Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

[Pumpkin Row]

There is a hidden assumption in your logic: that business owners need employees as much as employees need money. It's a fatal flaw in your theory. In times when cash is scarce, business owners will lay off employees in order to save on expenditures, but those employees will still need money to simply survive. Given this fact, wealthy business owners can do very well financially when there is an over abundance of labour and a low amount of cash that is being used to hire employees. The same cannot be said for the labour.

That's no assumption. The larger a business is, the more employees it needs to run and maintain it. It's not like you can run fifty McDonald's with one employee.

Do the rich need McDonald's?

You're very good at this whole 'missing the point' thing.

 

[phoenyx]

Theories on how to efficiently run an economy? To my understanding, most economy models are balance based, which proves to be false. The newest economy theories under development are network based. I think that has a better potential. Or at least that's what my math teacher says.

I googled network economy, came up with the wikipedia entry. I like the following line in the introduction:
"It has been hypothesized that the gradual evolution of network economy would create a well interconnected economic order, which would then begin to concentrate on the passion of individuals, gradually leading to a Passion based economy"

One quick google later, and I found an article on creating a passion based economy. It certainly sounds very inspiring, but I think that before we can get very far with this, we're going to deal with the current monetary system. Put simply, I think it's enabling the banks and their cronies from sucking the working class dry.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

All people who acquire money are connected to someone who is viewed favourably to some extent by the banks or the government. Failing this, they would be unable to acquire money, unless through robbery. Ethics frequently has little if anything to do with it. I strongly recommend you take a look at the following documentary detailing the morally reprehensible things that many corporations have done and continue to do:

You likely view anyone with any decent amount of money morally reprehensible.

As mentioned previously, no, I don't. But I really think you should take a look at some of the nefarious things that corporations have done in the name of profit. It may make you think twice about supporting capitalism at all costs. I know your bandwidth is limited, so instead of watching the video posted above, you can take a look at the following article...
10 Evil Corporations You Buy From Everyday - Listverse

According to Socialists, Corporations are inherently evil for not just dumping all of their money into the hands of the Nation's failures. Like I said, Capitalism is everyone person for themselves, get over it. There's no more efficient economic system.

 

[phoenyx]

There is a hidden assumption in your logic: that business owners need employees as much as employees need money. It's a fatal flaw in your theory. In times when cash is scarce, business owners will lay off employees in order to save on expenditures, but those employees will still need money to simply survive. Given this fact, wealthy business owners can do very well financially when there is an over abundance of labour and a low amount of cash that is being used to hire employees. The same cannot be said for the labour.

That's no assumption. The larger a business is, the more employees it needs to run and maintain it. It's not like you can run fifty McDonald's with one employee.

Do the rich need McDonald's?

You're very good at this whole 'missing the point' thing.

I think it's the other way around. Could you please just answer my question?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

There is a hidden assumption in your logic: that business owners need employees as much as employees need money. It's a fatal flaw in your theory. In times when cash is scarce, business owners will lay off employees in order to save on expenditures, but those employees will still need money to simply survive. Given this fact, wealthy business owners can do very well financially when there is an over abundance of labour and a low amount of cash that is being used to hire employees. The same cannot be said for the labour.

That's no assumption. The larger a business is, the more employees it needs to run and maintain it. It's not like you can run fifty McDonald's with one employee.

Do the rich need McDonald's?

You're very good at this whole 'missing the point' thing.

I think it's the other way around. Could you please just answer my question?

If you were bad at missing the point, you'd have understood my post.

 

[Rshermr]

All people who acquire money are connected to someone who is viewed favourably to some extent by the banks or the government. Failing this, they would be unable to acquire money, unless through robbery. Ethics frequently has little if anything to do with it. I strongly recommend you take a look at the following documentary detailing the morally reprehensible things that many corporations have done and continue to do:

You likely view anyone with any decent amount of money morally reprehensible.

As mentioned previously, no, I don't. But I really think you should take a look at some of the nefarious things that corporations have done in the name of profit. It may make you think twice about supporting capitalism at all costs. I know your bandwidth is limited, so instead of watching the video posted above, you can take a look at the following article...
10 Evil Corporations You Buy From Everyday - Listverse

According to Socialists, Corporations are inherently evil for not just dumping all of their money into the hands of the Nation's failures. Like I said, Capitalism is everyone person for themselves, get over it. There's no more efficient economic system.
So, you do not recognize that there is no existing pure, or laissez faire, economic system in existence?? If that is so efficient, why do you suspect it does not exist?
Your comments on socialism is interesting. But, you would be hard pressed to find a socialist country without components of capitalism included. Perhaps you are mixed up, calling communism socialism.

 

[phoenyx]

There is a hidden assumption in your logic: that business owners need employees as much as employees need money. It's a fatal flaw in your theory. In times when cash is scarce, business owners will lay off employees in order to save on expenditures, but those employees will still need money to simply survive. Given this fact, wealthy business owners can do very well financially when there is an over abundance of labour and a low amount of cash that is being used to hire employees. The same cannot be said for the labour.

That's no assumption. The larger a business is, the more employees it needs to run and maintain it. It's not like you can run fifty McDonald's with one employee.

Do the rich need McDonald's?

You're very good at this whole 'missing the point' thing.

I think it's the other way around. Could you please just answer my question?

If you were bad at missing the point, you'd have understood my post.

Alright, it looks like you're set on not answering my question, so I'll do it for you- no, rich people don't need Mcdonald's. Businesses come and go. They are generally tools to enrich those who create them. If they no longer fulfill this function, they are closed down. My point is that the rich don't need Mcdonald's, or any other establishment that offers relatively cheap food. It's the lower classes that can't afford to pay for high end restaurants. Businesses can and have laid off employees when people are no longer buying their products. A very valid reason for people not buying their products is a lack of currency with which to do so. This is what happened during the Great Depression. Here's the bottom line: money is used to buy resources. Not just fancy yachts and an extra swimming pool for the rich, but for things that people actually need to survive. There is only so much money to go around- the more the rich acquire, the less there is for everyone else. If those with money don't want to hire people with the money they have, those without money will face homelessness, malnutrition and outright starvation if they don't have arable land and the ability to farm it and build shelters.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

That's no assumption. The larger a business is, the more employees it needs to run and maintain it. It's not like you can run fifty McDonald's with one employee.

Do the rich need McDonald's?

You're very good at this whole 'missing the point' thing.

I think it's the other way around. Could you please just answer my question?

If you were bad at missing the point, you'd have understood my post.

Alright, it looks like you're set on not answering my question, so I'll do it for you- no, rich people don't need Mcdonald's. Businesses come and go. They are generally tools to enrich those who create them. If they no longer fulfill this function, they are closed down. My point is that the rich don't need Mcdonald's, or any other establishment that offers relatively cheap food. It's the lower classes that can't afford to pay for high end restaurants. Businesses can and have laid off employees when people are no longer buying their products. A very valid reason for people not buying their products is a lack of currency with which to do so. This is what happened during the Great Depression. Here's the bottom line: money is used to buy resources. Not just fancy yachts and an extra swimming pool for the rich, but for things that people actually need to survive. There is only so much money to go around- the more the rich acquire, the less there is for everyone else. If those with money don't want to hire people with the money they have, those without money will face homelessness, malnutrition and outright starvation if they don't have arable land and the ability to farm it and build shelters.

If they lack the currency, they should be making their own food to start with, it's cheaper and healthier. If they're wasting what little money they have on McDondald's, they deserve to be 'poor'. There's also the fact that BECAUSE businesses exist to make money for the owners, laying off people because that location isn't producing enough shouldn't be complained about. It makes perfect sense. Go find a job somewhere else, jeeze.

 

[phoenyx]

Ah, the innocence of youth. The fact of the matter is, companies and corporations violate health and safety laws all the time. Sure, you can go to the competition, but odds are they're doing it too, especially if your aim is to get cheap food, something which is a high priority for the bottom 40% of Americans which, as I previously mentioned, have a combined wealth of a measly .2% of U.S.' citizens' wealth. Here's an example of all the violations achieved during a single week in April of this year:
26 food-selling businesses have multiple violations in this week's inspections

Ah, the ignorance of Regressives. It's up to the consumers whether or not they give these people business. There's no fast food without a demand for it. Considering that making your own food is cheaper than buying fast food, this only means people CHOOSE to eat unhealthy food from places that violate inspections

Low income consumers are faced with a terrible choice- eat toxic food that will kill them slowly, or slowly die of starvation.

 

[phoenyx]

I already said I'm against the government subsidizing anything.

I'm glad we agree that the government subsidizing corporations' malfeasance is not a good thing. I'm just trying to point out that the government's role when it comes to large corporations is frequently as the servant, not the master. Which stands to reason when you consider the primary financiers of politician's campaigns.

 

[Rshermr]

Do the rich need McDonald's?

You're very good at this whole 'missing the point' thing.

I think it's the other way around. Could you please just answer my question?

If you were bad at missing the point, you'd have understood my post.

Alright, it looks like you're set on not answering my question, so I'll do it for you- no, rich people don't need Mcdonald's. Businesses come and go. They are generally tools to enrich those who create them. If they no longer fulfill this function, they are closed down. My point is that the rich don't need Mcdonald's, or any other establishment that offers relatively cheap food. It's the lower classes that can't afford to pay for high end restaurants. Businesses can and have laid off employees when people are no longer buying their products. A very valid reason for people not buying their products is a lack of currency with which to do so. This is what happened during the Great Depression. Here's the bottom line: money is used to buy resources. Not just fancy yachts and an extra swimming pool for the rich, but for things that people actually need to survive. There is only so much money to go around- the more the rich acquire, the less there is for everyone else. If those with money don't want to hire people with the money they have, those without money will face homelessness, malnutrition and outright starvation if they don't have arable land and the ability to farm it and build shelters.

If they lack the currency, they should be making their own food to start with, it's cheaper and healthier. If they're wasting what little money they have on McDondald's, they deserve to be 'poor'. There's also the fact that BECAUSE businesses exist to make money for the owners, laying off people because that location isn't producing enough shouldn't be complained about. It makes perfect sense. Go find a job somewhere else, jeeze.

I have a friend who owned a couple of MacD franchises. His brother owns a couple now. Your idea of how macd's work is ignorant. They are, basically, a license to steal.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Ah, the innocence of youth. The fact of the matter is, companies and corporations violate health and safety laws all the time. Sure, you can go to the competition, but odds are they're doing it too, especially if your aim is to get cheap food, something which is a high priority for the bottom 40% of Americans which, as I previously mentioned, have a combined wealth of a measly .2% of U.S.' citizens' wealth. Here's an example of all the violations achieved during a single week in April of this year:
26 food-selling businesses have multiple violations in this week's inspections

Ah, the ignorance of Regressives. It's up to the consumers whether or not they give these people business. There's no fast food without a demand for it. Considering that making your own food is cheaper than buying fast food, this only means people CHOOSE to eat unhealthy food from places that violate inspections

Low income consumers are faced with a terrible choice- eat toxic food that will kill them slowly, or slowly die of starvation.

you know, or get a job and make your own food.

 

[Rshermr]

Ah, the innocence of youth. The fact of the matter is, companies and corporations violate health and safety laws all the time. Sure, you can go to the competition, but odds are they're doing it too, especially if your aim is to get cheap food, something which is a high priority for the bottom 40% of Americans which, as I previously mentioned, have a combined wealth of a measly .2% of U.S.' citizens' wealth. Here's an example of all the violations achieved during a single week in April of this year:
26 food-selling businesses have multiple violations in this week's inspections

Ah, the ignorance of Regressives. It's up to the consumers whether or not they give these people business. There's no fast food without a demand for it. Considering that making your own food is cheaper than buying fast food, this only means people CHOOSE to eat unhealthy food from places that violate inspections

Low income consumers are faced with a terrible choice- eat toxic food that will kill them slowly, or slowly die of starvation.

you know, or get a job and make your own food.

Most have more than one job. Simplistic capitalistic thought just does not understand.

Or perhaps you could hope that MacD would get a clue about some of the newer information, and give a damn about their employees:

The High Cost of Low Wages
FROM THE DECEMBER 2006 ISSUE
Wal-Mart’s legendary obsession with cost containment shows up in countless ways, including aggressive control of employee benefits and wages. Managing labor costs isn’t a crazy idea, of course. But stingy pay and benefits don’t necessarily translate into lower costs in the long run. Consider Costco and Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club, which compete fiercely on low-price merchandise. […]

December 2006 Issue

• Costco Companies, Inc.
  SALES & MARKETING CASE
  • 
    David E. Bell, Ann Leamon
  
  
• High Cost of Low Wages
  STRATEGY & EXECUTION HBR FORETHOUGHT ARTICLE
  • 
    Wayne F. Casco
• Costco Wholesale Corp. Financial Statement Analysis (A)
  FINANCE & ACCOUNTING CASE
  • 
    Maureen McNichols, Brian Tayan

Wal-Mart’s legendary obsession with cost containment shows up in countless ways, including aggressive control of employee benefits and wages. Managing labor costs isn’t a crazy idea, of course. But stingy pay and benefits don’t necessarily translate into lower costs in the long run.

Consider Costco and Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club, which compete fiercely on low-price merchandise. Among warehouse retailers, Costco—with 338 stores and 67,600 full-time employees in the United States—is number one, accounting for about 50% of the market. Sam’s Club—with 551 stores and 110,200 employees in the United States—is number two, with about 40% of the market.

Though the businesses are direct competitors and quite similar overall, a remarkable disparity shows up in their wage and benefits structures. The average wage at Costco is $17 an hour. Wal-Mart does not break out the pay of its Sam’s Club workers, but a full-time worker at Wal-Mart makes $10.11 an hour on average, and a variety of sources suggest that Sam’s Club’s pay scale is similar to Wal-Mart’s. A 2005 New York Times article by Steven Greenhouse reported that at $17 an hour, Costco’s average pay is 72% higher than Sam’s Club’s ($9.86 an hour). Interviews that a colleague and I conducted with a dozen Sam’s Club employees in San Francisco and Denver put the average hourly wage at about $10. And a 2004BusinessWeek article by Stanley Holmes and Wendy Zellner estimated Sam’s Club’s average hourly wage at $11.52.

On the benefits side, 82% of Costco employees have health-insurance coverage, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart. And Costco workers pay just 8% of their health premiums, whereas Wal-Mart workers pay 33% of theirs. Ninety-one percent of Costco’s employees are covered by retirement plans, with the company contributing an annual average of $1,330 per employee, while 64 percent of employees at Sam’s Club are covered, with the company contributing an annual average of $747 per employee.

Costco’s practices are clearly more expensive, but they have an offsetting cost-containment effect: Turnover is unusually low, at 17% overall and just 6% after one year’s employment. In contrast, turnover at Wal-Mart is 44% a year, close to the industry average. In skilled and semi-skilled jobs, the fully loaded cost of replacing a worker who leaves (excluding lost productivity) is typically 1.5 to 2.5 times the worker’s annual salary. To be conservative, let’s assume that the total cost of replacing an hourly employee at Costco or Sam’s Club is only 60% of his or her annual salary. If a Costco employee quits, the cost of replacing him or her is therefore $21,216. If a Sam’s Club employee leaves, the cost is $12,617. At first glance, it may seem that the low-wage approach at Sam’s Club would result in lower turnover costs. But if its turnover rate is the same as Wal-Mart’s, Sam’s Club loses more than twice as many people as Costco does: 44% versus 17%. By this calculation, the total annual cost to Costco of employee churn is $244 million, whereas the total annual cost to Sam’s Club is $612 million. That’s $5,274 per Sam’s Club employee, versus $3,628 per Costco employee.

In return for its generous wages and benefits, Costco gets one of the most loyal and productive workforces in all of retailing, and, probably not coincidentally, the lowest shrinkage (employee theft) figures in the industry. While Sam’s Club and Costco generated $37 billion and $43 billion, respectively, in U.S. sales last year, Costco did it with 38% fewer employees—admittedly, in part by selling to higher-income shoppers and offering more high-end goods. As a result, Costco generated $21,805 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee, compared with $11,615 at Sam’s Club. Costco’s stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.

These figures challenge the common assumption that labor rates equal labor costs. Costco’s approach shows that when it comes to wages and benefits, a cost-leadership strategy need not be a race to the bottom.
The High Cost of Low Wages

Turns out many countries, and some US companies, are finding that the "screw you and hurray for me' attitude of the standard capitalist thought does not really work real well. But this may be too difficult for the normal capitalist mind to understand.

 

[phoenyx]

Let's take a look at the 2 assumptions you are making above:
1- If an employee is paid too little, they will be able to find a place that pays them more.
2- The employee is also by default a significant customer of the business.

You haven't shown evidence for either of these assumptions.

Where there's a business paying employees 7.50 to start, there's a business paying $8. I already mentioned that only 3% of people in this Nation make minimum wage

I decided to look up the number of people making minimum wage and below myself. The number is 3.9% which would be 4% rounded off, and more than half of them were paid -below- minimum wage:
**In 2014, 77.2 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.3 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 3.0 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.9 percent of all hourly paid workers.**

Read more at: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/min...racteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

A store manager I know explained to me that while someone can replace a position, they cannot replace a skilled employee.

A new employee can be taught the skills of the old one. It may take a bit of time, but it's certainly doable.

If someone actually works hard and proves themselves a money-saving asset, they can request a raise and explain that they'll be seeking other employment opportunities if they don't get the raise they need. If they don't get that raise, they can request higher pay from somewhere else. If their resume is as impressive as they thought it was, they can get that raise somewhere else.

Possibly, yes. An employee may manage to get $8 an hour instead of $7.50, as you say. Or perhaps they can be raised from below minimum wage to minimum wage. In the end, it's all chump change for the working poor, and the middle class continues its decline. Meanwhile, bankers and their cronies are living it up like they did just before the Great Depression, essentially stealing the wealth of everyone else by creating money at their leisure. You might want to focus a bit more on this element of the equation. I believe Napolean Bonaparte said it quite well:
“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”

2- The employee is also by default a significant customer of the business.

2-If you can show me proof that people with no job or source of income make up any significant part of ANY consumer base, then we can call it an assumption.

You're actually making my point for me. What people need to survive in a money driven economy is money, not employees. The corporate oligarchy cares little for those who have little to no income, and the percentage of the population that fits that criteria is growing.

 

[anotherlife]

Theories on how to efficiently run an economy? To my understanding, most economy models are balance based, which proves to be false. The newest economy theories under development are network based. I think that has a better potential. Or at least that's what my math teacher says.

I googled network economy, came up with the wikipedia entry. I like the following line in the introduction:
"It has been hypothesized that the gradual evolution of network economy would create a well interconnected economic order, which would then begin to concentrate on the passion of individuals, gradually leading to a Passion based economy"

One quick google later, and I found an article on creating a passion based economy. It certainly sounds very inspiring, but I think that before we can get very far with this, we're going to deal with the current monetary system. Put simply, I think it's enabling the banks and their cronies from sucking the working class dry.

I have never heard of a passion based economy or individual, very interesting spin. But I'm afraid it doesn't matter too much, because the mathematics of it is what rules, as usual. Mathematically, I think I am already seeing the total collapse of market models free or otherwise, and we are already in the worldwide network economy. Laws and politics always follow the movement of money and this is what they indicate at this time.

Banks are participants of the network, and they suck dry not only the workers but the non insider corporations too.

I think the most interesting danger is what slaves this new network economy creates. These slaves will be not only individuals, but also certain indentity groups, and even entire nations as well, selectively. And I think this selective differentiation is the most interesting part of it. Is your tribe selected to survive or to die?

 

[phoenyx]

If a business's employee gets hurt, they can be sued.

Perhaps that can work if you have a lot of money. Here's the reality for most people who don't:
**AN INVESTIGATION by ProPublica and NPR earlier this month detailed how states across the nation have been dismantling their workers’ compensation systems, with disastrous consequences for many of the hundreds of thousands of people who suffer serious injuries at work each year.

In some states, the cuts have been so drastic that injured workers have plummeted into poverty, losing their cars and even their homes. In others, workers spend years battling insurance companies for the surgeries, prescriptions and basic help their doctors recommend...**

Source: The Fallout of Workers’ Comp ‘Reforms’: 5 Tales of Harm

You'd think that sort of thing would be illegal.

Perhaps some of them are, but companies are clearly getting away with it. What is happening is shameful. It fits right in with what the corporate oligarchs want, however. As mentioned in "The Story of Stuff", it's all about externalizing the costs. I know it's hard for you to see videos, so I found a pdf transcript of the documentary, which goes into detailed explanations here:
http://storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/movies/scripts/Story of Stuff.pdf

Worker injured? Get rid of them, and pay them as little as possible on their way out. The article linked to above highlights 5 cases. Here's the first:
**Gary Fury was working at a Simonton Windows factory in West Virginia in July 2012 when a large two-window unit slipped to the floor. Fury bent to help a coworker slide it back onto a cart.

“When I went to pick it up,” he recalled, “I felt something pop.”

Fury, then 49, had torn his rotator cuff and ruptured his bicep. After trying less invasive treatments, his doctor recommended surgery and warned of poor results if it was delayed.

Instead of approving it, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, an insurance claims administrator hired by Fury’s employer, sent him to its own doctor for a second opinion six weeks later, according to workers’ comp court records. That doctor also said surgery should be authorized immediately and warned that delays could lead to permanent impairment.

But in West Virginia, time is on the insurer’s side. In 2003, the state passed a law capping wage benefits for temporary injuries like Fury’s to two years — even if the worker hasn’t recovered yet. Several other states, including California, Oklahoma and North Dakota, have recently capped payments at two years. Today, 22 states set arbitrary time limits on temporary wage benefits, according to data collected by the Workers Compensation Research Institute.

Despite the recommendations of two doctors, Sedgwick waited another five weeks before approving surgery — a delay that a workers’ comp judge said was “especially unwarranted” after Sedgwick’s own physician said he needed it “ASAP.” By the time Fury finally got surgery, it was January 2013.

“They just don’t know how much pain I sat for six months in waiting to get surgery,” he said.

As the doctors had warned, Fury still had pain and limited range of motion after the surgery and was unable to return to regular work. Now, his doctor has recommended additional treatment and possibly another surgery.

But since Fury’s two years of wage benefits have run out, if he gets the surgery, his employer doesn’t have to pay him while he recovers — even though a state workers’ comp judge said Sedgwick is “at least in part responsible” for his medical problems.

After his injury, Fury initially survived on two-thirds of his wages, which are provided by workers’ comp, tax-free. But when the payments stopped, Fury has at times had to rely on food stamps and Medicaid.

“It got down to the point where I had to go get help, like from what they call welfare,” Fury said. “That was so embarrassing for me. You know, you’re used to working all your life. I raised two kids and never had to be on there. Sometimes, it really degraded me to go to a grocery store and you had to pull out your card instead of pulling out your cash — all because you’re an injured worker.”

Sedgwick and Simonton declined to comment about what happened to Fury.

After hearing the details of the case, Chris Stadelman, communications director for Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin — who was state senate president when the workers’ comp reform passed — said the governor’s office was “comfortable with the changes that were made” and has not heard complaints from injured workers.

Fury is now applying for Social Security Disability Insurance and watching his life savings slowly drain away.

Meanwhile, Tomblin recently announced a boon to West Virginia employers: Workers’ comp insurance rates would be cut for the 10th year in a row.**

Read more at: The Fallout of Workers’ Comp ‘Reforms’: 5 Tales of Harm

 

[anotherlife]

If a business's employee gets hurt, they can be sued.

Perhaps that can work if you have a lot of money. Here's the reality for most people who don't:
**AN INVESTIGATION by ProPublica and NPR earlier this month detailed how states across the nation have been dismantling their workers’ compensation systems, with disastrous consequences for many of the hundreds of thousands of people who suffer serious injuries at work each year.

In some states, the cuts have been so drastic that injured workers have plummeted into poverty, losing their cars and even their homes. In others, workers spend years battling insurance companies for the surgeries, prescriptions and basic help their doctors recommend...**

Source: The Fallout of Workers’ Comp ‘Reforms’: 5 Tales of Harm

You'd think that sort of thing would be illegal.

Perhaps some of them are, but companies are clearly getting away with it. What is happening is shameful. It fits right in with what the corporate oligarchs want, however. As mentioned in "The Story of Stuff", it's all about externalizing the costs. I know it's hard for you to see videos, so I found a pdf transcript of the documentary, which goes into detailed explanations here:
http://storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/movies/scripts/Story of Stuff.pdf

Worker injured? Get rid of them, and pay them as little as possible on their way out. The article linked to above highlights 5 cases. Here's the first:
**Gary Fury was working at a Simonton Windows factory in West Virginia in July 2012 when a large two-window unit slipped to the floor. Fury bent to help a coworker slide it back onto a cart.

“When I went to pick it up,” he recalled, “I felt something pop.”

Fury, then 49, had torn his rotator cuff and ruptured his bicep. After trying less invasive treatments, his doctor recommended surgery and warned of poor results if it was delayed.

Instead of approving it, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, an insurance claims administrator hired by Fury’s employer, sent him to its own doctor for a second opinion six weeks later, according to workers’ comp court records. That doctor also said surgery should be authorized immediately and warned that delays could lead to permanent impairment.

But in West Virginia, time is on the insurer’s side. In 2003, the state passed a law capping wage benefits for temporary injuries like Fury’s to two years — even if the worker hasn’t recovered yet. Several other states, including California, Oklahoma and North Dakota, have recently capped payments at two years. Today, 22 states set arbitrary time limits on temporary wage benefits, according to data collected by the Workers Compensation Research Institute.

Despite the recommendations of two doctors, Sedgwick waited another five weeks before approving surgery — a delay that a workers’ comp judge said was “especially unwarranted” after Sedgwick’s own physician said he needed it “ASAP.” By the time Fury finally got surgery, it was January 2013.

“They just don’t know how much pain I sat for six months in waiting to get surgery,” he said.

As the doctors had warned, Fury still had pain and limited range of motion after the surgery and was unable to return to regular work. Now, his doctor has recommended additional treatment and possibly another surgery.

But since Fury’s two years of wage benefits have run out, if he gets the surgery, his employer doesn’t have to pay him while he recovers — even though a state workers’ comp judge said Sedgwick is “at least in part responsible” for his medical problems.

After his injury, Fury initially survived on two-thirds of his wages, which are provided by workers’ comp, tax-free. But when the payments stopped, Fury has at times had to rely on food stamps and Medicaid.

“It got down to the point where I had to go get help, like from what they call welfare,” Fury said. “That was so embarrassing for me. You know, you’re used to working all your life. I raised two kids and never had to be on there. Sometimes, it really degraded me to go to a grocery store and you had to pull out your card instead of pulling out your cash — all because you’re an injured worker.”

Sedgwick and Simonton declined to comment about what happened to Fury.

After hearing the details of the case, Chris Stadelman, communications director for Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin — who was state senate president when the workers’ comp reform passed — said the governor’s office was “comfortable with the changes that were made” and has not heard complaints from injured workers.

Fury is now applying for Social Security Disability Insurance and watching his life savings slowly drain away.

Meanwhile, Tomblin recently announced a boon to West Virginia employers: Workers’ comp insurance rates would be cut for the 10th year in a row.**

Read more at: The Fallout of Workers’ Comp ‘Reforms’: 5 Tales of Harm

Similar stories could be written for the environmental impact of corporate money.

Businessman presidents show how impossible it is to handle the cost of externalizations. They all fail, in every country.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I decided to look up the number of people making minimum wage and below myself. The number is 3.9% which would be 4% rounded off, and more than half of them were paid -below- minimum wage:
**In 2014, 77.2 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.3 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 3.0 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.9 percent of all hourly paid workers.**

The people earning below minimum wage are likely in positions that get tips.

A new employee can be taught the skills of the old one. It may take a bit of time, but it's certainly doable.

It's doable, but as he explained, there's no guarantee that person will be as quick and efficient as the last. You're assuming every person is equally motivated to do their job well.

Possibly, yes. An employee may manage to get $8 an hour instead of $7.50, as you say. Or perhaps they can be raised from below minimum wage to minimum wage. In the end, it's all chump change for the working poor, and the middle class continues its decline. Meanwhile, bankers and their cronies are living it up like they did just before the Great Depression, essentially stealing the wealth of everyone else by creating money at their leisure. You might want to focus a bit more on this element of the equation. I believe Napolean Bonaparte said it quite well:

“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”

Again, pretty sure those making below minimum wage are in positions that get tips. The Middle Class is declining because Federal Aid allows lower wages. You know, I lost interest in this topic days ago, Socialists are incapable of learning.

You're actually making my point for me. What people need to survive in a money driven economy is money, not employees. The corporate oligarchy cares little for those who have little to no income, and the percentage of the population that fits that criteria is growing.

Actually, I made my case, that businesses pay their employees a "living wage" so they can afford to buy their products and services.

 

[Rshermr]

I decided to look up the number of people making minimum wage and below myself. The number is 3.9% which would be 4% rounded off, and more than half of them were paid -below- minimum wage:
**In 2014, 77.2 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.3 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 3.0 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.9 percent of all hourly paid workers.**

The people earning below minimum wage are likely in positions that get tips.

A new employee can be taught the skills of the old one. It may take a bit of time, but it's certainly doable.

It's doable, but as he explained, there's no guarantee that person will be as quick and efficient as the last. You're assuming every person is equally motivated to do their job well.

Possibly, yes. An employee may manage to get $8 an hour instead of $7.50, as you say. Or perhaps they can be raised from below minimum wage to minimum wage. In the end, it's all chump change for the working poor, and the middle class continues its decline. Meanwhile, bankers and their cronies are living it up like they did just before the Great Depression, essentially stealing the wealth of everyone else by creating money at their leisure. You might want to focus a bit more on this element of the equation. I believe Napolean Bonaparte said it quite well:

“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”

Again, pretty sure those making below minimum wage are in positions that get tips. The Middle Class is declining because Federal Aid allows lower wages. You know, I lost interest in this topic days ago, Socialists are incapable of learning.

Is this your theory, me boy. If not, where did you dig up this piece of nonsense? My bet is you are afraid to answer. Because it has no truth in the real world.

You're actually making my point for me. What people need to survive in a money driven economy is money, not employees. The corporate oligarchy cares little for those who have little to no income, and the percentage of the population that fits that criteria is growing.

Actually, I made my case, that businesses pay their employees a "living wage" so they can afford to buy their products and services.

You must believe that because you believe your "case" the case is made. But you have no credentials at all. At this point, you are simply another con posting your opinion. Your opinion, like my own, is worthless. You really need to prove your "case".
If it were true, which I am certain it is not you will have no problem finding an impartial source that proves your point. But you will fail again.

 

[phoenyx]

You know, I lost interest in this topic days ago,

Do you mean this entire thread? If so, that's alright. I think I'll continue to post some responses to points you and others have made here, but if you no longer want to respond to points made here, I can accept that.