If i start a small business

[Jarhead]

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?

No one syas an employee that is needed is not important to the success of the company.

If you fire the recptionist so you can afford a vacation it is foolish....as it will affect business.

But that does not mean the receptionist is worthy of making more than 15 an hour....

Why must you spin to make your point?

Are you not overly confident about your position?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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?

There is no distain for working people.

complete and utter nonsene.

If that was even the tiniest bit true, most of us would have disdain for ourselves.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

A file clerk is a necessary item position a firm.
The requirement to fill the position is one with a work ethic and the ability to file.

The asset is the position...not the person who fills it.

If the person who fills it does not have a good work ethic, then they will be fired.

But are you saying that having a good work ethic warrants spoecial consideration? We should pat those with a good work ethic on the back and offer them raises and make them rich? Becuase they have a good work ethic? Really? They should be rewarded for being what they are supposed to be?

I thought we punish those that are not what they are expected to be...but reward those that are instead?

Interesting.

So if my son goes to school everyday....should I reward him?

 

[Ravi]

But are you saying that having a good work ethic warrants spoecial consideration? We should pat those with a good work ethic on the back and offer them raises and make them rich? Becuase they have a good work ethic? Really? They should be rewarded for being what they are supposed to be?

That is how I treat people that work for me.

Loyalty is a two way street.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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?

A file clerk is a necessary item position a firm.
The requirement to fill the position is one with a work ethic and the ability to file.

The asset is the position...not the person who fills it.

If the person who fills it does not have a good work ethic, then they will be fired.

But are you saying that having a good work ethic warrants spoecial consideration? We should pat those with a good work ethic on the back and offer them raises and make them rich? Becuase they have a good work ethic? Really? They should be rewarded for being what they are supposed to be?

I thought we punish those that are not what they are expected to be...but reward those that are instead?

Interesting.

So if my son goes to school everyday....should I reward him?

Real world;
A good worker is rewarded with a pay check.
A great worker will get a raise until they are at the max the position is worth.
A crap worker will get fired.

Union world;
A good worker gets pay, benefits, etc, far exceeding the worth of the position
A great worker is bullied by the other workers until they produce like a good worker
A crap worker is kept b/c it's near impossible to fire anyone from a union.

 

[Care4all]

if 50% of our workforce does not pay any federal income taxes....I wonder who the 50% are on this site that falls in to this category? Half of the people posting here, and probably some of those bitching, are not paying income taxes, if it is true at all that these 50% don't pay any....?

 

[Sallow]

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?

The nature of your "retorts" are simply absent from the real world and how it works. It's kinda of the same mindset of "Joe the Plumber".

The "problem" now is NOT that anyone is going after business. The problem now is that, yet again, the worker is under attack.

Both government and business have basically colluded to make private sector Unions, invalid. And now they are going after the public sector Unions.

And that's not what this country should be doing. We should not be going back to the notion that labor, skilled or not, serves at the pleasure of "owners" or 'elites' We should be promoting the idea that labor should be able to have a say in their own compensation.

 

[rikules]

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

obviously conservatives can't help themselves when it comes to villifying their enemies

so....

when liberals worry about mega corporations that pay no taxes, shell out billions in bonuses to TOP LEVEL EXECS (who don't actually work)

cons can't help but twist this into; liberals hate business! or liberals think business is EVIL.


the truth is (and history proves this) unregulated megacorps who don't pay any taxes yet have all the political clout in the country have NO ETHICS and NO MORALS

that is why they piss on the american worker by unemploying him/her and then outsourcing to india

as they have shown in the past the CEOS and BIGSHOTS of megacorps, unregulated, will gladly pay workers as little as they can get away with, force them to live in shacks, give them no health care....and then they all get black lung and die by the time they're 40...
(a conservative dream!)

you keep portraying liberals as EVIL and GREEDY

but the truth is liberals are fighting for DECENT wages and DECENT living conditions for ALL Americans.....

while you keep fighting against them and helping the ultra rich get richer

well
nobody ever said conservatives were smart

 

[Jarhead]

But are you saying that having a good work ethic warrants spoecial consideration? We should pat those with a good work ethic on the back and offer them raises and make them rich? Becuase they have a good work ethic? Really? They should be rewarded for being what they are supposed to be?

That is how I treat people that work for me.

Loyalty is a two way street.

Really?

You reward your employees for doing what they are expected to do?
What if an employee does not meet your expectations? Do you keep them anyway?

Do you live in a world of reward and punishment only?

Is there no middle road?
.
I do not reward a file clerk becuase he comes to work everyday and files. I keep him employed becuase of that....but that is BS if you reward him for doing what he is expected to do.

How do you treat employees that exceed your expectations? Treat them like those that only meet them...by rewarding them both?

So you have an employee that is in from 9-5 everyday.
And another equal employee that comes in at 8:30 and is the last one out at 5:30 even though the hours are 9-5.....but they want to make sure the BEST job is done.

Do you reward them both equally?

 

[Ravi]

But are you saying that having a good work ethic warrants spoecial consideration? We should pat those with a good work ethic on the back and offer them raises and make them rich? Becuase they have a good work ethic? Really? They should be rewarded for being what they are supposed to be?

That is how I treat people that work for me.

Loyalty is a two way street.

Really?

You reward your employees for doing what they are expected to do?
What if an employee does not meet your expectations? Do you keep them anyway?

Do you live in a world of reward and punishment only?

Is there no middle road?
.
I do not reward a file clerk becuase he comes to work everyday and files. I keep him employed becuase of that....but that is BS if you reward him for doing what he is expected to do.

How do you treat employees that exceed your expectations? Treat them like those that only meet them...by rewarding them both?

So you have an employee that is in from 9-5 everyday.
And another equal employee that comes in at 8:30 and is the last one out at 5:30 even though the hours are 9-5.....but they want to make sure the BEST job is done.

Do you reward them both equally?

It's pretty simple, really.

People that don't do a good job don't stay employed.
People that are competent are rewarded slightly.
People that excel are rewarded more.

Not sure why you have a problem with this concept.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

The nature of your "retorts" are simply absent from the real world and how it works. It's kinda of the same mindset of "Joe the Plumber".

The "problem" now is NOT that anyone is going after business. The problem now is that, yet again, the worker is under attack.

Both government and business have basically colluded to make private sector Unions, invalid. And now they are going after the public sector Unions.

And that's not what this country should be doing. We should not be going back to the notion that labor, skilled or not, serves at the pleasure of "owners" or 'elites' We should be promoting the idea that labor should be able to have a say in their own compensation.

Unlike years before unions, we now have laws that prevent child labor; we have minimum wage that prevents "slave wages"; we now have laws that orevent dangerous work environments.; We now have laws that prevent dsicrimination.

Now we can let the free market run again. You dont like the wage, dont take the job.

The worker will dictate the salary in the end....demand for a particular position is what will define the salary.

Unions have proven to be self serving for themselves and the memebers not taking into conideration how it affects the priices of the goods they produce and the success of the company overall.

Trust me...as a business planner and recruiter......salaries for no union positions are dictated by the demand for the psoition by qulified people...even in economic times like these.

 

[Jarhead]

That is how I treat people that work for me.

Loyalty is a two way street.

Really?

You reward your employees for doing what they are expected to do?
What if an employee does not meet your expectations? Do you keep them anyway?

Do you live in a world of reward and punishment only?

Is there no middle road?
.
I do not reward a file clerk becuase he comes to work everyday and files. I keep him employed becuase of that....but that is BS if you reward him for doing what he is expected to do.

How do you treat employees that exceed your expectations? Treat them like those that only meet them...by rewarding them both?

So you have an employee that is in from 9-5 everyday.
And another equal employee that comes in at 8:30 and is the last one out at 5:30 even though the hours are 9-5.....but they want to make sure the BEST job is done.

Do you reward them both equally?

It's pretty simple, really.

People that don't do a good job don't stay employed.
People that are competent are rewarded slightly.
People that excel are rewarded more.

Not sure why you have a problem with this concept.

I dont.
You added in an interesting word...
People that are compatent are rewarded "slightly"
Yes...they are rewarded with annual raises and keeping their job.
But becuase they are just competant...and do not try to excel...they are also the first ones out when times get lean. Afterall, they do not present a differential and any smart business owner would realize that when times get good again they would be easy to replace.

It is this concept that should AND DOES prompt people to try to exceed expectations.

Meeting BUT NOT exceeding expectations does not show loyalty to an employer. It shows loyalty to a paycheck.

Exceeding expectations; staying late; going above and beyond....this shows loyalty to an employer and a career.

Not sure why you have a problem with this concept

 

[Ravi]

Really?

You reward your employees for doing what they are expected to do?
What if an employee does not meet your expectations? Do you keep them anyway?

Do you live in a world of reward and punishment only?

Is there no middle road?
.
I do not reward a file clerk becuase he comes to work everyday and files. I keep him employed becuase of that....but that is BS if you reward him for doing what he is expected to do.

How do you treat employees that exceed your expectations? Treat them like those that only meet them...by rewarding them both?

So you have an employee that is in from 9-5 everyday.
And another equal employee that comes in at 8:30 and is the last one out at 5:30 even though the hours are 9-5.....but they want to make sure the BEST job is done.

Do you reward them both equally?

It's pretty simple, really.

People that don't do a good job don't stay employed.
People that are competent are rewarded slightly.
People that excel are rewarded more.

Not sure why you have a problem with this concept.

I dont.
You added in an interesting word...
People that are compatent are rewarded "slightly"
Yes...they are rewarded with annual raises and keeping their job.
But becuase they are just competant...and do not try to excel...they are also the first ones out when times get lean. Afterall, they do not present a differential and any smart business owner would realize that when times get good again they would be easy to replace.

It is this concept that should AND DOES prompt people to try to exceed expectations.

Meeting BUT NOT exceeding expectations does not show loyalty to an employer. It shows loyalty to a paycheck.

Exceeding expectations; staying late; going above and beyond....this shows loyalty to an employer and a career.

Not sure why you have a problem with this concept

There are a lot more incompetent people than there are competent people...so yes, I'd rather keep a loyal, competent employee than continually refill a position.

Might not work for you but I've always had great success with it.

 

[Jarhead]

It's pretty simple, really.

People that don't do a good job don't stay employed.
People that are competent are rewarded slightly.
People that excel are rewarded more.

Not sure why you have a problem with this concept.

I dont.
You added in an interesting word...
People that are compatent are rewarded "slightly"
Yes...they are rewarded with annual raises and keeping their job.
But becuase they are just competant...and do not try to excel...they are also the first ones out when times get lean. Afterall, they do not present a differential and any smart business owner would realize that when times get good again they would be easy to replace.

It is this concept that should AND DOES prompt people to try to exceed expectations.

Meeting BUT NOT exceeding expectations does not show loyalty to an employer. It shows loyalty to a paycheck.

Exceeding expectations; staying late; going above and beyond....this shows loyalty to an employer and a career.

Not sure why you have a problem with this concept

There are a lot more incompetent people than there are competent people...so yes, I'd rather keep a loyal, competent employee than continually refill a position.

Might not work for you but I've always had great success with it.

Perhaps you have.

But to the contrary, I have found it easy to find competant people. Many people are loyal to their paycheck as they have fiancnail responsibilities....and they are by no means difficult to find and not too difficult to identify. Take it from me...a business planner/recruiter.

1 year 1 year 1 year on a resume? There is one who, when he gets comfortable, starts to take advantage and comes in late, out sick often, etc...and gets fired. Not loyal to employer or loyal to paycheck.

7 years with a company but no change in responsibility? This is one who is loyal to his/her paycheck but does not go above and beyond.

I find it difficult to find people that excel.
But when I do? I reward them. They deserve it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

There is no distain for working people.

complete and utter nonsene.

If that was even the tiniest bit true, most of us would have disdain for ourselves.

wow, given everything that's been said by the right about the working class, especially recently, the above statement is astounding.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Factoring in our natural advantage in resources, do you really think the poor in the countries of the EU have it worse than American poor???

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why don't those of you on the Right simply name the government policies you support that do in fact serve to primarily help the poor?

 

[Jarhead]

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?

There is no distain for working people.

complete and utter nonsene.

If that was even the tiniest bit true, most of us would have disdain for ourselves.

wow, given everything that's been said by the right about the working class, especially recently, the above statement is astounding.

Correction...

Given everything the media and blogs YOU opt to watch read and listen to have been claiming has been said by the right about the working class, especially recently, the above statement is astounding.

You see....your media tends to cherry pick some words of some far fringe winger and present it to you as the norm.

Thus why you say foolish things like you just did.

 

[Jarhead]

Why don't those of you on the Right simply name the government policies you support that do in fact serve to primarily help the poor?

Sure...

But let us clarify....yoiu are saying "help the poor".....not "support the poor"....there is a difference.

So to help the poor?

Food stamps.
Welfare.
Unemployment.
Use of the ER.

It is the least we can do for them in the time of need......with empohasis being on "in a time of need."

 

[kaz]

- Do you accept taxpayer subsidies

I'm with you on this one rightwinger. Anyone who takes money from the government is a parasite and needs to be stopped...