Reality

katiegrrl0 said:
You are partly correct. Owners or in this case the contractor does need to earn a living. But how much more of a living does that person need than the employees? That is the greater question. This person did go into business to make money. what is fair and right that he or she makes 50X the amount of the employees or 10000 X the amount of the employees. There is a point where what is being taken out creates to much disparity and the lower employees even struggle. That is why there is a class of people known as the working poor. They can almost make ends meet while the employers have so much excess that it is wrong. The divide is not working in the US. This is the problem.
Click to expand...

Who the hell is anyone to say how much is too much? He is the OWNER he pays ALL of the expenses to OWN A BUSINESS and he takes all the risks. It is HIS innovation struggle and livelihood to have a business that others can then seek their livelihood through, without all of the risk and costs the owner alone bears! You are clueless with the way wages are paid. The typical non-union wage in construction is 15 to 25 dollars an hour. Most contractors charge a client 50- 80 dollars an hour for labor + a 10% mark-up on materials. Out of this he pays an hourly wage to his laborer's plus his insurance and tax liability. Any person who chooses to take the risk to own their own company is entitled to any fucking reward he can get. No one is tying laborers up and forcing them to work for him-they can go start their own companies or work for someone else.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
I understand what you are saying. I can agree in part. In the modern America it no longer works that way. The rich are getting richer and the middle class is starting to fall way behind. To much is going to the top 10%. There is nothing left for the bottom. The disparity of wealth is to great. If it is the worker struggles to feed and house the family. That is not good. Mortgages go into default and people lose homes by no fault of their own. Poverty is up. The number of poor and working poor is up. The tax cuts to the wealthy is not enough to create more than a few jobs that will actually pay a person something. When you work and the top end is taking 90% of the profit that is made it doesn't leave much for the little people in the business.

We work and so have money to employ or help employ many people. But as the top takes more and more and we are taxed that leaves less and less for us to be able to pay the bills and hire those that we do. In the current world climate it is not the time for the huge profit grabs. Look at your price of gas. The industry decides that they need new cars and boats and a gallon or liter of gas costs more. It gets very tiresome watching the wealthy constantly taking a larger cut and having people who make nothing in comparison defend them. Until people learn that the rich are to rich and the wealthy of the world for the most part don't care about the little people it will continue to go this way. I know that in the US investors and owners run the business. They are in business to make money. If they are taking $500 to each one they give employees who work hard how fair is that system. When a person making say 1M a year is taxed at 50% he or she still have 500000. When a person making 50000 to start with pays even 10% it leaves 45000. That is a huge difference. The wealthy should pay more. They should help more. They have a reaped a larger share of the benefits of the nation.
Click to expand...

All you are doing is repeating socialist rhetoric and a misconception of reality when it comes to capitalism. What does it really mean, "the rich get richer?" You think it would be more logical for the rich to get poorer? It stands to reason, to me anyway, that rich people probably would tend to "get richer" since they are rich, and obviously know how to get rich in the first place. It wouldn't make sense any other way. Subsequently, the middle class aren't getting richer... well, duh? If they got richer, they would become rich, not middle class... so, yes... the middle class do indeed tend to not become wealthier. This is your foundational point... the rich get richer, while the middle class remain the same?

And what does any of this have to do with creating jobs? We determined earlier, to create jobs, whether it's the consumer or the corporation, depends on having the money to create the job. Now, just because of how things are in life, the "rich" just happen to tend to be the people who have money, and can create jobs. Those jobs provide money to consumers, who spend the money and create more jobs... but in the process, the company makes profits. Socialists want companies to not make profits, but still provide jobs, but as we've determined, it takes money to create jobs.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I think her employees should unionize and demand from her annual 5-10 % increases in wage and benefits whether they are slothful and dishonest or hard working and good-it is their due right...too fucking bad if her overhead goes up and her profits go down; they have their rights after all and she better not even think of firing them.
Click to expand...
My employees make more than the union would give them. They are in fact all union. I don't pay benefits as in health care they have that because we have national heath care. They get days off and vacations though. I have never fired anyone.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
My employees make more than the union would give them. They are in fact all union. I don't pay benefits as in health care they have that because we have national heath care. They get days off and vacations though. I have never fired anyone.
Click to expand...

If they are "union" how do they make "more" then the union would pay them? And you missed the pointed sarcasm of my post.
 
Dixie said:
All you are doing is repeating socialist rhetoric and a misconception of reality when it comes to capitalism. What does it really mean, "the rich get richer?" You think it would be more logical for the rich to get poorer? It stands to reason, to me anyway, that rich people probably would tend to "get richer" since they are rich, and obviously know how to get rich in the first place. It wouldn't make sense any other way. Subsequently, the middle class aren't getting richer... well, duh? If they got richer, they would become rich, not middle class... so, yes... the middle class do indeed tend to not become wealthier. This is your foundational point... the rich get richer, while the middle class remain the same?

And what does any of this have to do with creating jobs? We determined earlier, to create jobs, whether it's the consumer or the corporation, depends on having the money to create the job. Now, just because of how things are in life, the "rich" just happen to tend to be the people who have money, and can create jobs. Those jobs provide money to consumers, who spend the money and create more jobs... but in the process, the company makes profits. Socialists want companies to not make profits, but still provide jobs, but as we've determined, it takes money to create jobs.
Click to expand...

Yes it does take money to create jobs. How many jobs are being created since your unemployment is way up with the tax break money? That was in place during the Bush administration. Since the unemployment rate was higher after the tax break then before it how would you explain that. I tend to say a lot of Socialist and Communist things by the way.
 
Ice Dancer said:
If they are "union" how do they make "more" then the union would pay them? And you missed the pointed sarcasm of my post.
Click to expand...
i pay them what i think they are worth and they are worth more than what the Union would tell me to give them. If you would like I could lower their incomes. That would be fair I would add to my profit margin. (That was sarcasm by the way)
 
katiegrrl0 said:
i pay them what i think they are worth and they are worth more than what the Union would tell me to give them. If you would like I could lower their incomes. That would be fair I would add to my profit margin. (That was sarcasm by the way)
Click to expand...

So what is the hourly wage you pay them that is better then what the union says you should pay them?
 
What is a "standard wage"? That is very ambiguous. Can your employees also afford to buy their own house and hire a crew to remodel their kitchen?

What kind of business is this, exactly?
 
King of Gods said:
What is a "standard wage"? That is very ambiguous. Can your employees also afford to buy their own house and hire a crew to remodel their kitchen?

What kind of business is this, exactly? If you don't mind me asking...
Click to expand...
They can't buy there house but that is another discussion. They can hire a remodeling crew i am sure of that.
 
I couldn't think of a more fitting term to represent higher economic station, so I ran with landed gentry. Still, if you own a house, surely you own land?
 
katiegrrl0 said:
No you don't have national heath care. Your nation made a piss poor effort at it but no. You do have the most expensive health care in the world and it is far from the best so you're not getting what you are paying for.
Click to expand...

Haha, I had the feeling I had identified a non-US American when I read that, but I couldn't resist. Canadian?
 
Ice Dancer said:
WOW-laborer's here that are making 15 to 25 an hr can buy their own homes~
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on whether you can buy land and such. They can purchase a home and have it built yes. But there are homes that are able to be rented as such or leased or you can make an agreement with the local government to get a home. Why spend a fortune on a home.
 
King of Reason said:
Haha, I had the feeling I had identified a non-US American when I read that, but I couldn't resist. Canadian?
Click to expand...
Nope not Canadian but it is not a bad place. The Us is very ice as well. i lived in Chicago, New York and San Francisco at different times. I am across the pond. way the heck up north. They weather service expects our snow to melt by the end of May.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
I guess it depends on whether you can buy land and such. They can purchase a home and have it built yes. But there are homes that are able to be rented as such or leased or you can make an agreement with the local government to get a home. Why spend a fortune on a home.
Click to expand...

A few minutes ago, you said this: "They can't buy there house but that is another discussion."

Now, you say this: "They can purchase a home and have it built yes."

*Sniff, sniff* I smell bullshit.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
Nope not Canadian but it is not a bad place. The Us is very ice as well. i lived in Chicago, New York and San Francisco at different times. I am across the pond. way the heck up north. They weather service expects our snow to melt by the end of May.
Click to expand...

Norway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top