Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics.

You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are.

Two problems:

First, corporations are tax collectors, not tax payors.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/01view.html

Likewise, they don't really receive tax breaks and subsidies, they are simply pass through entities for the economic benefit.



Second, capital will almost always seek the highest AFTER TAX returns possible. All else being equal, capital will be allocated to an investment that returns 10% vs one that returns 9% after tax. Since capital is mobile, the idea of simply taking a "slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable)" won't work. You'll starve the company of capital as investors flee to better investments.

What you're asking for is the equivalent of asking the process of natural selection to be less ruthless even if it means that the species that is evolving ends up being weaker than it would have otherwise been.

DP - I don't think it is necessarily a logical followon that the species to evolve will be weaker. Compare Costco vs. Sams Club. Same business model but Costco treats its employees better - yet they have been doing just fine.

Unless you think Ferrari and Ford are operating the same business model, there is no reason to suggest Costco and Sams are the same business model. They are targeting different revenue streams, customers and markets....

That's isn't to say one is inherently better than the other. They are both pretty good at what they do, but the Costco model wouldn't work at Sams or vice versa.

How are Costco and Sam's club different? You buy in bulk right? I thought it was a good analogy and a reason why I have been a Costco member for years. I also buy coffee at starbucks because they give health insurance and education benefits to employees. Also, just because you are targeting different consumers doesn't give a company license to be fiscally irresponsible. If they can't afford benefits for all their full and part time employees, they need to employ fewer people.

The purpose of a corporation is to maximize profit to its shareholders. Starbucks may do that by paying healthcare and thereby attracting libs like you that are willing to pay more for their products because of that stance. Furthermore, they may financially benefit from this strategy by minimizing employee turnover. For profit corporations base their decisions on the bottom line. They do nothing out of the goodness of their hearts at the expense of profit. If they acted in this manner they would quickly lose value as investor's flee to better investment choices. Its called capitalism.

So Starbucks isn't a good profitable company in your eyes? Or Costco? And Ford is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics.

You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are.

Two problems:

First, corporations are tax collectors, not tax payors.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/01view.html

Likewise, they don't really receive tax breaks and subsidies, they are simply pass through entities for the economic benefit.



Second, capital will almost always seek the highest AFTER TAX returns possible. All else being equal, capital will be allocated to an investment that returns 10% vs one that returns 9% after tax. Since capital is mobile, the idea of simply taking a "slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable)" won't work. You'll starve the company of capital as investors flee to better investments.

What you're asking for is the equivalent of asking the process of natural selection to be less ruthless even if it means that the species that is evolving ends up being weaker than it would have otherwise been.

DP - I don't think it is necessarily a logical followon that the species to evolve will be weaker. Compare Costco vs. Sams Club. Same business model but Costco treats its employees better - yet they have been doing just fine.

Unless you think Ferrari and Ford are operating the same business model, there is no reason to suggest Costco and Sams are the same business model. They are targeting different revenue streams, customers and markets....

That's isn't to say one is inherently better than the other. They are both pretty good at what they do, but the Costco model wouldn't work at Sams or vice versa.

How are Costco and Sam's club different? You buy in bulk right? I thought it was a good analogy and a reason why I have been a Costco member for years. I also buy coffee at starbucks because they give health insurance and education benefits to employees. Also, just because you are targeting different consumers doesn't give a company license to be fiscally irresponsible. If they can't afford benefits for all their full and part time employees, they need to employ fewer people.

The purpose of a corporation is to maximize profit to its shareholders. Starbucks may do that by paying healthcare and thereby attracting libs like you that are willing to pay more for their products because of that stance. Furthermore, they may financially benefit from this strategy by minimizing employee turnover. For profit corporations base their decisions on the bottom line. They do nothing out of the goodness of their hearts at the expense of profit. If they acted in this manner they would quickly lose value as investor's flee to better investment choices. Its called capitalism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics.

You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are.

Two problems:

First, corporations are tax collectors, not tax payors.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/01view.html

Likewise, they don't really receive tax breaks and subsidies, they are simply pass through entities for the economic benefit.



Second, capital will almost always seek the highest AFTER TAX returns possible. All else being equal, capital will be allocated to an investment that returns 10% vs one that returns 9% after tax. Since capital is mobile, the idea of simply taking a "slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable)" won't work. You'll starve the company of capital as investors flee to better investments.

What you're asking for is the equivalent of asking the process of natural selection to be less ruthless even if it means that the species that is evolving ends up being weaker than it would have otherwise been.

DP - I don't think it is necessarily a logical followon that the species to evolve will be weaker. Compare Costco vs. Sams Club. Same business model but Costco treats its employees better - yet they have been doing just fine.

Unless you think Ferrari and Ford are operating the same business model, there is no reason to suggest Costco and Sams are the same business model. They are targeting different revenue streams, customers and markets....

That's isn't to say one is inherently better than the other. They are both pretty good at what they do, but the Costco model wouldn't work at Sams or vice versa.

How are Costco and Sam's club different? You buy in bulk right? I thought it was a good analogy and a reason why I have been a Costco member for years. I also buy coffee at starbucks because they give health insurance and education benefits to employees. Also, just because you are targeting different consumers doesn't give a company license to be fiscally irresponsible. If they can't afford benefits for all their full and part time employees, they need to employ fewer people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics.

You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are.

Two problems:

First, corporations are tax collectors, not tax payors.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/01view.html

Likewise, they don't really receive tax breaks and subsidies, they are simply pass through entities for the economic benefit.

Second, capital will almost always seek the highest AFTER TAX returns possible. All else being equal, capital will be allocated to an investment that returns 10% vs one that returns 9% after tax. Since capital is mobile, the idea of simply taking a "slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable)" won't work. You'll starve the company of capital as investors flee to better investments.

What you're asking for is the equivalent of asking the process of natural selection to be less ruthless even if it means that the species that is evolving ends up being weaker than it would have otherwise been.

DP - I don't think it is necessarily a logical followon that the species to evolve will be weaker. Compare Costco vs. Sams Club. Same business model but Costco treats its employees better - yet they have been doing just fine.

Unless you think Ferrari and Ford are operating the same business model, there is no reason to suggest Costco and Sams are the same business model. They are targeting different revenue streams, customers and markets....

That's isn't to say one is inherently better than the other. They are both pretty good at what they do, but the Costco model wouldn't work at Sams or vice versa.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics.

You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are.

Two problems:

First, corporations are tax collectors, not tax payors.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/01view.html

Likewise, they don't really receive tax breaks and subsidies, they are simply pass through entities for the economic benefit.

Second, capital will almost always seek the highest AFTER TAX returns possible. All else being equal, capital will be allocated to an investment that returns 10% vs one that returns 9% after tax. Since capital is mobile, the idea of simply taking a "slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable)" won't work. You'll starve the company of capital as investors flee to better investments.

What you're asking for is the equivalent of asking the process of natural selection to be less ruthless even if it means that the species that is evolving ends up being weaker than it would have otherwise been.

DP - I don't think it is necessarily a logical followon that the species to evolve will be weaker. Compare Costco vs. Sams Club. Same business model but Costco treats its employees better - yet they have been doing just fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics.

You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are.

Two problems:

First, corporations are tax collectors, not tax payors.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/01view.html

Likewise, they don't really receive tax breaks and subsidies, they are simply pass through entities for the economic benefit.

Second, capital will almost always seek the highest AFTER TAX returns possible. All else being equal, capital will be allocated to an investment that returns 10% vs one that returns 9% after tax. Since capital is mobile, the idea of simply taking a "slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable)" won't work. You'll starve the company of capital as investors flee to better investments.

What you're asking for is the equivalent of asking the process of natural selection to be less ruthless even if it means that the species that is evolving ends up being weaker than it would have otherwise been.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. It's what conservatives have been saying....if you raise the minimum wage, there will be fewer jobs (or hours) to go around.

In the Seattle case, the employers cut hours. But when NYC raised the minimum to $15, the employees themselves asked their hours to be cut so they wouldn't make too much for government assistance (that they were on were before wages were raised). Apparently, they felt no stigma at all having to rely on taxpayer support, and when the opportunity came to be self-supporting, they decided they'd rather stay on the dole.

And that brings up a related topic. On another thread, liberals are complaining that WALMART pays so little that their employees get food stamps, and that the minimum should be raised. But who says the employees WANT to get off food stamps? Maybe they'd prefer to work less (for the same money) and still get food stamps, as what happened in NYC.

Fact: The counties with the highest percentages of people on food stamps are predominantly white and Republican, for example Owsley County KY.

Just as there are more white people on government assistance programs than minorities. However, considered as a percentage of the total...different story.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Bend them to your own purpose?

Overall there are far more white people on food stamps than there are minorities. But whenever food stamps are discussed by Republicans they virtually always are referring to minorities - and also doing so without wanting to address high unemployment stats, hiring discrimination and other issues that make it harder for minorities to find and retain good employment. On the whole, Republicans don't even care about any actual numbers or statistics, they just rely on anecdotes and stereotypes and bend those for their own purposes, which is even worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics.

You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are.

Two problems:

First, corporations are tax collectors, not tax payors.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/01view.html

Likewise, they don't really receive tax breaks and subsidies, they are simply pass through entities for the economic benefit.

Second, capital will almost always seek the highest AFTER TAX returns possible. All else being equal, capital will be allocated to an investment that returns 10% vs one that returns 9% after tax. Since capital is mobile, the idea of simply taking a "slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable)" won't work. You'll starve the company of capital as investors flee to better investments.

What you're asking for is the equivalent of asking the process of natural selection to be less ruthless even if it means that the species that is evolving ends up being weaker than it would have otherwise been.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. It's what conservatives have been saying....if you raise the minimum wage, there will be fewer jobs (or hours) to go around.

In the Seattle case, the employers cut hours. But when NYC raised the minimum to $15, the employees themselves asked their hours to be cut so they wouldn't make too much for government assistance (that they were on were before wages were raised). Apparently, they felt no stigma at all having to rely on taxpayer support, and when the opportunity came to be self-supporting, they decided they'd rather stay on the dole.

And that brings up a related topic. On another thread, liberals are complaining that WALMART pays so little that their employees get food stamps, and that the minimum should be raised. But who says the employees WANT to get off food stamps? Maybe they'd prefer to work less (for the same money) and still get food stamps, as what happened in NYC.

Fact: The counties with the highest percentages of people on food stamps are predominantly white and Republican, for example Owsley County KY.

Just as there are more white people on government assistance programs than minorities. However, considered as a percentage of the total...different story.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Bend them to your own purpose?

Anonymous wrote:At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics.

You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. It's what conservatives have been saying....if you raise the minimum wage, there will be fewer jobs (or hours) to go around.

In the Seattle case, the employers cut hours. But when NYC raised the minimum to $15, the employees themselves asked their hours to be cut so they wouldn't make too much for government assistance (that they were on were before wages were raised). Apparently, they felt no stigma at all having to rely on taxpayer support, and when the opportunity came to be self-supporting, they decided they'd rather stay on the dole.

And that brings up a related topic. On another thread, liberals are complaining that WALMART pays so little that their employees get food stamps, and that the minimum should be raised. But who says the employees WANT to get off food stamps? Maybe they'd prefer to work less (for the same money) and still get food stamps, as what happened in NYC.

Fact: The counties with the highest percentages of people on food stamps are predominantly white and Republican, for example Owsley County KY.

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. It's what conservatives have been saying....if you raise the minimum wage, there will be fewer jobs (or hours) to go around.

In the Seattle case, the employers cut hours. But when NYC raised the minimum to $15, the employees themselves asked their hours to be cut so they wouldn't make too much for government assistance (that they were on were before wages were raised). Apparently, they felt no stigma at all having to rely on taxpayer support, and when the opportunity came to be self-supporting, they decided they'd rather stay on the dole.

And that brings up a related topic. On another thread, liberals are complaining that WALMART pays so little that their employees get food stamps, and that the minimum should be raised. But who says the employees WANT to get off food stamps? Maybe they'd prefer to work less (for the same money) and still get food stamps, as what happened in NYC.

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. It's what conservatives have been saying....if you raise the minimum wage, there will be fewer jobs (or hours) to go around.

In the Seattle case, the employers cut hours. But when NYC raised the minimum to $15, the employees themselves asked their hours to be cut so they wouldn't make too much for government assistance (that they were on were before wages were raised). Apparently, they felt no stigma at all having to rely on taxpayer support, and when the opportunity came to be self-supporting, they decided they'd rather stay on the dole.

And that brings up a related topic. On another thread, liberals are complaining that WALMART pays so little that their employees get food stamps, and that the minimum should be raised. But who says the employees WANT to get off food stamps? Maybe they'd prefer to work less (for the same money) and still get food stamps, as what happened in NYC.

Anonymous wrote:At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics.

You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why not keep up with inflation every year?

How about not causing heavy inflation in the first place. A little bit is natural.

But printing $$$ endlessly for every want and debasing the currency is what causes inflation.

OP here.

Have you ever lived during a time of high inflation? Haven't had really high inflation in 35 to 40 years.

How about Americans cut down their borrowing, credit cards anyone, to buy crap they don't need. Gotta trade up from that 55 inch to a curved 70 inch?