to avoid having to pay this travesty was the obvious and only choice. But then she sheep forget that right? and making money is bad right? cause everyone works for the good of man right? lol

    Like that ever has or ever will work anywhere.
    My insurance is going down next year...

  14. #494
    Quote Originally Posted by Varabently View Post
    This is a nice thought, but Romney was against Obamacare. So there's at least a better chance that it wouldn't be happening.
    Actually, Romney was only against the part of Obamacare that payed for it.
    You're right though, it is partially because Obama wants to keep Obamacare + get rid of the Bush tax cuts on millionaires. Both are going to cut into their bottom line.
    Lets not mix corporate and private taxes.


    My insurance is going down next year...
    As is mine. Ironically Insurance in the US has been rising at an Obscene rate well before the ACA was introducted.

  15. #495
    So some guy thats worth 100 million will end up being worth 90 million instead, thats tough... I hope they will manage to survive on that.

  16. #496
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by sulfuric View Post
    I actually think the CEO's are doing this to intentionally hobble their companies, to make Obama look as if he is hurting them. Kind of the equivalent of getting brushed up against in soccer and throwing yourself to the ground, howling in agony and hoping to God everyone watching believes you've genuinely been fouled.

    Holy. Fucking. Shit. YES YOU CAN

    When a company wants to cut its employees overtime, pension, benefits, to make more money you can be mad at them.

    When a company increases its carbon footprint and dumps its polluted afterproduct to save money into a local river, pond, lake, or even woods you can be mad at them.

    When a company moves its factory from Detroit Michigan to Hong Kong because Chinese labor laws allow them to place their workers in dangerous working conditions and pay them far less, you can be mad at them.

    When a company creates a product that sells based on its "guarantee" and the they find every loophole and exemption to avoid honoring their garuntee you can be mad at them.


    Somewhere along the line the World of Warcraft community has accepted EVERYTHING blizzard has done on the basis of "A corporation has got to make money" where has your consumer expectations gone? What you're willing to purchase is a deciding factor in capitalism, so why are you willing to purchase anything and tell yourself "oh capitalism you're silly" when things go awry.
    QFT

    Yes business's have to make profits but not by shitting on everyone so you can increase your 100 million dollar profit to 110 million.

  17. #497
    There is a very simple problem that people dont realize with this too. They think that universal health care is free and that them insuring all these americans wont cost anything. In truth you pay for universal healthcare through hirer taxes. Even with Obamacare they say if you make below a certain amount that they are going to reimburse you so that you can afford health insurance.

    What this really means is that unlike a business the government doesn't make any money. They are simply redistributing money that they collect through taxes. So people like me who pay taxes are going to have to pay more taxes for people who cant go get a job that provides health insurance. I have seen young adults who do nothing but sit and collect welfare because they are too lazy to go find a job or get an education to improve upon themselves. This is really the true problem with this new law. Not to mention that since Obamacare is forcing you to buy a product from a private company just for the sheer fact that you are alive that should worry people. Why cant they force you to buy other products now from other private companies if they think it will improve your life.

    Also I will agree with the above, forcing increases in the minimum wage doesn't help. All it does is causes the prices of products to go up and hurts people who don't make minimum wage because now we are pay more for products. The last time they increased the minimum wage here in the US, I saw my prices go up for what I was buying because business are in business to make money and they are going to keep there profit margins the same. But because I was a couple of dollars above minimum wage my pay didnt increase but everything I was paying for did. You can argue that well they have more money to spend but they really dont because the costs just went up that they are paying for those items.

  18. #498
    I need to stop reading these type of threads, one day I'll reply my honest thoughts and get banned. The rest of the world can only laugh/cry. It amazes me how utterly freaking pathetic a nation can collectively be. Or how selfish. Definitely the selfishness more than anything else.

    However I'm not sure which is worse; the idiocy of the act, or the people defending it without even the slightest comprehension (to be expected when defending something incomprehensibly stupid I suppose).

  19. #499
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleros View Post
    This. The Americans who listen to Faux News and drink the Right's Kool Aid are pretty ignorant of the rest of the world and economics in general. Obama/Clinton are responsible classical Republicans along the same vein of Reagan and Taft who promote small business and sought to bring down big business because they know big business tries to take any shortcut it can and exploits local communities, hiring as few people as possible to make profit from the most people as possible. Most of us fiscally responsible and knowledgeable Americans breathed a sigh of relief when Mittens was thoroughly defeated.
    Clinton's administration was responsible for the housing bubble burst which is one of the prime factors of the economy being the way it is and yet people still glorify him because the liberal media tells them they should. Do some research.

  20. #500
    Gosh, so, personally, my health care costs have gone up $4,000 this year, and you think I'm a jerk for telling my family that we have to cut back further simply because we've already cut back because my income has also gone down?

    Lousy economy + increasing expenses + increasing overhead - lower income = more cutbacks. Simple.

    People who don't understand math or economics shouldn't try to form thoughts based on political hogwash they've been spoon-fed.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-14 at 08:34 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by theKarn View Post
    I just want to say to all the corporations out there that: IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT YOUR BOTTOM LINE. YOU CAN BE SUCCESSFUL WITHOUT SHITTING ALL OVER THE PEOPLE WHO MADE YOU SUCCESSFUL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
    You, like almost everyone else, fail to understand how this works. Suppose I run a large public corporation. Ok, sure, let's say I, and my board, make a lot of money. But my job is to maximize profits - for shareholders. More on that in a minute. If the economy is bad, and I am not increasing revenues, then I must cut expenses. The largest expense in most companies is its employees.

    Now, what's all the hoopla about profits? Why can't these greedy CEO's make a little less and make the world a better place? Because lower profits mean lower stock prices. Lower stock prices means unhappy shareholders...but who are the shareholders?

    Let's assume that my company is a Fortune 500 company. That means that it's probably included in the S&P 500, the Russell, and a few other indices. The point being, there is a high level of institutional ownership. Maybe as high as 90%. So who are your institutional owners? Well, as it turns out, most of them are the woefully underfunded pension funds being managed for the benefit of public employee unions, ERISA's, and 401's.

    So, it all comes around to: if public companies are not managed in a way that maximizes profits and drives stock prices up, the main people who are hurt are the very people complaining about the greedy bastards on Wall Street.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •