If i start a small business

[Jarhead]

no, I don't know that Zander.... MOST THAT ARE POOR, are truly poor and are not gaming the system....where you get that 90% of the poor are not poor is beyond me. (the reciprocal of the 10 to 1 ratio of low lifes you speak of above)

90% of the 50% that you all bitch about ad nausea that do not pay any federal income taxes are not lazy ass scumbags.....

generalizations such as that, is where you lose me....

no different than condemning all corporations instead of the few that are gaming the system...

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes; the average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage and a porch or patio.
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning; by contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe (these comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor).
Also:
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Material poverty can be measured relatively or absolutely. An absolute measure would consist of some minimum quantity of goods and services deemed adequate for a baseline level of survival. Achieving that level means that poverty has been eliminated. However, if poverty is defined as, say, the lowest one-fifth of the income distribution, it is impossible to eliminate poverty. Everyone's income could double, triple and quadruple, but there will always be the lowest one-fifth, explains Williams.
Source: Walter Williams, "Where Best To Be Poor," Jewish World Review, June 30, 2010.

I'm trying to understand this.... are YOU saying that if the standard of living is raised for an entire nation, "the poor" also have a higher standard of living?

You mean if the average citizen makes more money it actually helps the "poor", compared to what we are told about food being taken away from them for the "rich"?

WOW, this is a revelation!!!

Didn't Reagan say this?

No...what it is saying is that the poor in the US are not poor and actually live a relatively decent life with more than justthje basic ineeds for survival.

In a free country there will always be poor and always be rich.

But we should take note that our poor, unlike any other country with an economy that the left wish to mirror, on the most part, live lives that are well beyond the bare minimum.

 

[Care4all]

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes; the average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage and a porch or patio.
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning; by contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe (these comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor).
Also:
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Material poverty can be measured relatively or absolutely. An absolute measure would consist of some minimum quantity of goods and services deemed adequate for a baseline level of survival. Achieving that level means that poverty has been eliminated. However, if poverty is defined as, say, the lowest one-fifth of the income distribution, it is impossible to eliminate poverty. Everyone's income could double, triple and quadruple, but there will always be the lowest one-fifth, explains Williams.
Source: Walter Williams, "Where Best To Be Poor," Jewish World Review, June 30, 2010.

SO WHAT if they own their own home? My inlaws were below dirt poor, with 4 children of their own and they took in another poor kid in Matt's class that lost his home to fire when his step dad told him to fend for himself....

THEY OWNED THEIR HOME.....they bought if for $7000 dollars in the 1960's....

Poor people CAN own their own homes and pay LESS THAN RENT for them....

the homes they buy are just cheaper homes in poorer neighborhoods PC.

ALL OF THOSE STATS...

Yet the only thing you picked up on was the "owning their own home" stat?

does having a vcr make them any richer? does having a tv make them any richer or a phone?

I am not here to micro manage what another citizen has or does not have...that's an over reach imo.

 

[Sallow]

Typical left wing rhetoric.

Better said this way....

When you review your fianncials and you see that progress and technology allows you to cut back on operating expenses so you can maintain or increase your lifestyle...which is why you went into your own business to begin with.....then you become evil in the eyes of the jealous.

No business owner lays off people knowing it will kill the business just so they can buy a Bentley that they will no longer be able to afford becuase they laid off empoloyees and business died.

Tyical left wing talking points rhetoric.

Hey, I've seen it first hand. Except it wasn't a Bentley with a driver it was a Porsche 911.

Question for you......

A man starts a company...it grows....and becomes a successful company employing 100 people. His receptionist started at 10 an hour and over the years she is raised to 20 an hour....he then invests in a new phone system to keep up with technology...and this phone system offers voicemail for all employees...with direct lines to each employee as such is preferred by the client base and more attractive to new cleints.
He now has his receptionist doing infinitely less for the same 20 an hour. He can fire the file clerk and give her that job if she wants....but the file clerk only makes and is worth 10 an hour.....so instead he keeps her as the receptionist and she is now doing 1/3 the work and still making 20 an hour.
Business dies due to a recession...he is taking less home, but his success has allowed him to maintain his lifestyle. Further review of his financials shows that his operating expenses are way too high for him to sustain his existing life style and he needs to cut back or possibly not be able to meet his personal needs.
He looks at his recptionuist who is doing a 10 an hour job for 20 an hour...and is sitting around doing nothing most of the day.
What should he do?

Your answer? Likely suck it up, lower his standard of living and let the receptionist keep her job and standard of living....even though she is overpaid.

My answer?

The receptionist should have continued her education and open doors to herself so that her value to the marketplace increased....as if ones skills stagnate it is just a matter of time before they price themselves out of the market.

Hookay..enough with the hypotheticals.

Here's a real world example.

HP was a dominant force in the UNIX server industry when it hire failed CEO Carly Fiorina to take over. She didn't build anything up. She didn't start the company. She failed at her previous position at Lucent as well. Why did she get hired? No idea. Okay..she's got to be boss. Her great idea? Maximize profit by laying off over 30K employees and shipping the jobs overseas. On top of that..she merged with Compaq..in a bid to get into the mainframe business. She was looking to capitalize on Tandems.

The result?

Over 30K people out of work.

HP Stocks drop through the basement.

Tandem is a bust..because people move from mainframes to Linux servers.

And Carly makes a bundle.

THAT'S the Conservative way. Destroy and profit.

Everytime.

 

[PoliticalChic]

no, I don't know that Zander.... MOST THAT ARE POOR, are truly poor and are not gaming the system....where you get that 90% of the poor are not poor is beyond me. (the reciprocal of the 10 to 1 ratio of low lifes you speak of above)

90% of the 50% that you all bitch about ad nausea that do not pay any federal income taxes are not lazy ass scumbags.....

generalizations such as that, is where you lose me....

no different than condemning all corporations instead of the few that are gaming the system...

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes; the average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage and a porch or patio.
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning; by contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe (these comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor).
Also:
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Material poverty can be measured relatively or absolutely. An absolute measure would consist of some minimum quantity of goods and services deemed adequate for a baseline level of survival. Achieving that level means that poverty has been eliminated. However, if poverty is defined as, say, the lowest one-fifth of the income distribution, it is impossible to eliminate poverty. Everyone's income could double, triple and quadruple, but there will always be the lowest one-fifth, explains Williams.
Source: Walter Williams, "Where Best To Be Poor," Jewish World Review, June 30, 2010.

SO WHAT if they own their own home? My inlaws were below dirt poor, with 4 children of their own and they took in another poor kid in Matt's class that lost his home to fire when his step dad told him to fend for himself....

THEY OWNED THEIR HOME.....they bought if for $7000 dollars in the 1960's....

Poor people CAN own their own homes and pay LESS THAN RENT for them....

the homes they buy are just cheaper homes in poorer neighborhoods PC.

The point, Care, is that 'poor' is a term that the left uses for the hand-wringing set, the folks who can be manipulated to fall in line because they won't investigate what the term means.

Poor must always be combined with 'compared to....'

Otherwise, it is simply envy.

List all of the items in the post, and then compare it to what the real poor, say in a Third World nation have.


"And one billion of the world’s population earn less than $1 per day. And almost half of the six billion on the planet earn less than $2 a day."
http://books.google.com/books?id=luzfw0Ea2PAC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=half+of+the+six+billion+on+the+planet+earn+less+than+$2+a+day.&source=bl&ots=MZvc4h_Lnx&sig=-HMpiw4JLdUvZKxKU3ZkgnhUC3w&hl=en&ei=ZuE9TfnXGtHpgAfT6Yz4CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Two Thumbs]

How successful would I have to make it until I'm one of those evil businesses?

There's multiple chances.

If you dare to pay anyone minimum wage, you are evil.

But if you don't do that.

I think it would occur when you became to busy doing back office work to do an 8 hour shift up front.

Once you are putting 12- 16 hours into bring in work (and that's not work to the left) and 0 hours working a tool, manning a register, etc, etc. You are fully evil at that point, no matter what you pay your people. Actually you are more evil if your workers are happy as you have done something to them.

 

[Care4all]

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes; the average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage and a porch or patio.
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning; by contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe (these comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor).
Also:
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Material poverty can be measured relatively or absolutely. An absolute measure would consist of some minimum quantity of goods and services deemed adequate for a baseline level of survival. Achieving that level means that poverty has been eliminated. However, if poverty is defined as, say, the lowest one-fifth of the income distribution, it is impossible to eliminate poverty. Everyone's income could double, triple and quadruple, but there will always be the lowest one-fifth, explains Williams.
Source: Walter Williams, "Where Best To Be Poor," Jewish World Review, June 30, 2010.

SO WHAT if they own their own home? My inlaws were below dirt poor, with 4 children of their own and they took in another poor kid in Matt's class that lost his home to fire when his step dad told him to fend for himself....

THEY OWNED THEIR HOME.....they bought if for $7000 dollars in the 1960's....

Poor people CAN own their own homes and pay LESS THAN RENT for them....

the homes they buy are just cheaper homes in poorer neighborhoods PC.

The point, Care, is that 'poor' is a term that the left uses for the hand-wringing set, the folks who can be manipulated to fall in line because they won't investigate what the term means.

Poor must always be combined with 'compared to....'

Otherwise, it is simply envy.

List all of the items in the post, and then compare it to what the real poor, say in a Third World nation have.


"And one billion of the world’s population earn less than $1 per day. And almost half of the six billion on the planet earn less than $2 a day."
http://books.google.com/books?id=luzfw0Ea2PAC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=half+of+the+six+billion+on+the+planet+earn+less+than+$2+a+day.&source=bl&ots=MZvc4h_Lnx&sig=-HMpiw4JLdUvZKxKU3ZkgnhUC3w&hl=en&ei=ZuE9TfnXGtHpgAfT6Yz4CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

yes, they are not poor compared to other 3rd world countries.... just like the middle class here would be considered very very very very rich, filthy rich, in a third world country....but they are not filthy rich here in the USA.

 

[Zander]

no, I don't know that Zander.... MOST THAT ARE POOR, are truly poor and are not gaming the system....where you get that 90% of the poor are not poor is beyond me. (the reciprocal of the 10 to 1 ratio of low lifes you speak of above)

90% of the 50% that you all bitch about ad nausea that do not pay any federal income taxes are not lazy ass scumbags.....

generalizations such as that, is where you lose me....

no different than condemning all corporations instead of the few that are gaming the system...

Let's make it simple - who are the truly needy in your eyes?

the people that do not pay income taxes on their low earnings are not lazy ass scumbags, that's what I do know.

I would venture to say that anyone that only earns 20k a year is poor.

they are working, ya know?

I recognize that there are some working poor in America- it is usually a temporary situation until they can improve their skills or get an education. I, and most conservatives feel that people should be given a helping hand to get back on their feet when things go badly or tragedy strikes. That is why we have unemployment insurance, welfare, etc... Nobody that I know is opposed to these programs- as long as they do what they are designed to do - OFFER TEMPORARY HELP.

But all too often these "needy" people become Lifetime recipients of Section 8 housing, food stamps, and welfare - they are no longer truly needy- they are now parasites- sucking life from the state. It becomes a lifestyle, and we hurt them by allowing it to continue.

PS- A 20K per year job pays about $9.50 per hour assuming 40 hrs per week. A fry cook at a fast food restaurant earns that much.

 

[Jarhead]

SO WHAT if they own their own home? My inlaws were below dirt poor, with 4 children of their own and they took in another poor kid in Matt's class that lost his home to fire when his step dad told him to fend for himself....

THEY OWNED THEIR HOME.....they bought if for $7000 dollars in the 1960's....

Poor people CAN own their own homes and pay LESS THAN RENT for them....

the homes they buy are just cheaper homes in poorer neighborhoods PC.

ALL OF THOSE STATS...

Yet the only thing you picked up on was the "owning their own home" stat?

does having a vcr make them any richer? does having a tv make them any richer or a phone?

I am not here to micro manage what another citizen has or does not have...that's an over reach imo.

Who is talking about making them richer?
Why is it anyones responsibility to make someone else richer.
The point being made is exactly that. They dont need to be made richer.
Our poor, on the most part, have more than their needs...and that is a good thing.

 

[Jarhead]

Hey, I've seen it first hand. Except it wasn't a Bentley with a driver it was a Porsche 911.

Question for you......

A man starts a company...it grows....and becomes a successful company employing 100 people. His receptionist started at 10 an hour and over the years she is raised to 20 an hour....he then invests in a new phone system to keep up with technology...and this phone system offers voicemail for all employees...with direct lines to each employee as such is preferred by the client base and more attractive to new cleints.
He now has his receptionist doing infinitely less for the same 20 an hour. He can fire the file clerk and give her that job if she wants....but the file clerk only makes and is worth 10 an hour.....so instead he keeps her as the receptionist and she is now doing 1/3 the work and still making 20 an hour.
Business dies due to a recession...he is taking less home, but his success has allowed him to maintain his lifestyle. Further review of his financials shows that his operating expenses are way too high for him to sustain his existing life style and he needs to cut back or possibly not be able to meet his personal needs.
He looks at his recptionuist who is doing a 10 an hour job for 20 an hour...and is sitting around doing nothing most of the day.
What should he do?

Your answer? Likely suck it up, lower his standard of living and let the receptionist keep her job and standard of living....even though she is overpaid.

My answer?

The receptionist should have continued her education and open doors to herself so that her value to the marketplace increased....as if ones skills stagnate it is just a matter of time before they price themselves out of the market.

Hookay..enough with the hypotheticals.

Here's a real world example.

HP was a dominant force in the UNIX server industry when it hire failed CEO Carly Fiorina to take over. She didn't build anything up. She didn't start the company. She failed at her previous position at Lucent as well. Why did she get hired? No idea. Okay..she's got to be boss. Her great idea? Maximize profit by laying off over 30K employees and shipping the jobs overseas. On top of that..she merged with Compaq..in a bid to get into the mainframe business. She was looking to capitalize on Tandems.

The result?

Over 30K people out of work.

HP Stocks drop through the basement.

Tandem is a bust..because people move from mainframes to Linux servers.

And Carly makes a bundle.

THAT'S the Conservative way. Destroy and profit.

Everytime.

Yeah...and enron collapsed too...So did Pan Am...so did Joe Schmo...

Bad business mamagnement results in failure.

Happens all the time.

But what about the successes?

Millions of Americans are employed becuase of the successful companies.

Yet you cite one of the failures.

Why is that?

 

[Ravi]

How successful would I have to make it until I'm one of those evil businesses?

I dunno...isn't the answer in the Bible?

 

[PoliticalChic]

SO WHAT if they own their own home? My inlaws were below dirt poor, with 4 children of their own and they took in another poor kid in Matt's class that lost his home to fire when his step dad told him to fend for himself....

THEY OWNED THEIR HOME.....they bought if for $7000 dollars in the 1960's....

Poor people CAN own their own homes and pay LESS THAN RENT for them....

the homes they buy are just cheaper homes in poorer neighborhoods PC.

The point, Care, is that 'poor' is a term that the left uses for the hand-wringing set, the folks who can be manipulated to fall in line because they won't investigate what the term means.

Poor must always be combined with 'compared to....'

Otherwise, it is simply envy.

List all of the items in the post, and then compare it to what the real poor, say in a Third World nation have.


"And one billion of the world’s population earn less than $1 per day. And almost half of the six billion on the planet earn less than $2 a day."
http://books.google.com/books?id=luzfw0Ea2PAC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=half+of+the+six+billion+on+the+planet+earn+less+than+$2+a+day.&source=bl&ots=MZvc4h_Lnx&sig=-HMpiw4JLdUvZKxKU3ZkgnhUC3w&hl=en&ei=ZuE9TfnXGtHpgAfT6Yz4CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

yes, they are not poor compared to other 3rd world countries.... just like the middle class here would be considered very very very very rich, filthy rich, in a third world country....but they are not filthy rich here in the USA.

That man is richest whose needs are fewest.
Henry David Thoreau

 

[Two Thumbs]

well this thread fell apart quickly.

I declare Ravi evil for bringing up the bible.

just sayin

 

[Sallow]

Question for you......

A man starts a company...it grows....and becomes a successful company employing 100 people. His receptionist started at 10 an hour and over the years she is raised to 20 an hour....he then invests in a new phone system to keep up with technology...and this phone system offers voicemail for all employees...with direct lines to each employee as such is preferred by the client base and more attractive to new cleints.
He now has his receptionist doing infinitely less for the same 20 an hour. He can fire the file clerk and give her that job if she wants....but the file clerk only makes and is worth 10 an hour.....so instead he keeps her as the receptionist and she is now doing 1/3 the work and still making 20 an hour.
Business dies due to a recession...he is taking less home, but his success has allowed him to maintain his lifestyle. Further review of his financials shows that his operating expenses are way too high for him to sustain his existing life style and he needs to cut back or possibly not be able to meet his personal needs.
He looks at his recptionuist who is doing a 10 an hour job for 20 an hour...and is sitting around doing nothing most of the day.
What should he do?

Your answer? Likely suck it up, lower his standard of living and let the receptionist keep her job and standard of living....even though she is overpaid.

My answer?

The receptionist should have continued her education and open doors to herself so that her value to the marketplace increased....as if ones skills stagnate it is just a matter of time before they price themselves out of the market.

Hookay..enough with the hypotheticals.

Here's a real world example.

HP was a dominant force in the UNIX server industry when it hire failed CEO Carly Fiorina to take over. She didn't build anything up. She didn't start the company. She failed at her previous position at Lucent as well. Why did she get hired? No idea. Okay..she's got to be boss. Her great idea? Maximize profit by laying off over 30K employees and shipping the jobs overseas. On top of that..she merged with Compaq..in a bid to get into the mainframe business. She was looking to capitalize on Tandems.

The result?

Over 30K people out of work.

HP Stocks drop through the basement.

Tandem is a bust..because people move from mainframes to Linux servers.

And Carly makes a bundle.

THAT'S the Conservative way. Destroy and profit.

Everytime.

Yeah...and enron collapsed too...So did Pan Am...so did Joe Schmo...

Bad business mamagnement results in failure.

Happens all the time.

But what about the successes?

Millions of Americans are employed becuase of the successful companies.

Yet you cite one of the failures.

Why is that?

Whoosh..that went over your head didn't it?

No one has a problem with responsible business owners and rational salaries.

What angers most is extreme greed and the capricious nature of some businesses.

Especially when people are moved into management that had no hand in making it a success, none. And that may have happened because they travel in the same social circles and not because of ability. And at the bottom of alot of these successes, more often then not, you find the TAX PAYER was somehow involved. As in grants, loans, R&D and providing customers (ie the government). See: Kraft Cheese, Northop Grumman, General Dynamics, General Electric, General Motors, Ford, Boeing, Halliburton, Raytheon, AIG, Citibank, Morgan Stanely, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Pfizer..

And a CEO or owner doesn't get successful alone. It takes a lot of hands and minds to make a success.

Which is why it's a wonderful thing that workers Unite and form Unions.

 

[Jarhead]

Hookay..enough with the hypotheticals.

Here's a real world example.

HP was a dominant force in the UNIX server industry when it hire failed CEO Carly Fiorina to take over. She didn't build anything up. She didn't start the company. She failed at her previous position at Lucent as well. Why did she get hired? No idea. Okay..she's got to be boss. Her great idea? Maximize profit by laying off over 30K employees and shipping the jobs overseas. On top of that..she merged with Compaq..in a bid to get into the mainframe business. She was looking to capitalize on Tandems.

The result?

Over 30K people out of work.

HP Stocks drop through the basement.

Tandem is a bust..because people move from mainframes to Linux servers.

And Carly makes a bundle.

THAT'S the Conservative way. Destroy and profit.

Everytime.

Yeah...and enron collapsed too...So did Pan Am...so did Joe Schmo...

Bad business mamagnement results in failure.

Happens all the time.

But what about the successes?

Millions of Americans are employed becuase of the successful companies.

Yet you cite one of the failures.

Why is that?

Whoosh..that went over your head didn't it?

No one has a problem with responsible business owners and rational salaries.

What angers most is extreme greed and the capricious nature of some businesses.

Especially when people are moved into management that had no hand in making it a success, none. And that may have happened because they travel in the same social circles and not because of ability. And at the bottom of alot of these successes, more often then not, you find the TAX PAYER was somehow involved. As in grants, loans, R&D and providing customers (ie the government). See: Kraft Cheese, Northop Grumman, General Dynamics, General Electric, General Motors, Ford, Boeing, Halliburton, Raytheon, AIG, Citibank, Morgan Stanely, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Pfizer..

And a CEO or owner doesn't get successful alone. It takes a lot of hands and minds to make a success.

Which is why it's a wonderful thing that workers Unite and form Unions.

Wow....
So you feel a worker who turns a lathe is more likely to have a better idea as to who should head up the company than the person who built the company to begin with?

So you assume tha people make corporate decisions based on "doing favors for friends and relatives".....and sure...some do.....but most make educated decisions.

And even educated decisions wind up failing.

Hey...if someone hires their best friends daughter and the company fails...so be it. It was his perogative to do it. He is the boss.

Being an employee has its risks...but it has its benefits as well. No headcahces in running a company. And there are many.

For example...I have spent the last 4 thursdays in court....nothing I did wrong......but a cost of being a business owner.

I worked on Monday night until 11 PM.....a client asked that Io meet with them after hours...so I did. None of my employees had to do it.....I did.

Should I let them also decide how much to charge that cleint?

 

[Jarhead]

Hookay..enough with the hypotheticals.

Here's a real world example.

HP was a dominant force in the UNIX server industry when it hire failed CEO Carly Fiorina to take over. She didn't build anything up. She didn't start the company. She failed at her previous position at Lucent as well. Why did she get hired? No idea. Okay..she's got to be boss. Her great idea? Maximize profit by laying off over 30K employees and shipping the jobs overseas. On top of that..she merged with Compaq..in a bid to get into the mainframe business. She was looking to capitalize on Tandems.

The result?

Over 30K people out of work.

HP Stocks drop through the basement.

Tandem is a bust..because people move from mainframes to Linux servers.

And Carly makes a bundle.

THAT'S the Conservative way. Destroy and profit.

Everytime.

Yeah...and enron collapsed too...So did Pan Am...so did Joe Schmo...

Bad business mamagnement results in failure.

Happens all the time.

But what about the successes?

Millions of Americans are employed becuase of the successful companies.

Yet you cite one of the failures.

Why is that?

Whoosh..that went over your head didn't it?

No one has a problem with responsible business owners and rational salaries.

What angers most is extreme greed and the capricious nature of some businesses.

Especially when people are moved into management that had no hand in making it a success, none. And that may have happened because they travel in the same social circles and not because of ability. And at the bottom of alot of these successes, more often then not, you find the TAX PAYER was somehow involved. As in grants, loans, R&D and providing customers (ie the government). See: Kraft Cheese, Northop Grumman, General Dynamics, General Electric, General Motors, Ford, Boeing, Halliburton, Raytheon, AIG, Citibank, Morgan Stanely, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Pfizer..

And a CEO or owner doesn't get successful alone. It takes a lot of hands and minds to make a success.

Which is why it's a wonderful thing that workers Unite and form Unions.

That is where you prove you are clueless and doing nothing but regurgitating talking points.

Those that are union memebers are not decision makers. They are non exempt employees and are not involved in making a CEO.

The CEO is made by the talent he or she hires to advise him...the managemnt staff....the excempt employees....and they are compensated handsomely or they leave and take their talent elsewhere.

But the lather turner? He or she is easily replaced by another lathe turner. He or she does not have a differential. Their input to the success of the company is based on their skillset as a lathe turner. If they are not good at turening a lathe, there is another one that will do it instead.

You quite obviously have no idea on how a business is made up.

Lathe turners, file clerks...they do NOT make a CEO successful.

The ones that hire the right lathe turners and file clerks do. And they are management.

 

[MarcATL]

How successful would I have to make it until I'm one of those evil businesses?

LoL!!

You must have slipped and bumped your head.

Its not about being successful and the far RW lunatic reactionary fringers like to frame it.

You go from a good business to evil business the INSTANT you engage in practices that either abuse or prey upon your customers and/or society at large.

So if, for profits sake, you're polluting the environment that means you're one of those evil businesses. That's just ONE example.

Its really not rocket science.

 

[Jarhead]

How successful would I have to make it until I'm one of those evil businesses?

LoL!!

You must have slipped and bumped your head.

Its not about being successful and the far RW lunatic reactionary fringers like to frame it.

You go from a good business to evil business the INSTANT you engage in practices that either abuse or prey upon your customers and/or society at large.

So if, for profits sake, you're polluting the environment that means you're one of those evil businesses. That's just ONE example.

Its really not rocket science.

So please offer me an example of one large successful business where you see the owner as not evil.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

How successful would I have to make it until I'm one of those evil businesses?

Any level of success.....because capitalism is the enemy of the Left...

Making money translates into power....something you must not have in a Leftie-controlled society...the Leftie elite (at any level) are the only ones allowed to have power....

 

[Two Thumbs]

How successful would I have to make it until I'm one of those evil businesses?

LoL!!

You must have slipped and bumped your head.

Its not about being successful and the far RW lunatic reactionary fringers like to frame it.

You go from a good business to evil business the INSTANT you engage in practices that either abuse or prey upon your customers and/or society at large.

So if, for profits sake, you're polluting the environment that means you're one of those evil businesses. That's just ONE example.

Its really not rocket science.

Oh get real.

Any company that doesn't pay this mythical and ever increasing "living wage" is evil. Anyone that doesn't give the unions everything they demand is evil.

I tiny fraction pollute on carelessly.

 

[Mr Natural]

When you start looking at your first Bentley and a chauffer to drive it and you fire enough of your employees to cover the cost.

Oh, yeah, THAT'S the way wealth and profit work.

Yeah....I am sure someone fires an employee to buy a Bentley to then lose the Bentley becuase he doesnt have the employees to maintain his success.

Happens all the time.

Aha!

So you admit that the way to riches is through the efforts of others.

Then why all the distain for working people from those on the right?