Corporate welfare in action ....

[initforme]

Smart employers get Reid of their most productive employees before they hang around too long. Replacing them with brand new workers constantly keeps wages dirt low.

 

[initforme]

Driverless trucks will save companies billions.....its coming.

 

[Brain357]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Driverless trucks will save companies billions.....its coming.

Yep, but they will never be able to replace a city driver. The manless trucks may be able to drive straight on highways or turnpikes, but you still need somebody to park them, you still need somebody to drop or pickup trailers, you still need people to back them in.

Of course that's down the road God knows how many years. Uber is experimenting with manless cars to carry their passengers. So far, it's a failure. The cars keep going into default mode (which is the computer stops and a human must assist) so they can't charge their customers who are forced into driving their cars to get where they want to go.

So I don't think you'll see driverless semis in the near future or perhaps in your life. It's one thing if a computer in a car Fs up and has an accident, it's quite another when a 75,000 lbs vehicle does the same. Even if they come out with them, insurance costs will be a big issue.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My point is just that we talk about what people are worth or, more accurately, what their labor is worth - but it's not an intrinsic value. It's entirely subjective. What a job is worth depends on who is paying for it and who is doing the work.

Completely wrong. Let me tell you what your value as an employee is ...

This is why shorter posts are usually a good idea. So much typing, but you stepped in it right out of the gate. My whole point is that economic value is subjective. You literally can't tell me what my labor is worth. All you can do is tell me what it's worth to you.

And if I'm your employer, that's all that matters.

 

[initforme]

Most employers don't like their employees and seek to undercut even their most productive employees.

 

[Andylusion]

I understand that it is.

Seattle $15 Minimum Wage Forcing Some Restaurants Out Of Business

If you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage you shouldn't be in business. Period.

Why are employees due a "living wage" regardless of the work they do? When did it become the responsibility of the business owner to defy Darwin?

Simply being alive does not entitle you to be taken care of by others by statute.

Simply being alive does not entitle you to be taken care of. But if you work for a living you should earn a living.

If you work for a living, develop a skill that pays a "living wage".

If you don't make enough money to live how the fuck are you supposed to develop skills?

Oh good night... you people....

You know, if implied problem was true, then we would not have unskilled people clamoring from around the world, to come to the US.

The implication that somehow if you make a low wages, that you are incapable of gaining skills... is ridiculous.

I make $15 an hour right now. I don't have a degree. Don't have any skills. I don't have anything. What I do have, is I come to work.... ON TIME.... work during my shift THE WHOLE TIME... get my work done, don't complain, and do so consistently.

You can double your income from minimum wage, without anything except hard work, and being dependable.

Now you want something more than that? No problem.

I have a friend from Kentucky that worked for Walmart. Walmart has a tuition reimbursement program. She used that program, to work her way through a 2-year engineering degree.

This isn't rocket science. You just need to pull your head, out of your ideological left-butt cheek, and see the world's opportunities, instead of sitting around screaming about the rich.

Another example.... a guy came here from Somalia. He joined a free truck driving course. He got his CDL, and started making money. He used the money to buy his own truck, so he could earn more money. He used that money, to buy a second truck, and hire someone to drive it. Now he owns a small fleet of trucks, and is wealthy.

No degree. No education.

Another example. Worked at an Advanced Auto Parts Store. There was a guy there that dropped out of high school, and started working at the store. Advance Auto Parts has free online management training. He moved up to Assistant Manger, and then Lead Manager. Now he runs his own store making $60K a year.

Again, not Steven Hawking requirements here. Pull your head, out of your left-butt cheek, and see opportunities around the country.

Chris Gardner - Wikipedia

This guy was literally homeless. He got an internship at a brokerage company, and today is a multi-millionaire.

How did he get the skills to be wealthy, when he didn't make ANYTHING?

Well as the name of the movie states pretty well....
The Pursuit of Happyness - Wikipedia
He pursued happiness.

The left-wing wants to "Sit on their Ass for Happiness".... yeah, and that's why you are all so angry, and screaming about the minimum wage.

 

[Andylusion]

Most employers don't like their employees and seek to undercut even their most productive employees.

Prove that. Moron.

The vast majority of the employers I've had, care about their employees. Now I've had individual managers who didn't.... that's for sure. But most employers have treated their people like family.

You know, maybe if you feel that way about every employer you have had, possibly its because you have been a crappy employee that everyone, not just the employer, hates.

My experience has been every employee that I know who has complained, whined, b!tched about the employer, right after they left the company, everyone would be talking about how great it was now that Bob left. Most of the time, they are telling how everyone hate the employer, when in fact, we're all just waiting for them to leave, so the job is more enjoyable without them.

 

[Andylusion]

It is not about "neeeding" immigration.
America was created on immigration, it is who we are. It is why I am here and most likely it is why you are here. Being anti immigration is being anti American.

In other words, you have no logical basis for supporting more immigration. All you have is slogans.

In other words, I'm not a moron descendant of an immigrant saying, "fuck immigrants."

You are a moron who can't come up with a logical reason for supporting more immigration.

Yes, I am saying "fuck immigrants." I don't have a good reason to say otherwise, and neither do you. Our immigration laws should benefit Americans. The welfare of immigrants is irrelevant.

You are one of the least intelligent posters on this board so I will try to simplify things here..
This
Is
America
We
Are
All
Immigrants
"America" is a relatively young country! All "americans" at one point came here from a different country. Those snazzy slogans like "americas a melting pot" have an actual meaning when your brain is larger than a peanut, and knowledge of history goes further than ",murica"

The
needs
of
the
past
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
needs
of
the
present.

In the past we needed labor. In the present we need jobs.

First off, jobs only exist because we have people that need stuff done. If you send millions of people out of the country, then we need less stuff done. Less need... fewer jobs.

Immigrants create jobs.

I'm not saying this because I'm pro-immigration, or anti-immigration. I'm just stating an economic fact. More people = more jobs.

The problem in this economy is not immigration. The problem is bad economic policy that makes hiring people less profitable. You demand more taxes, more benefits, and more requirements, then naturally it is more expensive to hire people.

IF it's more expensive to hire people.....> DUH < ...... fewer people will be hired.

 

[Andylusion]

Just to get back on track, corporate welfare is against capitalism and the free market and should be avoided at all costs. Government picking winners and losers is a bad thing.

The entire practice of using taxation as a social engineering tool has to go.

It seems to have flaws everywhere. It is amazing many of these people recognize those flaws for personal taxes and can't see similar effects for corporations.

I think the big problem for me, is that I don't see what has been brought up thus far, as corporate welfare. Nor do I see it as social engineering.

If we're talking about real corporate welfare, then I'm expecting examples like Ethanol, where government is literally paying producers with tax money. Or wind power, where government is literally paying out money to people who build turbines. Or even sugar, where government directly says we can't buy sugar from other sources, which allow specific groups to charge much larger prices to Americans.

These are real examples of corporate welfare, and social engineering. All of which I am opposed to.

But how is a temporary tax abatement, social engineering? How is it corporate welfare?

Do you really think that if Amazon doesn't build over in Dublin Ohio, that somehow that's going to change our society? What social change is going to happen?

And corporate welfare, allows companies to survive when they otherwise wouldn't.... just like welfare allows people who don't work, to survive, when they otherwise would have to find a job, or starve.

If there was no direct subsidy of Ethanol, it would be almost eliminated from the market. The vast majority of all producers would be put out of business.

Do you think that if Amazon did not get a short term tax abatement on property taxes, that it would force them from the market? Or change anything about their business growth?

Of course not. Property isn't even a noticeable fraction of their tax costs. Let alone business costs.

The entire concept is ridiculous at face value.

 

[Conservative65]

If someone is only worth $2.00 an hour, why should they be paid more?

Someone else might value their labor more.

As long as the person paying them is doing it because they chose to rather than the government mandating a minimum amount.

So the government shouldn't dictate actions in the economy?

The government shouldn't dictate to a business owner the minimum he/she has to pay an employee. If said employee has such low skills they can't make enough to survive, it's not the fault of the business owner paying that employee but the employee having such low skills.

So the government shouldn't be giving out corporate welfare then either. If they can't even dictate good wages it should all be free market capitalism!

We've gone over this, son. They don't. There is no such thing as corporate welfare. It's the same type of mythical creature as this white privilege the Liberal race pimps want to use as an excuse for blacks not being able to keep up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most employers don't like their employees and seek to undercut even their most productive employees.

Sure they do. Thats the key to every successful business: undercut your most productive employees.

 

[Papageorgio]

Most employers don't like their employees and seek to undercut even their most productive employees.

That seems to be a pretty subjective opinion based on personal experience. I owned a business and loved my employees. I also have worked and am currently working for an employer that likes their employees.

I think it is a case of seek and you shall find.

 

[danielpalos]

A general tax for unemployment compensation is simpler and less expensive, as a form of "red tape".

 

[Brain357]

Just to get back on track, corporate welfare is against capitalism and the free market and should be avoided at all costs. Government picking winners and losers is a bad thing.

The entire practice of using taxation as a social engineering tool has to go.

It seems to have flaws everywhere. It is amazing many of these people recognize those flaws for personal taxes and can't see similar effects for corporations.

I think the big problem for me, is that I don't see what has been brought up thus far, as corporate welfare. Nor do I see it as social engineering.

If we're talking about real corporate welfare, then I'm expecting examples like Ethanol, where government is literally paying producers with tax money. Or wind power, where government is literally paying out money to people who build turbines. Or even sugar, where government directly says we can't buy sugar from other sources, which allow specific groups to charge much larger prices to Americans.

These are real examples of corporate welfare, and social engineering. All of which I am opposed to.

But how is a temporary tax abatement, social engineering? How is it corporate welfare?

Do you really think that if Amazon doesn't build over in Dublin Ohio, that somehow that's going to change our society? What social change is going to happen?

And corporate welfare, allows companies to survive when they otherwise wouldn't.... just like welfare allows people who don't work, to survive, when they otherwise would have to find a job, or starve.

If there was no direct subsidy of Ethanol, it would be almost eliminated from the market. The vast majority of all producers would be put out of business.

Do you think that if Amazon did not get a short term tax abatement on property taxes, that it would force them from the market? Or change anything about their business growth?

Of course not. Property isn't even a noticeable fraction of their tax costs. Let alone business costs.

The entire concept is ridiculous at face value.

It is very simple. Are those tax abatement available to ALL businesses? If they are a special deal for only one business that business has a gov created advantage over a competitor. Why should tax payers pay for this advantage? And most these abatement deals are much more than that. Look at Foxconn. They are looking for a deal to ignore regulations. A huge advantage over competitors. Abatements just open the door for much worse. Free market capitalism has no special deals for a business that does the best lobbying. Keep the government out!

 

[Brain357]

Someone else might value their labor more.

As long as the person paying them is doing it because they chose to rather than the government mandating a minimum amount.

So the government shouldn't dictate actions in the economy?

The government shouldn't dictate to a business owner the minimum he/she has to pay an employee. If said employee has such low skills they can't make enough to survive, it's not the fault of the business owner paying that employee but the employee having such low skills.

So the government shouldn't be giving out corporate welfare then either. If they can't even dictate good wages it should all be free market capitalism!

We've gone over this, son. They don't. There is no such thing as corporate welfare. It's the same type of mythical creature as this white privilege the Liberal race pimps want to use as an excuse for blacks not being able to keep up.

So you are stupid and delusional. Got it.

 

[dblack]

I think the big problem for me, is that I don't see what has been brought up thus far, as corporate welfare. Nor do I see it as social engineering.

Yeah. Arguments over preferred terminology are so pointless. For the record, what I have a beef with is government using taxation as a carrot and stick to manipulate behavior. Call it whatever you like. I see it as an abuse of power.

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing only has a problem with welfare for real persons, not artificial persons.

 

[Conservative65]

As long as the person paying them is doing it because they chose to rather than the government mandating a minimum amount.

So the government shouldn't dictate actions in the economy?

The government shouldn't dictate to a business owner the minimum he/she has to pay an employee. If said employee has such low skills they can't make enough to survive, it's not the fault of the business owner paying that employee but the employee having such low skills.

So the government shouldn't be giving out corporate welfare then either. If they can't even dictate good wages it should all be free market capitalism!

We've gone over this, son. They don't. There is no such thing as corporate welfare. It's the same type of mythical creature as this white privilege the Liberal race pimps want to use as an excuse for blacks not being able to keep up.

So you are stupid and delusional. Got it.

I'm not the one that believe something exists when it really doesn't. That's you, boy.

 

[Brain357]

So the government shouldn't dictate actions in the economy?

The government shouldn't dictate to a business owner the minimum he/she has to pay an employee. If said employee has such low skills they can't make enough to survive, it's not the fault of the business owner paying that employee but the employee having such low skills.

So the government shouldn't be giving out corporate welfare then either. If they can't even dictate good wages it should all be free market capitalism!

We've gone over this, son. They don't. There is no such thing as corporate welfare. It's the same type of mythical creature as this white privilege the Liberal race pimps want to use as an excuse for blacks not being able to keep up.

So you are stupid and delusional. Got it.

I'm not the one that believe something exists when it really doesn't. That's you, boy.

There are many examples in this thread alone. But continue to be stupid if you wish. I guess you are a "conservative" who is ok with the government picking winners and losers.