intelligent comment below: slayer199: Right now, I love what I do and make 6 figures doing it. Why would I change?

That explains why you're a libertarian. Upper middle class salary and you want to keep as much money for yourself as possible.

Who the fark doesn't want to keep as much money for themselves as possible? I'm all for progressive politics, but your comment was just stupid.

slayer199: FARK YOU. I earned my spot. I started in IT making $24k a year with a degree totally unrelated to IT. I built my skills and experience and I'm STILL building my skills and experience. So you're damn right, I want to keep what I earned.

That isn't to say I don't give back. I do mentor the kids that come along that I can...and I've offered career advice, tips, and leads to a number of people.

Your skills require no education and no knowledge that a teenager familiar with a computer can't pickup in a few months. Tech jobs won't be high paying for much longer. That's the truth, sorry you can't accept it. And by the way taxes have never been lower, but you still biatch. Not to mention calling yourself an engineer is the worst part.

Citrate1007: Who the fark doesn't want to keep as much money for themselves as possible? I'm all for progressive politics, but your comment was just stupid.


Are you the guy who orders an expensive steak when out with friends and leaves before the bill arrives?

whidbey: Well then you might keep in mind that you are not the average American, most of us don't have that kind of fortunate situation you have, and I still have the feeling that although you survived the past few years better than most of us economically, you're not teflon were not blessed with... with charm, athletic ability... or a fully functional brain. You see, you're an inspriation, to all of us who... who weren't born handsome, and charming and cool, and and...


FTFY

tenpoundsofcheese: so are you against all of those illegal immigrants who are working here? Or are you just against people from china, india, and other countries that provide a lot of outsourced services?

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here, but whatever. In general, I think a legal citizen should get a job before an illegal citizen, and American companies should strive to hire American workers. I'm against sweatshops, even if it means electronics and clothing costs more. I know there are no perfect answers, but it's frustrating to hear conservatives complain about the economy and unemployment and hear that big companies are sending more jobs overseas.

Great talking point, conservatives. Run with that. Do it at the same time you attack Obama on job numbers to maximize the effectiveness.

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: uhhh, yeah. The shareholders entitled to 100% of the profits.

Well that says a lot about you there doesn't it?

Yes. It says that I understand business and what the role of the shareholder is.

Are you saying the shareholders are not entitled to 100% of the profits? What % are they entitled to?

Remember when conservatives used the slogan "Country First".

Well that didn't last very long now did it.

intelligent comment below: Citrate1007: Who the fark doesn't want to keep as much money for themselves as possible? I'm all for progressive politics, but your comment was just stupid.


Are you the guy who orders an expensive steak when out with friends and leaves before the bill arrives?

I'm the middle class guy that gets pissed around tax time because I have to pay in so damn much, but quickly get over it because I can afford to go out and buy an expensive steak. Still doesn't change the fact that if I had the choice I would pay less in taxes.

People vote for what benifits them. The rich like the republicans because of their tax rates, the poor like the democrates because of their social programs ($$$) that they recieve and the middle class is farked by all but well off enough to get over it.

Don't pretend you're some special altruistic voter.

intelligent comment below: Debeo Summa Credo: My main point was that labor isnt morally entitled to any more than the total comp they agreed to when they took the job.


Morals? You want to bring up morals to prove that workers are just trained monkeys who should be thankful for a wage? Workers are all part of a company. A company does a certain job well, the company receives profits that should be given to the people who do the work and give money to invest, regular workers, executives, stock holders, etc.

If I am an owner of a small business, and make a profit, it is my moral responsibility to give some of that profit to everyone who is part of the company.

so does that also apply to all your suppliers who ship items to you on time and of the right quality so that you can make the product? by your argument, you should share some of the profit with them, right?

oh, and when UPS or Fed Ex gets the products to your customers on time which allows you to make money, you share some of your profit with them, right?

and when AMEX and the banks properly credit your account and do the transactions so you can have money, you share some of your profit with them, right?

or are you going to say that they did what you expected them to do and they got paid for it.

tenpoundsofcheese: intelligent comment below: Debeo Summa Credo: My main point was that labor isnt morally entitled to any more than the total comp they agreed to when they took the job.


Morals? You want to bring up morals to prove that workers are just trained monkeys who should be thankful for a wage? Workers are all part of a company. A company does a certain job well, the company receives profits that should be given to the people who do the work and give money to invest, regular workers, executives, stock holders, etc.

If I am an owner of a small business, and make a profit, it is my moral responsibility to give some of that profit to everyone who is part of the company.

so does that also apply to all your suppliers who ship items to you on time and of the right quality so that you can make the product? by your argument, you should share some of the profit with them, right?

oh, and when UPS or Fed Ex gets the products to your customers on time which allows you to make money, you share some of your profit with them, right?

and when AMEX and the banks properly credit your account and do the transactions so you can have money, you share some of your profit with them, right?

or are you going to say that they did what you expected them to do and they got paid for it.

So you believe that corporate executives should get a flat wage with no bonuses, right?

Citrate1007: because I have to pay in so damn much


20% is "so damn much"?

Citrate1007: Don't pretend you're some special altruistic voter.

Taxes are patriotic, they pay for the government that gives you the ability to have a nice job, life in a safe city, with clean water, electricity, etc.

tenpoundsofcheese: or are you going to say that they did what you expected them to do and they got paid for it.

Exactly why nobody in the company deserves 100% of what the company made.

Thanks for proving my point!

Philip Francis Queeg: tenpoundsofcheese: intelligent comment below: Debeo Summa Credo: My main point was that labor isnt morally entitled to any more than the total comp they agreed to when they took the job.


Morals? You want to bring up morals to prove that workers are just trained monkeys who should be thankful for a wage? Workers are all part of a company. A company does a certain job well, the company receives profits that should be given to the people who do the work and give money to invest, regular workers, executives, stock holders, etc.

If I am an owner of a small business, and make a profit, it is my moral responsibility to give some of that profit to everyone who is part of the company.

so does that also apply to all your suppliers who ship items to you on time and of the right quality so that you can make the product? by your argument, you should share some of the profit with them, right?

oh, and when UPS or Fed Ex gets the products to your customers on time which allows you to make money, you share some of your profit with them, right?

and when AMEX and the banks properly credit your account and do the transactions so you can have money, you share some of your profit with them, right?

or are you going to say that they did what you expected them to do and they got paid for it.

So you believe that corporate executives should get a flat wage with no bonuses, right?

where did that come from?
I am fine with bonuses if they are provided based on some measurable criteria. Applies to execs as well as assembly line workers.

Because "non toxic" diappeared from the label of citadel paints and "made in china" appeared but the price didn't drop

tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: tenpoundsofcheese: intelligent comment below: Debeo Summa Credo: My main point was that labor isnt morally entitled to any more than the total comp they agreed to when they took the job.


Morals? You want to bring up morals to prove that workers are just trained monkeys who should be thankful for a wage? Workers are all part of a company. A company does a certain job well, the company receives profits that should be given to the people who do the work and give money to invest, regular workers, executives, stock holders, etc.

If I am an owner of a small business, and make a profit, it is my moral responsibility to give some of that profit to everyone who is part of the company.

so does that also apply to all your suppliers who ship items to you on time and of the right quality so that you can make the product? by your argument, you should share some of the profit with them, right?

oh, and when UPS or Fed Ex gets the products to your customers on time which allows you to make money, you share some of your profit with them, right?

and when AMEX and the banks properly credit your account and do the transactions so you can have money, you share some of your profit with them, right?

or are you going to say that they did what you expected them to do and they got paid for it.

So you believe that corporate executives should get a flat wage with no bonuses, right?

where did that come from?
I am fine with bonuses if they are provided based on some measurable criteria. Applies to execs as well as assembly line workers.

That's where it came from.

intelligent comment below: tenpoundsofcheese: or are you going to say that they did what you expected them to do and they got paid for it.

Exactly why nobody in the company deserves 100% of what the company made.

Thanks for proving my point!

what? the shareholders are NOT in the company, they own the farking company.

Philip Francis Queeg: tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: tenpoundsofcheese: intelligent comment below: Debeo Summa Credo: My main point was that labor isnt morally entitled to any more than the total comp they agreed to when they took the job.


Morals? You want to bring up morals to prove that workers are just trained monkeys who should be thankful for a wage? Workers are all part of a company. A company does a certain job well, the company receives profits that should be given to the people who do the work and give money to invest, regular workers, executives, stock holders, etc.

If I am an owner of a small business, and make a profit, it is my moral responsibility to give some of that profit to everyone who is part of the company.

so does that also apply to all your suppliers who ship items to you on time and of the right quality so that you can make the product? by your argument, you should share some of the profit with them, right?

oh, and when UPS or Fed Ex gets the products to your customers on time which allows you to make money, you share some of your profit with them, right?

and when AMEX and the banks properly credit your account and do the transactions so you can have money, you share some of your profit with them, right?

or are you going to say that they did what you expected them to do and they got paid for it.

So you believe that corporate executives should get a flat wage with no bonuses, right?

where did that come from?
I am fine with bonuses if they are provided based on some measurable criteria. Applies to execs as well as assembly line workers.

That's where it came from.

yup. they did what they were expected to do and got paid for it. How they much they got paid in base wages vs. in end of year bonus is based on their comp plan.

tenpoundsofcheese: what? the shareholders are NOT in the company, they own the farking company.

ahem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder

A shareholder or stockholder is an individual or institution (including a corporation) that legally owns any part of a share of stock in a public or private corporation. Shareholders own the stock, but not the corporation itself.

intelligent comment below: tenpoundsofcheese: what? the shareholders are NOT in the company, they own the farking company.

ahem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder

A shareholder or stockholder is an individual or institution (including a corporation) that legally owns any part of a share of stock in a public or private corporation. Shareholders own the stock, but not the corporation itself.

you know what I meant.
you claimed that no one in the company deserves 100% of what the profit.

the shareholders are not in the company, they own 100% of the stock. There, is that better? Get it now?

Shareholders are just investors, part of the company just like workers if you want to think of it that way. Yet they deserve 100% of the profits.
That is what you claimed. But now you're backtracking. How amusing.

skullkrusher: profits are what is left over after everyone is paid. Who else deserves the profits?


When your company does well, you can pay your workers more. Either higher salaries or bonuses. Rather than the current standard in big business of rewarding executives and shareholders only.

skullkrusher: intelligent comment below: Shareholders are just investors, part of the company just like workers if you want to think of it that way. Yet they deserve 100% of the profits.
That is what you claimed. But now you're backtracking. How amusing.

profits are what is left over after everyone is paid. Who else deserves the profits?

One school of thought is that some of that should go to those who actually create the surplus value - the workers, not just those who provide capital and bear risk.

skullkrusher: intelligent comment below: skullkrusher: profits are what is left over after everyone is paid. Who else deserves the profits?


When your company does well, you can pay your workers more. Either higher salaries or bonuses. Rather than the current standard in big business of rewarding executives and shareholders only.

sure but that would not be considered profits. Profits are pretty much by definition the property of the owners - whatever is left over after the cost of doing business is covered.

Bonuses and/or profit sharing are a beautiful thing. I derive a substantial chunk of my yearly income from them. I would be pissed if I didn't get one because at this point it is expected and pretty consistent. I do understand when it was smaller for a few years given how things were going but it is what it is. However, my boss couldn't decide to not pay me my salary - he owes me that regardless of how the business does. He, however, has no guarantees of income. He could make nothing this year for himself after we're all paid. Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with employee owned businesses. I think it's a great idea. I also have no problem with capitalist pig dog swine keeping the profits.

Do you have an actual contract? If you don't your employer could unilaterally slash your salary tomorrow. Many, many people have taken permanent or temporary salary cuts over the past few years.

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you have an actual contract? If you don't your employer could unilaterally slash your salary tomorrow. Many, many people have taken permanent or temporary salary cuts over the past few years.

true - I have a contract but I am talking about going forward. Your boss cant tell you that you that the business has been rough and you're only getting paid 50% of what you expected for the past 2 weeks while he faces that possibility

Only in the case that your boss controls a significant portion of the stock of the company. In a typical publicly traded corporation, the CEO is no more at risk than the janitor is from that stand point.

Snarfangel: How would they survive on half of the subsidy?

More importantly, why is their labor worth negative money per hour? Working for free at a non-profit would earn them the entire subsidy, so it would make no sense to give pay another "employer."

/Of course, any time there is money involved there are a dozen people looking for a way to scam it, but I think that people would have to go about it a different way in this case.

Right. This is why I put "hire" in quotes. I wouldn't actually expect any of them to show up. They could then work a second job under the table for cash doing roofing or whatever. About 30% of the economy where I grew up is people being paid cash per diem to do construction and janitorial work.

Next up:

"Liberal objections to organ harvesting of the the living American poor is bad for business! Those organs save the lives of job creators!"

Because slavery is bad even when you don't have to look at it.

GAT_00: I know. It's so unAmerican to promote making A,Erica better by creating American jobs. Real Americans should want to make America poorer by sending all of our jobs overseas.

Exactly--so what if it puts a few million nonessential skilled workers out of work? Everyone knows the real driver of any economy is the investor class moving money around, that creates literally billions of jobs every day. Besides, building McDonald's hamburgers is practically a career in engineering itself, right?

PON RAUL!

Tommy Moo: Snarfangel: How would they survive on half of the subsidy?

More importantly, why is their labor worth negative money per hour? Working for free at a non-profit would earn them the entire subsidy, so it would make no sense to give pay another "employer."

/Of course, any time there is money involved there are a dozen people looking for a way to scam it, but I think that people would have to go about it a different way in this case.

Right. This is why I put "hire" in quotes. I wouldn't actually expect any of them to show up. They could then work a second job under the table for cash doing roofing or whatever. About 30% of the economy where I grew up is people being paid cash per diem to do construction and janitorial work.

Since being paid under the table wouldn't be eligible for a subsidy but being paid above the table would be, and there presumably would be a limit to how many hours of employment you could get subsidized (let's say 40 hours per week), it's hard to see how fraud of this nature would be profitable.

Let's say you were a hard-working fraud, and put in 12 hour days, six days per week under the table, and falsely claimed 40 hours per week, of which you paid half to a scammer. You would get 72 hours of pay, plus 20 hours of subsidy. On the other hand, if you just worked 72 hours per week above board, you would get 72 hours of pay, of which 40 hours would be subsidized -- 20 more hours than the scamming version. There is really no way you could be better off not taking your full subsidy for every single hour of work you do, unless the underground work was far and away more profitable than honest work (so either drugs, prostitution, gambling, protection rackets, and other Mafia-like activities). Then again they caught Al Capone for income tax evasion, so you would have to be rather stupid to put a profitable criminal enterprise at risk for the equivalent of a minimum wage scam.

In fact, a wage subsidy would be one way to put a serious squeeze on the underground economy, because shady employers would have to match the subsidy on top of other earnings, and illegal aliens would (presumably) be ineligible for the subsidy altogether.

The one scam I can see the government having to keep an eye out for is the "self-employed" scam, where a person is perfectly content to be paid poverty wages for doing nothing at home. "Oh, yes, I spent 40 hours this week making doohickeys, but unfortunately couldn't sell a single one. Please pay me now!" I would hope there would be processes in place that would reduce the incentive to do this.

/Sorry for the late response, I was away from my computer for a bit.

I would just like to point out that the author managed to get to the second sentence before comparing liberals to Hitler. Well done!

error 303make me some tea: Days gone by, I remember conservatives lamenting that everything is made in Japan Taiwan Mexico China, and no longer in the good ol' U S of A. Whatever happened to that?
My dad is one of those kind of conservative republicans. Not too long ago he bought a new Kia. When I asked him about it he said "Well, the Korean's have been our allies for a long time."
Pretty awesome.

Just because it has an American tag does not mean it wasn't made in Mexico. Even VW has Mexican factories. They get alot less then Americans or German but you still pay the same price.

As far as I know car workers in Korea get a living wage in a developed economy and they are made in Korea.

Philip Francis Queeg: tenpoundsofcheese: intelligent comment below: Debeo Summa Credo: My main point was that labor isnt morally entitled to any more than the total comp they agreed to when they took the job.


Morals? You want to bring up morals to prove that workers are just trained monkeys who should be thankful for a wage? Workers are all part of a company. A company does a certain job well, the company receives profits that should be given to the people who do the work and give money to invest, regular workers, executives, stock holders, etc.

If I am an owner of a small business, and make a profit, it is my moral responsibility to give some of that profit to everyone who is part of the company.

so does that also apply to all your suppliers who ship items to you on time and of the right quality so that you can make the product? by your argument, you should share some of the profit with them, right?

oh, and when UPS or Fed Ex gets the products to your customers on time which allows you to make money, you share some of your profit with them, right?

and when AMEX and the banks properly credit your account and do the transactions so you can have money, you share some of your profit with them, right?

or are you going to say that they did what you expected them to do and they got paid for it.

So you believe that corporate executives should get a flat wage with no bonuses, right?

They deserve whatever comp they agreed to when they accepted the job. If the remuneration included salary, benefits, and variable bonus at the discretion of senior management or the board, then that's what they deserve.

If, conversely, the employee amen employer agree to only a flat salary or hourly wage, then that is fair to both and neither has any right to complain.

Employees are only entitled to the comp, including benefits/salary/optional bonus/profit sharing, that they have agreed to with the company. All profits in excess rightly belong solely to the owners. (after tax profits, of course)

LasersHurt: Hobodeluxe: Shaggy_C: "We have to have compassion for the countries in the world that are not as developed as we are. If you want to deny opportunity to people just because of where they are from, does that not make you racist? I believe in equal opportunity for all people and that means giving people in the third world the dignity of a good job."

yeah the kind of job you'd die for.

[www.thestand.org image 450x328]

/die to get away from that is..

FFS. Do you know the facts about that, and are still posting it? Or are you unaware?

I don't know the facts. I'm aware of this Business Insider article from 2010. I'm not sure what you're implying, can you elaborate? Were there not a dozen suicides at FoxConn in one single year? Are those not "prevention nets"?

cause that's still the only version of that story I'm familiar with. If you've got more up to date info, I'm all ears.

Biological Ali: There's nothing wrong with outsourcing, though I do wish it were someone slightly less retarded than TFA's author making the point.

Outsourcing to improve your supply chain situation and "buy where you build where you sell" is one thing. Outsourcing to circumvent US labor law? Outsourcing to companies that you personally own stock in? Outsourcing to reduce labor costs while increasing throughput because you only need to pay each person 176 dollars a month?

There is most DEFINITELY something wrong with that.

In the long run, however, these people's wages are slowly rising. The era of japanese, chinese and korean sweat-shops is waning... slowly... and soon all these companies will have to ship their manufacturing facilities to some other godforsaken shiathole full of desperation.

Given long enough timeframes, I can see this kind of activity eventually leveling the global economic playing field, but we're talking centuries... so...