Clay_Allison
Old Bastard
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 5,488
Remember the last time The Republicans held the congress and the presidency? They sure gave us a booming economy.
sorry, I can be a pedantic asshole sometimes.You are right it is. It is still my position.
Why is the employees services contingent to getting government subsidies? I am sure there are thousands working without it. Further if a person didn't feel like they could not work without it there would be others waiting to take that position. Your conclusion just doesnt hold up.but the employee service is contingent on the government assistance. Which is to say they are getting that service THANKS to government assistance.
It's peculiar to look at in medias res, but imagine you were being recruited to a company in a different city. You want the job but the salary isn't enough to make up for the difference in cost of living. Now at that the city, wanting to promote its economy decides to award a stipend anyone who earns less than 40,000 dollars, you're offered 38,000 and make a 2,000 dollar stipend. Now let's say that company could have easily afforded 40K, and intentionally lowered their offer because they knew the stipend would pay the difference, they literally just pocketed 2,000 dollars of government money that only served to benefit them.
You're right, Wal-mart isn't the only corporation that does that, I was using them as an example of all the mega corps that depend on underpaid service.
It's really not the politicians that create the economy. It's their position on certain things that make business react to protect their interests. Business leaders decided whether they want to expand or contract their business plans.Remember the last time The Republicans held the congress and the presidency? They sure gave us a booming economy.
buy every employee would have one thing in common, they wouldn't be making enough to survive. They may be getting help from friends, or parents, spouses, or a bizarre caveat to a will, Brewster's Millions style, but their income, which is likely to be their only income (unless they have kinder employers than most I've ever heard of.)Why is the employees services contingent to getting government subsidies? I am sure there are thousands working without it. Further if a person didn't feel like they could not work without it there would be others waiting to take that position. Your conclusion just doesnt hold up.
Wouldn't it kind of be their responsibility to try to pass laws that businessmen would respond to by creating more jobs instead of being crooked bastards and wrecking the economy to help a few assholes with strong lobby support strike it rich?It's really not the politicians that create the economy. It's their position on certain things that make business react to protect their interests. Business leaders decided whether they want to expand or contract their business plans.
Business will create more jobs if they are allowed to do so without being hampered or imposed on by government intervention or unreasonable taxation. The more the government intervenes the more it interferes with the market place as well as causing business to curtail expansion because it may be too costly to expand because of the effort to conform to bureaucratic rules. The more business is burdened the less likely they are to expand thus jobs go away rather than becoming additions.Wouldn't it kind of be their responsibility to try to pass laws that businessmen would respond to by creating more jobs instead of being crooked bastards and wrecking the economy to help a few assholes with strong lobby support strike it rich?
Eployees having in common a low pay scale still doesn't create a subsidy for any employer.buy every employee would have one thing in common, they wouldn't be making enough to survive. They may be getting help from friends, or parents, spouses, or a bizarre caveat to a will, Brewster's Millions style, but their income, which is likely to be their only income (unless they have kinder employers than most I've ever heard of.)
Human resources should be bought at fair value, regardless of whether someone even needs government assistance. Otherwise the company is still exploiting that person's family, friends, etc for personal gain. We shouldn't have human effort undercut like any other commodity, due to desperation of the seller.
Small business will do that, big business wants more bureaucratic rules to drive smaller competition out of business while they export the jobs overseas.Business will create more jobs if they are allowed to do so without being hampered or imposed on by government intervention or unreasonable taxation. The more the government intervenes the more it interferes with the market place as well as causing business to curtail expansion because it may be too costly to expand because of the effort to conform to bureaucratic rules. The more business is burdened the less likely they are to expand thus jobs go away rather than becoming additions.
Small business employees a very large percentage of the work force. Mega businesses move the work force of cheap labor out of the country sometime but the management and headquarters remain in a domestic mode most of the time. Sometimes the headquarters are moved because of tax ramifications.Small business will do that, big business wants more bureaucratic rules to drive smaller competition out of business while they export the jobs overseas.
This is the biggest Republiucan lie of the last 8 years.Business will create more jobs if they are allowed to do so without being hampered or imposed on by government intervention or unreasonable taxation. The more the government intervenes the more it interferes with the market place as well as causing business to curtail expansion because it may be too costly to expand because of the effort to conform to bureaucratic rules. The more business is burdened the less likely they are to expand thus jobs go away rather than becoming additions.
Yeah, that's what I said.Small business employees a very large percentage of the work force. Mega businesses move the work force of cheap labor out of the country sometime but the management and headquarters remain in a domestic mode most of the time. Sometimes the headquarters are moved because of tax ramifications.
Sure and if you lower taxes businesses are more likely to expand because they have the ability to make more money. Expansion means more jobs. People who think rich people want to take their money and store it in a vault forever have never been rich.This is the biggest Republiucan lie of the last 8 years.
Businesses wil create jobs if it adds to there profit margin plain and simple and they will cut jobs if it raises their profits.
It's no longer a question of making money it's maximizing profits at all cost.
You're stuck in the 1950s if you think businesses are going to expand local operations. They'll just open another sweat shop in Indonesia.Sure and if you lower taxes businesses are more likely to expand because they have the ability to make more money. Expansion means more jobs. People who think rich people want to take their money and store it in a vault forever have never been rich.
Not even sure a post this ridiculous deserves a response.You're stuck in the 1950s if you think businesses are going to expand local operations. They'll just open another sweat shop in Indonesia.
I'm pointing out the problem with subsidizing the kinds of mega-corporations your party loves so much (the Democrats love them too, everyone in Washington likes lobbyists). You think you're helping out a US company and it will create jobs here but you're helping out a multi-national company, and it's cheaper for them to turn right around and create those jobs overseas. So, why would a profit-motivated company help out the US job market?Not even sure a post this ridiculous deserves a response.
Where is the subsidy him this example?I'm pointing out the problem with subsidizing the kinds of mega-corporations your party loves so much (the Democrats love them too, everyone in Washington likes lobbyists). You think you're helping out a US company and it will create jobs here but you're helping out a multi-national company, and it's cheaper for them to turn right around and create those jobs overseas. So, why would a profit-motivated company help out the US job market?
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/UncleSamsFavoriteCorporations.pdfWhere is the subsidy him this example?
I didn't know my party, aka Libertarians, were known for giving businesses handouts.I'm pointing out the problem with subsidizing the kinds of mega-corporations your party loves so much (the Democrats love them too, everyone in Washington likes lobbyists). You think you're helping out a US company and it will create jobs here but you're helping out a multi-national company, and it's cheaper for them to turn right around and create those jobs overseas. So, why would a profit-motivated company help out the US job market?