Paid time off for me, no paid time off for you.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I guess you don't understand the incubation period. If he was sick, contaminated a lot of other people in Congress and they had to totally shutdown, you would have criticized him for that as well.

He's not being criticized for going on leave, ya nincompoop. He is being criticized for thinking we shouldn't guarantee for others what he is taking for granted.

 

[Andylusion]

GOP LAWMAKER WHO VOTED AGAINST PAID SICK LEAVE IN FLORIDA TAKES PAID LEAVE FROM CONGRESS

Gaetz Voted Against Florida Paid Sick Leave. He’s Using It in Congress.

As the article notes, he isn't even sick but he is still going to take time off, all paid for by the taxpayers.

So here's the problem with this.

Everyone on the left, needs to grasp that every benefit they get from the company, has to come out of their own pay check.

Employers always base how much they pay, on how much it costs them to employ you. This is known as "total cost of employment".

Let us take a mythical example... Say a company decides they need to have someone work in the warehouse. They have a budget set aside, of roughly $30,000 for the position.

Does that mean they can pay someone $30,000 to work in their warehouse?

Well in a completely free-market situation, yes, but in the current situation no.

Because for example, the employer must pay ~7.6% in employer side taxes for that employee. That's over $2,300 roughly, on a $30,000.

So where does that money come from? Well it comes out of the $30,000 set aside for the position. The company does not have money that magically falls from the sky to pay taxes with. It has to come out of the money set aside for the position, and obviously you can't pay both the employee, and the government with the same dollar.

So that means to pay out several thousand in taxes, I have to pay several thousand less to the employee.

$30,000 will end up being $27,700, with the money the employee would have earned, going to the government instead.

The exact same thing is true of all benefits. All the money that goes for health insurance, comes from employees in lower wages.

And the same is true of paid sick-leave. If you want a week of getting paid to not be at work, that comes out of your own pay, in lower wages.

View attachment 312841

Now some people think that's worth it. And I respect that opinion.

But you need to grasp that the people who will be most affected by make this law, will be the people who are the poorest. The poorest people, will end up with lower wages, to pay for more sick pay.

Do you want the poorest people earning less money, but having some PTO if they are sick? Or would you rather they earn more, and a very few not having PTO?

Because that's the choice you have. There is no, just get free stuff, and "the rich" pay for it. That's not reality.

So I take a little less so that my co-worker doesn't lose his house when he gets sick.

I'm OK with that.

And that is a valid position to take.

Keep in mind, there is one other aspect you need to know about.

In the case of people that are bumping up against the minimum wage, then the company simply can't afford to pay more money for low-value work. The result is those people will end up losing hours. They'll be put on part time, or end up losing their jobs entirely.

You mention people losing their house, but the reality is most people that have a house, are in higher-value work, and likely already have PTO.

The people working the low-wage jobs that sometimes don't have PTO... are likely not buying a house anyway.

However, I think we also need to realize that if you accept this position, then you can never again complain that wages are not rising as fast as they did in the past.

You are diverting money away from wages, in exchange for benefits. That's it the position you have chosen, so yeah, wages are not going to rise as fast as in the past, and you can't complain about that anymore.

You are accepting that as policy.

I will note, you only say that the employers must give up something, but never mention the shareholders giving up something.

So you will continue to pay more in taxes for welfare so shareholders can be happy.

Well that's true, because the shareholders are simply... not going to give up something.

I'm a shareholder myself. I own stock in many companies.

I can promise you, that once a year, I review my investments. If I see that my investments are not paying off, then I sell them off, and buy investments that do pay off.

I'm sure there are professional investors who check every month, and review what is paying off, and what is not. Companies that fail to payout to investors (shareholders), will end up losing investments, or having the shareholders vote out management, and replacing them with people who do the job.

I think this is another one of those areas, where people think "everyone else should do... what I would never do".

Because you would never do that. You would never invest thousands of dollars, and not get a good return on your investment. Honestly, if I didn't get a good return, I could move my money over seas. I already have open investments in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (yes, which is now china).

Why would I cut my ROI on investments, when I have tens of thousands in investments? If you are going to cut that down, I would just put my money in CDs, and not take the risk of stock investments. There has to be a pay off, worth the risk of the investment.

 

[easyt65]

GOP LAWMAKER WHO VOTED AGAINST PAID SICK LEAVE IN FLORIDA TAKES PAID LEAVE FROM CONGRESS

Gaetz Voted Against Florida Paid Sick Leave. He’s Using It in Congress.

As the article notes, he isn't even sick but he is still going to take time off, all paid for by the taxpayers.

Politicians suck....this is just another example of how these specific politicians suck in this specific situation. You could put on a blindfold, point to a member of Congress in a huge group photo and find examples / cases of how each one sucks / has taken advantage of their position and power.

 

[Andylusion]

I guess you don't understand the incubation period. If he was sick, contaminated a lot of other people in Congress and they had to totally shutdown, you would have criticized him for that as well.

He's not being criticized for going on leave, ya nincompoop. He is being criticized for thinking we shouldn't guarantee for others what he is taking for granted.

Well again... it's because there are economic consequences for guaranteeing a benefit.

It's not about "I want benefits, no one else can have".

It's more about "this will harm people's wages, and damage job growth, primarily among the people who need jobs the most."

 

[Osiris-ODS]

He's not taking "paid sick leave" -- he's in a guaranteed salary position, not a wage-an-hour position.

In other words, paid sick leave.

You are either a minor or student who is not yet in the workforce, unemployed, or just gaslighting. Because it is impossible for somebody who is actually in the workforce to be this uninformed about the definition of paid sick leave.

 

[HappyJoy]

GOP LAWMAKER WHO VOTED AGAINST PAID SICK LEAVE IN FLORIDA TAKES PAID LEAVE FROM CONGRESS

Gaetz Voted Against Florida Paid Sick Leave. He’s Using It in Congress.

As the article notes, he isn't even sick but he is still going to take time off, all paid for by the taxpayers.

He shouldn't have paid leave either.

Paid leave is a part of any package negotiated between employer and employee.
Congress has no business dictating someones employment package.

We live in a society. People who get sick still have to eat and have electricity. Those who get sick will get paid one way or the other, the employer or taxpayer.

I have missed MANY DAYS of work in my lifetime. Neither the government or my customers paid me anyhow.

Responsible people prepare for emergencies.

Oh, so someone else had to make the license plates that day?

 

[Dragonlady]

When headlines are written to, by design, get an emotional response...

And you give them one.

It's cute.

Annoying, but cute.

He isn't sick, why isn't he at work?

He is self-quarantining after shaking hands with that guy who tested positive at CPAC.

 

[amethyst]

He is working from home. End of story.

 

[pknopp]

He was tested. It came back negative. He said he was going to not go to work anyway.

Don't we all wish we could come in to work only when we want to?

Testing negative does not mean you don't have it if you are in the early stages of getting it. And again, just because he's home doesn't mean he's not working.

He's not sick. You know it.

I'm glad you have the medical degree to make that determination that I can't.

If he was sick it would be all over the news.

I guess you don't understand the incubation period. If he was sick, contaminated a lot of other people in Congress and they had to totally shutdown, you would have criticized him for that as well.

So he's going to take an extra week for precautions. Big deal. It beats the entire Congress shutting down for several weeks. Sounds to me like he's doing the responsible thing not only for his fellow congress people, but the public in general.

If he was sick......he's not. It's great he has the luxury that he would deny others of having.

 

[pknopp]

GOP LAWMAKER WHO VOTED AGAINST PAID SICK LEAVE IN FLORIDA TAKES PAID LEAVE FROM CONGRESS

Gaetz Voted Against Florida Paid Sick Leave. He’s Using It in Congress.

As the article notes, he isn't even sick but he is still going to take time off, all paid for by the taxpayers.

So here's the problem with this.

Everyone on the left, needs to grasp that every benefit they get from the company, has to come out of their own pay check.

Employers always base how much they pay, on how much it costs them to employ you. This is known as "total cost of employment".

Let us take a mythical example... Say a company decides they need to have someone work in the warehouse. They have a budget set aside, of roughly $30,000 for the position.

Does that mean they can pay someone $30,000 to work in their warehouse?

Well in a completely free-market situation, yes, but in the current situation no.

Because for example, the employer must pay ~7.6% in employer side taxes for that employee. That's over $2,300 roughly, on a $30,000.

So where does that money come from? Well it comes out of the $30,000 set aside for the position. The company does not have money that magically falls from the sky to pay taxes with. It has to come out of the money set aside for the position, and obviously you can't pay both the employee, and the government with the same dollar.

So that means to pay out several thousand in taxes, I have to pay several thousand less to the employee.

$30,000 will end up being $27,700, with the money the employee would have earned, going to the government instead.

The exact same thing is true of all benefits. All the money that goes for health insurance, comes from employees in lower wages.

And the same is true of paid sick-leave. If you want a week of getting paid to not be at work, that comes out of your own pay, in lower wages.

View attachment 312841

Now some people think that's worth it. And I respect that opinion.

But you need to grasp that the people who will be most affected by make this law, will be the people who are the poorest. The poorest people, will end up with lower wages, to pay for more sick pay.

Do you want the poorest people earning less money, but having some PTO if they are sick? Or would you rather they earn more, and a very few not having PTO?

Because that's the choice you have. There is no, just get free stuff, and "the rich" pay for it. That's not reality.

So I take a little less so that my co-worker doesn't lose his house when he gets sick.

I'm OK with that.

And that is a valid position to take.

Keep in mind, there is one other aspect you need to know about.

In the case of people that are bumping up against the minimum wage, then the company simply can't afford to pay more money for low-value work. The result is those people will end up losing hours. They'll be put on part time, or end up losing their jobs entirely.

You mention people losing their house, but the reality is most people that have a house, are in higher-value work, and likely already have PTO.

The people working the low-wage jobs that sometimes don't have PTO... are likely not buying a house anyway.

However, I think we also need to realize that if you accept this position, then you can never again complain that wages are not rising as fast as they did in the past.

You are diverting money away from wages, in exchange for benefits. That's it the position you have chosen, so yeah, wages are not going to rise as fast as in the past, and you can't complain about that anymore.

You are accepting that as policy.

I will note, you only say that the employers must give up something, but never mention the shareholders giving up something.

So you will continue to pay more in taxes for welfare so shareholders can be happy.

Well that's true, because the shareholders are simply... not going to give up something.

I'm a shareholder myself. I own stock in many companies.

I can promise you, that once a year, I review my investments. If I see that my investments are not paying off, then I sell them off, and buy investments that do pay off.

I'm sure there are professional investors who check every month, and review what is paying off, and what is not. Companies that fail to payout to investors (shareholders), will end up losing investments, or having the shareholders vote out management, and replacing them with people who do the job.

I think this is another one of those areas, where people think "everyone else should do... what I would never do".

Because you would never do that. You would never invest thousands of dollars, and not get a good return on your investment. Honestly, if I didn't get a good return, I could move my money over seas. I already have open investments in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (yes, which is now china).

Why would I cut my ROI on investments, when I have tens of thousands in investments? If you are going to cut that down, I would just put my money in CDs, and not take the risk of stock investments. There has to be a pay off, worth the risk of the investment.

The world should not revolve around "shareholders". A company can be profitable but still get crushed because they are not "profitable" enough.

People shouldn't have to apply for welfare because 8% isn't enough for shareholders.

 

[pknopp]

When headlines are written to, by design, get an emotional response...

And you give them one.

It's cute.

Annoying, but cute.

He isn't sick, why isn't he at work?

He is self-quarantining after shaking hands with that guy who tested positive at CPAC.

Which would be fine but he tested negative. Many do not have that luxury (to quickly get tested on the taxpayers dollar).

 

[iceberg]

So here's the problem with this.

Everyone on the left, needs to grasp that every benefit they get from the company, has to come out of their own pay check.

Employers always base how much they pay, on how much it costs them to employ you. This is known as "total cost of employment".

Let us take a mythical example... Say a company decides they need to have someone work in the warehouse. They have a budget set aside, of roughly $30,000 for the position.

Does that mean they can pay someone $30,000 to work in their warehouse?

Well in a completely free-market situation, yes, but in the current situation no.

Because for example, the employer must pay ~7.6% in employer side taxes for that employee. That's over $2,300 roughly, on a $30,000.

So where does that money come from? Well it comes out of the $30,000 set aside for the position. The company does not have money that magically falls from the sky to pay taxes with. It has to come out of the money set aside for the position, and obviously you can't pay both the employee, and the government with the same dollar.

So that means to pay out several thousand in taxes, I have to pay several thousand less to the employee.

$30,000 will end up being $27,700, with the money the employee would have earned, going to the government instead.

The exact same thing is true of all benefits. All the money that goes for health insurance, comes from employees in lower wages.

And the same is true of paid sick-leave. If you want a week of getting paid to not be at work, that comes out of your own pay, in lower wages.

View attachment 312841

Now some people think that's worth it. And I respect that opinion.

But you need to grasp that the people who will be most affected by make this law, will be the people who are the poorest. The poorest people, will end up with lower wages, to pay for more sick pay.

Do you want the poorest people earning less money, but having some PTO if they are sick? Or would you rather they earn more, and a very few not having PTO?

Because that's the choice you have. There is no, just get free stuff, and "the rich" pay for it. That's not reality.

So I take a little less so that my co-worker doesn't lose his house when he gets sick.

I'm OK with that.

And that is a valid position to take.

Keep in mind, there is one other aspect you need to know about.

In the case of people that are bumping up against the minimum wage, then the company simply can't afford to pay more money for low-value work. The result is those people will end up losing hours. They'll be put on part time, or end up losing their jobs entirely.

You mention people losing their house, but the reality is most people that have a house, are in higher-value work, and likely already have PTO.

The people working the low-wage jobs that sometimes don't have PTO... are likely not buying a house anyway.

However, I think we also need to realize that if you accept this position, then you can never again complain that wages are not rising as fast as they did in the past.

You are diverting money away from wages, in exchange for benefits. That's it the position you have chosen, so yeah, wages are not going to rise as fast as in the past, and you can't complain about that anymore.

You are accepting that as policy.

I will note, you only say that the employers must give up something, but never mention the shareholders giving up something.

So you will continue to pay more in taxes for welfare so shareholders can be happy.

Well that's true, because the shareholders are simply... not going to give up something.

I'm a shareholder myself. I own stock in many companies.

I can promise you, that once a year, I review my investments. If I see that my investments are not paying off, then I sell them off, and buy investments that do pay off.

I'm sure there are professional investors who check every month, and review what is paying off, and what is not. Companies that fail to payout to investors (shareholders), will end up losing investments, or having the shareholders vote out management, and replacing them with people who do the job.

I think this is another one of those areas, where people think "everyone else should do... what I would never do".

Because you would never do that. You would never invest thousands of dollars, and not get a good return on your investment. Honestly, if I didn't get a good return, I could move my money over seas. I already have open investments in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (yes, which is now china).

Why would I cut my ROI on investments, when I have tens of thousands in investments? If you are going to cut that down, I would just put my money in CDs, and not take the risk of stock investments. There has to be a pay off, worth the risk of the investment.

The world should not revolve around "shareholders". A company can be profitable but still get crushed because they are not "profitable" enough.

People shouldn't have to apply for welfare because 8% isn't enough for shareholders.

you continue to speak in generic terms about specific events. which "people" are suffering? prove it's because of shareholders vs. you just taking the "big money = bad" approach and using soft terminology to define your hard beliefs.

you keep using these extreme situations and trying to pass them off as common occurrences. not *everything* should be addressed nor fixed and these generic "down with the rich" is bullshit to the core.

 

[pknopp]

So I take a little less so that my co-worker doesn't lose his house when he gets sick.

I'm OK with that.

And that is a valid position to take.

Keep in mind, there is one other aspect you need to know about.

In the case of people that are bumping up against the minimum wage, then the company simply can't afford to pay more money for low-value work. The result is those people will end up losing hours. They'll be put on part time, or end up losing their jobs entirely.

You mention people losing their house, but the reality is most people that have a house, are in higher-value work, and likely already have PTO.

The people working the low-wage jobs that sometimes don't have PTO... are likely not buying a house anyway.

However, I think we also need to realize that if you accept this position, then you can never again complain that wages are not rising as fast as they did in the past.

You are diverting money away from wages, in exchange for benefits. That's it the position you have chosen, so yeah, wages are not going to rise as fast as in the past, and you can't complain about that anymore.

You are accepting that as policy.

I will note, you only say that the employers must give up something, but never mention the shareholders giving up something.

So you will continue to pay more in taxes for welfare so shareholders can be happy.

Well that's true, because the shareholders are simply... not going to give up something.

I'm a shareholder myself. I own stock in many companies.

I can promise you, that once a year, I review my investments. If I see that my investments are not paying off, then I sell them off, and buy investments that do pay off.

I'm sure there are professional investors who check every month, and review what is paying off, and what is not. Companies that fail to payout to investors (shareholders), will end up losing investments, or having the shareholders vote out management, and replacing them with people who do the job.

I think this is another one of those areas, where people think "everyone else should do... what I would never do".

Because you would never do that. You would never invest thousands of dollars, and not get a good return on your investment. Honestly, if I didn't get a good return, I could move my money over seas. I already have open investments in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (yes, which is now china).

Why would I cut my ROI on investments, when I have tens of thousands in investments? If you are going to cut that down, I would just put my money in CDs, and not take the risk of stock investments. There has to be a pay off, worth the risk of the investment.

The world should not revolve around "shareholders". A company can be profitable but still get crushed because they are not "profitable" enough.

People shouldn't have to apply for welfare because 8% isn't enough for shareholders.

you continue to speak in generic terms about specific events. which "people" are suffering? prove it's because of shareholders vs. you just taking the "big money = bad" approach and using soft terminology to define your hard beliefs.

you keep using these extreme situations and trying to pass them off as common occurrences. not *everything* should be addressed nor fixed and these generic "down with the rich" is bullshit to the core.

Look at what the markets did with oil awhile back. $150 a barrel. There was no justification for that. That hurt working people a lot.

You can argue it's one instance. The demand for lower and lower rates has hurt retired people who save for decades big time. The system should be balanced not weighed 98% for the markets.

Look at the complete over reaction right now. That's not good for anyone but a very few who can sit in an office with a computer taking advantage of the situation while others have to be out doing an actual job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Testing negative does not mean you don't have it if you are in the early stages of getting it. And again, just because he's home doesn't mean he's not working.

He's not sick. You know it.

I'm glad you have the medical degree to make that determination that I can't.

If he was sick it would be all over the news.

I guess you don't understand the incubation period. If he was sick, contaminated a lot of other people in Congress and they had to totally shutdown, you would have criticized him for that as well.

So he's going to take an extra week for precautions. Big deal. It beats the entire Congress shutting down for several weeks. Sounds to me like he's doing the responsible thing not only for his fellow congress people, but the public in general.

If he was sick......he's not. It's great he has the luxury that he would deny others of having.

Like I said, your ignorance of the incubation period is noted. He could be sick, but it's too early for the test to reveal it. The country is not going to fall apart because one Congress person is not in DC for a week. How much time do you think they spend in DC in the average year anyway?

You people on the left are such a jealous bunch. Where do you think industry would get the money to give people time off? When companies start closing down like dominos because they don't have the labor or are paying people not to work, then you'd be complaining of the failed leadership by their careless actions of paid time off.

He was exposed to a person with the virus. It's the responsible thing to do to stay away from other people. You have no problem with government employees retiring at the age of 55 while the rest of the taxpayers have to work ten, twelve, or perhaps fifteen years longer and support them, but you have a problem with a congressman taking one crummy week of for precautionary measures.

Congressional leaders prepare to work from home if necessary to stop spread of coronavirus

 

[pknopp]

He's not sick. You know it.

I'm glad you have the medical degree to make that determination that I can't.

If he was sick it would be all over the news.

I guess you don't understand the incubation period. If he was sick, contaminated a lot of other people in Congress and they had to totally shutdown, you would have criticized him for that as well.

So he's going to take an extra week for precautions. Big deal. It beats the entire Congress shutting down for several weeks. Sounds to me like he's doing the responsible thing not only for his fellow congress people, but the public in general.

If he was sick......he's not. It's great he has the luxury that he would deny others of having.

Like I said, your ignorance of the incubation period is noted. He could be sick, but it's too early for the test to reveal it. The country is not going to fall apart because one Congress person is not in DC for a week. How much time do you think they spend in DC in the average year anyway?

You people on the left are such a jealous bunch. Where do you think industry would get the money to give people time off? When companies start closing down like dominos because they don't have the labor or are paying people not to work, then you'd be complaining of the failed leadership by their careless actions of paid time off.

He was exposed to a person with the virus. It's the responsible thing to do to stay away from other people. You have no problem with government employees retiring at the age of 55 while the rest of the taxpayers have to work ten, twelve, or perhaps fifteen years longer and support them, but you have a problem with a congressman taking one crummy week of for precautionary measures.

Congressional leaders prepare to work from home if necessary to stop spread of coronavirus

We are 23 Trillion (and growing fast) in debt. Where are we getting the money to pay him?

 

[hadit]

I'm glad you have the medical degree to make that determination that I can't.

If he was sick it would be all over the news.

I guess you don't understand the incubation period. If he was sick, contaminated a lot of other people in Congress and they had to totally shutdown, you would have criticized him for that as well.

So he's going to take an extra week for precautions. Big deal. It beats the entire Congress shutting down for several weeks. Sounds to me like he's doing the responsible thing not only for his fellow congress people, but the public in general.

If he was sick......he's not. It's great he has the luxury that he would deny others of having.

Like I said, your ignorance of the incubation period is noted. He could be sick, but it's too early for the test to reveal it. The country is not going to fall apart because one Congress person is not in DC for a week. How much time do you think they spend in DC in the average year anyway?

You people on the left are such a jealous bunch. Where do you think industry would get the money to give people time off? When companies start closing down like dominos because they don't have the labor or are paying people not to work, then you'd be complaining of the failed leadership by their careless actions of paid time off.

He was exposed to a person with the virus. It's the responsible thing to do to stay away from other people. You have no problem with government employees retiring at the age of 55 while the rest of the taxpayers have to work ten, twelve, or perhaps fifteen years longer and support them, but you have a problem with a congressman taking one crummy week of for precautionary measures.

Congressional leaders prepare to work from home if necessary to stop spread of coronavirus

We are 23 Trillion (and growing fast) in debt. Where are we getting the money to pay him?

From the same place we get the money for food stamps, the general budget, which is funded by the workers of the country. If you want to address the debt, address the spending that causes it. If you don't want to pay Congress, they will all go home and the government will fall apart. While some may actually think that's a good thing in the long run, you would not, because then no one would be writing laws any more and you could not rely on the government for anything.

 

[iceberg]

And that is a valid position to take.

Keep in mind, there is one other aspect you need to know about.

In the case of people that are bumping up against the minimum wage, then the company simply can't afford to pay more money for low-value work. The result is those people will end up losing hours. They'll be put on part time, or end up losing their jobs entirely.

You mention people losing their house, but the reality is most people that have a house, are in higher-value work, and likely already have PTO.

The people working the low-wage jobs that sometimes don't have PTO... are likely not buying a house anyway.

However, I think we also need to realize that if you accept this position, then you can never again complain that wages are not rising as fast as they did in the past.

You are diverting money away from wages, in exchange for benefits. That's it the position you have chosen, so yeah, wages are not going to rise as fast as in the past, and you can't complain about that anymore.

You are accepting that as policy.

I will note, you only say that the employers must give up something, but never mention the shareholders giving up something.

So you will continue to pay more in taxes for welfare so shareholders can be happy.

Well that's true, because the shareholders are simply... not going to give up something.

I'm a shareholder myself. I own stock in many companies.

I can promise you, that once a year, I review my investments. If I see that my investments are not paying off, then I sell them off, and buy investments that do pay off.

I'm sure there are professional investors who check every month, and review what is paying off, and what is not. Companies that fail to payout to investors (shareholders), will end up losing investments, or having the shareholders vote out management, and replacing them with people who do the job.

I think this is another one of those areas, where people think "everyone else should do... what I would never do".

Because you would never do that. You would never invest thousands of dollars, and not get a good return on your investment. Honestly, if I didn't get a good return, I could move my money over seas. I already have open investments in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (yes, which is now china).

Why would I cut my ROI on investments, when I have tens of thousands in investments? If you are going to cut that down, I would just put my money in CDs, and not take the risk of stock investments. There has to be a pay off, worth the risk of the investment.

The world should not revolve around "shareholders". A company can be profitable but still get crushed because they are not "profitable" enough.

People shouldn't have to apply for welfare because 8% isn't enough for shareholders.

you continue to speak in generic terms about specific events. which "people" are suffering? prove it's because of shareholders vs. you just taking the "big money = bad" approach and using soft terminology to define your hard beliefs.

you keep using these extreme situations and trying to pass them off as common occurrences. not *everything* should be addressed nor fixed and these generic "down with the rich" is bullshit to the core.

Look at what the markets did with oil awhile back. $150 a barrel. There was no justification for that. That hurt working people a lot.

You can argue it's one instance. The demand for lower and lower rates has hurt retired people who save for decades big time. The system should be balanced not weighed 98% for the markets.

Look at the complete over reaction right now. That's not good for anyone but a very few who can sit in an office with a computer taking advantage of the situation while others have to be out doing an actual job.

And? should people not try to continue as normal as possible? should those who can work during this problem NOT work just to make life "fair"?

again you go after the extreme and act as it should be treated the same. it shouldn't. that's why it's extreme.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm glad you have the medical degree to make that determination that I can't.

If he was sick it would be all over the news.

I guess you don't understand the incubation period. If he was sick, contaminated a lot of other people in Congress and they had to totally shutdown, you would have criticized him for that as well.

So he's going to take an extra week for precautions. Big deal. It beats the entire Congress shutting down for several weeks. Sounds to me like he's doing the responsible thing not only for his fellow congress people, but the public in general.

If he was sick......he's not. It's great he has the luxury that he would deny others of having.

Like I said, your ignorance of the incubation period is noted. He could be sick, but it's too early for the test to reveal it. The country is not going to fall apart because one Congress person is not in DC for a week. How much time do you think they spend in DC in the average year anyway?

You people on the left are such a jealous bunch. Where do you think industry would get the money to give people time off? When companies start closing down like dominos because they don't have the labor or are paying people not to work, then you'd be complaining of the failed leadership by their careless actions of paid time off.

He was exposed to a person with the virus. It's the responsible thing to do to stay away from other people. You have no problem with government employees retiring at the age of 55 while the rest of the taxpayers have to work ten, twelve, or perhaps fifteen years longer and support them, but you have a problem with a congressman taking one crummy week of for precautionary measures.

Congressional leaders prepare to work from home if necessary to stop spread of coronavirus

We are 23 Trillion (and growing fast) in debt. Where are we getting the money to pay him?

Where would we get the money to pay 150 million workers with paid time off? Somebody has to pay those people.

 

[pknopp]

If he was sick it would be all over the news.

I guess you don't understand the incubation period. If he was sick, contaminated a lot of other people in Congress and they had to totally shutdown, you would have criticized him for that as well.

So he's going to take an extra week for precautions. Big deal. It beats the entire Congress shutting down for several weeks. Sounds to me like he's doing the responsible thing not only for his fellow congress people, but the public in general.

If he was sick......he's not. It's great he has the luxury that he would deny others of having.

Like I said, your ignorance of the incubation period is noted. He could be sick, but it's too early for the test to reveal it. The country is not going to fall apart because one Congress person is not in DC for a week. How much time do you think they spend in DC in the average year anyway?

You people on the left are such a jealous bunch. Where do you think industry would get the money to give people time off? When companies start closing down like dominos because they don't have the labor or are paying people not to work, then you'd be complaining of the failed leadership by their careless actions of paid time off.

He was exposed to a person with the virus. It's the responsible thing to do to stay away from other people. You have no problem with government employees retiring at the age of 55 while the rest of the taxpayers have to work ten, twelve, or perhaps fifteen years longer and support them, but you have a problem with a congressman taking one crummy week of for precautionary measures.

Congressional leaders prepare to work from home if necessary to stop spread of coronavirus

We are 23 Trillion (and growing fast) in debt. Where are we getting the money to pay him?

From the same place we get the money for food stamps, the general budget, which is funded by the workers of the country. If you want to address the debt, address the spending that causes it. If you don't want to pay Congress, they will all go home and the government will fall apart. While some may actually think that's a good thing in the long run, you would not, because then no one would be writing laws any more and you could not rely on the government for anything.

23 Trillion and growing. You didn't answer the question. How are we going to pay for that?

 

[pknopp]

I will note, you only say that the employers must give up something, but never mention the shareholders giving up something.

So you will continue to pay more in taxes for welfare so shareholders can be happy.

Well that's true, because the shareholders are simply... not going to give up something.

I'm a shareholder myself. I own stock in many companies.

I can promise you, that once a year, I review my investments. If I see that my investments are not paying off, then I sell them off, and buy investments that do pay off.

I'm sure there are professional investors who check every month, and review what is paying off, and what is not. Companies that fail to payout to investors (shareholders), will end up losing investments, or having the shareholders vote out management, and replacing them with people who do the job.

I think this is another one of those areas, where people think "everyone else should do... what I would never do".

Because you would never do that. You would never invest thousands of dollars, and not get a good return on your investment. Honestly, if I didn't get a good return, I could move my money over seas. I already have open investments in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (yes, which is now china).

Why would I cut my ROI on investments, when I have tens of thousands in investments? If you are going to cut that down, I would just put my money in CDs, and not take the risk of stock investments. There has to be a pay off, worth the risk of the investment.

The world should not revolve around "shareholders". A company can be profitable but still get crushed because they are not "profitable" enough.

People shouldn't have to apply for welfare because 8% isn't enough for shareholders.

you continue to speak in generic terms about specific events. which "people" are suffering? prove it's because of shareholders vs. you just taking the "big money = bad" approach and using soft terminology to define your hard beliefs.

you keep using these extreme situations and trying to pass them off as common occurrences. not *everything* should be addressed nor fixed and these generic "down with the rich" is bullshit to the core.

Look at what the markets did with oil awhile back. $150 a barrel. There was no justification for that. That hurt working people a lot.

You can argue it's one instance. The demand for lower and lower rates has hurt retired people who save for decades big time. The system should be balanced not weighed 98% for the markets.

Look at the complete over reaction right now. That's not good for anyone but a very few who can sit in an office with a computer taking advantage of the situation while others have to be out doing an actual job.

And? should people not try to continue as normal as possible? should those who can work during this problem NOT work just to make life "fair"?

again you go after the extreme and act as it should be treated the same. it shouldn't. that's why it's extreme.

What I noted is NOT the extreme. The rates have been crushing the retired who saved money to retire on for a long time now.

The markets are irrational and extreme but we allow them to lead the country.