|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,846
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,846 |
Quote:
Notice also where it says "TEMPORARY" benefits. That's temporary - if you don't know what it means, look it up. It sure as hell doesn't mean 2 years worth of payments - at least not to this working class american.
You see mac - I AM working class america - the person you profess to care about. BS.
Just where do these "benefits" come from? Oh, that's right - working class Americans, like me. If you can't see that you are beyond help.
Any answers in the other thread to the questions I asked of you?
That's exactly right.
Can I collect unemployment until my retirement age of 72 if I should lose my job? Maybe collect 25 years worth of benefits until I start collecting SS benefits .......? 
There has to come a point where you crap or get off the pot. Unfortunately, if someone has gone past the 2 years of unemployment benefits, that's when welfare programs kick in.
I also think that those put onto the various welfare programs should work for their benefits.
But, then again, I'm a heartless conservative. 
Oh ... and mac doesn't answer anyone's questions unless he can cut and paste.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
Just where do these "benefits" come from? Oh, that's right - working class Americans, like me.
Like you...and the unemployed.
Arch pray you are in a safe job bud...because reality can hit hard. There are guys out there with 10-15 years experience who have little hope of finding a job in their field simply because their are guys with 20-25 years of experience trying to get those spots.
Companies are asking for Master's in order to fill spots that used to top out at Bachelor's...but the jobs end up going overseas for a fraction of the pay to someone who took 3-6 months to get their degree. Unless things change soon 2 years will seem like a quick turnaround.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928 |
Quote:
Quote:
Just where do these "benefits" come from? Oh, that's right - working class Americans, like me.
Like you...and the unemployed.
Arch pray you are in a safe job bud...because reality can hit hard. There are guys out there with 10-15 years experience who have little hope of finding a job in their field simply because their are guys with 20-25 years of experience trying to get those spots.
Companies are asking for Master's in order to fill spots that used to top out at Bachelor's...but the jobs end up going overseas for a fraction of the pay to someone who took 3-6 months to get their degree. Unless things change soon 2 years will seem like a quick turnaround.
I understand that completely. Totally. What I'm saying is two fold - first of all, don't suck the working Americans down with the people that are out of jobs - and secondly, and more importantly - LET BUSINESSES CREATE JOBS - don't penalize businesses by raising their taxes, don't penalize businesses with the "cap and tax/trade" crap.
One last thing - I was fired just over 7 years ago. Because I had been a part owner of a business - and a new owner came in. Without going into details, to save my job, I sold my small, minority share in the business a year later to yet another new owner. 4 months later when GM approved everything, I was called into the office and told "we are firing everyone, with the understanding that current employees will be hired back pending drug tests, etc, except for you. You are done. Get your stuff and call someone to take you home". (this was a car dealership by the way). They literally had someone by my side every step I took - I wasn't "allowed" to say goodbye to the people I had worked with as they were in their "meeting".
I was the good person, got my stuff, boxed it up, and left. In one of "my"/ "their" cars. I told the guy where I lived and that he could pick it up as soon as I got home, but I damn sure wasn't walking home or calling someone to pick me up.
I've been there - unemployed. I know what it feels like.
I taught my daughter how to ride bike while I was out of work. Got a job that I despised - hated every minute of it. And then I got this job - which I love.
I don't want taxes to put me out of business. I don't want others unemployment to put me out of business.
LET THE DAMN COMPANIES HAVE A BREAK SO THEY HIRE!!! Every person they hire pays taxes - and buys goods and services. People on unemployment? Not so much.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928 |
Quote:
I'm curious about a couple of things mac.
Please answer, in your own words.
First, has the money from O's first stimulus package been spent yet? All of the money?
Secondly, if JOBS is the number one priority - which at this point I agree - why is the gov't. penalizing, and in some cases (health care "reform", cap and trade, etc) attempting to penalize companies for the jobs they have? Can you answer that?
My guess is you've never been in charge, or started a company - you know - a business that pays taxes, pays employees - and gets its revenue from the product they manufacture or retail.
You want jobs? Give businesses breaks.....give them INCENTIVE to hire people, create jobs.........you know, jobs where the employees work and pay taxes. It's amazingly simple really.
But no - you and your "I'm for the working class" crap - all you come up with is "let's extend unemployment for MORE than 2 years". That's not FOR the working class - that is against the working class. Being FOR the working class would mean trying to open up jobs for the working class.
Why is it that in this recession - gov't. is doing most of the hiring?
You do realize that gov't. can't pay people without having the money, correct? You do realize that a gov't. job that pays, say $30,000 requires that much plus from people/business in the private sector, right?
You do realize that increasing unemployment benefits means that those with jobs have to pay more of their earned income in order to pay the unemployment, right?
You sir, are ANTI working class and you don't even know it.
Any reply mac? Any at all? Can you, in your own words, answer any of the questions I asked?
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
I understand that completely. Totally. What I'm saying is two fold - first of all, don't suck the working Americans down with the people that are out of jobs - and secondly, and more importantly - LET BUSINESSES CREATE JOBS - don't penalize businesses by raising their taxes, don't penalize businesses with the "cap and tax/trade" crap.
Business are outsourcing jobs for higher bonuses for the executives...do you think this hole was dug solely by the government and unemployed?
My former company employed 16k+ at their headquarters 10 years ago and are just over 2k now. 7 years ago they got the great idea of outsourcing jobs to India to save money. They could pay them less than the cost of 1 of our products for a months worth of work!! Sounds great, but I asked who was going to buy our product then. The American worker had to cut back because he has little to no money and the Indian worker can't afford it unless he saves up for months. That isn't going to be good for sales.
Well sales declined...so they outsourced more work. Then the definition of insanity set in...doing the same thing and expecting different results. 100's of jobs are cut so that executives could make bonuses...or makeup money for bonuses they couldn't take in the form of 'incentives'. The CEO for that company makes 19 dollars a minute but all he has done is cut his workforce in the United States and sold off stock shares and granted more.
It isn't the unemployed you should be worried about...
(In addition...because the American worker has to cut back and try and 'get by' he spends less. Since he spends less other companies need to cut back so they let people go...ad infinitum.)
My suggestion was to jack up taxes on businesses by about 500% to cover the cost of unemployment...with the increase to take place in two years. Now businesses that meet certain percentages of US workers are exempt for exemptions on the tax. The more US workers US companies have the less of the tax they have to pay, Granted international companies would get a bit tricky...but I can tell you my old company has exploited India, China and the Philippines so far and there are plenty of other areas they can move to when the pay gets too high that executive bonuses begin to suffer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,347
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,347 |
Quote:
There are guys out there with 10-15 years experience who have little hope of finding a job
Then they need to get their asses off of unemployment and find a job in a new field.
Go to Burger King, go to K-Mart, go to WalMart and Sam's Club.... do what you have to do to provide for yourself.
I understand taking some time to hold out to go for a gig in your chosen field, but at some point you have to get off your ass and stop sponging.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
mac that is an interesting piece which sort of explains how the money goes out.. what it does not address is how the money comes in. Where does it come from? Who pays it and how much do they pay? See I would assume that the amount paid in is based on covering a certain amount of unemployment... I'm also assuming that by extending those benefits, I'm creating a gap where I'll be putting more money out than I brought in to cover it... if I'm wrong in any of this please let me know.
I also notice that they refer to it as "unemployment insurance".. is it really insurance? or is it a slush fund that may or may not have money in it? Again, I don't know... if it is really insurance then I do know this.. my insurance absolutely positively will NOT allow me to change my terms once I need to collect. If I have an accident I cannot then call my car insurance and retroactively change my deductible.. insurance doesn't work that way.
So until you or somebody else proves otherwise, I'm going to assume that this extension of unemployment benefits is increasing the burden on the tax payers right now by creating an unfunded expense to the state government to pay this prolonged unemployment.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
Quote:
There are guys out there with 10-15 years experience who have little hope of finding a job
Then they need to get their asses off of unemployment and find a job in a new field.
Go to Burger King, go to K-Mart, go to WalMart and Sam's Club.... do what you have to do to provide for yourself.
I understand taking some time to hold out to go for a gig in your chosen field, but at some point you have to get off your ass and stop sponging.
Yes, what a strong economy we will have with most people working at fast food restaurants. Since the employees won't be able to afford to eat out hopefully the executives will eat at their competitors or we will all be unemployed.
"Just get a job" sounds good on a message board...but you do realize the way things are going everyone will get the 'joy of being unemployed'. The more 'lazy unemployed' people there are the less money gets spent...creating new 'lazy unemployed' people.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928 |
Sorry - increasing taxes to a punitive level does nothing. In fact - it does the reverse of what the goal was.
Wanna raise taxes on businesses 500%? Expect to see the cost of goods go up proportionately. And, expect to see the unemployed increase.
It blows my mind...really.....that people think taxing businesses is a way to raise revenue. The hatred for profitable businesses is ludicrous and stupid. Stop and think about it - WHO employees people? Businesses. Profitable businesses, that's who. Jacking up their taxes does nothing but cause them to move jobs over seas. Their isn't a business around, in this country, that wouldn't prefer to employ Americans - but, due to taxes and epa concerns and insurance and what not - they can't. Not if they want to stay in business.
Gov't. does not exist if not for taxes - so take all the jobs lost due to the "let's stick it to that profitable business" mentality and what do you have? Jobs going elsewhere.
Tax the business? Stupid.
Company A makes a billion a year in profit. What do people want to do? Tax the hell out of company A. They forget that company A spent 10 billion in R and D in order to make that profit. They forget that Company A paid thousands of workers to make that profit. They forget that Company A also helped hundreds of other businesses make money by selling Company A's product. All they see is company A's CEO made a million - and "tax the hell out of them" is what happens in the mindset of the idiots.
What happens? Company A says "screw it. There are people in country B that want jobs - we'll do it there so we don't have to deal with all the b.s. redtape here".
Do you work?
Do you work for a company that makes money? If not, you'll be out of work soon. If you work for a company that is profitable, would you like to see your company's tax rate go up? If so, you'll be out of work soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Yes, what a strong economy we will have with most people working at fast food restaurants. Since the employees won't be able to afford to eat out hopefully the executives will eat at their competitors or we will all be unemployed.
"Just get a job" sounds good on a message board...but you do realize the way things are going everyone will get the 'joy of being unemployed'. The more 'lazy unemployed' people there are the less money gets spent...creating new 'lazy unemployed' people.
They don't have to work at a fast food place forever... check out monster, check out the help wanted sites.. there are jobs out there. I'm sorry if some are inconvenient and you might have to move to take a new job, you might have to take a step back to get a new job path, you might have to travel a little more than you would like... sorry.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,846
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,846 |
Wanna get people off their asses, taking chances, busting their butts to be successful ....? Let's start taxing "stationary failure", and eliminate all other taxes. In other words .... if you do nothing .... you get taxed punatively. I mean .. people who do nothing for the country do nothing for the country ...... so let's get them contributing by contributing their money to the cause .  Bet we'd suddenly have a nation of entrepreneurs .......
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
Sorry - increasing taxes to a punitive level does nothing. In fact - it does the reverse of what the goal was.
Wanna raise taxes on businesses 500%? Expect to see the cost of goods go up proportionately. And, expect to see the unemployed increase.
It blows my mind...really.....that people think taxing businesses is a way to raise revenue. The hatred for profitable businesses is ludicrous and stupid. Stop and think about it - WHO employees people? Businesses. Profitable businesses, that's who. Jacking up their taxes does nothing but cause them to move jobs over seas. Their isn't a business around, in this country, that wouldn't prefer to employ Americans - but, due to taxes and epa concerns and insurance and what not - they can't. Not if they want to stay in business.
Gov't. does not exist if not for taxes - so take all the jobs lost due to the "let's stick it to that profitable business" mentality and what do you have? Jobs going elsewhere.
Tax the business? Stupid.
Company A makes a billion a year in profit. What do people want to do? Tax the hell out of company A. They forget that company A spent 10 billion in R and D in order to make that profit. They forget that Company A paid thousands of workers to make that profit. They forget that Company A also helped hundreds of other businesses make money by selling Company A's product. All they see is company A's CEO made a million - and "tax the hell out of them" is what happens in the mindset of the idiots.
What happens? Company A says "screw it. There are people in country B that want jobs - we'll do it there so we don't have to deal with all the b.s. redtape here".
Do you work?
Do you work for a company that makes money? If not, you'll be out of work soon. If you work for a company that is profitable, would you like to see your company's tax rate go up? If so, you'll be out of work soon.
Wait are you saying if we raise taxes on companies who don't employee Americans we will have an unemployment problem?
Second thought...people on unemployment are people who involuntarily left their job. Which means these were people let go by the business to begin with. So now America is a land of low wage service jobs, does it matter that a new TV costs $5,000 instead of $500 when you only have $5 to spend anyways? Unless you are in management or an executive...at the current comparison levels that executive would have $395 to spend so I guess it would matter to him. Of course since only a small fraction of the population can afford Televisions the companies that make them will have to cut jobs...
Third thought...when executives make more than 50 or more employees it isn't taxes, epa and insurance that is cutting dangerously into profits. The simple fact is by cutting 50 jobs to make the numbers look good so you get your big paycheck you have put 50 less consumers into the market. Who buy less products from other companies who have to cut jobs to make their bonuses.
Let's pick a random company in Cleveland...American Greetings.
Zev Weiss brought in $1,463,808 in 2009...which is really good compared to some, this comparison won't be nearly as 'frightening' as some. Mr Weiss makes as much as 45 average workers and 97 minimum wage workers. January of 2009 American Greetings cut 200 jobs, and 275 jobs in December of 2008....due to weakening sales and the worsening economy. Now unlike many execs Mr Weiss did not take a bonus or an incentive comp. So this one isn't all that bad.
Now one I do know of that was fun...United Technologies.
Their CEO in 2009 hit $20,501,712 total. $1,700,000 as a bonus, $6,217,560 stock awards, $1,280,447 incentive and $7,008,000 in option awards. That is as much as 639 average workers and 1,359 minimum wage workers. Now the odd thing about United Technologies is in the first half of 2009 they cut 11,600 jobs. They had cut 6,400 jobs in 2008.
I think I am seeing away companies can stay competitive without releasing thousands of people and wrecking the economy...anyone else?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928 |
Those are neat numbers. They almost make your point.
But they don't. How much did American Greetings gross? How much did United Technologies gross?
You see, when you throw out numbers of what the ceo made it's maddening. But let's see - what does the average American Greetings employee make - and what do they do. American Greetings is a card company - what is expected of the average employee? Sit and watch a printing press print cards?
I wouldn't call that hard work - would you?
So knock down what the ceo makes. What does the average employee do? Sit and watch a printing press - maybe fill it up with ink.
I'm saying allow and encourage businesses to hire more people - don't penalize them with extra taxes because they are profitable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
Those are neat numbers. They almost make your point.
But they don't. How much did American Greetings gross? How much did United Technologies gross?
You see, when you throw out numbers of what the ceo made it's maddening. But let's see - what does the average American Greetings employee make - and what do they do. American Greetings is a card company - what is expected of the average employee? Sit and watch a printing press print cards?
I wouldn't call that hard work - would you?
So knock down what the ceo makes. What does the average employee do? Sit and watch a printing press - maybe fill it up with ink.
I'm saying allow and encourage businesses to hire more people - don't penalize them with extra taxes because they are profitable.
Arch that doesn't make any sense...if a company cuts 18,000 jobs in 13 months because the company is losing money and it's CEO takes 18 million dollars in bonuses and options in that time frame does it really matter what the employees do each day? You had to cut 18,000 jobs and took an 18 million dollar BONUS. You went from a salary of $1,435,000 to $20,501,712 but had to cut 18,000 jobs. Hell cut it in half, 9 million dollars probably saves a lot of jobs and puts consumers out in the market.
Last edited by LexDawg; 06/29/10 11:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,347
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,347 |
Quote:
Yes, what a strong economy we will have with most people working at fast food restaurants. Since the employees won't be able to afford to eat out hopefully the executives will eat at their competitors or we will all be unemployed.
Oh, what a strong economy we'll have with one portion of the nation footing the bill for the rest who won't work for themselves 
Quote:
but you do realize the way things are going everyone will get the 'joy of being unemployed'.
In time, yes, everybody will eventually go through this at one time or another. If, however, you are making the absurd and rash insinuation that we're on a massive downward spiral of unemployment that will consume us all.... you are delusional, reactionary and rife with hyperbole.
People working is money NOT coming out of the system. It is money that the country doesn't have to borrow against its future for.
Unemployment is to help sustain you until you can find gainful employment on your own. It is NOT supposed to be an open-ended protectorate of a given level of living. It is not a guarantee of pay until you find the job you want; it is limited assistance to help tide you over until you can find something.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Arch that doesn't make any sense...if a company cuts 18,000 jobs in 13 months because the company is losing money and it's CEO takes 18 million dollars in bonuses and options in that time frame does it really matter what the employees do each day? You had to cut 18,000 jobs and took an 18 million dollar BONUS. You went from a salary of $1,435,000 to $20,501,712 but had to cut 18,000 jobs. Hell cut it in half, 9 million dollars probably saves a lot of jobs and puts consumers out in the market.
I thought you said earlier that the companies were experiencing weak sales. That means there isn't work to do; they're not selling product. The CEO could have cut his pay in half, but what incentive would there be to keep those jobs, to have people standing around with nothing to do? There are abuses of CEO pay, but that money is not preventing companies from keeping jobs. Lack of sales is.
The flip side of this is that you can also lower taxes on business to try to stimulate them into hiring. But that won't work either. When there is weak sales, more excess money does not equal more hired employees if there simply isn't work to do.
It sounds bad, but there isn't much the government can do other than to soften the blow (which they've already tried with various stimuluses). We are probably just going to have to ride this out until the worldwide economy picks back up.
Last edited by tjs7; 06/29/10 11:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
Unemployment is to help sustain you until you can find gainful employment on your own. It is NOT supposed to be an open-ended protectorate of a given level of living. It is not a guarantee of pay until you find the job you want; it is limited assistance to help tide you over until you can find something.
See the real gap here is the idea that Unemployment is being abused by everyone. That is where you will find the delusional folks hanging out. I know a guy that worked with me that was laid off almost 2 years ago, he collects unemployment and supposedly contracts under the table and is making quite a bit of money. I know 10-12 that are struggling to make ends meet and trying to find a job making anything near what they need to feed their families and have been out of work for 2-5 months. Of course everyone will talk about the first guy...he is everyone's benchmark for the 'lazy unemployed people'. Because it already fits the argument they want to make...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Not to mention the CEO is running a company. You generally want to attract the best person possible unless you want your company to run into the ground. If you start capping and lowering what you would pay such a person then you are setting yourself up for a possible failure.
Plain and simple these people have been on unemployment for nearly two years. They have had enough time.
I'm not heartless so if you want to debate extending them another six months fine lets debate that and only that but to stick cap and trade and a bunch of other needless pork into the back end of the bill is outrageous and frankly shows how much they really care about the american worker. I think there would have been more republican support had that not happended.
But I still feel that two years is a very long time. Like other and I have said at some point in time you need to take a lower paying job and adjust your lifestyle. If that means getting rid of a car, cutting out premium television, cell phones, broadband internet, selling your PS3/Xbox/Wii, moving to a smaller home/apt/condo then so be it. Do what you need to do but sponging off the rest of the people for anything beyond a year is down right despicable.
Then you can look for a better paying job in the paper/monster/staffing agencies in your free time. If these jobs are never coming back how long do these people get to be on unemployment??? Is this going to be the last time or in another six months are we going to hear the same crap that we just hate the american workers???
For the record I don't hate the American worker but at some point in time I expect you to pick yourself up, dust your butt off and carry your own weight.
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,347
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,347 |
Not to mention that it is that company's right to do that. He is getting the bonus for making - and keeping - the company profitable, not for his public relations work.
If keeping the company in a position where it is still making money means letting people go, then you let people go.
And 18,000 people.... the bonus the CEO gets vs. the money saved, it isn't even comparable. Not even in the same universe. The bonus is a piddlance in comparison to that degree of saving.
Take 20 employees @ $50k/yr each - it costs a company far more than the $1 million in salary. When you add in all of their benefits, insurance, etc... it can easily get to be 20-40% higher than that. Now, extrapolate that out to 18,000. Heck, even drop the avg. salary to 40k, or 30k.... x 900. At $50k, that is almost $1 billion saved before you even factor in benefits, taxes and insurance. Even at $30k, you're still going to finish near the 3/4 billion mark.
So, those 18,000 people..... that's a LOT of money saved; and sorry to inform ya - a bonus earned. Just because the number is incomprehensible to us low earners, doesn't mean it wasn't deserved.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
I thought you said earlier that the companies were experiencing weak sales. That means there isn't work to do; they're not selling product. The CEO could have cut his pay in half, but what incentive would there be to keep those jobs, to have people standing around with nothing to do? There are abuses of CEO pay, but that money is not preventing companies from keeping jobs. Lack of sales is.
Unemployed people can't spend money on stuff...so you will see weak sales. Laying off more people...well read the definition of insanity I posted earlier.
Letting go of 5% of your employee base looks great on your OE...but when a lot of people start to do that you sort of run out of customers. Makes sense, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,347
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,347 |
As a company, you do not create your market.... you cannot simply keep people employed without sales to support it in the hopes that you paying them will cause them to buy more of your product.... not unless you want to be out of business in a real hurry.
It isn't a company's job to employ people. They employ people as a result of needing help with their purpose: To sell stuff.
If the sales aren't there, the people aren't needed.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Buts thats sort of my point. Each company has to act in only its best interest. They can't say, "well, American Greetings already laid off people this month. We can't do it then b/c it will adversely affect the economy as a whole." If a company is experiencing low demand, and there isn't work to do, sometime layoffs are the only option.
JMO, but its not as simple as "just don't lay people off." Companies who do this may save the worker in the short term, but they run the risk of going deeper and deeper into debt and run the risk of going belly up. Then, instead of a few hundred unemployed, you have thousands unemployed as the whole business is gone.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
Not to mention the CEO is running a company. You generally want to attract the best person possible unless you want your company to run into the ground.
Let's take a computer company. Now to make a pretty profit we are going to cut 2% of the employees and send those jobs overseas for peanuts. Now no matter how many employees that 2% is that is still less people able to purchase a computer. They also do not purchase Televisions...so the TV company has to cut some jobs. Now the TV company has less employees, so it doesn't need as many computers. The employees it cuts also don't purchase computers. So the computer company sells less computers which means it needs to cut more jobs...
Now is your 'best CEO possible' going to be in that scenario...because that doesn't sound like a great business model.
Of course this could all not be happening...and some of the companies that have been losing money and cutting jobs for the last 4-5 years could just be fine soon. I am sure sales are showing that...because we all will look forward to that.
Quote:
So, those 18,000 people..... that's a LOT of money saved; and sorry to inform ya - a bonus earned. Just because the number is incomprehensible to us low earners, doesn't mean it wasn't deserved.
The problem is reality has shown that these companies are just cutting jobs year after year. If your business success strategy is to make a profit by reducing your employee base how do you make a profit when you have no more employees...? United Technologies cut 6,400 jobs at the end of 2008, that was so successful that they cut 11,600 in 2009. Hopefully with everyone cutting their workforce those 18,000 people quickly found jobs at fast food restaurants to boost the economy so they dont lose 20,000 in 2010.
Edit:March of 2010 -
Quote:
United Technologies also faces pressure to shift some jobs to nations where it does business and the legislature can do nothing about it, Looney said.
Pratt & Whitney has been battling the Machinists union in federal court as the company seeks to shut two engine repair plants and move 1,000 jobs to Georgia, Japan and Singapore. It also announced it would lay off 163 employees, but said Tuesday that more than 155 employees in Connecticut accepted offers of severance and other benefits and will instead leave voluntarily, avoiding layoffs.
Last edited by LexDawg; 06/29/10 11:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
As a company, you do not create your market.... you cannot simply keep people employed without sales to support it in the hopes that you paying them will cause them to buy more of your product.... not unless you want to be out of business in a real hurry.
It isn't a company's job to employ people. They employ people as a result of needing help with their purpose: To sell stuff.
If the sales aren't there, the people aren't needed.
You're almost there...
If companies do not employ people than their customers are...? Or if you want to continue on the path you were on instead...if there is no market for products do you create that market by creating less customers?
Quote:
Buts thats sort of my point. Each company has to act in only its best interest. They can't say, "well, American Greetings already laid off people this month. We can't do it then b/c it will adversely affect the economy as a whole." If a company is experiencing low demand, and there isn't work to do, sometime layoffs are the only option.
JMO, but its not as simple as "just don't lay people off." Companies who do this may save the worker in the short term, but they run the risk of going deeper and deeper into debt and run the risk of going belly up. Then, instead of a few hundred unemployed, you have thousands unemployed as the whole business is gone.
Understood...now the question is what started this process? I know where I worked it was to create more money to sink into R&D. So the legacy tech support was offshored to save money to put into R&D. Fast forward 7 years later, all jobs worldwide have been moved to low cost providers after cut after cut after cut. That includes Latin and South America, Europe, Middle East, Asia and Asia Pacific...all those jobs to areas such as China, Philippines and Hungary. Now anyone care to theorize what happens if they cut more jobs...more sales or less?
2001 article from CNN
(CNN) -- Just as Friday's new Labor Department report shows the United States unemployment rate soaring in August to 4.9 percent from 4.6 percent, a newly released, federally funded study reveals that a significant number of production jobs are shifting from the American workplace to China.
Labor Department statistics suggest that U.S. employers cut far more jobs in August than private economists had anticipated -- 113,000 non-farm positions. And this is after American layoffs passed the 1-million mark in July.
But what concerns Stephanie Luce, Ph.D., about her research data is not just her figure of at least 34,900 jobs -- and maybe twice that -- moving from the States to China in a seven-month period as a result of warming Washington-Beijing trade relations.
"What makes it worse," she says, "is that some of these are higher-wage jobs, the type jobs that U.S. cities have been fighting to win. And now they're leaving. Many of those jobs were held by people who'd been working in them for many years, and in some cases their whole lifetimes."
In April, the U.S.-China Security Review Commission -- chaired by C. Richard D'Amato of the Maryland House of Delegates -- was joined by the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission in funding a special pilot study on the impact of Washington-Beijing trade relations on workers, wages and employment.
"The results were surprising," Luce says. "We thought there'd be job loss to China, but we didn't expect it to be higher than job movement to Mexico in the same period. When we started the project, we have no idea what we were actually going to find, even though we were hearing anecdotally that jobs were moving."
What Luce -- along with Kate Bronfenbrenner, Ph.D. of Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations -- would find was that the same period of time would see 26,267 U.S. jobs move to Mexico and 9,061 go to Asian countries other than China. The surprise was that so many American workers would be out of work that went to the People's Republic.
Luce and Bronfenbrenner were joined in the project by six other Cornell and University of Massachusetts faculty members, Luce says, along with a dozen research associates. They began gathering data in February and worked through July.
Based on data from media research, the team discovered that more than 80 United States-based corporations had announced their intentions to shift production to China between October 1, 2000, and April 30 of this year. What's more, because there are few mechanisms in place to require and facilitate the reporting of such employment moves, Luce says the actual figures may be twice those the study could nail down.
"We do feel very definitely that this study has underestimated how many jobs are moving. For one thing, we were going to a lot of foreign-language media sources" to track announcements of corporate moves. "Even the pronunciation of firm names may not compare to pronunciations in English. In fact, many companies go under different names" in their international locations.
"Part of what we're doing in our report is calling on the commissions to push the idea that there should be more standardized reporting by firms of their movements. There are laws about people moving across borders, so it seems that it's possible that we could require firms to report as well. But there's not any standardized reporting for this type of shifting of production.
"A lot of the companies like to advertise moves like this because it's good for stock prices," Luce says, "but a lot of other companies like to keep it quiet. We can find it in an annual report -- but they don't have to put it there."
And these are not small companies. The complete pilot study report -- which has been delivered to the two commissions and is expected to be addressed with this week's resumption of the Congressional session -- is accompanied by an executive summary, which reads: "The U.S. companies that are shutting down and moving to China and other countries tend to be large, profitable, well-established companies, primarily subsidiaries of publicly-held, U.S.-based multinationals including such familiar names as Mattel, International Paper, General Electric, Motorola and Rubbermaid. Most have been in operation for nearly half-a-century. However, a third have had new ownership in the last 10 years."
And one of the features of the study results that concerns Luce, she says, is that much of the production moving to China may not be for Chinese consumption. "The idea has been," she says, "that these would be goods available to Chinese consumers. But that seems not to be the case."
Again from the executive summary: "The media-tracking data also suggest that the majority of the U.S.-based multinational corporations shifting production to China are not simply targeting a Chinese market. Companies such as La Crosse Footwear (winter boots), Lexmark (printers), Motorola (cell phones), Rubbermaid (cookware and storage products), Raleigh (bicycles), Cooper Tools (wrenches), Mattel Murray (Barbie doll playhouses) and Samsonite (luggage) may have moved their production to China, but still intend to serve a U.S. and global market."
Fourth-largest trading partner
- China is the United States' fourth-largest trading partner today, following Canada, Mexico and Japan. Direct international investment in China by U.S. firms has increased from some $200 million in 1989 to more than $7.8 billion in 2000.
"But contrary to the high expectations that China's 1.2 billion population would provide an ever-expanding market for U.S. goods," reads Luce and Bronfenbrenner's summary, "by 2000 the value of goods imported to the U.S. from China exceeded the value of U.S. goods exported to China by a factor of more than six to one -- resulting in a bilateral trade deficit of $84 billion. Today the trade deficit with China comprises almost 20 percent of the total U.S. trade deficit and is the largest trade deficit the U.S. has with any single nation."
- "Our preliminary macroeconomic analysis of the employment effects of the U.S.-China trade balance estimates (that) as many as 760,000 U.S. jobs have been lost in the U.S.-China trade deficit since 1992."
- "Our media-tracking data suggest that an increasing percentage of the jobs leaving the U.S. are in higher-paying industries producing goods such as bicycles, furniture, motors, compressors, generators, fiber optics, clocks, injection molding and computer components. As our data show, it is these higher-end jobs that are most likely to be unionized and therefore more likely to have a much larger wage and benefit package. Many of those who lost their jobs were high-seniority, top-of-the-pay scale employees, who have a great deal invested in their jobs and in their communities."
- "The employment effects of these production shifts go well beyond the individual workers whose jobs were lost. Each time another company shuts downs operations and moves work to China, Mexico or any other country, it has a ripple effect on the wages of every other worker in that industry and that community, through lowering wage demands, restraining union organizing and bargaining power, reducing the tax base and reducing or eliminating hundreds of jobs in the related contracting, transportation, wholesale trade, professional and service-sector employment in companies and businesses."
"In conclusion, our research suggests that the U.S. and other countries have moved ahead with trade policies and global economic integration based on faulty arguments and incomplete information. ... The findings point to the critical need for government-mandated corporate reporting on production, trade and investment flows in and out of the U.S, and for further research on the impact of those trade and investment flows on workers, unions, families and communities in the U.S. and around the globe."
As for the role of the researchers now that their pilot study has been delivered to the commissions, Luce says, "I think that most of us on the project feel comfortable in advocating caution in our trade agreements."
Luce and her associates point out that legislation was enacted by Congress last fall to establish a bipartisan commission to evaluate and report on the economic and security implications of evolving Beijing-Washington trade relations. But no commission at this point holds that mandate, hence the contract from the U.S.-China Security Commission to Cornell and University of Massachusetts for this study.
"We should push for better reporting mechanisms," Luce says, "more information-sharing before we jump into things like the FDI (foreign direct investment) and giving President Bush fast-track," which the White House tends to term "trade promotion authority."
"The public should have more information," Luce says, "about how these decisions may impact our communities."
Last edited by LexDawg; 06/30/10 12:00 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Look, demand for goods in this country has been driven by easy credit conditions for the last decade or so. When a relatively large number of people defaulted on that debt, companies were forced to take huge hits by not receiving payments, and credit became harder to come by and therefore people couldn't buy as much stuff on the credit. Many in this country were living beyond their means.
This is why there is a general downward trend in the economy; people were buying things with debt from all companies. Not because one company wrongfully laid off workers, and this set off some type of chain reaction that led to mass layoffs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
I've read over your last few posts and trying to figure out what your soulution is and what I've come up with is:
A) Cap CEO pay or lower CEO pay instead of laying off workers and/or moving jobs overseas.
B) Tax or Tariff imports so American companies hiring American workers will be able to compete with countries that allow people to be paid very low wages.
Am I right??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,347
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,347 |
Quote:
You're almost there...
Nope. I was all the way there. There is nothing else.
Quote:
If companies do not employ people than their customers are...?
Other people that work for other companies and the same people that got laid off and found other jobs..... or are you going way ridiculously overboard and now saying that there are no companies employing anyone, anywhere for your example?
Quote:
Or if you want to continue on the path you were on instead...if there is no market for products do you create that market by creating less customers?
You don't create customers, nor do you create less of them. You create a product, and there is either a market for your product in its price range, or there isn't (yes, with marketing you can "create" a market, but only to an extent). If the sales aren't there, to keep the company viable - and SOME of your people employed - you cut the excess labor. It is Business 101.
Now, are you suggesting that a company magically continuing to employ people that it cannot afford to employ will make things better? Care to tell me how any of this relates to your desire for endless unemployment.... and care to tell me where the money for your endless unemployment comes from?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
Look, demand for goods in this country has been driven by easy credit conditions for the last decade or so. When a relatively large number of people defaulted on that debt, companies were forced to take huge hits by not receiving payments, and credit became harder to come by and therefore people couldn't buy as much stuff on the credit. Many in this country were living beyond their means.
This is why there is a general downward trend in the economy; people were buying things with debt from all companies. Not because one company wrongfully laid off workers, and this set off some type of chain reaction that led to mass layoffs.
I would imagine it would be pretty hard to not default on your debt when your job is now across the globe. You did read the article from 2001 right?
I don't think anyone has said this was caused by one company, I am not sure where you decided it was. If you are talking about my example about the computer company that was to keep it simple, it gets a lot more complex to list 1000's of companies to make a point. Just multiple it by whatever number you feel appropriate.
However if you read the CNN article you will see that unemployment soared to 4.9% as a significant number of jobs went from America to China. I would recommend reading the article...it has some good information.
Quote:
I've read over your last few posts and trying to figure out what your soulution is and what I've come up with is:
A) Cap CEO pay or lower CEO pay instead of laying off workers and/or moving jobs overseas.
B) Tax or Tariff imports so American companies hiring American workers will be able to compete with countries that allow people to be paid very low wages.
Am I right??
Well my suggestion was more of a talking point...at this point I do not know how to get those jobs back. I would say people should question a CEO who's strategy for profit seems to be cutting overhead by off shoring...that really isn't viable in the long term. Part of the problem I've seen is that a position in the US 'requires' a Masters or Bachelor's, these jobs usually pay a lot more because of the degree. However the same job will be filled by someone for a fraction of the money without a degree or without a comparable degree. I know that in some areas a degree can be gained in a few months for a fraction of the cost compared to here in the States...the US is at a big disadvantage before the race even starts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
Nope. I was all the way there. There is nothing else.
Fair enough, either there is nothing else...or you just can't see it. Either way...
Quote:
Other people that work for other companies and the same people that got laid off and found other jobs..... or are you going way ridiculously overboard and now saying that there are no companies employing anyone, anywhere for your example?
You tell me...do we have an unemployment problem? In 2001 it soared to 4.9%, May was 9.7%. I guess it could be just tons of lazy people and open jobs...
But it sounds like more people are not finding jobs to me, which sounds like less consumers. But feel free to explain the differences.
Quote:
You don't create customers, nor do you create less of them. You create a product, and there is either a market for your product in its price range, or there isn't (yes, with marketing you can "create" a market, but only to an extent). If the sales aren't there, to keep the company viable - and SOME of your people employed - you cut the excess labor. It is Business 101.
Well you could create customers by employing them, as they may spend money they have as opposed to money they don't have. They may not be "your" customer but they would be somebody's customer. And somebody may create a customer for you by hiring an employee.
However I think you are just being deliberately obtuse because you are arguing supply and demand and surely know it goes both ways. If you have a lot of customers you need a lot of employees. If people do not have money, you will not have customers. So by paying your employees less, they have less to spend.
Check out the numbers from 2001, when things weren't as bad.
"Our preliminary macroeconomic analysis of the employment effects of the U.S.-China trade balance estimates (that) as many as 760,000 U.S. jobs have been lost in the U.S.-China trade deficit since 1992."
That was 760k jobs in 9 years to China alone, I will see if I can find anything for the following 15.
Quote:
Now, are you suggesting that a company magically continuing to employ people that it cannot afford to employ will make things better? Care to tell me how any of this relates to your desire for endless unemployment.... and care to tell me where the money for your endless unemployment comes from?
Endless unemployment? Have I stated that? If so please show where...that would help quite a bit.
But I will answer your first silly question with a fitting answer...do all these unemployed people magically conjure money to buy things from these poor companies? Wait...I figured it out. The CEO can buy a bunch of stuff from his company!! I mean his salary went from 1 million to 20 million with bonuses. Ooops, scratch that. If he gets a 18 million dollar bonus for a lousy year I have no idea how we could afford to pay him for a decent one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,846
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,846 |
Many of the old jobs will never come back.
Why?
Because companies are now doing business worldwide, and it makes no sense to build products in the US and ship them, for example, to China to be sold. (and make no mistake, China is now the largest market for cars, appliances, etc.)
The US is a stagnant market. Auto Makers are not selling more and more cars each year in the US. Really, very few "national" manufacturers can claim an expanding US market.
It sucks ..... but it is what it is. If my largest market for a product is in California, for example, and costs are equal or lower to build in California, then I'm not going to keep my plant in Ohio going. It would make no sense from a business standpoint.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Well you could create customers by employing them, as they may spend money they have as opposed to money they don't have.
So your suggestion to end the unemployment problem and stagnant economy is to simply employ people? I think this is where I'm losing you (although it could very well be me). Obviously, we need more employment, but how?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
Many of the old jobs will never come back.
Why?
Because companies are now doing business worldwide, and it makes no sense to build products in the US and ship them, for example, to China to be sold. (and make no mistake, China is now the largest market for cars, appliances, etc.)
The US is a stagnant market. Auto Makers are not selling more and more cars each year in the US. Really, very few "national" manufacturers can claim an expanding US market.
It sucks ..... but it is what it is. If my largest market for a product is in California, for example, and costs are equal or lower to build in California, then I'm not going to keep my plant in Ohio going. It would make no sense from a business standpoint.
Agreed with some of that YTown. A global market means that we will make more things overseas...however it should also mean that the company will sell more. But that seems to be the exact opposite of what we are being told. We are cutting jobs because the company is losing money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
Quote:
Well you could create customers by employing them, as they may spend money they have as opposed to money they don't have.
So your suggestion to end the unemployment problem and stagnant economy is to simply employ people? I think this is where I'm losing you (although it could very well be me). Obviously, we need more employment, but how?
Nah, it isn't you...Im in the minority here 
The solution would be to have more people employed, however my point is that this is probably caused by the offshoring of jobs to 'create' profit. There seems to be a lot of creative bookkeeping, and I know there always has been, but I find it extremely odd that US companies have opened up new markets worldwide, offshored jobs to low cost countries to reduce overhead and somehow are still floundering.
Edit: Oh yeah, and the idea that everyone on unemployment is abusing the system. I think 2 years is silly, but seeing the job market recently I can see where 2 years could happen to some people.
Last edited by LexDawg; 06/30/10 01:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
The solution would be to have more people employed, however my point is that this is probably caused by the offshoring of jobs to 'create' profit. There seems to be a lot of creative bookkeeping, and I know there always has been, but I find it extremely odd that US companies have opened up new markets worldwide, offshored jobs to low cost countries to reduce overhead and somehow are still floundering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010#Global_contagion
JMO, but I think that many US companies really are floundering, as are many companies around the world. The global nature of the financial crisis means that these new markets are affected just as the US market is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
See the real gap here is the idea that Unemployment is being abused by everyone. That is where you will find the delusional folks hanging out. I know a guy that worked with me that was laid off almost 2 years ago, he collects unemployment and supposedly contracts under the table and is making quite a bit of money. I know 10-12 that are struggling to make ends meet and trying to find a job making anything near what they need to feed their families and have been out of work for 2-5 months. Of course everyone will talk about the first guy...he is everyone's benchmark for the 'lazy unemployed people'. Because it already fits the argument they want to make...
So the first guy is possibly,most likely defrauding the system and should lose his unemployment and be forced to pay it all back.. The others being out of a job for 2-3 months.. well they still have a ways to go before they are cut loose to fend for themselves..
The problem is that we cannot keep extending these benefits just because the economy is bad. They just need to face the sad facts that they need to take something below what they were looking for... downsize their budgets and survive with what they have and live within their means until they find a better opportunity. If we keep on extending it, at what point do we say enough is enough?
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
OK Lex...put yourself in these CEO's positions. You are responsible for a company(American Greetings) that makes over 500 million a year. And you are responsible for for over 2 billion in assets, and you are responsible for the jobs of about 18,000 employees.
The United Technologies CEO is responsible for a company that brings in 16 BILLION a year. He is responsible for 60 BILLION in assets. and is responsible for the jobs of over 207,000 people......
Are you telling me you are upset because they make more than 100K.....frankly....for the sheer weight and magnitude of the responsibility they carry.....your numbers might actually come up short in their compensation.
Or are you upset because they had to cut jobs???
Well get over it...you cut jobs, you hire people...it is a cyclic action. You act as if they are looking for any reason to cut jobs. And you would be a moron to think so. Because the aim for any business is to get bigger and make more money. And to do so you need more people. Companies are always looking for ways to GROW. And sometimes jobs are cut because the area they work in(especially in the technology fields) are obsolete. Or the projects are losing money and they are abandoned. Should a company keep those projects and go into the negative just for the sake of an employment???
Lets face it. in order to stay competitive, companies are being forced to lay people off with the coming expenses from the government. If they don't...they die...and then a whole lot more people will be out of work...
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Your whole story about your former employer outsourcing, then outsourcing again to deal with lack of sales, and so on is exactly what the market is about. It sucks that people lose jobs and all that, but companies that do stupid crap should be allowed to fail, and that is apparently what is happening to that company. Just as the market will correct itself.
If they are too stupid to learn from their mistakes, then so be it, they go under. I feel bad for the people who lose their jobs but at the same time, if you work somewhere you should be aware of the state of the company and if you see a hole in the boat, it might be best to jump overboard and swim to safety before it sinks.
As to the guy with 10-15 years xp in a field and no work in that field. Why can't he work somewhere else. I was a trained CADD operator, but when I moved to Florida I moved to an area that did a lot of construction but outsourced to the big firms in bigger cities for their drawings. I took a job sweeping the warehouse and cleaning up trash in the yard at the company I currently work and have for 20 years. I don't sweep or pick up trash anymore, and I'm not even doing CADD anymore, I changed to what was available and allow me to pay my bills. It wasn't easy at first and I took any overtime they allowed me and at one point I washed dishes in a restaurant after work and was a clerk at a gas station on weekends. 3 jobs to pay my bills, it wasn't easy but I knew it wasn't forever.
oh and for those "people can't survive on minimum wage" folks. 2 of those jobs were for minimum, and the dishwasher job was below minimum. It wasn't easy but it's not impossible. Just some people have been instilled with values to work hard and to improve their lives, some just like to suck on the teet of the government.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
The solution would be to have more people employed,
Of course that is the solution but what people are struggling with here is how you propose to do that.
It appears to me (and others) that your solution is to say.. "Ok, Mr. CEO making $10 million bonuses, you need to forego your bonus so you can retain 150 employees, that you don't need, and pay them $75K a year to stand around and do nothing so they can have spending money and buy products from other companies because that will help the economy."
Am I close?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,034
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,034 |
Quote:
mac that is an interesting piece which sort of explains how the money goes out.. what it does not address is how the money comes in. Where does it come from? Who pays it and how much do they pay? See I would assume that the amount paid in is based on covering a certain amount of unemployment... I'm also assuming that by extending those benefits, I'm creating a gap where I'll be putting more money out than I brought in to cover it... if I'm wrong in any of this please let me know.
DC...here is an article that explains unemployment insurance works..this should help you to understand and clear up some questions you have...?
How Unemployment Insurance Works
A Cushion to Catch Laid off Workers During Hard Economic Times
Mar 3, 2009
Unemployment benefits provide much-needed income for those who have been caught up in layoffs. Here's how it works.
In the midst of staggering unemployment and poverty during the United States’ Great Depression arose a New Deal and new legislation aimed at bolstering a battered and torn economy. The Social Security Act of 1935 created a safety net for Americans who needed financial assistance for unemployment, disability, retirement, and other life situations where they may find themselves without an income through no fault of their own.
In 1939, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) set the unemployment compensation-related provisions of the Social Security Act into motion, creating a joint state-federal program of unemployment insurance. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, FUTA authorizes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect a federal employer tax in order to fund state workforce agencies. Today, unemployment insurance remains an important cushion for laid-off workers and helps to stimulate the economy during recessionary periods.
How Unemployment Insurance is Funded
Contrary to popular belief, unemployment insurance is not funded by individual taxpayer dollars. Rather it is funded by the employer who, pursuant to FUTA, is mandated by the IRS to pay a certain percentage of taxable wages in state and federal unemployment taxes.
In turn, the unemployment taxes collected by the IRS go toward funding state unemployment insurance and workforce programs. Ultimately, the unemployment insurance program accomplishes its goal when laid-off workers are able to file for and receive unemployment benefits from their state of residence.
Is Unemployment Taxes an Undue Burden on Employers and Small Businesses?
Companies universally agree that hiring and keeping employees in today’s world is expensive. So is the FUTA mandate for employers to pay state and federal unemployment tax placing an undue burden on American businesses?
In point of fact, the annual cost of unemployment insurance to employers is relatively low. Employers who consistently pay the state unemployment tax are eligible for an offset credit of up to 5.4 percent, independent of the tax rate they pay to the state.
According to the small business resource website, Business Owners Toolkit, the FUTA tax rate is 6.2 percent of taxable wages (wage base is the first $7,000 paid in wages to the employee during the year). After the offset credit is applied, the net FUTA tax rate is lowered to 0.8 percent for a maximum FUTA tax of $56.00 per employee on an annual basis.
web page
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DC...in short, unemployment is funded by the company you work for. Companies pay in according to a formula and each state has their own formula. As noted earlier, 3 states have co-pay systems that require workers to contribution to the unemployment insurance funds..Alaska is one of those states, don't know the other two but it is a trend that will likely spread as unemployment insurance funds need more funding due to this historic recession.
Quote:
I also notice that they refer to it as "unemployment insurance".. is it really insurance? or is it a slush fund that may or may not have money in it? Again, I don't know... if it is really insurance then I do know this.. my insurance absolutely positively will NOT allow me to change my terms once I need to collect. If I have an accident I cannot then call my car insurance and retroactively change my deductible.. insurance doesn't work that way.
DC...in an effort to push a "political" position, some attempt to use "labels" in an effort paint a picture for readers/listeners, not based on facts.
Absolutely, the proper name for unemployment is "unemployment insurance". Here is article from the Kansas Department of Labor about the history of "unemployment insurance".
Unemployment Insurance – a history
The first unemployment insurance plans, supported by dues, were adopted by some larger trade unions in Switzerland in 1789. Even earlier, a version of unemployment insurance in trade guilds was supported by levies on guild members. The first government system of unemployment compensation appeared in Great Britain in 1911. Nearly every major country has enacted an unemployment insurance system.
Wisconsin enacted a state unemployment insurance plan in 1932 in response to the Great Depression, when more than 25 percent of the adult workforce was unemployed.
The Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program in the United States is 75 years old. On August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security bill which contained provisions for UI. This legislation was the key step in establishing a UI system in the United States. In all states, the system is a federal-state joint venture, financed by both federal and state unemployment taxes.
The enactment of House Bill 542 in the 1937 Kansas Legislature, signed by Governor Walter Huxman on March 26, created the Division of Unemployment Compensation.
Today, the UI program is administered by the Kansas Department of Labor, Division of Employment Security, to provide temporary, weekly compensation to qualified unemployed workers. The two units of this division are Benefits and Tax (Contributions). The Benefits unit determines claimant eligibility and payment of unemployment benefits. The Tax unit collects the state unemployment tax from subject employers.
Business, labor and government give credit to the Unemployment Insurance Program as a factor in reducing the severity of recessions and other fluctuations in the economy that create involuntary unemployment. The Unemployment Insurance Program has a beneficial impact on the individual worker, as well as the community where the peaks and valleys of economic activity are much sharper than those occurring statewide.
Unemployment insurance cannot solve the problem of joblessness. Only more jobs can reduce unemployment. A healthy economy is the key to more jobs; KDOL’s programs can help develop and maintain that economy.
web page
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As we can see, "unemployment insurance" has been around a lot longer than those attempting to "mis-label" for political purpose these programs that are world wide in nature and 75 yrs old in the USA.
Last edited by mac; 06/30/10 08:44 AM.
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Thanks for the article mac. I knew the basic process, but good to read the facts and numbers.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Republicans Thwart Bill With
Unemployment Aid, "AGAIN"
|
|
