If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Schadenfreude time: Unions cry that ObamaCare will shatter their benefits and destroy the 40 hour work week. You supported it, you live with it   (forbes.com) divider line 357
    More: Fail, obamacare, United Food, health insurance, Richard Trumka, perverse incentives, American middle class, UFCW, Teamsters  
•       •       •

2768 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2013 at 2:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



357 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-15 05:52:00 PM

Cletus C.: Then it becomes me attacking unions, being jealous of union workers, me trying to destroy unions, me bending over and taking it from the man because I'm not in a union. And I apparently gave something up on purpose and now resent unions and union workers because of that.

It's pure union dogma. Not based in fact, personal or otherwise, in this case. In a union hall it's something you can nod your head, chant, dance and more to. But in this context it's just a slab of rotting hyperbole slapped down by rote.


You keep telling yourself that. The rest of us have actually noticed as the private sector gave up their pensions, benefits, and job security.
 
2013-07-15 05:58:01 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Company A dies of talent attrition.

Edited for accuracy.


Not if it's big enough to buy congressmen. See GM. A company large enough to buy congressmen and threaten everyone by holding a knife to the throats of a million jobs.
 
2013-07-15 05:59:42 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Cletus C.: Then it becomes me attacking unions, being jealous of union workers, me trying to destroy unions, me bending over and taking it from the man because I'm not in a union. And I apparently gave something up on purpose and now resent unions and union workers because of that.

It's pure union dogma. Not based in fact, personal or otherwise, in this case. In a union hall it's something you can nod your head, chant, dance and more to. But in this context it's just a slab of rotting hyperbole slapped down by rote.

You keep telling yourself that. The rest of us have actually noticed as the private sector gave up their pensions, benefits, and job security.


Here's a hint for you. Your job is only as secure as your employer. Your pension and benefits, much the same, though in a more complicated and varying way.
 
2013-07-15 06:03:05 PM

Serious Black: Sigh. Avik, you have proven time and time again that you are a moronic hack who carries water for the GOP. I refuse to read your articles anymore unless given cause.


Yeah. I read the article long enough to figure out he was full of shiat. Hoffa isn't blaming Obamacare for union workers losing benefits. He's pointing out there's a loophole that employers are beginning to exploit, that part-time workers don't have to be provided insurance. Then, he's urging them to act on it.

But it's a much better talking point to say "Look. Obama sighObummer sigh 0bummercare is so bad even the Unions hate it."

This is why I have no respect for conservatives.
 
2013-07-15 06:05:22 PM

b2theory: If you want to stop this.....Start publishing the names of companies that do this and start boycotting them.

Consumer spending makes up more than 70 percent of our economy. Even a small shift in public perception can really effect the bottom line.

Papa John's founder figured this out pretty quick.


No silly, that's bullying and totally doesn't do anything to get your point across AND it hurts a business owner's precious feewers. Can't have that.
 
2013-07-15 06:07:48 PM

Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.


How dare you sully the good name of Choo Choo Bear with your outright lies. For shame.
 
2013-07-15 06:11:04 PM

IlGreven: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.


If you really think that corporations haven't already been pulling the "part-time no benefits" stunt, then I have a bridge on the moon to sell you.

/nice assumption, but it makes your butt look big
 
2013-07-15 06:11:05 PM

b2theory: The rules are simple: maximize returns for your shareholders. It sucks when you are in a stagnant company. It is great when you are a shareholder. It's amusing when most people forget that they are the share holders.


Most private companies have always had to deal with shareholders, both internal and external. Problem is there used to be more of a balance between shareholder expectations and the needs of employees. Make no mistake, the corporations still owned the field and they still held the majority of power vs employees, but the "shareholders always come first at all cost" mentality wasn't as widespread or virulent as it is today. That is where the problem lies, and that is how the employees get screwed.

The purpose of a business is to provide goods and services to its customers, and make a profit in doing so. Those profits then are used to hire and train new employees for expanding production, increasing the pay of employees who show initiative and/or are loyal to the company and its goals, investing in the physical plant to streamline that same production, and pay shareholders. The shareholder comes last because in a system where all the other parts are working correctly they can be guaranteed good returns.

Customers, employees, workplace, shareholders - in that order.
That paradigm has been farked five ways to infinity, and it's the employees who get the shaft.
 
2013-07-15 06:16:26 PM

dehehn: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

Because it's not the much simpler and less confusing single-payer method which would undoubtedly provide cheaper better care as has been proven in most of Europe.


It's still a step up from what we had. Most Americans are still stupid enough to think that even this is socialism.

Baby steps. Baby steps so we don't scare the precious simpletons.
 
2013-07-15 06:20:25 PM
tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?

I don't know what republicans wanted.


Can I just... that was said today... it's fascinating, really. Glad we've had discussions about these things before when a certain someone just doesn't know.
 
2013-07-15 06:20:30 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: IlGreven: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.

If you really think that corporations haven't already been pulling the "part-time no benefits" stunt, then I have a bridge on the moon to sell you.

/nice assumption, but it makes your butt look big


Now they have an extra bargaining chip. "I can only offer you part time. My hands are tied. You know, Obamacare. That's the way it is with everyone now. "
 
2013-07-15 06:23:12 PM

RaiderFanMikeP: everyone has babies..


No.
 
2013-07-15 06:23:57 PM

jigger: The My Little Pony Killer: IlGreven: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.

If you really think that corporations haven't already been pulling the "part-time no benefits" stunt, then I have a bridge on the moon to sell you.

/nice assumption, but it makes your butt look big

Now they have an extra bargaining chip. "I can only offer you part time. My hands are tied. You know, Obamacare. That's the way it is with everyone now. "


"That's fine. I was holding out for another position with a different company anyway, and their hands definitely aren't tied by this. Good luck with your search for applicants!"
 
2013-07-15 06:34:05 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: "That's fine. I was holding out for another position with a different company anyway, and their hands definitely aren't tied by this. Good luck with your search for applicants!"


Not everyone has this option. That is why the bargaining chip works. The individual means nothing to the corporation, and never has. The group, on the other hand...
 
2013-07-15 06:43:17 PM
The truthiest part has yet to be realized by those who still support Obamacare: it is completely unsustainable.
 
2013-07-15 06:44:41 PM

highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.


Prove it.
 
2013-07-15 06:50:15 PM

WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.


Google it.
 
2013-07-15 06:52:58 PM

vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]


[bears.jpg] [bears.jpg] [bears.jpg] [bears.jpg] [bears.jpg] [bears.jp g ] [bears.jpg] [bears.jpg] [bears.jpg] [bears.jpg]

Seriously, these people act like strategically keeping workers just below full time so they don't qualify for benefits is a new thing.  It's not; just ask the folks who work at Wal-Mart.
 
2013-07-15 06:53:36 PM

highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.


FTFY.
 
2013-07-15 06:53:39 PM
Unions seemed to do a great job in Detroit , that and years of democratic leadership...they must be doing great
 
2013-07-15 06:57:01 PM

tbhouston: Unions seemed to do a great job in Detroit , that and years of democratic leadership...they must be doing great


That and the inept leadership at the big three in Detroit as well as the failure of local and state leaders to help diversify the economy more to get it beyond being totally dependent on one segment of the manufacturing industry. But we never seem to blame those factors as much as they deserved to be blamed huh?

But I won't let you get in the way of your "HURR DURR DEMOCRATZ AND UNIONZ SUX!!!!1111!!!"
 
2013-07-15 06:58:05 PM

HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.


Denier.
 
2013-07-15 06:59:26 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, since it was originally a Republican plan, you knew workers would get hurt


B-b-b-but Romney!
 
2013-07-15 07:01:33 PM

tbhouston: Unions seemed to do a great job in Detroit , that and years of democratic leadership...they must be doing great


I really like it when people blame unions for Detroit's problems.
It's not as if the industrial base drying up and population/tax base rapidly diminishing as car manufacturers' management pissed away a 90% market share can be pinned solely on the guys who made the cars.
I know these people don't know their head from their ass, so I don't make the mistake of taking them seriously.
 
2013-07-15 07:02:20 PM

highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.


Did you really think this answer would accomplish anything but make you look like a complete idiot who is incapable of supporting their assertions? What on earth leads you to believe that "google it" is an actual argument?
 
2013-07-15 07:04:40 PM

highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

Denier.


What have I denied, pray tell?
 
2013-07-15 07:04:47 PM

HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.


I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.
 
2013-07-15 07:05:35 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: tbhouston: Unions seemed to do a great job in Detroit , that and years of democratic leadership...they must be doing great

I really like it when people blame unions for Detroit's problems.
It's not as if the industrial base drying up and population/tax base rapidly diminishing as car manufacturers' management pissed away a 90% market share can be pinned solely on the guys who made the cars.
I know these people don't know their head from their ass, so I don't make the mistake of taking them seriously.


"But...but...Unions!!!" is all they know. We can't speak ill of the Job Creators (ie: the inept leadership of Detroit's Big 3).

Pittsburgh had that same problem with the steel industry in the 1970's as that worked moved off shore. Pittsburgh then decided to invest in its schools and hospitals and now it's become more of a green biotech city than the steel city it once was. Detroit would be doing ok if it had a much more diversified economy even with the Big 3's piss-poor leadership.
 
2013-07-15 07:05:35 PM

Thrag: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.

Did you really think this answer would accomplish anything but make you look like a complete idiot who is incapable of supporting their assertions? What on earth leads you to believe that "google it" is an actual argument?


What makes you think "prove it" is a viable argument in a Fark thread?
 
2013-07-15 07:07:39 PM

highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.


Well, if it's so easy, why don't you Google it?  And come back and tell us what you found.  You know, rather than making bare assertions and engaging in a variety of other logical fallacies.
 
2013-07-15 07:08:15 PM

highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.

Did you really think this answer would accomplish anything but make you look like a complete idiot who is incapable of supporting their assertions? What on earth leads you to believe that "google it" is an actual argument?

What makes you think "prove it" is a viable argument in a Fark thread?


What makes you think you can make an argument and not support it?
 
2013-07-15 07:09:02 PM

highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.

Did you really think this answer would accomplish anything but make you look like a complete idiot who is incapable of supporting their assertions? What on earth leads you to believe that "google it" is an actual argument?

What makes you think "prove it" is a viable argument in a Fark thread?


Sanity and common sense is what makes me think that asking someone to "prove it" is valid. Asking someone for proof of an assertion is always valid.

You seem to now have a clue how debate on a subject works. When you make an assertion, it is your responsibility to back it up. If you cannot even make the slightest attempt to support your assertions, you get rightly laughed out of the room.
 
2013-07-15 07:09:55 PM

HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.

Did you really think this answer would accomplish anything but make you look like a complete idiot who is incapable of supporting their assertions? What on earth leads you to believe that "google it" is an actual argument?

What makes you think "prove it" is a viable argument in a Fark thread?

What makes you think you can make an argument and not support it?


And what makes me think that someone who has made up their mind on the other side of the argument would appreciate the sources that I cite?
 
2013-07-15 07:10:24 PM
I tried to tell you people long before Bush signed Obamacare into law that it was a bad idea but you wouldn't listen.
 
2013-07-15 07:11:03 PM

highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.

Did you really think this answer would accomplish anything but make you look like a complete idiot who is incapable of supporting their assertions? What on earth leads you to believe that "google it" is an actual argument?

What makes you think "prove it" is a viable argument in a Fark thread?

What makes you think you can make an argument and not support it?

And what makes me think that someone who has made up their mind on the other side of the argument would appreciate the sources that I cite?


I don't know.  Why don't you cite some and we'll see how credible they are, instead of repeatedly poisoning the well and lobbing ad hominems?
 
2013-07-15 07:12:15 PM

highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.


And what do you believe this rant accomplished? You are only digging yourself deeper with crap like this. You make a statement and when asked for proof you complain that you will not give proof, and that you can't even remember what the proof was. Seriously, how on earth do you think this is a good debate strategy? The only thing you are accomplishing is making yourself a laughing stock.
 
2013-07-15 07:14:19 PM

highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.

Did you really think this answer would accomplish anything but make you look like a complete idiot who is incapable of supporting their assertions? What on earth leads you to believe that "google it" is an actual argument?

What makes you think "prove it" is a viable argument in a Fark thread?

What makes you think you can make an argument and not support it?

And what makes me think that someone who has made up their mind on the other side of the argument would appreciate the sources that I cite?


Ah yes, the old "I'd cite sources but you won't believe them so I won't! Harumph!" A great way to loudly proclaim "I got nothing" while at the same time demonstrating the maturity of a ninth grader.

Please, do go on.
 
2013-07-15 07:14:29 PM

Thrag: highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.

And what do you believe this rant accomplished? You are only digging yourself deeper with crap like this. You make a statement and when asked for proof you complain that you will not give proof, and that you can't even remember what the proof was. Seriously, how on earth do you think this is a good debate strategy? The only thing you are accomplishing is making yourself a laughing stock.


It's a terrible debate strategy.  I didn't want to debate.  I stated an opinion based upon what I have read in the past four years or so.  I stated my opinion that it is unsustainable.  You guys are the one's who want to debate it.
 
2013-07-15 07:15:06 PM

rewind2846: b2theory: The rules are simple: maximize returns for your shareholders. It sucks when you are in a stagnant company. It is great when you are a shareholder. It's amusing when most people forget that they are the share holders.

Most private companies have always had to deal with shareholders, both internal and external. Problem is there used to be more of a balance between shareholder expectations and the needs of employees. Make no mistake, the corporations still owned the field and they still held the majority of power vs employees, but the "shareholders always come first at all cost" mentality wasn't as widespread or virulent as it is today. That is where the problem lies, and that is how the employees get screwed.

The purpose of a business is to provide goods and services to its customers, and make a profit in doing so. Those profits then are used to hire and train new employees for expanding production, increasing the pay of employees who show initiative and/or are loyal to the company and its goals, investing in the physical plant to streamline that same production, and pay shareholders. The shareholder comes last because in a system where all the other parts are working correctly they can be guaranteed good returns.

Customers, employees, workplace, shareholders - in that order.
That paradigm has been farked five ways to infinity, and it's the employees who get the shaft.


First, "the shareholders always come first at all cost" has always been there going back to English Common Law. The officers of a company have a fiduciary responsibility to them.

Second, you have outlined a cartoonish description of what is to be done with profits. The first thing to remember is that they belong to the shareholder's and not to anyone else (from line worker to the CEO). The leadership of the company(corporate officers and board) should allocate that capital if there is a justifiable return on its allocation. Otherwise, that capital should be returned to the shareholders.

My point earlier is this: most retirement schemes are not pay as you go. They require gradual savings and (primarily) compounding returns on the accumulating principle. If corporate leadership stopped delivering that return then the compounding would stop.

Another way of looking at it: It is highly likely that Exxon Mobile's profits help pay for California Teachers to retire.
 
2013-07-15 07:18:37 PM

highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.

And what do you believe this rant accomplished? You are only digging yourself deeper with crap like this. You make a statement and when asked for proof you complain that you will not give proof, and that you can't even remember what the proof was. Seriously, how on earth do you think this is a good debate strategy? The only thing you are accomplishing is making yourself a laughing stock.

It's a terrible debate strategy.  I didn't want to debate.  I stated an opinion based upon what I have read in the past four years or so.  I stated my opinion that it is unsustainable.  You guys are the one's who want to debate it.


Ah, so you just wanted to take a dump on the thread and run since you have neither the ability or inclination to support your statements.
 
2013-07-15 07:20:33 PM

highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.

And what do you believe this rant accomplished? You are only digging yourself deeper with crap like this. You make a statement and when asked for proof you complain that you will not give proof, and that you can't even remember what the proof was. Seriously, how on earth do you think this is a good debate strategy? The only thing you are accomplishing is making yourself a laughing stock.

It's a terrible debate strategy.  I didn't want to debate.  I stated an opinion based upon what I have read in the past four years or so.  I stated my opinion that it is unsustainable.  You guys are the one's who want to debate it.


Ah, I see.  So you just came into this thread to sniff your own farts.
 
2013-07-15 07:26:25 PM

b2theory: The first thing to remember is that they belong to the shareholder's


The first thing to remember is that without the company, the employee, and the customer, the shareholder has precisely dick, and that is precisely what they should be owed until those things are taken care of.
 
2013-07-15 07:36:21 PM

highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.


Hitchen's Razor
 
2013-07-15 07:41:34 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: b2theory: The first thing to remember is that they belong to the shareholder's

The first thing to remember is that without the company, the employee, and the customer, the shareholder has precisely dick, and that is precisely what they should be owed until those things are taken care of.


Thanks for getting to this before i did, Sarge. Perhaps b2 missed the part where I wrote "The shareholder comes last because in a system where all the other parts are working correctly they can be guaranteed good returns." If all the other parts are working correctly - good profits from hard workers who are paid decently and like their jobs, return customers from the sale of good products and services, and a corporate structure that rewards people for hard work and loyalty, the shareholders get profits. If they are not, the shareholders get dick - unless they are willing to cannibalize the company.

Unfortunately those corporate shareholders have turned to downsizing/rightsizing/layoffs/outsourcing, cutting back on benefits for the employees that are left, cutting corners on quality and service and general assholiness to make short term share value increases, instead of using long term strategies like the ones I mentioned for continuous and steady shareholder returns. The employee has once again be relegated to the bottom of the sh*tpile, as it was before unions, in the gilded age when robber barons not only ran government - in may cases they were the government (Tammany Hall is a good example).
 
2013-07-15 07:42:27 PM
We should go single payer and save hundreds of billions of dollars. It works in many places around the world.
 
2013-07-15 07:48:19 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.


That's some cutting-edge original material right there, dick.
 
2013-07-15 07:49:07 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: b2theory: The first thing to remember is that they belong to the shareholder's

The first thing to remember is that without the company, the employee, and the customer, the shareholder has precisely dick, and that is precisely what they should be owed until those things are taken care of.


You're free to feel that way, but it isn't reality.

I don't like it. It doesn't fit my own idealized vision for our economy. However, it is the way things are.
 
2013-07-15 07:51:21 PM

rewind2846: Employers chose to implement 401k plans instead of defined benefits, employees bent over and said "okay".


Fark yeah.  I don't trust that anyone will be there to pay my pension in 40 years.  I do trust that my 401K will be (barring MAJOR financial issues or 30-40 years of the hardcore leftist wing of the Democratic Party Rule).  So gimme, gimme, gimme.
 
2013-07-15 07:51:43 PM

Phil McKraken: We should go single payer and save hundreds of billions of dollars. It works in many places around the world.


While single payer would be great, I believe that the German sickness fund model might work better here. Or at the very least be something that will be easier to enact than single payer given America's very special political climate.

Private insurance companies that have to offer a fairly complete basic insurance package on a not for profit basis. Supplemental insurance can operate on a for profit basis. Insurance plans for the poor are subsidized.
 
2013-07-15 07:57:32 PM

Thrag: While single payer would be great, I believe that the German sickness fund model might work better here. Or at the very least be something that will be easier to enact than single payer given America's very special political climate.


It's okay, you're among friends. You can say retarded.
 
Displayed 50 of 357 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report