Obama gets 3 Pinocchios because minimum wage would strengthen middle class?

[NYcarbineer]

Walmart all across the country is in the process of eliminating low paying jobs with the intoduction of self-service checkout.

Is Walmart doing that because they can't make money with the labor force they employ now? Is Walmart on the verge of bankruptcy and desperate to save on labor costs?

 

[rdean]

254 of the counties where food stamps doubled from 2007 to 2011, 213 voted for Mitt Romney. Where will Republicans get work without minimum wage jobs?

 

[Erand7899]

Walmart all across the country is in the process of eliminating low paying jobs with the intoduction of self-service checkout.

Is Walmart doing that because they can't make money with the labor force they employ now? Is Walmart on the verge of bankruptcy and desperate to save on labor costs?

Walmart is doing what all good businesses do. They work to turn lemons into lemonade. Contrary to your dumbass assumptions, Walmart is not in business to provide jobs for anyone, and that includes workers with few marketable skills.

Walmart is in business to provide a service, and make money while doing so. Millions of Americans take advantage of that service, and would not like to see it go away. The vast majority of those customers are those on the lower end of the income scale, and they would not be pleased if Walmart raised prices in order to become a welfare agency in addition to a big box store.

 

[Mathbud1]

OR does Obama know how many people earn the minimum wage AND how many are between 16 and 19 years old that will probably be let go as their entry level low skilled jobs will be eliminated. Remember how fascinated he was to learn bank tellers' jobs are being eliminated by ATMs?

Adjusted for inflation the minimum wage is lower than it was in 1968.

How many low end jobs have been eliminated in the last 50 years,

despite the minimum wage not being any higher?

Did anyone say the minimum wage was the only reason to automate jobs?

Does the minimum wage not being the only reason to automate jobs mean that it is not a reason to automate jobs?

 

[Mathbud1]

Walmart all across the country is in the process of eliminating low paying jobs with the intoduction of self-service checkout.

Is Walmart doing that because they can't make money with the labor force they employ now? Is Walmart on the verge of bankruptcy and desperate to save on labor costs?

Now? No.

But I guarantee they are taking steps to minimize the damage that will happen if/when the left forces through a minimum wage hike.

 

[Mathbud1]

254 of the counties where food stamps doubled from 2007 to 2011, 213 voted for Mitt Romney. Where will Republicans get work without minimum wage jobs?

That the numbers doubled wouldn't mean much. If there was only 1 food stamp recipient in the county, doubling means adding exactly 1 more food stamp recipient.

If you want to say something that indicates most food stamp recipients are Republican, try something like, "254 of the counties with the highest percentage of food stamp recipients voted for Mitt Romney."

Of course, you'd have to prove that. I seriously doubt you could.

 

[healthmyths]

Walmart all across the country is in the process of eliminating low paying jobs with the intoduction of self-service checkout.

Is Walmart doing that because they can't make money with the labor force they employ now? Is Walmart on the verge of bankruptcy and desperate to save on labor costs?

No they are doing it because they anticipate the minimum wage dummy!
It takes time to add the self-service to the 1,000s of stores that don't have it.
Once the minimum wage goes to $10.80 the lines cross where it cost less to have less people that are only able of doing check out or manual labor.
Walmart is a business. Get it! The costs of increasing by nearly 30% minimum wage would cost Walmart in so many ways more then just labor!

 

[OnePercenter]

Obama said:
“So far this year, Republicans in Congress have blocked every serious idea to strengthen the middle class.”
Obama specifically mentioned “lifting the minimum wage, fair pay, student loan reform.”
Obama?s claim that the GOP has ?blocked every serious idea? - The Washington Post

So by blocking a minimum wage that would at MOST raise these people's wages:
According to: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf :
1) 797,000 people (25.7%) between 16 to 19 years old work at minimum wage of the total of
2) 3.3 million people that work at minimum wage or 1.1% of Americans

How many households are in the middle class:
Depending on the class model used, the middle class constitutes anywhere from 25% to 66% of households.
In terms of personal income distribution in 2005, that would mean gross annual personal incomes from about $32,500 to $60,000.
American middle class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Obama!!!
How can the Middle Class be helped by raising the minimum wage when less then 3.3 million people ALL categorized as basically
living at poverty level or "LOWER" class ???

And the answer is:

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 300 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure. Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

OK.. RAISE ALL hourly workers to $23.50 from what is currently an average of $15 per hour.
Cost to businesses: 79 million hourly wage earners paid for 2,080 hours a year --- total additional costs raising everyone to $23.50 would be $1.4 trillion .
Which means businesses deduct these costs from their taxes meaning federal/state/local tax revenue would be reduced by $1.4 trillion.

Eliminate business deductions. Here are the ones you'd eliminate:

The Top 20 Tax Expenditures - Business Insider

1. $171 billion in 2012 was deducted from taxes for... health insurance for EMPLOYEES!! HEALTH Insurance payments for EMPLOYEES DEDUCTION.. Individuals NOT the "RICH"
   
   So that means ALL health insurance for 150 million employees CANCELLED!
   
2. $138 billion for employees pensions! (Again ... for the employees... NOT THE RICH!!
   
   Pensions cancelled for 150 million employees!

So now you have RAISED costs for businesses by $1.4 trillion, but you have cancelled 150 million people's health and pension plans.

Great thinking!!!

Can't figure it out? Really? My plan reduces employee expenses for employers with 300 or less to the amount of state and federal taxes and subsidizes the rest.

 

[healthmyths]

And the answer is:

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 300 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure. Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

OK.. RAISE ALL hourly workers to $23.50 from what is currently an average of $15 per hour.
Cost to businesses: 79 million hourly wage earners paid for 2,080 hours a year --- total additional costs raising everyone to $23.50 would be $1.4 trillion .
Which means businesses deduct these costs from their taxes meaning federal/state/local tax revenue would be reduced by $1.4 trillion.

Eliminate business deductions. Here are the ones you'd eliminate:

The Top 20 Tax Expenditures - Business Insider

1. $171 billion in 2012 was deducted from taxes for... health insurance for EMPLOYEES!! HEALTH Insurance payments for EMPLOYEES DEDUCTION.. Individuals NOT the "RICH"
   
   So that means ALL health insurance for 150 million employees CANCELLED!
   
2. $138 billion for employees pensions! (Again ... for the employees... NOT THE RICH!!
   
   Pensions cancelled for 150 million employees!

So now you have RAISED costs for businesses by $1.4 trillion, but you have cancelled 150 million people's health and pension plans.

Great thinking!!!

Can't figure it out? Really? My plan reduces employee expenses for employers with 300 or less to the amount of state and federal taxes and subsidizes the rest.

You forgot ONE thing in your plan for 300 or less.
NO INCENTIVE to hire the 301st employee!
Once again the effort to TELL everyone how much smarter and more capable of running EVERYONE's life is evident and as an elitist snob you cut off any growth.
That's why businesses cut hours to under 30 hours for "full time" to get around the stupid ass ACA requirements.

Under the president’s law, companies employing 50 or more people must provide health insurance coverage to their full-time workers (30 hours or more per week) or face fines up to $3,000 per employee starting in 2015. This costly $52 billion mandate includes private and public businesses throughout the United States.

In order to avoid this penalty, many employers have made the difficult decision to cut their employee hours to 29 hours a week or less. For many low-income families, a 10 hour decrease in work translates to less pay and places a significant strain on family budgets
Obamacare's biggest impacts: Americans losing hours, losing coverage | The Daily Caller
Great job of helping the "middle class"!
And you are also giving the finger to hiring more that 301st employee!

After we are still not a "central planning" state in America where we still have some semblance of self-determination!

But with elitists' attitudes like your's "OK any business hiring the 301st employee.. BAM...!
Such a shitty plan!

 

[OnePercenter]

OK.. RAISE ALL hourly workers to $23.50 from what is currently an average of $15 per hour.
Cost to businesses: 79 million hourly wage earners paid for 2,080 hours a year --- total additional costs raising everyone to $23.50 would be $1.4 trillion .
Which means businesses deduct these costs from their taxes meaning federal/state/local tax revenue would be reduced by $1.4 trillion.

Eliminate business deductions. Here are the ones you'd eliminate:

The Top 20 Tax Expenditures - Business Insider

1. $171 billion in 2012 was deducted from taxes for... health insurance for EMPLOYEES!! HEALTH Insurance payments for EMPLOYEES DEDUCTION.. Individuals NOT the "RICH"
   
   So that means ALL health insurance for 150 million employees CANCELLED!
   
2. $138 billion for employees pensions! (Again ... for the employees... NOT THE RICH!!
   
   Pensions cancelled for 150 million employees!

So now you have RAISED costs for businesses by $1.4 trillion, but you have cancelled 150 million people's health and pension plans.

Great thinking!!!

Can't figure it out? Really? My plan reduces employee expenses for employers with 300 or less to the amount of state and federal taxes and subsidizes the rest.

You forgot ONE thing in your plan for 300 or less.
NO INCENTIVE to hire the 301st employee!
Once again the effort to TELL everyone how much smarter and more capable of running EVERYONE's life is evident and as an elitist snob you cut off any growth.
That's why businesses cut hours to under 30 hours for "full time" to get around the stupid ass ACA requirements.

Under the president’s law, companies employing 50 or more people must provide health insurance coverage to their full-time workers (30 hours or more per week) or face fines up to $3,000 per employee starting in 2015. This costly $52 billion mandate includes private and public businesses throughout the United States.

In order to avoid this penalty, many employers have made the difficult decision to cut their employee hours to 29 hours a week or less. For many low-income families, a 10 hour decrease in work translates to less pay and places a significant strain on family budgets
Obamacare's biggest impacts: Americans losing hours, losing coverage | The Daily Caller
Great job of helping the "middle class"!
And you are also giving the finger to hiring more that 301st employee!

After we are still not a "central planning" state in America where we still have some semblance of self-determination!

But with elitists' attitudes like your's "OK any business hiring the 301st employee.. BAM...!
Such a shitty plan!

Split the company. WalMart doesn't have more than 300 at each store whom employees are paid.

 

[Mathbud1]

Can't figure it out? Really? My plan reduces employee expenses for employers with 300 or less to the amount of state and federal taxes and subsidizes the rest.

You forgot ONE thing in your plan for 300 or less.
NO INCENTIVE to hire the 301st employee!
Once again the effort to TELL everyone how much smarter and more capable of running EVERYONE's life is evident and as an elitist snob you cut off any growth.
That's why businesses cut hours to under 30 hours for "full time" to get around the stupid ass ACA requirements.

Under the president’s law, companies employing 50 or more people must provide health insurance coverage to their full-time workers (30 hours or more per week) or face fines up to $3,000 per employee starting in 2015. This costly $52 billion mandate includes private and public businesses throughout the United States.

In order to avoid this penalty, many employers have made the difficult decision to cut their employee hours to 29 hours a week or less. For many low-income families, a 10 hour decrease in work translates to less pay and places a significant strain on family budgets
Obamacare's biggest impacts: Americans losing hours, losing coverage | The Daily Caller
Great job of helping the "middle class"!
And you are also giving the finger to hiring more that 301st employee!

After we are still not a "central planning" state in America where we still have some semblance of self-determination!

But with elitists' attitudes like your's "OK any business hiring the 301st employee.. BAM...!
Such a shitty plan!

Split the company. WalMart doesn't have more than 300 at each store whom employees are paid.

What about other companies? The company I work for employs 1000 at a single site, and over 30,000 all told. Tell me exactly how it would be feasible to split that company? And with a majority of their workers making less than $23.50 and a bunch of their slightly more skilled employees making near that, how do you propose they absorb the cost of the increase you want?

That's just one company.

 

[OnePercenter]

You forgot ONE thing in your plan for 300 or less.
NO INCENTIVE to hire the 301st employee!
Once again the effort to TELL everyone how much smarter and more capable of running EVERYONE's life is evident and as an elitist snob you cut off any growth.
That's why businesses cut hours to under 30 hours for "full time" to get around the stupid ass ACA requirements.

Under the president’s law, companies employing 50 or more people must provide health insurance coverage to their full-time workers (30 hours or more per week) or face fines up to $3,000 per employee starting in 2015. This costly $52 billion mandate includes private and public businesses throughout the United States.

In order to avoid this penalty, many employers have made the difficult decision to cut their employee hours to 29 hours a week or less. For many low-income families, a 10 hour decrease in work translates to less pay and places a significant strain on family budgets
Obamacare's biggest impacts: Americans losing hours, losing coverage | The Daily Caller
Great job of helping the "middle class"!
And you are also giving the finger to hiring more that 301st employee!

After we are still not a "central planning" state in America where we still have some semblance of self-determination!

But with elitists' attitudes like your's "OK any business hiring the 301st employee.. BAM...!
Such a shitty plan!

Split the company. WalMart doesn't have more than 300 at each store whom employees are paid.

What about other companies? The company I work for employs 1000 at a single site, and over 30,000 all told. Tell me exactly how it would be feasible to split that company? And with a majority of their workers making less than $23.50 and a bunch of their slightly more skilled employees making near that, how do you propose they absorb the cost of the increase you want?

That's just one company.

The company you work for doesn't pay by budgeted departments?

 

[Mathbud1]

Split the company. WalMart doesn't have more than 300 at each store whom employees are paid.

What about other companies? The company I work for employs 1000 at a single site, and over 30,000 all told. Tell me exactly how it would be feasible to split that company? And with a majority of their workers making less than $23.50 and a bunch of their slightly more skilled employees making near that, how do you propose they absorb the cost of the increase you want?

That's just one company.

The company you work for doesn't pay by budgeted departments?

And? Are you seriously suggesting they would split into 100 separate companies to have your arbitrary 300 employees?

If that is what you are suggesting, do you have any idea how unworkable it would be to have 4 or more separate companies under the single roof at our location? Does I.T. become it's own company that then has to be hired by each other company separately or does each company hire their own I.T. department, build their own server room, buy their own servers and network infrastructure... on and on. Do the new department-companies sell parts to each other so they can make their products?

And that doesn't even begin to address the massive cost increases from increasing wages to $23.50 on top of the added administrative cost of running separate businesses.

In other words, your plan sounds ludicrous.

 

[BobPlumb]

What about other companies? The company I work for employs 1000 at a single site, and over 30,000 all told. Tell me exactly how it would be feasible to split that company? And with a majority of their workers making less than $23.50 and a bunch of their slightly more skilled employees making near that, how do you propose they absorb the cost of the increase you want?

That's just one company.

The company you work for doesn't pay by budgeted departments?

And? Are you seriously suggesting they would split into 100 separate companies to have your arbitrary 300 employees?

If that is what you are suggesting, do you have any idea how unworkable it would be to have 4 or more separate companies under the single roof at our location? Does I.T. become it's own company that then has to be hired by each other company separately or does each company hire their own I.T. department, build their own server room, buy their own servers and network infrastructure... on and on. Do the new department-companies sell parts to each other so they can make their products?

And that doesn't even begin to address the massive cost increases from increasing wages to $23.50 on top of the added administrative cost of running separate businesses.

In other words, your plan sounds ludicrous.

He just thinking outside of the box!

 

[Mathbud1]

The company you work for doesn't pay by budgeted departments?

And? Are you seriously suggesting they would split into 100 separate companies to have your arbitrary 300 employees?

If that is what you are suggesting, do you have any idea how unworkable it would be to have 4 or more separate companies under the single roof at our location? Does I.T. become it's own company that then has to be hired by each other company separately or does each company hire their own I.T. department, build their own server room, buy their own servers and network infrastructure... on and on. Do the new department-companies sell parts to each other so they can make their products?

And that doesn't even begin to address the massive cost increases from increasing wages to $23.50 on top of the added administrative cost of running separate businesses.

In other words, your plan sounds ludicrous.

He just thinking outside of the box!

Waaaaaay outside the box. Like blow-the-box-up-with-c4-and-piss-on-the-ashes outside the box.

 

[healthmyths]

The company you work for doesn't pay by budgeted departments?

And? Are you seriously suggesting they would split into 100 separate companies to have your arbitrary 300 employees?

If that is what you are suggesting, do you have any idea how unworkable it would be to have 4 or more separate companies under the single roof at our location? Does I.T. become it's own company that then has to be hired by each other company separately or does each company hire their own I.T. department, build their own server room, buy their own servers and network infrastructure... on and on. Do the new department-companies sell parts to each other so they can make their products?

And that doesn't even begin to address the massive cost increases from increasing wages to $23.50 on top of the added administrative cost of running separate businesses.

In other words, your plan sounds ludicrous.

He just thinking outside of the box!

He is also thinking OUTSIDE government rules and regulations.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9790
PER OSHA "water closet" means a toilet facility maintained within a toilet room for the purpose of both defecation and urination and which is flushed with water.
Minimum number of employees' water closets
1 to 15.................................................... 1
16 to 35................................................... 2
36 to 55................................................... 3
56 to 80................................................... 4
81 to 110................................................. 5
111 to 150................................................6
Over 150 ..................................................1 for every 40 employees.
With his magic figure of 300 that means
Every facility of your 100 facilities of 300 employees exactly would mean a total of 100 facilities X 10 water closets per facility or 1,000 water closets.
So instead of a OSHA inspector having to visit just ONE site to see if there are 1,000 water closets the inspector would have to make 100 different visits to verify there
were 10 water closets per each 300 employee facility.

Think of it. Government bureaucracy in action.
And this is just ONE rule and regulation that limiting employees to 300 per company would involve.

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase
from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Over the past decade, the federal government has issued almost 38,000 new final rules, according to the draft of the 2011 annual report to Congress on federal regulations by the Office of Management and Budget. That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

Seventy percent of the regulations were economic, accounting for $1.236 trillion of the annual cost. The other regulations were, in order of cost, environment regulations ($281 billion), tax compliance ($160 billion) and occupational safety and health and homeland security ($75 billion).

And this really well thought out plan to limit employees to 300 per company ... I don't think it envisioned the 169,301 pages of JUST FEDERAL Rules and Regulations!

 

[healthmyths]

So assuming the OHSA inspector checking water closets takes 5 minutes to count the 10 water closets and travel time is say 10 minutes to every one of the 100 sites it would take this OHSA inspector a total of 1500 minutes or 3 full days to inspect water closets for the 100 facilities...assuming the travel time is 10 minutes...BUT knowing the penchant for government rules and regulations to follow the maximum of
300 employees per company as stated by OnePercenter a separate company would have to be separated by a minimum of 10 miles.
Meaning the OHSA inspector might take 30 minutes to travel to get out of car and then inspect the 100 sites... or 9 days just to do water closet inspections!

Just another day in OnePercenter's limited knowledge of how business' cope with the 169,301 pages of JUST Federal rules and regulations.
Forget about state and local rules!

 

[OnePercenter]

The company you work for doesn't pay by budgeted departments?

And? Are you seriously suggesting they would split into 100 separate companies to have your arbitrary 300 employees?

If that is what you are suggesting, do you have any idea how unworkable it would be to have 4 or more separate companies under the single roof at our location? Does I.T. become it's own company that then has to be hired by each other company separately or does each company hire their own I.T. department, build their own server room, buy their own servers and network infrastructure... on and on. Do the new department-companies sell parts to each other so they can make their products?

And that doesn't even begin to address the massive cost increases from increasing wages to $23.50 on top of the added administrative cost of running separate businesses.

In other words, your plan sounds ludicrous.

He just thinking outside of the box!

What about other companies? The company I work for employs 1000 at a single site, and over 30,000 all told. Tell me exactly how it would be feasible to split that company? And with a majority of their workers making less than $23.50 and a bunch of their slightly more skilled employees making near that, how do you propose they absorb the cost of the increase you want?

That's just one company.

The company you work for doesn't pay by budgeted departments?

And? Are you seriously suggesting they would split into 100 separate companies to have your arbitrary 300 employees?

If that is what you are suggesting, do you have any idea how unworkable it would be to have 4 or more separate companies under the single roof at our location? Does I.T. become it's own company that then has to be hired by each other company separately or does each company hire their own I.T. department, build their own server room, buy their own servers and network infrastructure... on and on. Do the new department-companies sell parts to each other so they can make their products?

And that doesn't even begin to address the massive cost increases from increasing wages to $23.50 on top of the added administrative cost of running separate businesses.

In other words, your plan sounds ludicrous.

And? Are you seriously suggesting they would split into 100 separate companies to have your arbitrary 300 employees?

If that is what you are suggesting, do you have any idea how unworkable it would be to have 4 or more separate companies under the single roof at our location? Does I.T. become it's own company that then has to be hired by each other company separately or does each company hire their own I.T. department, build their own server room, buy their own servers and network infrastructure... on and on. Do the new department-companies sell parts to each other so they can make their products?

And that doesn't even begin to address the massive cost increases from increasing wages to $23.50 on top of the added administrative cost of running separate businesses.

In other words, your plan sounds ludicrous.

He just thinking outside of the box!

Waaaaaay outside the box. Like blow-the-box-up-with-c4-and-piss-on-the-ashes outside the box.

Read and learn

WalMart is actually five different companies that have budget divisions within each.

Procurement, logistics, transportation, stores, and Sam's Club.

Within each super store you have at least five different divisions, as well as the neighborhood markets, each having their own budget for expenses and payroll.

----

The two companies I Angel Invest are actually six different companies with different budgets. Engineering, construction, high construction, private, municipal, and leasing. Each has a separate budget with payroll.

----

A residential management company that I'm currently advising has separated their IT department to develop IT leasing for other management companies. Now has a separate budget and payroll.

Anything else?

 

[OnePercenter]

And? Are you seriously suggesting they would split into 100 separate companies to have your arbitrary 300 employees?

If that is what you are suggesting, do you have any idea how unworkable it would be to have 4 or more separate companies under the single roof at our location? Does I.T. become it's own company that then has to be hired by each other company separately or does each company hire their own I.T. department, build their own server room, buy their own servers and network infrastructure... on and on. Do the new department-companies sell parts to each other so they can make their products?

And that doesn't even begin to address the massive cost increases from increasing wages to $23.50 on top of the added administrative cost of running separate businesses.

In other words, your plan sounds ludicrous.

He just thinking outside of the box!

He is also thinking OUTSIDE government rules and regulations.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9790
PER OSHA "water closet" means a toilet facility maintained within a toilet room for the purpose of both defecation and urination and which is flushed with water.
Minimum number of employees' water closets
1 to 15.................................................... 1
16 to 35................................................... 2
36 to 55................................................... 3
56 to 80................................................... 4
81 to 110................................................. 5
111 to 150................................................6
Over 150 ..................................................1 for every 40 employees.
With his magic figure of 300 that means
Every facility of your 100 facilities of 300 employees exactly would mean a total of 100 facilities X 10 water closets per facility or 1,000 water closets.
So instead of a OSHA inspector having to visit just ONE site to see if there are 1,000 water closets the inspector would have to make 100 different visits to verify there
were 10 water closets per each 300 employee facility.

Think of it. Government bureaucracy in action.
And this is just ONE rule and regulation that limiting employees to 300 per company would involve.

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase
from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Over the past decade, the federal government has issued almost 38,000 new final rules, according to the draft of the 2011 annual report to Congress on federal regulations by the Office of Management and Budget. That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

Seventy percent of the regulations were economic, accounting for $1.236 trillion of the annual cost. The other regulations were, in order of cost, environment regulations ($281 billion), tax compliance ($160 billion) and occupational safety and health and homeland security ($75 billion).

And this really well thought out plan to limit employees to 300 per company ... I don't think it envisioned the 169,301 pages of JUST FEDERAL Rules and Regulations!

Why would you limit employees to 300? Are you making stuff up again? The 300 is for a subsidy. More than 300....FUCK YOU no subsidy.

 

[OnePercenter]

So assuming the OHSA inspector checking water closets takes 5 minutes to count the 10 water closets and travel time is say 10 minutes to every one of the 100 sites it would take this OHSA inspector a total of 1500 minutes or 3 full days to inspect water closets for the 100 facilities...assuming the travel time is 10 minutes...BUT knowing the penchant for government rules and regulations to follow the maximum of
300 employees per company as stated by OnePercenter a separate company would have to be separated by a minimum of 10 miles.
Meaning the OHSA inspector might take 30 minutes to travel to get out of car and then inspect the 100 sites... or 9 days just to do water closet inspections!

Just another day in OnePercenter's limited knowledge of how business' cope with the 169,301 pages of JUST Federal rules and regulations.
Forget about state and local rules!

You are soooooo full of shit. A company with different divisions has to be separated by 10 miles? Not at all true.