quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Can I just hold out my hand and say omms instead?

That'll work

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: Uh, huh, and the president can't veto? Much of the time Congress won't even attempt an issue unless they feel that the pres will not veto it.

Without a line item veto it's not much good for mega-fund-everything spending bills. Remember when Clinton "shut down the government"?

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: Uh, huh, and the president can't veto? Much of the time Congress won't even attempt an issue unless they feel that the pres will not veto it.

Congress can over ride a veto also. Or they can have Bush, who has never veto a bill yet. (last I checked)

Never said president couldn't veto, but the president can't veto something that is overwhelming popular either. Well! Maybe in his last term as a lame duck.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: And Bush actually dreamed it up from scratch? The President is a talking puppet of his party. He is not an independent thinker.

I cannot argue that at all. Bush is definately an empty suit.

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: People who earn $1M/yr are most likely multimillionaires, and they likely pay very little in taxes, especially when you factor in the rate of taxes based upon their gross income. These people have accountants ensure they pay little in taxes. I doubt the average person earns 50k/yr. It's likely 25 -30k/yr. Nice thought if you live in a vacuum. You're not factoring in any other variables such as ability to write off. Let's all join Steve and bow our heads in sympathy for the rich.

Since you like actual data so much, lets take a look at the IRS's 2002 Tax Data. Go down to pages 8 - 11 for the 2002 tax numbers. I've put them in a handy little chart below.

As you can see, the rich actually did pay more as a percentage of their income as compared to the poor. And for an even more fun chart, lets look at this one:

As you can see, the top 2.5% of the filers paid almost 40% of the total tax bill. The top 11% paid almost 62% of the tax. And the bottom 60% of filers paid only 14% of the taxes. Seems to me that the rich are paying their fair share.

[This message has been edited by Steve Normington (edited 07-08-2004).]

It's typical that libs like to blame the prez for the loss of jobs. They never figure a person is actually responsible for their own actions, so it only makes sense. Can't possibly be the fault of the workers in this country who have such crappy work ethics, while demanding premium pay, and then calling foul when a company can't afford to keep all the crappy workers, since the overall productivity is reduced by the crappy work ethics of the whiney workers who think it's the president's job to ensure they have a job to screw off at. And of course, the company can't FIRE said workers, because they have unions that protect the crappy worker who costs the comapny money because he's a no-load piece of crap. So they only option they have is to close their doors and go someplace else.
Maybe if the typical worker didn't make it so difficult for a company to do business in this country, companies wouldn't be looking to bail. Sure, it may cost less in general to do business in other countries, but a large part of the reason is the workers just have an overall better WORK ETHIC! You want more jobs? Quit whining, and try actually WORKING at the job you have, and make it worth the companies' while to keep your job here. And when you see your union buddy slacking off, tell him to get back to work. A job is JOB, not an entitlement, regardless of what your liberal candidate tells you....

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 07-08-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: It's typical that libs like to blame the prez for the loss of jobs. They never figure a person is actually responsible for their own actions, so it only makes sense. Can't possibly be the fault of the workers in this country who have such crappy work ethics, while demanding premium pay, and then calling foul when a company can't afford to keep all the crappy workers, since the overall productivity is reduced by the crappy work ethics of the whiney workers who think it's the president's job to ensure they have a job to screw off at. And of course, the company can't FIRE said workers, because they have unions that protect the crappy worker who costs the comapny money because he's a no-load piece of crap. So they only option they have is to close their doors and go someplace else. Maybe if the typical worker didn't make it so difficult for a company to do business in this country, companies wouldn't be looking to bail. Sure, it may cost less in general to do business in other countries, but a large part of the reason is the workers just have an overall better WORK ETHIC! You want more jobs? Quit whining, and try actually WORKING at the job you have, and make it worth the companies' while to keep your job here. And when you see your union buddy slacking off, tell him to get back to work. A job is JOB, not an entitlement, regardless of what your liberal candidate tells you....

Well who forgot they had VETO power? I sure as hell don't have it. So yes I hold the commander in chimp.. err chief responsible for the continued exporting of American jobs.. HE IS THE LEADER!!!! I mean like WTF!! the CEOs and CFOs of theses companies make ABSORBINENTLY and rediculous high salaries when they ship jobs overseas.. MONEY better spent on the American worker that THEY themselves are part of.. Unless they are foreiganers sucking up US dollars so they can live like KINGS in the ruin of what was once called the United States of America.

I agree work ethic is sometimes crappy.. like this affirmitive action bullshit... who the hell thought up that work of art?? Yeah hire a guy because he is ethincly challanged and thus prove why he should be isolated and not given a damn job to begin with. I mean.. that has nothing at all to do with work performance now does it? Yet another LAW that should have been vetoed and since it wasnt I blame the commander in chief!! He is the leader of people!! Not the maker and enforcer of policy that is quite obviously INEPT!!

Jeaz louise!

Since when does the president have control over the work ethics of laborer?

Besides, you think a company needs permission to pack up and head overseas? They take their tax dollars with them when they go. It's not cheaper for a company to do business overseas except in terms of actually having control over their workforce, they can actually fire a worker who doesn't perform overseas. Not like here....

My guess is, people here who don't understand why comapnies are moving overseas, never owned a company where they had to deal with labor. Don't whine to me about how much money execs make, they have all the RISK! I lost everything I owned a few years ago, because I had to rely on people who weren't reliable. (Employees) Trust me, I could easily hire people to work for me, maybe 4 or 5 jobs. It'll never happen. THAT'S why the job rate is down...there is a whole country full of people like me out there who feel this way, who have been burned by the typical worker.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 07-08-2004).]

When they take your benefits (like overtime pay) so the CEOs can get a better bonus, that's real good for work ethics.

GL

The beautiful part of living in this country is the freedom to quit your job, and start your own business. Then you can make the rules. Why does everyone think it's someone elses responsibility to provide them with a living? If you don't like it, change your circumstances. And if you aren't willing to take your own risks, then quit whining, no one owes you anything. That includes a job.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: The beautiful part of living in this country is the freedom to quit your job, and start your own business. Then you can make the rules. Why does everyone think it's someone elses responsibility to provide them with a living? If you don't like it, change your circumstances. And if you aren't willing to take your own risks, then quit whining, no one owes you anything. That includes a job.

Have you started a business yet?

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Have you started a business yet?

You do a lot of complaining about businesses. Have you?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You do a lot of complaining about businesses. Have you?

Yes... several times.

you left out SS tax at 7.4% and realy double that rate
but cut off at about 75k so as not to hit the rich
that makes a 10% rate 25% in real dollars missing from the gross
but only on the little guys

the rich hide income and use their CORPs as private piggy banks
to give themselfs FREE cars, vacations, meals ; sports tickets ect
and write it off their taxes
and have so many loopholes that many rich PAY NO TAX at all

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: The beautiful part of living in this country is the freedom to quit your job, and start your own business. Then you can make the rules. Why does everyone think it's someone elses responsibility to provide them with a living? If you don't like it, change your circumstances. And if you aren't willing to take your own risks, then quit whining, no one owes you anything. That includes a job.

You wanted to know how the president can affect peoples' work ethics, I gave you an example.

So, what kind of business would you have me start? Lemonade stand? Amway? Letter stuffing? **** site?

GL

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: As you can see, the top 2.5% of the filers paid almost 40% of the total tax bill. The top 11% paid almost 62% of the tax. And the bottom 60% of filers paid only 14% of the taxes. Seems to me that the rich are paying their fair share.

Hey... This is the OT forum. Who told you you could post facts?

IMO, we all pay too much.

quote Originally posted by ray b: the rich hide income and use their CORPs as private piggy banks to give themselfs FREE cars, vacations, meals ; sports tickets ect and write it off their taxes and have so many loopholes that many rich PAY NO TAX at all

I guess you missed the part of the statistics that showed where the rich pay the most tax in dollars. It didn't say gross, it didn't say "taxable income", it said how much they PAY. Still the most, by far.

quote Originally posted by ray b: you left out SS tax at 7.4% and realy double that rate but cut off at about 75k so as not to hit the rich that makes a 10% rate 25% in real dollars missing from the gross but only on the little guys

What's wrong with that? The amount you can take out is capped, why shouldn't the amount you put in be capped also?

quote the rich hide income and use their CORPs as private piggy banks to give themselfs FREE cars, vacations, meals ; sports tickets ect and write it off their taxes and have so many loopholes that many rich PAY NO TAX at all

Source? Is this another "they say"? How many is "many"? According to the figures Steve posted above there were 2.5M returns over $200K, averaging paying $136K each. Now, considering a lot of them are just above the $200K mark and aren't paying anywhere near that, if "many" of the really rich aren't paying anything... where's the rest of it coming from???

quote Originally posted by DRH: 1 What's wrong with that? The amount you can take out is capped, why shouldn't the amount you put in be capped also? 2 Source? Is this another "they say"? How many is "many"? According to the figures Steve posted above there were 2.5M returns over $200K, averaging paying $136K each. Now, considering a lot of them are just above the $200K mark and aren't paying anywhere near that, if "many" of the really rich aren't paying anything... where's the rest of it coming from???

1 SS is a tax there is NO LOCK BOX, so it is just another tax on income BUT only on the little guys [workers]
there are many ways to cheat SS, one many CORPs use is to pay them selfs a very small saliry+ untaxed bonuses under SS laws and stock options that are only taxed at capital gains rates [very low] as income and no SS tax at all
plus the free cars, boats, vacations ect are never tax under any system and a tax write off for the CORP

2 to high income tax rates on the rich is a MYTH mostly; a BIG LIE told by the rightwingers
music and sports stars maybe pay top rates, before they learn to play the tax games
I grew up in the country club life where this was table talk
my wifes granddad was a multi millionare [don't ask for a loan, her mom blew her share]
my best friend [the guy with 3 porsche turbos] was worth 20 million
my brother inlaw is a top tax accountant
a now dead aunt was married to a packard [cars] white [trucks] and owned a bank
see my posts on bill gates tax rates

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington:

If those are acurate, and I'm not disputing that, then the rich did obviously pay more. I made a generalization that the rich don't pay the straight scale as they have accountants that write off much of their income, and that was right.

Another point is that this is the 2002 year and Bush has made cuts for the rich since then. Fair is a very subjective word, and the government has failed to find it IMO.

"As you can see, the rich actually did pay more as a percentage of their income as compared to the poor."

And the system is established that way for a reason. We have one of the lowest tax rates in the world and the rich still whine. Just think, if we had socialized medicine like most of the rest of the world we would have higher taxes. Instead we pick and choose who gets medical care.

"As you can see, the top 2.5% of the filers paid almost 40% of the total tax bill. The top 11% paid almost 62% of the tax. And the bottom 60% of filers paid only 14% of the taxes. Seems to me that the rich are paying their fair share."

And the top 11.5% earn 39% of all monies for that year. We can view this scale any way we want, but it comes down to whether you feel sorry for millionaires paying what they feel is too much, or familes of 4 and 5 without health insurance. Another element about the rich is that many of them make their money exploiting the poor.

Finally, there is nothing more pathetic than watching a millionaire cry because he/she pays 30k/yr in taxes. Especially as they cry inside their new Lexus as they pull out of their 400k house, going to their 200k/yr job...

quote Originally posted by fierobear: And you still criticize business for wanting to make money? You make no sense, MrBill.

No I criticize US Mega Corp, First Trust Global Mega Bank of America and the (Federal, State, Local) Governent.

They ALL conspire to make as dificult as possible, tax out of existance or buy up every small business they can to "minimize" (not totally destroy) or control the competiton so they can have increase profits.

I tried and failed miserably but next time I'm going to do it a bit different, in fact so far it's working VERY well. I'll keep you posted when it's time to unvail it.

It will be very cool.. trust me.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-09-2004).]

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: No I criticize US Mega Corp, First Trust Global Mega Bank of America and the (Federal, State, Local) Governent. They ALL conspire to make as dificult as possible, tax out of existance or buy up every small business they can to "minimize" (not totally destroy) or control the competiton so they can have increase profits.

A lot of big businesses started off as small ones. So what you are saying is, it's ok to be successful, but not *too* successful? As long as you approve? What if someone else didn't approve of *your* success? Is that somehow different?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: A lot of big businesses started off as small ones. So what you are saying is, it's ok to be successful, but not *too* successful? As long as you approve? What if someone else didn't approve of *your* success? Is that somehow different?

No.. it goes somehing like this.

There are MANY opertunities to open your own business BUT you cant make ANY money. If you do you PAY. If you don't you get a break. So thats the small of it.

The other part is when you get alittle bigger. There are people who are greed motivated and they will RIP YOU OFF when you are not looking. So when you are ready to include another perosn to "help" you are opening yourself up to a person that has not INVESTED in your business venture.

There are many hazards

What eventually happens when a company grows to the point where it expands THATS where more problems arise because the bigger it get the less control one can have. Particularly when a company goes public.. thats usually the end of the line. The CEO's and CFO's you once had are replced with some twit who does not know the difference between dollars and sense.

I duno If I answerd the question because I'm dead tired... I'll be back l8ter.

quote Originally posted by ray b: you left out SS tax at 7.4% and realy double that rate but cut off at about 75k so as not to hit the rich that makes a 10% rate 25% in real dollars missing from the gross but only on the little guys

You know why they cap it at 75k?

Because in theory you only get what you put into it. Your SS# is actually an account number, and Congress decided to cap it, because they didn't want wealthy people to put in millions in to a SS account and never even get but a fraction of it back or large sums of it back when they retire and the people who put in very little would only get a small sum back, so it was considered unfair. There would have been a huge desparity on how much SS benefits people would recieve a month, and the elders would have been up in arms if they found out that an average retired person was getting $800 a month, compared to somebody like Bill Gates that was recieving $80,000 a month in SS payouts. So they capped the amount to make it somewhat even.

agree with it or not, but that is the reason.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Have you started a business yet?

Do you ever actually read anything anyone writes? I was pretty clear about my expereinces. Yes, I've been self employed for over 13 years now. I once had about 5 people working for me. All but one was a typical scumbag "I-don't-want-to-work-but-I-want-more-money-and-paid-breaks" employee. Trying to give those people jobs and make a little money for myself cost me everything. I now have a computer company, and could easily hire 4 or 5 people, but it'll never happen.

quote Originally posted by I'm Back:

"If those are acurate, and I'm not disputing that, then the rich did obviously pay more. I made a generalization that the rich don't pay the straight scale as they have accountants that write off much of their income, and that was right."

True. But the poor also don't pay straight scale either.

"Another point is that this is the 2002 year and Bush has made cuts for the rich since then. Fair is a very subjective word, and the government has failed to find it IMO."

2002 was the latest year that I was able to find tax information. If you find me newer info, I can run the numbers on it. And I agree that fair is very subjective. I'm sure that most poorer people think that rich people need to pay much more for things to be fair. And the rich think they need to pay less to be fair.

"And the system is established that way for a reason. We have one of the lowest tax rates in the world and the rich still whine. Just think, if we had socialized medicine like most of the rest of the world we would have higher taxes. Instead we pick and choose who gets medical care."

All of this is true. I just posted those facts to show that the rich are certainly not avoiding paying any taxes at all.

"And the top 11.5% earn 39% of all monies for that year. We can view this scale any way we want, but it comes down to whether you feel sorry for millionaires paying what they feel is too much, or familes of 4 and 5 without health insurance. Another element about the rich is that many of them make their money exploiting the poor."

If the poor are being exploited so badly, they can find another job. If they have skills that are worth $20K a year and they are only being paid $10K, they they should be able to find a job that pays them $20K. But the only jobs they are qualified for pay $10K a year it may not be because the international cabal of business owners decided that they need to keep them down. It may be that they're skills are only worth $10K a year.

"Finally, there is nothing more pathetic than watching a millionaire cry because he/she pays 30k/yr in taxes. Especially as they cry inside their new Lexus as they pull out of their 400k house, going to their 200k/yr job... "

They earn lots of money. Should they not be allowed to spend it on things they want? Or are you saying that they should be happy that the governement leaves them with at least some of their money? Rich people are like poor people. They don't like paying taxes. Yes they have more money than other people, but that doesn't mean they cheerfully give up their money.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I don't see how the president can in any way control how an individual (or millions of them) behaves on the job.(Known as work ethic) And you're still looking for other people to tell you what to do, or provide you with something, for free? Take some initiative. If you have none, quit griping, it's not the worlds fault, and there's sure no reason it should cost me or anyone else. If you want to pay me my standard consultation fee, I'll be more than happy to brainstorm and help you figure out a business to get into.

You don't think taking peoples pay affects their work ethic??? Conversation over.

GL

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Do you ever actually read anything anyone writes? I was pretty clear about my expereinces. Yes, I've been self employed for over 13 years now. I once had about 5 people working for me. All but one was a typical scumbag "I-don't-want-to-work-but-I-want-more-money-and-paid-breaks" employee. Trying to give those people jobs and make a little money for myself cost me everything. I now have a computer company, and could easily hire 4 or 5 people, but it'll never happen.

Well I may have missed that part. Thanks for the elaboration.

Have you tried investing time and effort in young kids? Like an apprentice program where you take them by the hand. You may have to go through quite a few before you find one or two that are worth while. Just a sugestion

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: You don't think taking peoples pay affects their work ethic??? Conversation over. GL

What are you talking about? How does anyone take anyone else's pay? What's the problem here, if you don't like the way a company you work for does business, then go someplace else. That's how I ended up self employed! A company I was working for required we work "on call" one week a month, available 24 hours. Initially, they would pay us a premium per call we ran after hours, plus time and a half for overtime. Then they decided to drop all the compensations for that, and just give comp time for hours worked, so they wouldn't have to pay overtime. I refused to run the after hours calls. Of course that just caused further problems, so I decided to go someplace else. I ended up starting my own business and have been self employed ever since.

See, your propblem is, that you want to government to protect you from everything. There's already WAY too much government involvement in private enterprise as it is. You and most others want the government to basically guarentee that you'll have a job. You don't want to actually work for anything, or have any risk. You want the employer to take all the risks, and incur all the costs, while you ask for longer coffee breaks. I'm not implying that our method of commerce is the best in the world, in fact, it really does suck. But from my past experiences, employees don't really want to work, they just want their pay. The Asians probably have the best industrial structure imaginable, but then, they can do it, because they have a much better work ethic. Many Chinese and Japanese companies have tried to bring their methods to this country, but they fail. They fail because the average American worker is a lazy slob with no self motivation who just wants more of the pie without actually doing anything to earn it. And the really good workers, who have motivation and want more, end up as business owners, dealing with the same lazy slobs they worked with before, only now, they're the one's responsible, and taking all the risks, with little reward. Check the stats, most private business owners aren't rich. Hell, most probably don't make as much as if they were working a regualr job in their skillset. But there's a satisfaction in knowing that I'm actually in charge of my own success or failure. I don't have a person to blame if I don't make enough money. But then, I was never one to blame other people for my situations anyway. Maybe I'm just different, but if I don't like something, I change it. I'm not a victim.....I'm a fighter. What are you?

Good read about the jobs situation:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=208

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: What are you talking about? How does anyone take anyone else's pay? What's the problem here, if you don't like the way a company you work for does business, then go someplace else. That's how I ended up self employed! A company I was working for required we work "on call" one week a month, available 24 hours. Initially, they would pay us a premium per call we ran after hours, plus time and a half for overtime. Then they decided to drop all the compensations for that, and just give comp time for hours worked, so they wouldn't have to pay overtime. I refused to run the after hours calls. Of course that just caused further problems, so I decided to go someplace else. I ended up starting my own business and have been self employed ever since. See, your propblem is, that you want to government to protect you from everything. There's already WAY too much government involvement in private enterprise as it is. You and most others want the government to basically guarentee that you'll have a job. You don't want to actually work for anything, or have any risk. You want the employer to take all the risks, and incur all the costs, while you ask for longer coffee breaks. I'm not implying that our method of commerce is the best in the world, in fact, it really does suck. But from my past experiences, employees don't really want to work, they just want their pay. The Asians probably have the best industrial structure imaginable, but then, they can do it, because they have a much better work ethic. Many Chinese and Japanese companies have tried to bring their methods to this country, but they fail. They fail because the average American worker is a lazy slob with no self motivation who just wants more of the pie without actually doing anything to earn it. And the really good workers, who have motivation and want more, end up as business owners, dealing with the same lazy slobs they worked with before, only now, they're the one's responsible, and taking all the risks, with little reward. Check the stats, most private business owners aren't rich. Hell, most probably don't make as much as if they were working a regualr job in their skillset. But there's a satisfaction in knowing that I'm actually in charge of my own success or failure. I don't have a person to blame if I don't make enough money. But then, I was never one to blame other people for my situations anyway. Maybe I'm just different, but if I don't like something, I change it. I'm not a victim.....I'm a fighter. What are you?

Your hubris is stunning.

Let me expound: You know absolutely nothing about me or my work ethic. To pretend you know me is the heigth of arrogance. If you acted like this at your job, I can understand why your employees treated you badly, it's a two way street.

I used to work in a machine shop, on night shift. On a given setup, NOBODY EVER outran me. I was the first to overheat the little Japanese CNC lathe they started me on. They would move me around to different machines to find out how badly the day shift guys were slacking off. And yes, they paid me well for it, but all of the people I outran made more.

I don't mind piecework jobs, I clean up. I figure my hands are moving fast enough when I can't see them.

On the other hand, I've worked for people (especially in this area) who want hard work at skilled labor for little more than the kids at McD's are making. Which is why they have (and settle for) mediocre products.

Example: My bank was recently remodeled. (Not sure who did the work.) The new teller line in there is a POS that I sure wouldn't admit I worked on. And they've had to come back and work on it while the bank was open, evidently more than once. I know sometimes things don't go smoothly as you'd like and there are problems with most jobs. This thing is a POS. Last teller line I worked on had marble plates inset from the original teller line. All the seams were even, all the edges neatly filed. And the pay wasn't great at that job. Tell me about work ethic.

On second thought, don't.

[This message has been edited by Tugboat (edited 07-09-2004).]

As much as it sux, money is a great motivator when it comes to productivity..

When I had the pizza places my stores paid, on average, nearly $3/hr than any other group in the franchise.. Think about it.. $3/hr MORE for delivering pizza.. I had the highest profit margin in the franchise for years..The most dedicated crew, and we had fun all at the same time..

I'm not saying money was th eonly reason, but ti certainly went a LONG way to making everyone happy about the hours and the work..

As for the current tax codes.. Everyone pays far too much.. Scrap the whole thing and set up a flat federal sales tax on everything except food.. No exceptions, no internet safe purchases, tax it all.. The last numbers I saw showed than around 8% would cover the budget as it stands.. Just firing the IRS would save tons of money

[This message has been edited by Feydakin (edited 07-10-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: Snip

I still don't see the problem. OK, so you are the exception to the American work ethic. I never claimed there weren't exceptions. But that's the problem, people in this copuntry with good work ethics are the EXCEPTION, not the rule. Guys like you and me, we want to earn what we get, that's the way it works. But the others, the slacker no-loads want everything handed to them, you even made a reference to the work ethics of the guys around you, by how much more you were able to produce. Do you think that you produced more because you're a superman, or because they just didn't care, or didn't want to work for what they earned. You actually made my point for me. So you were the exception, that's to your credit. But the truth is, in defending your own work ethic, you actually emphasized my point, that the average American worker is a slacker, who only does what he needs to in order to keep from losing his job. Which often is protected by a labor union, so that standard is pretty low. Few people really realize how expensive it is to run an operation. Few people (except those who have tried it) know exactly how much it costs to have employees, pay for a facility, pay for various insurances, advertising, phones, electric, various other utilities, and whatever else it takes to keep the doors open. I run a one-man operation. Just me. And it still costs me easily a couple grand a month, just to be in business. I charge people 89 an hour for outside work, 49 an hour for inside work. That means that I have to sell at least 10 hours outside work, and 20 hours inside work a month, just to pay my bills, that's before I even pay myself. That's 30 hours of my month, just to pay the bills. And my overhead is almost nothing compared to most businesses, especially those with employees. If an employee is making 12 bucks an hour, you can be sure he's costing the company 20 or 25 an hour. Which means that employee needs to be producing enough to make it worth the employers while to keep him. Do you really think most people are actually worth double their standard pay?
Try actually thinking outside the box for a minute. Try putting yourself in the position of an employer. People think it's so easy, they just pull up and move their companies out of the country. Do you really think a simple tax incentive is enough to cause a company to move their entire operation out of the country? How much do you think it costs a large manufacturer to liquidate and relocate? To hire and train all new employees, and start to pay the additional shipping expenses, and whatever other costs they suddenly incur from operating overseas? They would have to save a pretty substantial sum, with a pretty quick ROI in order to do all that, not to mention, you have to know they are aware of the public opinion and the potential loss of sales as a result of the move. You have to admit, the amount they would save by operating from overseas would have to be astronomical for them to make that kind of change. Do you really think something like a tax incentive would either make them go or not go? I doubt it. It's a PITA to have employees in this country. I could cite you a hundred stories just from my own person experience and situations I've witnessed, where the stupidity of an employee cost a company hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why should companies be forced to compensate a person for being stupid? Because we have liberal courts that say a person isn't responsible for their own actions, so someone else has to take the blame. There are so many laws and rules and regulations and organizations out there protecting the average worker from himself, while holding the company responsible. Is it any real wonder why companies are pulling up and moving away? I don't blame them even a little bit. I've been there, I've seen it firsthand. I don't claim for even a second that companies operate with 100% fairness. As in your story, you stated that your production level was higher, yet you made less money. Been there, done that, that's why I took my skills elsewhere, until I found an employer that appreciates my skills and pays me what I'm worth: ME. I make exactly what I'm willing to work for...how's that for fair?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I still don't see the problem. OK, so you are the exception to the American work ethic. I never claimed there weren't exceptions. But that's the problem, people in this copuntry with good work ethics are the EXCEPTION, not the rule.

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: Example: My bank was recently remodeled. (Not sure who did the work.) The new teller line in there is a POS that I sure wouldn't admit I worked on. And they've had to come back and work on it while the bank was open, evidently more than once. I know sometimes things don't go smoothly as you'd like and there are problems with most jobs. This thing is a POS. Last teller line I worked on had marble plates inset from the original teller line. All the seams were even, all the edges neatly filed. And the pay wasn't great at that job. Tell me about work ethic. On second thought, don't.

Great example Tug. I want to expound on it just a little and address Taijiguy.

The reason "work ethic" is a problem is because those guy doing that installation were not "qualified" or "properly trained" OR their managers and planners "FAILED" to plan the move properly.

Now I've been doing computer work for a good number of years and I can say that this BANK chose to go with a consulting frirm that bid LOW. Had they hired ME to do the work the problems would not have arrisen and if it had I would have fixed it immidiatly because I know where most of the pitfalls are.

SO, it's not "work ethic" it's greed. The bank wanted to save a buck and it ended up costing ME a job and them MORE MONEY to fix the problems the INEP managers and techs caused and will continue to cause UNTIL the banks realize that I am more capable and worth what I am being paid in the long run..

So once again greed wins out and the customer foots the bill when the bank charges 35 bucks on my bounced check instead of 25.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I still don't see the problem. OK, so you are the exception to the American work ethic. I never claimed there weren't exceptions. But that's the problem, people in this copuntry with good work ethics are the EXCEPTION, not the rule. Guys like you and me, we want to earn what we get, that's the way it works. But the others, the slacker no-loads want everything handed to them, you even made a reference to the work ethics of the guys around you, by how much more you were able to produce. Do you think that you produced more because you're a superman, or because they just didn't care, or didn't want to work for what they earned. You actually made my point for me. So you were the exception, that's to your credit. But the truth is, in defending your own work ethic, you actually emphasized my point, that the average American worker is a slacker, who only does what he needs to in order to keep from losing his job. Which often is protected by a labor union, so that standard is pretty low. Few people really realize how expensive it is to run an operation. Few people (except those who have tried it) know exactly how much it costs to have employees, pay for a facility, pay for various insurances, advertising, phones, electric, various other utilities, and whatever else it takes to keep the doors open. I run a one-man operation. Just me. And it still costs me easily a couple grand a month, just to be in business. I charge people 89 an hour for outside work, 49 an hour for inside work. That means that I have to sell at least 10 hours outside work, and 20 hours inside work a month, just to pay my bills, that's before I even pay myself. That's 30 hours of my month, just to pay the bills. And my overhead is almost nothing compared to most businesses, especially those with employees. If an employee is making 12 bucks an hour, you can be sure he's costing the company 20 or 25 an hour. Which means that employee needs to be producing enough to make it worth the employers while to keep him. Do you really think most people are actually worth double their standard pay? Try actually thinking outside the box for a minute. Try putting yourself in the position of an employer. People think it's so easy, they just pull up and move their companies out of the country. Do you really think a simple tax incentive is enough to cause a company to move their entire operation out of the country? How much do you think it costs a large manufacturer to liquidate and relocate? To hire and train all new employees, and start to pay the additional shipping expenses, and whatever other costs they suddenly incur from operating overseas? They would have to save a pretty substantial sum, with a pretty quick ROI in order to do all that, not to mention, you have to know they are aware of the public opinion and the potential loss of sales as a result of the move. You have to admit, the amount they would save by operating from overseas would have to be astronomical for them to make that kind of change. Do you really think something like a tax incentive would either make them go or not go? I doubt it. It's a PITA to have employees in this country. I could cite you a hundred stories just from my own person experience and situations I've witnessed, where the stupidity of an employee cost a company hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why should companies be forced to compensate a person for being stupid? Because we have liberal courts that say a person isn't responsible for their own actions, so someone else has to take the blame. There are so many laws and rules and regulations and organizations out there protecting the average worker from himself, while holding the company responsible. Is it any real wonder why companies are pulling up and moving away? I don't blame them even a little bit. I've been there, I've seen it firsthand. I don't claim for even a second that companies operate with 100% fairness. As in your story, you stated that your production level was higher, yet you made less money. Been there, done that, that's why I took my skills elsewhere, until I found an employer that appreciates my skills and pays me what I'm worth: ME. I make exactly what I'm willing to work for...how's that for fair?

The problem is, you attacked me without knowing a thing about me. Again, if you treated me like that as an employee, I would not be very motivated to do a good job.

The last job I worked on, we turned sheets of melamine worth a few bucks into hundred dollar cabinets. I think we made the company a whole lot more than the $10/hr they paid us. They grossed 2 million the year before I left. 25 employees total. A friend who I met when I started there is still there and making $10/hr. If you're not family or friends with the shop boss or someone in the office, forget it. The floor in the shop got really slick from too much sealer being used on the concrete. Where there were high traffic areas (around benches) it got treacherous. Something got done about it the day after I suggested it was a lawsuit waiting to happen.

GL

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: You don't think taking peoples pay affects their work ethic??? Conversation over. GL

At first it would, but in time the new generations get used to it and think it's just, "the way it is" and they accept it. I'm in no way going against you here, as I'm the biggest opponent of the Overtime Bill on the forum, maybe the world! I'm just defining the gross apathy in America. When it really sucks bad people will throw their arms in the air and ask, "what happened?" Kind of a funny paradox is that the people like me, without kids, are the most concerned and it seems many of the people with kids that should have a stake in the future are most for these kinds of things. Maybe the former actually hate their kids!!! Naw, but it doesn't make sense for the single people w/o kids to care about the environment, etc., but it appears most activists are terminal single, never having kids.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Now I've been doing computer work for a good number of years and I can say that this BANK chose to go with a consulting frirm that bid LOW. Had they hired ME to do the work the problems would not have arrisen and if it had I would have fixed it immidiatly because I know where most of the pitfalls are. SO, it's not "work ethic" it's greed. The bank wanted to save a buck and it ended up costing ME a job and them MORE MONEY to fix the problems the INEP managers and techs caused and will continue to cause UNTIL the banks realize that I am more capable and worth what I am being paid in the long run.. So once again greed wins out and the customer foots the bill when the bank charges 35 bucks on my bounced check instead of 25.

More proof that you don't know much about business, MrBill.

If you had to hire an outside firm to help you do something, wouldn't *you* go with a low bidder? Wouldn't *you* want to save your company money? If it was you, and your small company, the extra money you'd pay would come right out of your pocket. That's not greed, is it? The priciples apply the same way to large companies. Too bad you don't understand that.

Quit blaming everyone else for your problems. Maybe *you* didn't do a good enough job selling that bank on your abilities and why they should have paid you more. That's not their fault, that's not the president's fault, that's the competitive marketplace. The other guy won. Get over it, and spend your time trying to find another job instead of finding people to blame. Sheesh.