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

[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?

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

You don't get to ask questions until you answer the ones you are asked first.

 

[iceberg]

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.

Yet when markets are disrupted, look at that disruption to lives. Why do you not consider that? You act as if this is good, market bad, everyone live life by your choices.

Wheeee.

No. Not extreme at all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

You don't get to ask questions until you answer the ones you are asked first.

The reply from you I was expecting.

 

[pknopp]

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.

Yet when markets are disrupted, look at that disruption to lives. Why do you not consider that? You act as if this is good, market bad, everyone live life by your choices.

Wheeee.

No. Not extreme at all.

When markets go bad we provide it trillions. When people have it bad you yell "SOCIALISM".

We even supply the markets Trillions when it's the "best market in the world".

 

[pknopp]

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.

You don't get to ask questions until you answer the ones you are asked first.

The reply from you I was expecting.

You don't answer a question but you expect others to then answer yours? Seriously?

 

[iceberg]

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.

Yet when markets are disrupted, look at that disruption to lives. Why do you not consider that? You act as if this is good, market bad, everyone live life by your choices.

Wheeee.

No. Not extreme at all.

When markets go bad we provide it trillions. When people have it bad you yell "SOCIALISM".

We even supply the markets Trillions when it's the "best market in the world".

When have I ever yelled for socialism?

I haven't.

You are making up your own strawman and ignoring what I am saying.

Have fun.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

You don't get to ask questions until you answer the ones you are asked first.

The reply from you I was expecting.

You don't answer a question but you expect others to then answer yours? Seriously?

My question wasn't dumb. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that congress people are salary--not hourly. So his pay comes from the same place it always came; no more, no less.

 

[pknopp]

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.

Yet when markets are disrupted, look at that disruption to lives. Why do you not consider that? You act as if this is good, market bad, everyone live life by your choices.

Wheeee.

No. Not extreme at all.

When markets go bad we provide it trillions. When people have it bad you yell "SOCIALISM".

We even supply the markets Trillions when it's the "best market in the world".

When have I ever yelled for socialism?

I haven't.

You are making up your own strawman and ignoring what I am saying.

Have fun.

I didn't say you yelled for Socialism.

 

[pknopp]

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.

You don't get to ask questions until you answer the ones you are asked first.

The reply from you I was expecting.

You don't answer a question but you expect others to then answer yours? Seriously?

My question wasn't dumb. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that congress people are salary--not hourly. So his pay comes from the same place it always came; no more, no less.

We are 23 Trillion in debt. When are you going to start paying for all of this? Are you going to stand up and accept a tax increase to pay for Trump's. Corporate bail outs?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

You don't get to ask questions until you answer the ones you are asked first.

The reply from you I was expecting.

You don't answer a question but you expect others to then answer yours? Seriously?

My question wasn't dumb. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that congress people are salary--not hourly. So his pay comes from the same place it always came; no more, no less.

We are 23 Trillion in debt. When are you going to start paying for all of this? Are you going to stand up and accept a tax increase to pay for Trump's. Corporate bail outs?

What does that have to do with your question or my reply, other than trying to change the subject?

 

[iceberg]

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.

Yet when markets are disrupted, look at that disruption to lives. Why do you not consider that? You act as if this is good, market bad, everyone live life by your choices.

Wheeee.

No. Not extreme at all.

When markets go bad we provide it trillions. When people have it bad you yell "SOCIALISM".

We even supply the markets Trillions when it's the "best market in the world".

When have I ever yelled for socialism?

I haven't.

You are making up your own strawman and ignoring what I am saying.

Have fun.

I didn't say you yelled for Socialism.

i'm sorry - this confused me when you posted:

"When people have it bad you yell "SOCIALISM"."

 

[pknopp]

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.

Yet when markets are disrupted, look at that disruption to lives. Why do you not consider that? You act as if this is good, market bad, everyone live life by your choices.

Wheeee.

No. Not extreme at all.

When markets go bad we provide it trillions. When people have it bad you yell "SOCIALISM".

We even supply the markets Trillions when it's the "best market in the world".

When have I ever yelled for socialism?

I haven't.

You are making up your own strawman and ignoring what I am saying.

Have fun.

I didn't say you yelled for Socialism.

i'm sorry - this confused me when you posted:

"When people have it bad you yell "SOCIALISM"."

Right. It's socialism when the people are helped and it is capitalism when corporations are helped.

Or so the argument goes ...outside of the fact that some think only the former has to be paid for.

 

[iceberg]

Yet when markets are disrupted, look at that disruption to lives. Why do you not consider that? You act as if this is good, market bad, everyone live life by your choices.

Wheeee.

No. Not extreme at all.

When markets go bad we provide it trillions. When people have it bad you yell "SOCIALISM".

We even supply the markets Trillions when it's the "best market in the world".

When have I ever yelled for socialism?

I haven't.

You are making up your own strawman and ignoring what I am saying.

Have fun.

I didn't say you yelled for Socialism.

i'm sorry - this confused me when you posted:

"When people have it bad you yell "SOCIALISM"."

Right. It's socialism when the people are helped and it is capitalism when corporations are helped.

Or so the argument goes ...outside of the fact that some think only the former has to be paid for.

Then go talk to those some. invariably in talking directly to you, you answer back to fictional "some" and pretend it has anything to do with me.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Again.. you can say that until the end of time.

Reality is, I myself, with my massive $30,000 income, am a shareholder. If I invest in your company, then I expect a return on that investment.

If you refuse to provide me a return comparable to the amount of money I have invested in ownership of your company.. then I will sell off, and put my money elsewhere.

Remember, I'm taking a risk. The average worker, especially at the low end of the income spectrum, has invested how much into the company? Zero.

This is the same thing as the McDonald's store owner. The average owner has over one Million dollars invested in that store. You can say until the end of time, that the store owner should be happy with ~$100,000 income, but he could get a job as a manager or executive staff at corporate HQ, and earn ~$100,000 income.... and have zero money invested, and thus risk nothing.

If someone is going to put themselves on the line for up to $2.2 Million according to McDonald's website, then they are going to want a good income of $200,000 to $400,000.

If they are going to earn a middle class income from investing in a store, and risk losing their millions of dollars investment... why not just take the $2 million, and go live on a beach, and spend all the money on themselves? Of course that means less investment in the US, and less jobs created, less taxes paid, less benefit to the country... but why risk a multi-million dollar investment, if the pay off isn't there?

Same thing for investors and shareholders.

My parents have hundreds of thousands in investments. If those investments are not going to make a return, then why would they risk that money being in the market? Why would they risk that money being in a company, that could go bankrupt, and them losing their investment?

Instead, they could use the money to buy a house for me or my sister, or they could put the money in a trust for the grand kids to use for college, or they could simply take some cruises, or buy a house on the beach in Florida.

Any number of things they could do with the money, if you are not going to give a proper return on their investment.

It's that simple.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

How do you know what there is, or is not, a justification for?

If the demand out paces demand, the price goes up. Every indication is that the price followed the supply and demand curve pretty well.

Just like price is following the supply and demand curve now.

Demand has fallen, and supply is high, so prices have fallen.

It's always funny how people who know literally nothing about any given market, are always talking about how they knew when a price is justified or not.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

In 1995, the Republicans introduced a series of policy goals, called Contract with America. Part of that included a constitutional amendment that would have suspended congressional pay, if the US Budget was not balanced.

The Democrats fought it, and Clinton veto'd it.

Practice what you preach first. Then you can point fingers.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

There is nothing irrational or extreme. You not knowing the reasons behind price changes, does not mean there is no rational to it.

You being ignorant, does not mean everyone else must be irrational, since you don't know the reason for their actions.

As far as complaining that the retired who saved money, are being crushed.... I find your comment ironic, since you yourself are the one supporting crushing the retired.

Do you know where most 401Ks and IRAs, pension funds, and annuities, are all invested in? Stocks. Which you just complained that shareholders should make do with less....

So while you are sitting here complaining that retired people who saved are being crushed, you turn right around and advocate they make do with less.

 

[initforme]

What kind of employer doesn't offer paid time off? People get sick. 99.9999 percent of americans work incredibly hard. They shouldn't be penalized for a sick day.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What kind of employer doesn't offer paid time off? People get sick. 99.9999 percent of americans work incredibly hard. They shouldn't be penalized for a sick day.

You've been retired a long time now. Sick leave is a thing of the past for many companies. Too many times, employees would fake illness to use up the sick time, so they got rid of it.

 

[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.

Again.. you can say that until the end of time.

Reality is, I myself, with my massive $30,000 income, am a shareholder. If I invest in your company, then I expect a return on that investment.

If you refuse to provide me a return comparable to the amount of money I have invested in ownership of your company.. then I will sell off, and put my money elsewhere.

Remember, I'm taking a risk. The average worker, especially at the low end of the income spectrum, has invested how much into the company? Zero.

Nobody makes a penny without their time and effort invested into the company and they should come before those who never lift a finger to create anything in the company.