The End of Employees

[OnePercenter]

Employees make employers all of their money, so what's the value of the employee?

It's not the value of the employee that matters. It's the value of the employee's contribution to the bottom line. The employees are worthless without management's direction, so they don't make all the money.

Management is the platform that allows employees to make all the money for the company, or rather part of the platform.

The employees would have nothing to do without management. Both are needed to be successful.

Management is part of the platform that allows business to function.

So employees don't make all the money. Everyone's necessary.

Management personal are employees, and in businesses where management works along side of workers, they do contribute to the revenue of the company.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's not the value of the employee that matters. It's the value of the employee's contribution to the bottom line. The employees are worthless without management's direction, so they don't make all the money.

Management is the platform that allows employees to make all the money for the company, or rather part of the platform.

The employees would have nothing to do without management. Both are needed to be successful.

Management is part of the platform that allows business to function.

So employees don't make all the money. Everyone's necessary.

Management personal are employees, and in businesses where management works along side of workers, they do contribute to the revenue of the company.

Will you admit the 30% revenue tax is dumb?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sounds like a "the more you spend, the more you earn". I can do that. I can spend all day spending money to earn more money.

As long as a company spends on employee expenses, yes.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

Read my plan.

The unconstitutional, economically moronic "ideas" in the plan are amusing.

How is returning tax money to the workers "moronic?"

You're not cutting individual rates in your "plan".
Handing 100% of employee expenses to corporations is going to hand
corporations trillions.

For a guy who bitches about corporations, that's especially moronic.

 

[OnePercenter]

You're right.

Thank You!

Fucking hell. Why do I bother replying to people who can't be bothered to read past the first two words?

Why shouldn't I accept kudos?

Your other two sentences are common sense.

It's the employers fault in hiring wrong, or not nurturing your employees. People aren't field mules.

People are mules, but they are expected to be ADULTS and actually do their job. This is where balance comes in. The balance of being a good employer with the balance of being a good employee.

People are mules

What kind of irresponsible statement is that?

Are you can fuck right off. I'm not playing these silly little games with you. Either be an adult, or you'll very quickly end up on the ignore list. That's your choice is you want to talk to me on this forum. Is that understood?

I challenged your stupid statement and you take offense to it? I suggest you grow up and not make stupid statements.

 

[OnePercenter]

Management is the platform that allows employees to make all the money for the company, or rather part of the platform.

The employees would have nothing to do without management. Both are needed to be successful.

Management is part of the platform that allows business to function.

So employees don't make all the money. Everyone's necessary.

Management personal are employees, and in businesses where management works along side of workers, they do contribute to the revenue of the company.

Will you admit the 30% revenue tax is dumb?

Reducing the total of taxes, government fees, and employee expense to 30% of revenue is smart.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The employees would have nothing to do without management. Both are needed to be successful.

Management is part of the platform that allows business to function.

So employees don't make all the money. Everyone's necessary.

Management personal are employees, and in businesses where management works along side of workers, they do contribute to the revenue of the company.

Will you admit the 30% revenue tax is dumb?

Reducing the total of taxes, government fees, and employee expense to 30% of revenue is smart.

Why did you ignore the data in post #118?

 

[Toro]

Management is the platform that allows employees to make all the money for the company, or rather part of the platform.

The employees would have nothing to do without management. Both are needed to be successful.

Management is part of the platform that allows business to function.

So employees don't make all the money. Everyone's necessary.

Management personal are employees, and in businesses where management works along side of workers, they do contribute to the revenue of the company.

Will you admit the 30% revenue tax is dumb?

If he really means that the government would rebate employees’ salaries in their entirety, because employee costs are on average 70% of sales, corporate taxes would be -40% of revenues.

lol

Hilarious

 

[OnePercenter]

As long as a company spends on employee expenses, yes.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

Read my plan.

The unconstitutional, economically moronic "ideas" in the plan are amusing.

How is returning tax money to the workers "moronic?"

You're not cutting individual rates in your "plan".
Handing 100% of employee expenses to corporations is going to hand
corporations trillions.

For a guy who bitches about corporations, that's especially moronic.

Why would I cut individual tax rates, a worker is still going to have hundreds more per week in her/his paycheck.

How can I be handing 100% of employee expenses to companies when they are taxed 30% of revenue?

I bitch about corporate welfare that does nothing to promote the economy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The employees would have nothing to do without management. Both are needed to be successful.

Management is part of the platform that allows business to function.

So employees don't make all the money. Everyone's necessary.

Management personal are employees, and in businesses where management works along side of workers, they do contribute to the revenue of the company.

Will you admit the 30% revenue tax is dumb?

If he really means that the government would rebate employees’ salaries in their entirety, because employee costs are on average 70% of sales, corporate taxes would be -40% of revenues.

lol

Hilarious

One percent -- of what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't understand what you're getting at.

Read my plan.

The unconstitutional, economically moronic "ideas" in the plan are amusing.

How is returning tax money to the workers "moronic?"

You're not cutting individual rates in your "plan".
Handing 100% of employee expenses to corporations is going to hand
corporations trillions.

For a guy who bitches about corporations, that's especially moronic.

Why would I cut individual tax rates, a worker is still going to have hundreds more per week in her/his paycheck.

How can I be handing 100% of employee expenses to companies when they are taxed 30% of revenue?

I bitch about corporate welfare that does nothing to promote the economy.

Why would I cut individual tax rates

You said you were "returning tax money to the workers".
Are you lying, or stupid?

a worker is still going to have hundreds more per week in her/his paycheck.

Why?

How can I be handing 100% of employee expenses to companies when they are taxed 30% of revenue?​

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.​

 

[my2¢]

Plan outlined in OP reminds me a bit of Nixon's wage and price controls. I don't recall them being either popular or effective, but that was quite awhile ago.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fucking hell. Why do I bother replying to people who can't be bothered to read past the first two words?

Why shouldn't I accept kudos?

Your other two sentences are common sense.

It's the employers fault in hiring wrong, or not nurturing your employees. People aren't field mules.

People are mules, but they are expected to be ADULTS and actually do their job. This is where balance comes in. The balance of being a good employer with the balance of being a good employee.

People are mules

What kind of irresponsible statement is that?

Are you can fuck right off. I'm not playing these silly little games with you. Either be an adult, or you'll very quickly end up on the ignore list. That's your choice is you want to talk to me on this forum. Is that understood?

I challenged your stupid statement and you take offense to it? I suggest you grow up and not make stupid statements.

Ah, welcome to the ignore list.

I seriously don't need to people playing games and trying to win "points".

Bye.

 

[OnePercenter]

Management is part of the platform that allows business to function.

So employees don't make all the money. Everyone's necessary.

Management personal are employees, and in businesses where management works along side of workers, they do contribute to the revenue of the company.

Will you admit the 30% revenue tax is dumb?

If he really means that the government would rebate employees’ salaries in their entirety, because employee costs are on average 70% of sales, corporate taxes would be -40% of revenues.

lol

Hilarious

One percent -- of what?

Monetary earners.

 

[OnePercenter]

Read my plan.

The unconstitutional, economically moronic "ideas" in the plan are amusing.

How is returning tax money to the workers "moronic?"

You're not cutting individual rates in your "plan".
Handing 100% of employee expenses to corporations is going to hand
corporations trillions.

For a guy who bitches about corporations, that's especially moronic.

Why would I cut individual tax rates, a worker is still going to have hundreds more per week in her/his paycheck.

How can I be handing 100% of employee expenses to companies when they are taxed 30% of revenue?

I bitch about corporate welfare that does nothing to promote the economy.

Why would I cut individual tax rates

You said you were "returning tax money to the workers".
Are you lying, or stupid?

a worker is still going to have hundreds more per week in her/his paycheck.

Why?

How can I be handing 100% of employee expenses to companies when they are taxed 30% of revenue?

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.​

You said you were "returning tax money to the workers".
Are you lying, or stupid?

Tax money an individual paid is returned as income paid.

Why?

Pay increase.

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

Yes.

 

[OnePercenter]

Plan outlined in OP reminds me a bit of Nixon's wage and price controls. I don't recall them being either popular or effective, but that was quite awhile ago.

Not even close to Nixon's. My plan increases profit for business, wages for employees, and consumer spending. My plan reduces unemployment to zero. My plan makes automation a financial disadvantage. My plan eliminates welfare, both social, and the more costly corporate.

 

[OnePercenter]

Why shouldn't I accept kudos?

Your other two sentences are common sense.

It's the employers fault in hiring wrong, or not nurturing your employees. People aren't field mules.

People are mules, but they are expected to be ADULTS and actually do their job. This is where balance comes in. The balance of being a good employer with the balance of being a good employee.

People are mules

What kind of irresponsible statement is that?

Are you can fuck right off. I'm not playing these silly little games with you. Either be an adult, or you'll very quickly end up on the ignore list. That's your choice is you want to talk to me on this forum. Is that understood?

I challenged your stupid statement and you take offense to it? I suggest you grow up and not make stupid statements.

Ah, welcome to the ignore list.

I seriously don't need to people playing games and trying to win "points".

Bye.

Run Away!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The unconstitutional, economically moronic "ideas" in the plan are amusing.

How is returning tax money to the workers "moronic?"

You're not cutting individual rates in your "plan".
Handing 100% of employee expenses to corporations is going to hand
corporations trillions.

For a guy who bitches about corporations, that's especially moronic.

Why would I cut individual tax rates, a worker is still going to have hundreds more per week in her/his paycheck.

How can I be handing 100% of employee expenses to companies when they are taxed 30% of revenue?

I bitch about corporate welfare that does nothing to promote the economy.

Why would I cut individual tax rates

You said you were "returning tax money to the workers".
Are you lying, or stupid?

a worker is still going to have hundreds more per week in her/his paycheck.

Why?

How can I be handing 100% of employee expenses to companies when they are taxed 30% of revenue?

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.​

You said you were "returning tax money to the workers".
Are you lying, or stupid?

Tax money an individual paid is returned as income paid.

Why?

Pay increase.

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.

Yes.

Tax money an individual paid is returned as income paid.

Your "plan" didn't reduce individual rates.

Employee expenses are much, much larger than 30% of revenue.​

​

Yes.​

​

Thanks for admitting your plan makes corporate tax rates negative.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Plan outlined in OP reminds me a bit of Nixon's wage and price controls. I don't recall them being either popular or effective, but that was quite awhile ago.

Not even close to Nixon's. My plan increases profit for business, wages for employees, and consumer spending. My plan reduces unemployment to zero. My plan makes automation a financial disadvantage. My plan eliminates welfare, both social, and the more costly corporate.

My plan eliminates welfare, both social, and the more costly corporate.

Handing corporations trillions in handouts is your plan to end corporate welfare? DERP!

 

[itfitzme]

"My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation."

That is not a realistic concept, as in not part of reality. It's not simply impractical. It is no more real then expecting to eliminate gravity. Inflation is a necessary and required part of the way the economy functions. It has to be held low, but not zero. The other option in deflation. To put it simply, deflation is very bad. During the Great Recession, the rate of inflation fell to -3%. This was because people stopped buying things. Prices collapsed as did employment and the economy.

It is impossible to hold the percentage change in the CPI, or any measure of inflation, to zero. On a quarter to quarter basis, the rate of inflation varies from as much as -0.8% to as much as 1.7%. The average yearly inflation for the last eight years was 1.9%. In 2015, the rate was 0.4%. For 2017 it was 2.2%. These rates are actually quite remarkable considering that in the decades of the 1970 and 1980, the yearly inflation rate hit 12.64% and averaged about 6% per year for the entire 20 year period.

The Federal Reserve has just three goals, maximize sustainable employment, stabilize prices, and moderate long term interest rates. These three are intimately connected. They have managed to hold inflation to 2.1%, 1.8%, 0.41% and 1.2% for the last four years. There is no plan that is going to do better. That is as close to zero as it's gonna get. Attempting to make it zero would be a disaster. Employment would suffer. It wouldn't be maximized. It would fall to less than maximum. And there would be an all to real risk of it collapsing as it did during the Great Recession.

The problem isn't inflation. The problem is elsewhere. The problem is in the lack of consumer savings. And while it may seem like no inflation would result in the ability for the average person to save, it wouldn't.

 

[itfitzme]

Why is using contractors bad? I have been working in the utility construction industry for 20+ years (with a few breaks). That has been the standard for many, many companies. When Comcast or Verizon wants to upgrade their systems, do you think they buy lots of bigger bucket trucks and equipment? Do you think they hire hundreds of new employees for a 2 or 3 year project? No. They call in a contractor who gets paid production. Meaning they get paid for what they build, not for how many hours they worked. When the project is finished, Comcast or Verizon or whomever is not left with lots of employees they can't use and tons of equipment they have to store or auction off. And the contractors move on to other projects in other places.

Walmart can't run it's own distribution center?

Specialization is one of the most fundamental behaviors in economics. They could, but another company that specializes in distribution can do it better. The flip side question would be, "Can't the distribution company sell at retail stores?" And they would, if they could do that better than Walmart.

It's a matter of efficiency. The single greatest cause of improvement in the standard of living is from efficiency.