Don t Let Anybody Tell You That Businesses Create Jobs

[Iceweasel]

So how is that considered home-schooling? Are the moms going to do the teaching? Are they going to live there? I think you don't know what home-schooling means.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. I've done work for similar schools here, the courses are very heavily internet based and the parents have little to do with it. The kids do not attend regular classes, they are called learning academies and they test and supplement the education to make sure they are up to snuff. It works very well from what I hear.

There are other articles/stats that show the same thing he did, liberals are more educated.....Hope that doesn't piss you off too much.

Bullshit never pisses me off. I usually laugh at it.

The more education an individual has, the more likely they are to tend toward liberal values.

Scientists, researchers, professors, teachers, artists, writers, in general the smartest and most educated people in the country are most often liberals. And this is why conservatives are so often at odds with school and university curricula. Truly understanding the history of America means recognizing that this country was founded on liberal ideas, and that each and every stitch of progress made since 1776 sprang from a liberal font. The more information and knowledge a person has, the more they realize that issues can rarely be distilled down to black and white, but require a more nuanced approach.

Compare and Contrast Liberals and Conservatives... a handy comparison chart

I asked about peer reviewed and you offer this shit?

 

[Iceweasel]

Who do you think makes up a board of directors? Look up the term oligopoly. The CEOs are are on the boards... the CEOs decide to pay themselves comenserate wither that everyone else is getting +some percentage. Then they give their buds raises and bonuses. The share holders have no say over the pay of the executives of a publicly held company... why? Because the government is sheltering the executives. I know these people, I've sat in the boards watching them do it. I've read the agreements it's a joke. Look it up.

OK.

Executive Pay How Much Do Shareholders Really Care
How much do shareholders--or the public--really care about executive pay? A new proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission may be aimed at finding out.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, (“Dodd-Frank”) requires publicly traded companies to hold non-binding (advisory) “say-on-pay” proxy votes at least once every three years on executive compensation policies.

Ayup that's what I'm talking about. Note the "non-binding" part.

Ayup.

"In the short history of say-on-pay, these votes have at times attracted considerable publicity. In 2011, shareholders of Stanley Black & Decker, a tools and hardware company based in New Britain, Conn., issued a “no” vote, and the company's board lowered the CEO's pay by 63%, raised minimum officer stock-holding requirements and altered its severance pay agreements to be less CEO-friendly."

Read and learn, bloviate less.

 

[RKMBrown]

Who do you think makes up a board of directors? Look up the term oligopoly. The CEOs are are on the boards... the CEOs decide to pay themselves comenserate wither that everyone else is getting +some percentage. Then they give their buds raises and bonuses. The share holders have no say over the pay of the executives of a publicly held company... why? Because the government is sheltering the executives. I know these people, I've sat in the boards watching them do it. I've read the agreements it's a joke. Look it up.

OK.

Executive Pay How Much Do Shareholders Really Care
How much do shareholders--or the public--really care about executive pay? A new proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission may be aimed at finding out.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, (“Dodd-Frank”) requires publicly traded companies to hold non-binding (advisory) “say-on-pay” proxy votes at least once every three years on executive compensation policies.

Ayup that's what I'm talking about. Note the "non-binding" part.

Ayup.

"In the short history of say-on-pay, these votes have at times attracted considerable publicity. In 2011, shareholders of Stanley Black & Decker, a tools and hardware company based in New Britain, Conn., issued a “no” vote, and the company's board lowered the CEO's pay by 63%, raised minimum officer stock-holding requirements and altered its severance pay agreements to be less CEO-friendly."

Read and learn, bloviate less.

Yes, I'm aware that "some" companies have a say on pay. However, that is not true for all public-ally traded companies. IMO there should be a rule forcing it. This given that the bulk of fortune 500 companies have formed said oligopoly on executive pay, to skim the profits of our 401k investments.

 

[Iceweasel]

Yes, I'm aware that "some" companies have a say on pay. However, that is not true for all public-ally traded companies. IMO there should be a rule forcing it. This given that the bulk of fortune 500 companies have formed said oligopoly on executive pay, to skim the profits of our 401k investments.

It isn't skimming if your 401 is going up.

 

[The Rabbi]

Honestly........people who have some experience sometimes make statements that we should hear.

I know that this guy is a pariah. He's accomplished great things and hasn't become delusional about how that happened.

Nick Hanauer Beware fellow plutocrats the pitchforks are coming Talk Video TED.com

The question about who creates jobs ( it isn't Steve Jobs ) and why raising the minimum wage is a good thing ( leads to a group of citizens kicking ass ) are discussed in the above link.

I.

Unfortunately those citizens kicking ass are chiefly union members kicking the ass of people trying to get jobs, and the people who own the companies that employ them.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, I'm aware that "some" companies have a say on pay. However, that is not true for all public-ally traded companies. IMO there should be a rule forcing it. This given that the bulk of fortune 500 companies have formed said oligopoly on executive pay, to skim the profits of our 401k investments.

It isn't skimming if your 401 is going up.

Yes it is. If they use an oligopoly to give themselves MASSIVE pay... at the expense of the consumer and investors... our government is supposed to be breaking up said monopolies. You can't have a free market if you allow a monopoly to control that market.

 

[Mad Scientist]

What a giant piece of Clinton she is.

 

[bripat9643]

And what if their weren't a walmart? What then?

Probably end up with lots of Mom & Pop stores again that were destroyed when Walmart used it's scorched earth pricing policies to wipe them out. And yes, those Mom & Pop stores will probably employ just as many people.

Liberal Dictionary:
=============================================
Scorched Earth Policy - giving consumers what they want.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, I'm aware that "some" companies have a say on pay. However, that is not true for all public-ally traded companies. IMO there should be a rule forcing it. This given that the bulk of fortune 500 companies have formed said oligopoly on executive pay, to skim the profits of our 401k investments.

It isn't skimming if your 401 is going up.

Yes it is. If they use an oligopoly to give themselves MASSIVE pay... at the expense of the consumer and investors... our government is supposed to be breaking up said monopolies. You can't have a free market if you allow a monopoly to control that market.

The concept "oligopoly" is a liberal myth. All it means is that some businesses have a bigger market share than others . In other words, it means capitalism functioning exactly as it should, but the commie professors wants to make it sound sinister.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, I'm aware that "some" companies have a say on pay. However, that is not true for all public-ally traded companies. IMO there should be a rule forcing it. This given that the bulk of fortune 500 companies have formed said oligopoly on executive pay, to skim the profits of our 401k investments.

It isn't skimming if your 401 is going up.

Yes it is. If they use an oligopoly to give themselves MASSIVE pay... at the expense of the consumer and investors... our government is supposed to be breaking up said monopolies. You can't have a free market if you allow a monopoly to control that market.

The concept "oligopoly" is a liberal myth. All it means is that some businesses have a bigger market share than others . In other words, it means capitalism functioning exactly as it should, but the commie professors wants to make it sound sinister.

ROFL ROFL

 

[Dad2three]

And what if their weren't a walmart? What then? What about all the jobs they could have supplied for, was it Washington, that they pay no less than they demanded? And they said, ok, we won't open there. The local council there caused those people to not get jobs. There was demand there, yet they knew they couldn't afford to start people, without skills at the demanded rate, and went somewhere else business friendly.

WALMART WILL ******* HIRE THEM IF THERE IS A DEMAND. Jeebus H Cripes, how many times does that need to be repeated?

So Washington doesn't rovide things the people want withgout a WallyWorld?


Walmart and the Walton family benefit from tax breaks and taxpayer subsidies estimated at more than $7.8 billion a year

The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid
Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies Study MSNBC

That's pure crap, of course. It assumes that if someone working for Walmart receives public assistance that Walmart is the beneficiary. That's pure Marxist propaganda. The person getting the check is the beneficiary. That's what the term "beneficiary" means.

Oh right IF Walmart had to pay a living wage, the welfare costs would decrease, but that's not a subsidy *shaking head*

How much is a "Living Wage"?

Different for each state, but going to a min wage of $10.10 an hour lifts about 16 million people up!



Wal-Mart Relies On Taxpayers To Subsidize Low Wages


Congressional Democrats released a study Thursday that demonstrated how Wal-Mart’s wages are so low that many of its workers must rely on food stamps and other government aid programs, costing taxpayers as much as $900,0000 at just one Wal-Mart Supercenter in Wisconsin.

The report, “The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy,” was produced by Democrats with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.


Wal-Mart Relies On Taxpayers To Subsidize Low Wages - Business Insider

According to cons, tax cuts will boom an economy, but increasing the min wage will destroy US, lol

 

[Dad2three]

Wrong. Clearly you don't know how it works.

Clearly you don't. If owners don't approve of the salary, it isn't happening. Who would own a business they have no control over?

Stock holders would.

Duh, those are owners.

What part of stock holders don't set the salary of executives is confusing you?

Higher the Pay, the Worse the CEO

Study: The Higher the Pay, the Worse the CEO (Vocativ)
Daniel Edward Rosen looks at a study from the University of Utah, which shows that companies that pay CEOs more than $20 million a year have average annual losses over $1 billion.


The Higher the Pay the Worse the CEO

• Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow and Director of Research Susan Holmberg and Campus Network alumna Lydia Austin look at additional ways high CEO pay distorts the economy.

Fixing a Hole: How the Tax Code for Executive Pay Distorts Economic Incentives and Burdens Taxpayers

Fixing a Hole How the Tax Code for Executive Pay Distorts Economic Incentives and Burdens Taxpayers Roosevelt Institute


High CEO pay really doesn't pay off for shareholders

Companies supposedly "need" to pay their CEOs and other top executives giant, obscene piles of cash and benefits in order to attract top talent that will propel those companies to ever-greater success and profit. And giving CEOs lots of stock options supposedly ensures their best performance, because they stand to profit personally from good stock performance. But according to a new study, that and a load of other corporate conventional wisdom about CEO pay is just plain wrong:

The companies that pay their chief executives the most see the worst results for shareholders, according to a new study, with an average annual shareholder loss of $1.4 billion at the companies with the highest CEO pay.

Exorbitant CEO compensation packages breed overconfidence, study authors Michael Cooper, Huseyin Gulen, and Raghavendra Rau write, and overconfidence leads to bad decisions about weakened business performance. Contrary to the common claim that paying executives in stock will improve their management of a firm, the study finds that CEOs who are given non-cash incentive compensation actually perform worse. The negative effects of excess executive pay linger for three years and drag shareholder returns down by between 8 and 11 percent for companies with the most lavish CEO pay packages.


High CEO pay really doesn t pay off for shareholders


The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says

Across the board, the more CEOs get paid, the worse their companies do over the next three years, according to extensive new research. This is true whether they’re CEOs at the highest end of the pay spectrum or the lowest. “The more CEOs are paid, the worse the firm does over the next three years, as far as stock performance and even accounting performance,” says one of the authors of the study, Michael Cooper of the University of Utah’s David Eccles School of Business.


The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers New Study Says - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

The link gives you an article that lists the states. Move to one of those states, then apply. Good luck.

Well, it's even better than that.

"Tanner and Hughes award the national welfare championship to Hawaii, which offers $60,590 in annual welfare benefits, once you account for the fact that welfare benefits are tax-free to the recipient, compared to work-related wages. That’s the equivalent of $29.13 an hour. Rounding out the top five were D.C. ($50,820 per year and $24.43 an hour), Massachusetts ($50,540 and $24.30), Connecticut ($44,370 and $21.33), and New York ($43,700 and $21.01)."

Plus, I hear Hawaii has some nice weather and beaches.

LOL, I got some beach front land in Japan I want to sell you if you believe that crap


No, welfare doesn't pay better than work. And if it did, maybe try raising the minimum wage?


Those vile $*#@ing wankers over at the Cato Institute have updated an old study claiming that welfare is just so generous that there's no reason for recipients to work. Josh Barro, decided non-liberal, dismantles it in three easy steps:


1. Very few people actually qualify for all eight of the programs Cato looks at.
Particularly, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (cash welfare) and housing assistance can provide some very expensive benefits. But fewer than two million households get TANF and only about four million get housing assistance. It is much more typical for a welfare beneficiary to be getting SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid (health insurance), but no assistance with housing or cash. So, the typical welfare benefit is much lower than Cato makes out, making staying on welfare less appealing.

2. Welfare benefits for single adults are much less generous than those for women with children.

3. Not all benefits are lost when a welfare recipient starts working. SNAP benefits
phase out gradually with rising income. People who go back to work don't necessarily lose health benefits, either. Some get new health benefits through work. The children of low-income uninsured workers qualify for the Children's Health Insurance Program in most states.


In some states, low-income working adults even qualify for Medicaid. So, going back to work doesn't mean nearly the loss of benefits that Cato implies.





Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households


Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Dad2three]

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

A raise with what money from the tooth fairy?

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers are now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

$10 an hour is a reasonable goal if we have to have a Federal minimum wage. I think the states will do a better job setting the minimum wage than the Feds can. Do you really think there is anyone in New York City that works for the minimum wage?

As long as companies are allowed to pay less than what a person can get from "welfare" we are going to continue to see more people on welfare. And who can blame them? If you can get $15 an hour from welfare as opposed to $7.25 by working your ass off, which one would you choose? And, don't lie.

On Labor Day 2013 Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States - Forbes

So you think we should increase the minimum wage, make the USA even less competitive and ship even more jobs to China?

Yeah, because we want to ship jobs like WallyWorld, McD's, Target, etc on boats over there *shaking head*

Gaaaawdddammmn wingnutters race to the bottom continues


Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala New Republic

 

[Dad2three]

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

A raise with what money from the tooth fairy?

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers are now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

Ah so this is really just another liberal hate on corporations post. How about Dem's secure the borders so illegals stop driving wages down and taking jobs away from Americans sitting around on welfare?

Weird, what happened when Dubya/GOP had Gov't for 6 years?

Are you asking me if I approve of the corrupt GOP establishment RINO liberal collaborators? You realize I'm a conservative right.

Oh, the group that has NEVER been on the correct side of ANY policy since they stood with King George in 1776

 

[Dad2three]

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

A raise with what money from the tooth fairy?

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers are now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

$10 an hour is a reasonable goal if we have to have a Federal minimum wage. I think the states will do a better job setting the minimum wage than the Feds can. Do you really think there is anyone in New York City that works for the minimum wage?

As long as companies are allowed to pay less than what a person can get from "welfare" we are going to continue to see more people on welfare. And who can blame them? If you can get $15 an hour from welfare as opposed to $7.25 by working your ass off, which one would you choose? And, don't lie.

On Labor Day 2013 Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States - Forbes

Once companies are forced to pay more in wages they raise their prices. Those on welfare and the elderly on fixed incomes are the ones that will be hurt by that. Companies pay different wages depending on the prevailing wages in the area they serve. My question is if things are so bad at Walmart, why in the hell would anyone work there?

Why do people accept jobs when they need money, even if it doesn't meet the living standards the US is SUPPOSED to have? Nah, better to be 3rd world nation without a floor to cover wages, India looks good to cons right?

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala New Republic

 

[Dad2three]

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

A raise with what money from the tooth fairy?

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers are now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

$10 an hour is a reasonable goal if we have to have a Federal minimum wage. I think the states will do a better job setting the minimum wage than the Feds can. Do you really think there is anyone in New York City that works for the minimum wage?

Min wage NY is $8.00 an hour

On Tuesday, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio signed an executive order expanding the city’s living wage law. The change means businesses housed in buildings that benefit from hefty city subsidies will have to pay employees who don’t receive benefits the so-called living wage, now $13.13, up from the current $11.90.

.The expansion promises a substantial raise for an estimated 18,000 workers, including retail and fast-food workers, many of whom now make the New York state minimum wage of $8 an hour.

Will de Blasio 8217 s big raise for low-wage workers encourage other cities to follow suit - The Washington Post


Based on a statistical sampling from the 2010 American Community Survey, more than 54,000 people living in the five boroughs worked full-time, year round and made minimum wage.

The Daily Q How many New York City workers earn minimum wage - The New York WorldThe New York World




Minimum wage workers in New York will soon notice a little extra in their paychecks. That’s because the state raised the minimum wage from $7.25 to $8 an hour for 2014.
Fast food workers went on strike several times in 2013 and at each of the rallies those minimum wage workers were asking for $15 an hour. So even though an $8 an hour minimum wage is more than the $7.25 mandated by the federal government, many say it’s still not enough to survive in New York.

Minimum wage workers in NYC are getting a raise 8212 just not a big one New York s PIX11 WPIX-TV

 

[Dad2three]

.

One would have thought that Bush Derangement Syndrome was a temporary psychosomatic affliction. However, it appears to be chronic.

.

Yep, policy stops the day a Prez leaves. just ask cons about St Ronnie's credit for the 18989's BJ Bill economy

Have you come to terms yet with the fact that there were WMD's ...or is this still the denial stage of the illness?

.

Sure, sure


NY Times: Chemical Weapons Discovery "Did Not Support The Government's Invasion Rationale." In the October 14 report, the Times was clear that the weapons found had all "been manufactured before 1991," and thus "The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government's invasion rational"




Wash. Post Fact Checker: Any Attempt To Use New York Times Report To Vindicate Bush "Automatically Earns Four Pinocchios."

Anyone who claims that the New York Times story vindicates George W. Bush-era claims of Iraq WMD automatically earns Four Pinocchios

Iraq WMD Does the New York Times probe reflect what administration officials claimed - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

Yep, policy stops the day a Prez leaves. just ask cons about St Ronnie's credit for the 18989's BJ Bill economy

So the president writes and passes the bills on your home planet? Fascinating stuff.

In my world, like most people living in REALITY, Prez policy IS #1...

He sets the tone, and policies. Why do you think Executive Orders, oversight of Executive branch like SEC, HUD, FBI, AG, etc matters? Look to Dubya's regulator failure for an example. Of Ronnie ignoring Mr Gray's warnings on the S&L crisis in 1984, that would've stopped 90%+ of his financial hit!

 

[Dad2three]

Our largest growth period was in the 50's and 60's when taxes were much higher.

Yeah, and Europe's and Japan's infrastructure was all blown to shit due to the war, so the U.S. was about the only nation building anything.

I always laugh every time a Marxist brings up the 50s as proof that high tax rates help the economy. You're basically admitting you don't know shit about economics.

Of course there's the Clinton tax increase that did not inhibit growth and was followed by a balanced budget.

You're speaking of the Clinton Tax Increase passed just a few years before the Clinton Recession?

No, the 1993 tax increase where BJ Bill and the Dems, without a single GOPer voting for it, created 3 new tax brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6% and saw the economy boom and deficit lowered. I guess when you take revenues back up near 20% of GDP, instead of less than 18% like Ronnie had, you create 4 balanced budgets, 3 after BJ Bill vetoed the GOP $700+ billion tax cut!



Yes, after Dubya was elected we saw a recession.