The consequence of choice (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Yachtie -> The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 5:43:44 AM)

LAS VEGAS (CBS Las Vegas) — A Las Vegas business owner with 114 employees fired 22 workers today, apparently as a direct result of President Obama’s re-election.

“David” (he asked to remain anonymous for obvious reasons) told Host Kevin Wall on 100.5 KXNT that “elections have consequences” and that “at the end of the day, I need to survive.”

“I explained to them a month ago that if Obama gets in office that the regulations for Obamacare are gonna hurt our business, and I’m gonna have to make provisions to make sure I have enough money to cover the payroll taxes, the additional health care I’m gonna have to do, and I explained that to them and I said you do what you feel like in your heart you need to do, but I’m just letting you know as a warning this is things I have to think of as a business owner.

I have to build up that nest egg now for the taxes and regulations that are coming my way. Elections do have consequences, but so do choices. A choice you make every day has consequences and you know what, I’ve always put my employees first, but unfortunately today I have to put me and my family first, and you watch what’s gonna happen. I’m just one guy with 114 employees — well was 114 employees — watch what happens in the next six months. The Dow alone lost 314 points today. There’s a tsunami coming and if you didn’t think this election had consequences, just wait.”


Right or wrong, as a business owner he too has to make choices. He too shall reap the consequences. His is not a unique story. There are those who think the economy is turning around, that progress is being made. One person even said yesterday that the only reason the economy is down is because of government shrinkage. Not true.

There's a hard lesson on its way.






mnottertail -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 5:57:48 AM)

Ja, fuck him.  Torch his fuckin place.  He is a terrorist.



Toysinbabeland -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 6:31:50 AM)

Oh, Canada.....



slvemike4u -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 6:33:46 AM)

Yep,elections do have consequences....and the world has scum bags,this scum bag happened to own a business.
I hope the rest of his employees realize just what a scum bag the boss really is and behave accordingly.
Actions have consequences too,this putz should be reminded of that [8|]
Pre-emptive firings....much like pre-emptive gun buying is certainly going on,but it is not a result of the Presidents re-election,it is a result of the fear mongering,the bullshit ads and the outright damnable lies put forth by the right.
This whole story,getting the play it is getting is just more of the same.....someone please tell me again how the right aren't a bunch of blood sucking scumbags [8|]



Fightdirecto -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 6:49:59 AM)

It would be poetic justice if every one of his remaining employees quit - then he would be filing bankruptcy and applying for welfare, food stamps, etc.

Of course, he would blame the President and not his own incompetance as a business man.



igor2003 -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 6:54:45 AM)

Okay, it's early and I'm not awake yet, so I hope I am able to articulate what I'm thinking...

Most businesses only carry enough employees to accomplish what has to be done to keep up with demands for their product or service. If he was carrying 22 extra employees that his business didn't need the guy was either a saint...which I doubt...or a poor businessman. If those 22 employees were needed to maintain his businesses' level of production or service then he is harming his own business by reducing it's productivity. I'm not sure I understand how cutting his work force by nearly 20%, thereby decreasing production or service by 20%, gives him more money to pay his expenses.

So, was the guy making a smart, necessary business move...or just throwing a tantrum because the guy from "kenya" stayed in office?



slvemike4u -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 6:54:54 AM)

Nah,there are more subtle ways an employee can make his displeasure known.
Smart people can get their point across with out cutting their own throats,like this particular "job creator" did.



DesideriScuri -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 6:57:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Yep,elections do have consequences....and the world has scum bags,this scum bag happened to own a business.
I hope the rest of his employees realize just what a scum bag the boss really is and behave accordingly.
Actions have consequences too,this putz should be reminded of that [8|]
Pre-emptive firings....much like pre-emptive gun buying is certainly going on,but it is not a result of the Presidents re-election,it is a result of the fear mongering,the bullshit ads and the outright damnable lies put forth by the right.
This whole story,getting the play it is getting is just more of the same.....someone please tell me again how the right aren't a bunch of blood sucking scumbags [8|]


The guy even said that choices have consequences (which would include the choice to act). And, you obviously have absolutely no respect for the guy's business management skills (I don't know him or his business so I can't support or refute his acumen), to simply wave his actions off as being swayed by lies, fear mongering and bs ads. His statements show that he's probably already started running the numbers and knows where his projections put his business.

Do you run a business? If not, you probably should. You seem to know it all.



DomCplsc -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:01:04 AM)

So by reading some of your responses, you are upset because this guy is trying to be responsible by planning for the upcoming tax increases. Hmm interesting point. So as a business owner, according to you, I should not plan for the future increases in taxes and healthcare cost....now that is a concept that makes absolutely no sense. Small business owners have explained all of this way before the elections to hopefully get people to research what these new taxes and healthcare regulations are going to do and now is not the time to get upset with the fact that jobs must be lost in order to keep the company going. The highest payout in a business is labor and healthcare. I just don't understand how anyone cannot understand this even if they have never ran a business. This is reality.



DesideriScuri -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:03:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
Okay, it's early and I'm not awake yet, so I hope I am able to articulate what I'm thinking...
Most businesses only carry enough employees to accomplish what has to be done to keep up with demands for their product or service. If he was carrying 22 extra employees that his business didn't need the guy was either a saint...which I doubt...or a poor businessman. If those 22 employees were needed to maintain his businesses' level of production or service then he is harming his own business by reducing it's productivity. I'm not sure I understand how cutting his work force by nearly 20%, thereby decreasing production or service by 20%, gives him more money to pay his expenses.
So, was the guy making a smart, necessary business move...or just throwing a tantrum because the guy from "kenya" stayed in office?


Since it looks like his employee costs will be going up, reducing the number of employees he has will effect how much his employee costs rise. Apparently, he's getting started now in building up his reserves for when those costs rise. He's probably already weighed how his income will be effected by the cuts, and has decided that he'll contract for now to be ready for when those costs impact his business. This was a move to get himself ready for a different business environment than the one he is currently operating under, so the number of employees, production, and profit numbers very easily can point to a smaller staff keeping him afloat in the future.



fucktoyprincess -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:05:38 AM)

Yes elections have consequences. In difficult economic times there is usually a restructuring of the labor force. This is what happens economically. Things are not supposed to stay stagnant. A business that can only afford 114 employees by underpaying them and not providing benefits has grown too large and needs to restructure itself. Why should we, as a society, have to support low wages and benefits just to keep this guy in business? Being a capitalist presumes that you have the capital to invest to begin with, and that your business earns enough to pay fair and legal wages and benefits. That's a simple business fact. "David" doesn't get to exploit employees just so he can "put [him] and [his] family first."

When I hire someone to any type of work for me, it is assumed that I will pay them properly for their work. Is it not? Since when do I get to tell the plumber, or the electrician, sorry, but I won't pay for your honest work? And does anyone think that a plumber's bill does not already take into account various costs that he has?

"David" needs to get over himself. For an economy to succeed requires the almost never-ending movement of capital and resources to those products/services/industries that make sense. Underpaying people should not be an acceptable part of the system. If he can't afford as many employees then he needs to shrink the business. Perhaps there just isn't enough demand for what his business does. Maybe his capital should be invested differently.

If people didn't innovate and the economy didn't restructure over time, we would still all be sitting on family farms with a subsistence economy. A thriving economy is supposed to mean change. There are no sacred cows.



DesideriScuri -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:19:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
Yes elections have consequences. In difficult economic times there is usually a restructuring of the labor force. This is what happens economically. Things are not supposed to stay stagnant. A business that can only afford 114 employees by underpaying them and not providing benefits has grown too large and needs to restructure itself. Why should we, as a society, have to support low wages and benefits just to keep this guy in business? Being a capitalist presumes that you have the capital to invest to begin with, and that your business earns enough to pay fair and legal wages and benefits. That's a simple business fact. "David" doesn't get to exploit employees just so he can "put [him] and [his] family first."
When I hire someone to any type of work for me, it is assumed that I will pay them properly for their work. Is it not? Since when do I get to tell the plumber, or the electrician, sorry, but I won't pay for your honest work? And does anyone think that a plumber's bill does not already take into account various costs that he has?
"David" needs to get over himself. For an economy to succeed requires the almost never-ending movement of capital and resources to those products/services/industries that make sense. Underpaying people should not be an acceptable part of the system. If he can't afford as many employees then he needs to shrink the business. Perhaps there just isn't enough demand for what his business does. Maybe his capital should be invested differently.
If people didn't innovate and the economy didn't restructure over time, we would still all be sitting on family farms with a subsistence economy. A thriving economy is supposed to mean change. There are no sacred cows.


Do you hire people based on what things are like now, or in the future? When were those employees hired, and under what predictions of the economic future were they hired? These employees weren't hurting his business right now, but in the future, when, say, Obamacare regulations and tax increases hit, it very well may be true that his employee costs will negatively effect his business' fiscal stability.

Unless you are in the same business, in the same situation, you very easily could be completely and utterly clueless as to his business model.



Kirata -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:19:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

scum bags... scum bag... scum bag... putz... bullshit... lies... someone please tell me again how the right aren't a bunch of blood sucking scumbags

Someone tell me again how puerile name-calling reflects intelligence.

K.



Yachtie -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:21:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
.....someone please tell me again how the right aren't a bunch of blood sucking scumbags


How partisan of you. No matter, the math will hit home regardless of one's political leanings. Math, like gravity, doesn't care one iota about you. It just is. Both the left and the right ignore it, preferring to rearrange the Titanic deck chairs.

To "fix" the fiscal cliff you must stop deficit spending, one way or another. And there is no free lunch -- if you increase taxes then either "C" (consumption) or "I" (investment) must decline since the money to pay the taxes has to come from one of those two categories. If you cut government spending then GDP decreases by the exact amount that "G" is decreased.

When "growth" in GDP is 2% a year but you are deficit spending 8% then the real economic growth is -6%. If you stop the deficit spending, no matter how you do it, the true economic rate of change becomes exposed irrespective of how you do it.


The left cannot stop deficit spending anymore than the right can. But, of course, it can be recouped via taxes on the 1%[8|] But it's all good because of Obama. What is it the left says? "Yes we can."

I can't wait till it all comes crashing down. Gravity is such a bitch[8D] Since it's going to, why not enjoy it. Not because I want it to, but because it'll shove it up the left's collective ass and that shall be delicious. The right will get it too and deservedly so. But it'll be the left I'll revel in watching implode. It'll be darkly humorous. Kafkaesque even.

Time is running short. That's the real tick tock, tick tock[:D] It's going to be fun. Really!!






slvemike4u -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:22:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

scum bags... scum bag... scum bag... putz... bullshit... lies... someone please tell me again how the right aren't a bunch of blood sucking scumbags

Someone tell me again how puerile name-calling reflects intelligence.

K.

Now,now Kirata thats not fair....You know I used a lot of other words too.
Taking my posts and clipping out words to skew the picture,how very republican of you.....lol



Yachtie -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:24:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto
It would be poetic justice if every one of his remaining employees quit


That's hysterical. Do you have any idea how many people are looking for employment? I rather don't think you do. [8|]



EternalHoH -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:30:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomCplsc

So by reading some of your responses, you are upset because this guy is trying to be responsible by planning for the upcoming tax increases. Hmm interesting point. So as a business owner, according to you, I should not plan for the future increases in taxes and healthcare cost....now that is a concept that makes absolutely no sense. Small business owners have explained all of this way before the elections to hopefully get people to research what these new taxes and healthcare regulations are going to do and now is not the time to get upset with the fact that jobs must be lost in order to keep the company going. The highest payout in a business is labor and healthcare. I just don't understand how anyone cannot understand this even if they have never ran a business. This is reality.




In my parent's generation, business owners were EXPECTED to provide health care insurance and a pension plan.

In my generation, those business owners have removed themselves from the pension responsibility, turning it over to a 401k (shifting it from the employers to the employee's responsibility). And now, they are slowly jettisoning their responsibility in health care coverage.

I don't know about you, but it sounds like a pretty sucky deal to "work for others" anymore. And then you all wonder out loud why nobody works anymore, and why its so hard to find qualified employees. Sounds like "the free market" at work to me. The experience that they offer is truly "second rate" anymore.

Some of the reasons are legitimate, but others are bogus. One legitimate reason is today's business owner has to compete on cost with Harry the Hindu and his army of slave labor. But then again, who ever thought anything good would come of that, besides a handful of elites playing a big game of world domination.

How many of those employers who are exiting their social contract to provide health care insurance to employees stand in agreement with the doctor who feels entitled to maximize his income at tremendous cost to the system?

Owning a business requires owning big boy pants. Apparently, few business owners possess such apparel.

Bill Maher tweet in reference to Mitt's concession speech:

"Pretty classy speech, Mitt. Loved the line goading the "job creators" to get off their selfish hoarding asses and create some jobs. "



cloudboy -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:34:45 AM)


Time for you to start putting forth some positive ideas -- quit complaining and catastrophizing.



mnottertail -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:37:43 AM)

quote:


In my parent's generation, business owners were EXPECTED to provide health care insurance and a pension plan.


And in fact, this fucked up mess is an artifact from WWII when labor was real scarce and the hiring was differentiated by those who offered healthcare as an incentive, and that's how national healthcare passed this nation by.





defiantbadgirl -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/8/2012 7:45:10 AM)

The consequence of choice is more and more people will be either on the new health insurance exchanges or on Medicaid. Fewer and fewer people will have employment based health insurance. Health care shouldn't be tied to employment anyway. It discourages job creation. The transition would've been easier with a public option, but either way the end result will be single-payer.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.1328125