Liberal Business owners - a true story of what I get to deal with right now

[Jarhead]

That's not hard data, and you're not a Business owner who has, you'd WANT TO BELIEVE, necessarily researched the exact numbers of rebates and incentives. I'm looking for someone who has. All I can come up with is Papa john's. Their outlook is nothing to even flinch at.

it was my job....the one that allowed me to retire at the age of 54.

Whatever.

You retired before the subject we're discussing will have taken effect.

Also, I'm wondering how many businesses are hovering between 40 and 60 employees right now. I'm pretty sure Republicans think it's in the millions.

it is far from millions. Most small service companies are within 20 employees......however, the debate is about expansion..

All companies that are at 50-5,000,000...started as companies of 1 or 2.

Companies that had a future of expanding steadily will reach that "over under" 50 at some time...and they will hit the wall I am describing....

Now...my oipinion? A free capitilistic maekt is best with smaller companies...an oligopoly is the best scenario.....many small companies per industry with a few larger ones setting the marketplace....it is usually a win win for all....so I am not overly concerned about companies not wanting to expand beyond 50...

But it does not change the fact that the ACA, over time, will dictate how large a company can grow.

 

[G.T.]

here is the best way to explain it..in simple terms...

A servcice company does not have revenue per employee increase with addtional employees.....revenue per employee is a stationary number....such is different in manufacturing....but in service, all analyses are made based on the return per employee being a set number...regardless of the increase in staff....

This does not include cost of space and technology.

If expanding means the cost of employee will increase, but the return on employee will remain the same, then one would not expand.

Now...if going above 50 employees means the cost of each employee will increase, but the return will remain the same, then an analysis will be needed to determine where it would make sense to expand....and as the numbers above show...expanding by 33% is far from the number...

And unfortunately...expanding by anything more than 33% is next to impossible at one shot.

Take it from there.

This is where I'd veer off from your entire post here.

 

[boedicca]

I've figured out Obama's Jobs Program: create more part time jobs as employers reduce full time employment below the 30 hour threshold.

The moonbats are getting the logical result of their voting choices; even colleges are cutting instructor hours to skirt the ObamaCare requirement.

As part of what is known as Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, which takes effect in January 2013, has a provision that requires employers to share in the responsibility of providing health insurance to its full-time employees. Some educational institutions in their efforts to save estimated health care costs are now taking additional steps to save cash, yet at the expense of already under-resourced adjunct college instructors.

Youngstown State University is the second institution in recent weeks to announce it will cut its adjuncts’ hours to avoid paying Affordable Care Act-related costs. In a campus wide memo last Thursday, a portion of the memo reads, “Effective this academic year, part-time faculty will not be allowed to teach more than 24 hours over fall, spring and summer.” The Ohio university announced its plan a few weeks after Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) made a similar announcement.

The Pennsylvania college made their unwelcomed announcement to faculty and staff members in an email message on November 20. For CCAC, slashing adjuncts’ work hours seemed a good way to avoid an estimated $6 million in employee health care costs that would kick in once the Affordable Care Act’s employer-as-payer directive begins in January 2013....

Colleges cut adjuncts' hours to avoid Affordable Care Act laws and costs - National Higher Education | Examiner.com

 

[Jarhead]

OK...here is a basic analysis I did for a service company a few years back...the numbers are skewed...and I am now insituting the ACA for debate purposes....

They had 41 employees at the time (real number)....the return on each employee was approximately 10K net...net referring to AFTER cost of payroll....it did not include other costs such as office space, etc.....

Say the owner had a net profit of 400K.....(off of his empoloyees)

He decides to open a second location and add 15 employees....

Lets put aside the cost of the new venue for now....

now he has 54 employees....and by law MUST insure ALL of them...the first 41 are not grandfathered.....

The cost of insurance per employee is 5K after rebates and incentives....a rational number

Now the return on each employee is down to 5K...

So his net profit of his entire staff is of 54 is 270K.

So his net profit has decreased by 130K due to his expansion....not to mention the INCREASE in operating costs due to the need for additional office space and technology

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't have to pay the full cost of the health insurance he just has to offer a plan, no?

No...he/she cant just offer a plan.....he/she has to cover the cost of the plan.

 

[G.T.]

it was my job....the one that allowed me to retire at the age of 54.

Whatever.

You retired before the subject we're discussing will have taken effect.

Also, I'm wondering how many businesses are hovering between 40 and 60 employees right now. I'm pretty sure Republicans think it's in the millions.

it is far from millions. Most small service companies are within 20 employees......however, the debate is about expansion..

All companies that are at 50-5,000,000...started as companies of 1 or 2.

Companies that had a future of expanding steadily will reach that "over under" 50 at some time...and they will hit the wall I am describing....

Now...my oipinion? A free capitilistic maekt is best with smaller companies...an oligopoly is the best scenario.....many small companies per industry with a few larger ones setting the marketplace....it is usually a win win for all....so I am not overly concerned about companies not wanting to expand beyond 50...

But it does not change the fact that the ACA, over time, will dictate how large a company can grow.

A free open market does nothing for the small business. As corporations expand and are able to do things cheaper, more and more local businesses are diminished.

Monopoly laws need to be expanded to reverse the trend. Corporate profits are at all time highs, and the top income earners as a Result have increased wealth while the middle and bottom have remained stagnant.

The free market will always go there. Always.

 

[kwc57]

Holy shit some people can sure lie with ease.

That's no way to talk about our beloved Dear Leader.

 

[Jarhead]

here is the best way to explain it..in simple terms...

A servcice company does not have revenue per employee increase with addtional employees.....revenue per employee is a stationary number....such is different in manufacturing....but in service, all analyses are made based on the return per employee being a set number...regardless of the increase in staff....

This does not include cost of space and technology.

If expanding means the cost of employee will increase, but the return on employee will remain the same, then one would not expand.

Now...if going above 50 employees means the cost of each employee will increase, but the return will remain the same, then an analysis will be needed to determine where it would make sense to expand....and as the numbers above show...expanding by 33% is far from the number...

And unfortunately...expanding by anything more than 33% is next to impossible at one shot.

Take it from there.

This is where I'd veer off from your entire post here.

it is an accurate statement.

A service company has its base....from its base, each additional employee of expansion has a set expected return.

GT...it is what I did for a living...and I was good at it.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Asswipe, does your rant change the fact Obamacare harms companies that hire over 50 workers???

What moron creates a standard to where you get punished if you hire 1 more worker?

Oh that you would dumbfucks like you.

Holy shit some people can sure lie with ease.

 

[G.T.]

here is the best way to explain it..in simple terms...

A servcice company does not have revenue per employee increase with addtional employees.....revenue per employee is a stationary number....such is different in manufacturing....but in service, all analyses are made based on the return per employee being a set number...regardless of the increase in staff....

This does not include cost of space and technology.

If expanding means the cost of employee will increase, but the return on employee will remain the same, then one would not expand.

Now...if going above 50 employees means the cost of each employee will increase, but the return will remain the same, then an analysis will be needed to determine where it would make sense to expand....and as the numbers above show...expanding by 33% is far from the number...

And unfortunately...expanding by anything more than 33% is next to impossible at one shot.

Take it from there.

This is where I'd veer off from your entire post here.

it is an accurate statement.

A service company has its base....from its base, each additional employee of expansion has a set expected return.

GT...it is what I did for a living...and I was good at it.

a company not increasing output per employee isn't doing it right.

 

[Jarhead]

You retired before the subject we're discussing will have taken effect.

Also, I'm wondering how many businesses are hovering between 40 and 60 employees right now. I'm pretty sure Republicans think it's in the millions.

it is far from millions. Most small service companies are within 20 employees......however, the debate is about expansion..

All companies that are at 50-5,000,000...started as companies of 1 or 2.

Companies that had a future of expanding steadily will reach that "over under" 50 at some time...and they will hit the wall I am describing....

Now...my oipinion? A free capitilistic maekt is best with smaller companies...an oligopoly is the best scenario.....many small companies per industry with a few larger ones setting the marketplace....it is usually a win win for all....so I am not overly concerned about companies not wanting to expand beyond 50...

But it does not change the fact that the ACA, over time, will dictate how large a company can grow.

A free open market does nothing for the small business. As corporations expand and are able to do things cheaper, more and more local businesses are diminished.

Monopoly laws need to be expanded to reverse the trend. Corporate profits are at all time highs, and the top income earners as a Result have increased wealth while the middle and bottom have remained stagnant.

The free market will always go there. Always.

that is where you have a problem. You do not understand how an oligopoly works......we NEED those large corporations...they are what allow small business to acheive success...they set the marketplace....they actually do the advertising and marketing...not to mention much of the R and D....

I dont care if company A makes a billion in profit if it allows me to make 500K with my small business.

Read up on oligopolies.......they are by no means monolpolies.

 

[kwc57]

Since we are making up stories....

I work for a conservative business owner

I told him that our employees do not have health insurance and will go bankrupt if they have a major illness. He said screw them, they are not my problem let the taxpayer pick up their healthcare costs

I explained that I agreed with him and that businesses should not be the ones providing healthcare and that it should be a government function. He jumped up and screamed THATS SOCIALISM

I explained that his attitude is just the problem that Obamacare faced, that no matter what solution was proposed, conservatives tried to block it

He replied....LET THEM DIE

The OP's story has credibility. Even if the story is a tall tale, it reflects exactly what can happen.

Yours is nothing more than a typical liberal talking point where you claim that conservatives dont give a fuck about their employees....something that is never proven.....

I don't think my employer should be making healthcare decisions for me. It is not in his best interests. The obvious solution would be a national healthcare system with NO insurance companies as middle men
Since that was deemed socialism from the right, the next obvious solution is for the government to set up insurance pools so that people could qualify for group rates.
That was derided as a government takeover of healthcare. The only remaining solution is to maintain what we have now with employers providing health insurance
It sucks, but that is what we ended up with

But you trust the gubmint to? Holy shit!

 

[G.T.]

it is far from millions. Most small service companies are within 20 employees......however, the debate is about expansion..

All companies that are at 50-5,000,000...started as companies of 1 or 2.

Companies that had a future of expanding steadily will reach that "over under" 50 at some time...and they will hit the wall I am describing....

Now...my oipinion? A free capitilistic maekt is best with smaller companies...an oligopoly is the best scenario.....many small companies per industry with a few larger ones setting the marketplace....it is usually a win win for all....so I am not overly concerned about companies not wanting to expand beyond 50...

But it does not change the fact that the ACA, over time, will dictate how large a company can grow.

A free open market does nothing for the small business. As corporations expand and are able to do things cheaper, more and more local businesses are diminished.

Monopoly laws need to be expanded to reverse the trend. Corporate profits are at all time highs, and the top income earners as a Result have increased wealth while the middle and bottom have remained stagnant.

The free market will always go there. Always.

that is where you have a problem. You do not understand how an oligopoly works......we NEED those large corporations...they are what allow small business to acheive success...they set the marketplace....they actually do the advertising and marketing...not to mention much of the R and D....

I dont care if company A makes a billion in profit if it allows me to make 500K with my small business.

Read up on oligopolies.......they are by no means monolpolies.

I company A makes product B and makes it way cheaper, which necessarily happens with a Corporation, then shoppers say peace out to your small business. You missed the point.

 

[Jarhead]

This is where I'd veer off from your entire post here.

it is an accurate statement.

A service company has its base....from its base, each additional employee of expansion has a set expected return.

GT...it is what I did for a living...and I was good at it.

a company not increasing output per employee isn't doing it right.

in a service company? You are 100% dead wrong.

An accountant for example....has 50 man hours per week...generates X amount of dollars.

Hiring another accountant does not mean now each accountant can generate 60 man hours...and it does not mean the firm can charge more per hour.

You are 100% dead worng.

 

[Paulie]

Employee return is not a static number in a service business. I have a service business and trust me when I tell you that a good employee will make you more money than a lousy one.

 

[Jarhead]

A free open market does nothing for the small business. As corporations expand and are able to do things cheaper, more and more local businesses are diminished.

Monopoly laws need to be expanded to reverse the trend. Corporate profits are at all time highs, and the top income earners as a Result have increased wealth while the middle and bottom have remained stagnant.

The free market will always go there. Always.

that is where you have a problem. You do not understand how an oligopoly works......we NEED those large corporations...they are what allow small business to acheive success...they set the marketplace....they actually do the advertising and marketing...not to mention much of the R and D....

I dont care if company A makes a billion in profit if it allows me to make 500K with my small business.

Read up on oligopolies.......they are by no means monolpolies.

I company A makes product B and makes it way cheaper, which necessarily happens with a Corporation, then shoppers say peace out to your small business. You missed the point.

you are talking about manufacturing...and I made it clear that it is different in manufacturing.

I have made it clear in every one of my posts that i am referring to service companies...and service companies make up a vast majority of all oif the small nbusinesses.

 

[Jarhead]

Employee return is not a static number in a service business. I have a service business and trust me when I tell you that a good employee will make you more money than a lousy one.

yes.....now you are talking about having a lousy emnployee..

But if you have 1 good employee with a return of x...and you decide to hire another good employee....his return will be x as well.

Use my earlier example of an accountant.

An accountant bills x an hour.
You hire a second accountant.
You still get x an hour per accountant.

 

[G.T.]

it is an accurate statement.

A service company has its base....from its base, each additional employee of expansion has a set expected return.

GT...it is what I did for a living...and I was good at it.

a company not increasing output per employee isn't doing it right.

in a service company? You are 100% dead wrong.

An accountant for example....has 50 man hours per week...generates X amount of dollars.

Hiring another accountant does not mean now each accountant can generate 60 man hours...and it does not mean the firm can charge more per hour.

You are 100% dead worng.

No, hiring doesnt increase the output.

Ingenuity does.

You said this: revenue per employee is a stationary number....such is different in manufacturing....but in service, all analyses are made based on the return per employee being a set number...

You are wrong, revenue per employee is not a stationary number.

Especially in the service industry, where faster and more efficient work increases output, and with technology, ingenuity and training employees become faster and more efficient.

 

[Some Guy]

So I have to share this because it really pisses me off. So I manage a business for two owners who are absolutely fabulous people...I mean wonderful people and I love them to death...but they are flaming liberals and can't see their hand two inches past their nose. So prior to the election they tasked me with setting up a plan fo expansion into a second location. Now I know the books and so the other day we meet and ask my plan and my response was: "I don't think we can expand now"

"Why not?" they asked confused.

"Well," I said. "Right now our company has 47 employees. Expanding to a second locaton will put us over the 50 employee limit on Obamacare and we will have to pay health benefits for every one of our employees or pay the fine to avoid it. After looking at the books, that will bankrupt us." I explained.

"But our business is ready to take the next step." they said to me.

"Yes it is," I responded "but we can't afford to anymore. The good old days of expanding according to sales and demand are over." I explained. "That's not the way it works anymore."

"Well why not?" they asked sincerely.

"Well because of the Affordable Health Care Act" I said. I then explained all the implications and do you know what their response was? These flaming liberals who voted for Obama and pounded the "health care is a human right" angle? Know what they said to me? They said "Well we have to find a loophole to get out of this. We can't afford that. it will end our business."

I was tempted at that point to reach across the table and strangle them both screaming "this is what you voted for mother fuckers!!!!" but I kept my cool. I said slowly "the business landscape has changed. Now here are our options.....#1 cut every employee to below 30 hours a week. If they go over 30 hours we fire them on the spot."

"Well how will they support their families on only 30 hours a week?" they asked.

"If they go over 30 hours after the expansion," I explained "then you will support their families directly from your own pocket because the business cannot sustain the expense incurred by Obamacare." I got incredulous at this point. "Jesus fucking Christ have you not been paying attention?" I was met with silence.

"Now the other option is to expand to the new location but to sub-contract labor to a different entity. Technically, you will have no new employees and be under the 50 cap. On the other hand you have to entrust your labor to a totally different business...and don't even think about creating a dummy corporation yourself to hire those workers under unless you want a nice battle with the IRS for fraud. It will have to be a completely unrelated business with totally unrelated ownership."

So after a while of them thinking they looked at me and asked.

"So what you are saying is that we can't expand our business unless we slash the hours of our employees who need every hour they can get, sub-contract out our labor an allow an independent business to control our labor, or just say fuck it and not expand at all?"

i said "Yep"

"THAT'S TOTAL BULLSHIT" they screamed

"That's what you voted for" I said calmly risking my job.

I didn't get fired. The expansion will not take place. 45 jobs set and ready just got lost thanks to Obamacare.

So the key to this is that they're not offering employer provided health care to their employees, correct?

 

[G.T.]

that is where you have a problem. You do not understand how an oligopoly works......we NEED those large corporations...they are what allow small business to acheive success...they set the marketplace....they actually do the advertising and marketing...not to mention much of the R and D....

I dont care if company A makes a billion in profit if it allows me to make 500K with my small business.

Read up on oligopolies.......they are by no means monolpolies.

I company A makes product B and makes it way cheaper, which necessarily happens with a Corporation, then shoppers say peace out to your small business. You missed the point.

you are talking about manufacturing...and I made it clear that it is different in manufacturing.

I have made it clear in every one of my posts that i am referring to service companies...and service companies make up a vast majority of all oif the small nbusinesses.

you mean like walmart getting so big that theyre expanded to doing automotive work and at a far cheaper price than a local small shop can charge?

yea.

it's in every industry. Corporate expansion is eating the middle and lower class i.e. small businesses.

 

[GoneBezerk]

The morons claiming hiring workers, over the line that gets Obamacare issues on a company, should lead to more productivity. If a company needs 55 workers instead of 45 then it will benefit from the additional workers is their claim.

Well, once Obamacare COSTS are added to the equation, the ROI for the company goes down with each worker in the company since there is a new cost. A company operating with 45 workers but could do better with 55 workers might not expand if the Obamacare costs are too much per worker.