SvenlerFeatured By OwnerNov 27, 2012Professional Photographer
It has already happened and I don't think the government would be opposed to doing it again.
At the current state I do not see this as a widespread phenomenon. Nonetheless, I only invest in small and mostly local companies at the moment.
I think we will see growing unemployment and poverty and more of government blaming problems on business before government will even begin seizing business by force. It's a future possibility, but nothing I am too concerned about in the short term.
Ultimately, if government wants to seize my assets, there isn't much I can do, but they surely won't get the intellectual capital that helped those assets grow and develop.
There's nothing inherently wrong with a business firing people because it needs to stay solvent. Happens all the time. But for me, that's the problem: I can't really tell whether the firings are necessary (as far as that goes) or whether they're some glorified form of spite. And the reason I can't tell is because lots of big business figures have completely lost their minds over the last four years, to the point where I can't really trust them to act rationally when it comes to Obama.
And it's not just that it could be a conspiracy to ruin the economy and have him shoulder the blame. I think there's such an embedded element of "the businessman is always right" in American culture that they're not really bothering to examine whether their companies could take on the new regulations and pay for them with e.g. more efficient technology or decreased executive pay. They're just going straight for cutting jobs because that's what they're used to doing whenever they get inconvenienced. The idea that a business should have to fit the demands of society rather than the other way around is inconceivable to a lot of people, (in particular, financial writers and journalists and conservative politicians) so when a company says they need to fire x number of people because of some regulation, a lot of the country just goes with it. There's never really a protracted discussion over whether they have to or whether they should. I think that's the big problem, more than sour grapes from sore-loser conservative businessmen.
And I think there's a good reason to be suspicious. In case everyone forgot, every other Western country besides the United States has some form of universal health care that has been around longer than ours and most of which are actually paid for by the government. They have thriving corporate sectors of their own, including, yes, companies in the health care business: Bayer, Merck, and AstraZeneca, for example, are all based in Europe. Adjusting the labor force to handle a universal health care law may involve some growing pains, but it should not be impossible: it's been proven dozens of times over that it's not impossible. And of course, the ironic backdrop to all this is that the stock market has performed well under Obama in particular (if you'll recall, the Dow was down around 8,000 four years ago and has climbed back into the 12,000-13,000 range since then) and Democrats in general since 1936: [link] There's a stereotype in our political culture, held even by some Democrats, that Democrats may be good at heart but they don't really "know how" to create job growth and GDP growth. This is, literally, empirically untrue. Not only are they good at it, but for decades they've been better at it than the opposition. If these businessmen were so knowledgeable about how political changes affect their bottom line, I think they'd at least know a basic fact like that, which is why I think there's some smoke-blowing going on.
I think there's such an embedded element of "the businessman is always right" in American culture that they're not really bothering to examine whether their companies could take on the new regulations and pay for them with e.g. more efficient technology or decreased executive pay
Yeah great point and the 80% raise for executives at that company notwithstanding, I recall reading a book about Felix Wankel's Rotary engine some years ago- I'm sure you're wondering where the hell this is going. The auto industry in the US was drunk on ridiculous car sales and had pretty much bought out or sunk the railroads. The Rotary engine had awesome performance when it came out in the 1960s, for such small size. Mazda (Toyo Kogyo) bought the rights to use that engine and put in their cars, which got terrible mpg and had horrible emmissions (black smoke) but were able to accelerate as well as most American V6 cars of the time. In 1975, we were going to implement the toughest emmissions regulations in history- and Ford Motor Company, then GM- both insisted they could not possibly comply with the requirements, and that the US auto industry would be sunk.
Mazda, with its inefficient rotary engines said- "no problem". Their car line would average decent emissions across the range and they worked to make their rotary more efficient as well. It made fools out of GM and Ford. They eventually got in line. That's how it used to work- if the law changed, you got on board and got on with it. Nowadays we're fed this 24 hours streaming opinion-line that tells us some asshole running some stupid company wants a handout (tax cut). Fuck him. If he doesn't wanna follow the damn law, tell him to shut it down. Someone else will come in and miraculously meet the regulations- like Mazda did in the 70s.
SvenlerFeatured By OwnerNov 11, 2012Professional Photographer
"In case everyone forgot, every other Western country besides the United States has some form of universal health care that has been around longer than ours and most of which are actually paid for by the government."
It's also significantly more expensive. In Germany, the healthcare contribution is 16% of gross income or 378 Euro (>$480) on average per person. That's more than the healthcare contribution for an entire family in the US ($414) and significantly more when compared to an individual ($183).
So yeah, paid for by the government comes at a relatively high price.
The Dow has arguably seen an increase, but keep in mind that the Dow only consists of the largest companies, so just because the Dow is at record levels does not mean small businesses are doing well.
The people have spoken. That's what elections do- people vote for what they want. That's their right. No apologies. Corporations want to bawww and get 'revenge'? This is too funny. Companies only staff people as they are needed. If business was falling to the extent that they were going to lay people off anyway, then blaming Obama is just childish. But if business picks up again, and they refuse to take on staff- they won't have the capacity to do business. Guess what follows...
But here's my question to you: One company anticipates $100 million in extra taxes eh? How much did they blow on the Romney campaign? Got any numbers on that? I hear some $3 billion was blown by Super PACs for Romney's and the GOP's election campaign. A couple hundred million by the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adleson alone. So the question is- if those guys had invested that money by directly CREATING JOBS, would the economy be doing better?
No really I'm curious. You just saw an election that was one of the most expensive in history- and a handful of rich guys and CEOs blew BILLIONS on a losing candidate. KArl Rove's American Crossroads spent 103 MILLION bucks to end up getting ONE CANDIDATE ELECTED!!!!!!!!! [link]
So, if American Crossroads had done something better for the country- say donated that money to a cancer clinics or to schools, how many jobs would have been created? How many lives saved? This creep spent $103million on political attack ads- what an upstanding, moral human being! Clearly, a great conservative! Good job Karl! What about David Koch? How much did he blow on loser candidates? Please I'd like to know your thoughts. If insanely rich guys can afford to burn BILLIONS on losing candidates, how come they can't afford to keep people employed suddenly? And what makes this really sick is that these filthy rich motherfuckers are going to take out their personal anger over an election- and throw ordinary wage-earners OUT OF WORK- destroying their own customers- in the process. Tell me what you think about this.
As I said elsewhere, this is a senseless move. There is no reason to fire people over an election. Business cannot predict the future; it cannot know what policies Obama will succeed or not succeed in passing. They have no idea what the effects of these policies will be until they occur. They're essentially punishing their workers for voting for the president they thought was within their interests. Instead of using fear tactics like this, why don't they wait and see what actually happens first?
Most likely though, this is just an excuse to lay people off without sounding cheap. I doubt they're doing it just because of the election, but it's pretty awful reasoning.
"That's why businesses make projections trying to project the future." Everyone does this. What we are accusing here, is that its a self-fulfilling prophecy, we let businessmen have all the power, so they use it to make their own predictions come true.
"Really? You can not read the legislation and predict the implications?" you mean making "predictions" soley for political reasons, kinda like "Obama's landslide defeat"
Could you imagine if this was 40 years ago, when labor was stronger, and they called a general strike if a "pro-business" candidate won, in response to laws not passed yet?
Its unlikely that Obama will do anything in the next 4 years not done in the first four years, so firing people they day after election "because Obama won", is nothing more than a political stunt only capable because the businesses have the power to do so.
That said, I have the power to go out and rape as I choose, but if I did society would stop me and condemn me.
I have the power to run a murder for hire business(ex-solider, good shot with every small arms system the arm has), but society would stop me, and condemn me.
I could go out and steal from the elderly, but society would stop me, and condemn me.
All rightfully so. Just because you have the power, doesn't give you the right.
If businessmen don't believe in right vs wrong, why should we listen to them when they say their rights are being trampled.
SvenlerFeatured By OwnerNov 20, 2012Professional Photographer
I'm quite concerned that you equate someone making decisions about their own business to someone raping and murdering others. Paired with your first sentence, it seems like you don't want businessmen to make decisions about their business but that someone else make those decisions for them.
"I'm quite concerned that you equate someone making decisions about their own business to someone raping and murdering others. "
No more than I'd be equating slave holders treating "their property", with human beings.
"Paired with your first sentence, it seems like you don't want businessmen to make decisions about their business but that someone else make those decisions for them."
Businessmen rarely own the businesses they manage, they are hired persons from "owners" who are no more related to the companies more often "owned" by people who do more than pay for pieces of paper saying they own them.
Tell me is this right? Other than "it is the way it is" Is it RIGHT that stockholders, and otherwise owners are allowed unlimited "rights" because they paid for a piece of paper?
This right is as unshakable as basic human rights such as freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
SvenlerFeatured By OwnerNov 21, 2012Professional Photographer
If you consider working for someone else slavery, don't do it. Unlike a slave, you have a choice.
And yes, the right to one's own property, to work and be able to keep the results is equal to the right of freedom because without being able to translate one's efforts into something tangible and keeping it, freedom does not exist.
Now if you think you have a right to someone else's property, you are essentially denying their freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
"If you consider working for someone else slavery, don't do it. Unlike a slave, you have a choice."
Thats not what I said. What you did is called a strawman, because you attacking an argument I did not make.
"And yes, the right to one's own property, to work and be able to keep the results is equal to the right of freedom" I agree, thats not being discussed. I think that also qualifies as a strawman.
Most corporation owners did not get their businesses by doing work, they got them by having prior capital, and the buying pieces of paper that says they are entitled the fruit of their labors.
So if you have the right to the produce of your work, why do we let these corporations give most of the money that is made to stockholders while paying the people doing the actual work less and less.
What makes a company more the property of stockholders and less of workers. Would you say you are denying their freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
The argument that comes next is that they risk their capital by investing, and that have a right to the reward.
So in the end, this has nothing to do with the produce of one's labor, or the right to keep what you WORK for. Its merely translated into the rights of the investors, who the world revolves around. They don't work. They just bet on other people's work.
But yes, I agree, you have the right to keep the results of your work.
SvenlerFeatured By OwnerNov 21, 2012Professional Photographer
To start out, let me say that I will not respond to rabulistic rhetoric.
"So if you have the right to the produce of your work, why do we let these corporations give most of the money that is made to stockholders while paying the people doing the actual work less and less."
Take a look at the financial data for a corporation and you will see that wages and payroll are a larger sum than dividends. If the people who work at a corporation don't like what they are paid, they should find work elsewhere that's more to their liking. If they can't, there clearly is a disparity between what they would like and what others thinks they deserve.
"What makes a company more the property of stockholders and less of workers."
What makes a company the property of stockholders is that they own it, they paid for it. If a worker wants to buy shares of the company, no one is stopping him from doing so.
I don't even know where you get the idea from that shareholders are paid large sums by corporations. If a shareholder makes a great return on his investment, it's from the appreciation of the assets he bought, not from dividends.
I see this is 100% about healthcare and some taxes like with energy companies. In that case, businesses are still being too rash. Romney was not going to remove Obamacare; the senate would never let him. So it's not about just Obama's reelection. I also do not trust the losses these businesses are claiming will occur. I am positive that these are inflated for the purpose of imposing fear.
I'll just be blunt with this then. Screw the businesses. Let them be greedy pricks and lay off workers. Why are we being handcuffed by these corporations? They're essentially saying that we cannot reform healthcare or else they're purposefully screw over the economy because they're too much of greedy dirtbags to pay up. Reform should not be suspended or stopped just because of the power leverage of these industries. What matters more: businesses like these saving a few bucks or the individuals receiving a fair, equitable healthcare service?
The American people are more important than a small number of business leaders. Policy should focus on helping the people, the people who actually need help, not these corporate powers that are already well off. I'd happily go find another job if I worked for a business that laid me off over greed and political coercion.
If dealing with some backlash like this is necessary for healthcare or energy reform, then I'll happily take the sacrifice. Some businesses might be lost, but we have to deal with some initial losses for future gains.
In essence, business should not halt political progress, so I don't care what they're doing with their employees.
SvenlerFeatured By OwnerNov 10, 2012Professional Photographer
"I also do not trust the losses these businesses are claiming will occur. I am positive that these are inflated for the purpose of imposing fear."
What numbers did you come up with?
"They're essentially saying that we cannot reform healthcare or else they're purposefully screw over the economy because they're too much of greedy dirtbags to pay up."
Actually what they are saying is that they have to lay off workers because of the impending increase in taxes and regulations, which hurts their bottom line and forces them to lay off some workers now instead of having to close business in the future.
"What matters more: businesses like these saving a few bucks or the individuals receiving a fair, equitable healthcare service?"
Would you still find it fair and equitable if you had to foot the bill?
"Policy should focus on helping the people, the people who actually need help, not these corporate powers that are already well off."
I know "corporate powers" is a fine and dandy word to keep the enemy as anonymous as possible, but it won't be the large corporation that take the biggest hit, but the small businesses in your neighborhood.
"If dealing with some backlash like this is necessary for healthcare or energy reform, then I'll happily take the sacrifice. Some businesses might be lost, but we have to deal with some initial losses for future gains."
At least you are staying positive. Will you remain that positive once the associated expenses come out of your pocket?
"In essence, business should not halt political progress, so I don't care what they're doing with their employees."
I cannot possibly come up with numbers because I do not have access to the information personal to each business. Thus, only the business can come up with the numbers. As a result, it's natural to be skeptical of them because they are likely fudged.
If we ever want a universal healthcare system, which I do want, we'll have to hike taxes to pay for it. As a result, it will be inevitable that businesses will react this way. So they are in fact against healthcare reform programs. I'd say it's better to institute the reforms, deal with a little of pain and then let it heal for long term benefit.
I do find it fair and equitable because I do foot part of the bill. I am obligated now to have healthcare. I'm also helping to pay for this program.
I think exemptions for small businesses would be fair, but a lot of these layoffs aren't coming from particularly small businesses.
SvenlerFeatured By OwnerNov 11, 2012Professional Photographer
"I cannot possibly come up with numbers because I do not have access to the information personal to each business. Thus, only the business can come up with the numbers. As a result, it's natural to be skeptical of them because they are likely fudged."
So you can not come up with numbers but you know that the numbers that businesses came up with are wrong. How exactly did you come to that conclusion?
"Again, the expenses do come out of my pocket."
Would you be willing to pay the same expenses that Germans pay for health insurance - on average $480 per month - in comparison to the average $183 per month currently in the US?
You can't expect businesses to put up the investment without some confidence it'll pay off. Their inability to know what Obama will do is exactly what makes it virtually impossible for them to be sure their investments will bring good fruit.
No election and no amount of popularity can make the irrational work, and that is exactly what dear leader and his boys are pushing as economics. So far, almost all of his plans are doing nothing but decreasing supply and pushing demand to higher levels, as well as throwing more and more government regulations in the way of business owners at a time where running a business has to be as simple as possible. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand that businesses can't hire people, much less stay in business, if their costs keep going up and their profits keep going down.
And with higher taxes on the way on top of everything else (and I don't care what he says about only the rich paying their fair share, these new taxes are going to hit everyone in some way or another), anyone who expects things to even remain the same, much less get better needs to share whatever he's drinking.
It remains to be seen if Obama will get a clue as things get worse, but I'm not holding my breath. Government has a record spanning several decades of passing regulations, seeing them not work, blaming lack of regulation as the problem and then adding more regulations. I don't see someone with an ego bigger than China and an almost religious-like faith in government solutions changing things now.
So far, almost all of his plans are doing nothing but decreasing supply and pushing demand to higher levels, as well as throwing more and more government regulations in the way of business owners at a time where running a business has to be as simple as possible. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand that businesses can't hire people, much less stay in business, if their costs keep going up and their profits keep going down.
Stop making fucking excuses. If a business can't adapt, it was a failure from the start no matter how rich or powerful it is.
Not only that, but it's lies anyway. Profits and stocks have been at record highs during the recovery, and the 1% has profited handsomely. Now that suddenly the 99% is asking why they got shit from all those profits their hard work helped generate, and expecting to finally stop being exploited, the business people are running scared and trying to hide before they have to pay up.
The rich people's honeymoon vacation is over, and now the piper is standing at their doorstep, and they're going to do everything in their power to try to throw everyone else in front of him. Kind of sad that so many people are willing to help sacrifice their own.
Sadly, this is the lala land that was created for the rich and guys like sonrouge will keep giving to them. They fail to see that by firing your employees for something like this, you are hurting your business. Not only do you create an enviroment where you can get sued by said employees, you get a bad rep if an ex-employee blogs about you.
It's sad when a business resorts to firing people instead of adapting to new ways.
The other problem, of course, is that they believe in the lie that employees ever had as much bargaining power as employers did. So they oppose anything that actually gives employees equal bargaining power, like minimum wage, worker protection regulations, and unions.
I mean, ironically, I actually agree with the libertarians that we should have employers and employees able to negotiate equally beneficial contracts. The libertarians just refuse to accept that reality does not currently exist, and will be even farther away from existing if we take away the regulations that help empower employees to make it closer to possible.
The rich have, essentially, effectively brainwashed the conservatives into believing that the rich having overwhelming power is actually "equality", so all attempts to give true equality will look like giving the non-rich special rights. Unfortunately this is successful across the board, as looking at the lies about things like "atheists demanding special rights" and "gays demanding special rights" will tell you.
Not really, no. You have to have godlike-skills in an industry hurting for workers for an owner to say anything but "next!" should you actually be making any real demands.
Well, unless you're talking bargaining chips actually backed up by regulations and legal protections, where they're actually forced to listen versus just going onto the next person on their giant stack of applicants, which kind of proves my point as to why they're needed.
Actually, kid, I know quite a bit since I currently work for one and talk about such things with the owner on the subject numerous times (some of us prefer first-hand knowledge, rather than just parroting what the puppeteer tells one to say). I'll believe him before I'll believe some pompous, disconnected windbag like Obama.