The phone autocorrected that one.Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
The phone autocorrected that one.
My place of employment has cut a lot of it's workforce because of this.
Workplace fires employees to circumvent laws...
....blame Obama. Got it.
Poor employers. They should be able to circumvent laws if they want. I mean, you and I can circumvent laws...right?
Here's some irony for you.....
This guy i know who isnt me, that works at this place that i dont work.....
had to fire all of the temp employees when the minimum wage went up. Company pays the temp agency $10-12hr, then the temp agency pays it's workers 7-8 or whatever they pay, so now that min wage went up to $9, that doesnt mean the company is going to pay them $12-14 to adjust for their cut.
That in addition to obamacare cuts..... lot of people being told to kick rocks.
What they are doing is totally legal.
Businesses are smarter than the feds, they will find loopholes to save costs. Oh medical benefits are mandatory for 50+ employees and full time? We will just create 3 sister companies, divide labor and limit hours.
Not circumventing, just being smart.
You do it every year when you do your taxes.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
You can only trust a business to do what is profitable.... the government needs to quit fighting that and work with it. Make it profitable for business' to do what's in everyone's best interest rather than thinking you can stomp your foot and get your way.
Except when I do my taxes, I don't put anyone out of a job. Lol
Not saying its illegal. My problem is that the practice is acceptable.
Late 60s "Hey rich people, we're gonna cut the shit out of your taxes and deregulate the system a little bit so you can invest and this and that and make this country the wealthiest nation ever"
"FUCK YEA that's awesome!"
Late 2000s "Hey rich people, now that you've amassed unimaginable wealth, we're gonna bump your taxes back up a little bit because we kinda marginalized the middle class some and we want to strengthen that sector now and give those guys some better healthcare"
"FUCK NO. IT'S MY MONEY, Y U DEMONIZE THE RICH, PULL YOURSELVES UP, MOOCHERS, WELFARE QUEENS"
" -_______- "
The problem is, and always has been, that your side ignores what wealth does.
If i give you a free $100, you either save it which creates wealth, or spend it which creates more wealth (it employs someone, buys materials, allows a business to turn a profit, etc).
When you TAKE $100 from someone, that $100 as our govt has shown over the vast amount of years, doesnt do 1/10th of what the private $100 does. It goes to kickbacks, it goes to waste, it goes to red tape, etc.
your argument is also flawed because you are 10000% wrong. When you "do it on your taxes" you do cost jobs. The money you pay in taxes doesnt go into the private economy. It doesnt create anything. Youre also arguing that its perfectly ok for you to game the system, but its not ok for someone else based upon the only assumption that they are richer than you are.
Again, this is your wealth envy complex. YOu are ok with rules for 1 class of people , but not another. You vehemently deny it, but it surfaces in almost every argument you make.
Hey man let me teach you something, sometimes, businesses lay workers off for.....................PROFIT.......*GASP* its part of the cycle.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I don't have a side, I just follow what the principles of economics says.
I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, or if there's a breakdown in your understanding of economics or taxation here, but you've just contradicted yourself. If I file for a return and get $1000 back, that means I've overpaid what I've been obligated to pay. For someone like me, most of that will get spent. If I itemize and got $2000 back, most of that money will also get spent. So since my MPC is higher than someone who makes 200k a year, my refund is likely to build more wealth than the guy who makes 200k.If i give you a free $100, you either save it which creates wealth, or spend it which creates more wealth (it employs someone, buys materials, allows a business to turn a profit, etc).
When you TAKE $100 from someone, that $100 as our govt has shown over the vast amount of years, doesnt do 1/10th of what the private $100 does. It goes to kickbacks, it goes to waste, it goes to red tape, etc.
your argument is also flawed because you are 10000% wrong. When you "do it on your taxes" you do cost jobs. The money you pay in taxes doesnt go into the private economy. It doesnt create anything. Youre also arguing that its perfectly ok for you to game the system, but its not ok for someone else based upon the only assumption that they are richer than you are.
Sorry if you misunderstand my criticism of an unbalanced system as an attack on rich people. It's not in the least. It's just possible to quantify the benefit of taxes on the rich and express them mathematically. That's all.Again, this is your wealth envy complex. YOu are ok with rules for 1 class of people , but not another. You vehemently deny it, but it surfaces in almost every argument you make.
as a business owner myself, if you have to lay off someone to make a profit, you're probably doing something wrong. LOL.Hey man let me teach you something, sometimes, businesses lay workers off for.....................PROFIT.......*GASP* its part of the cycle.
Ok mr Prof.
Explain to me how the rule of production happens. Production and investment cannot happen without saving. Saving cannot happen without income surplus. Income surplus comes from a job/wage.
1) If you get money back, you are giving the govt an interest free loan and you have no idea how to predict your tax liability. Get a new accountant.
2) The fact you compare "getting taxes back" to a business having to "pay more in taxes" is crude, laughable, and just distorted.
3) businesses operate along 2 curves, the SRAC and LRAC curves. Costs are divided into 2 categories , can you name them? Explicit and implicit.
4) A dollar that increases cost, is a dollar that cannot be invested unless that cost is related to investment. Meaning, you like to act like a businesses PROFIT is some guy with a ferrari shitting on poor people. Its not. MOST businesses REINVEST and expand as they gain more in profit. That leads to hiring. that leads to growth. That leads to more tax revenues.
In short, when a business is TAXED, it passes that cost ONTO the consumer, it NEVER absorbs it because it CANNOT. A business is designed to run FOR PROFIT. They dont just ABSORB costs and say "oh well we will just pay an extra 1 million in taxes this year no big deal, thats 12 less yachts for us". It doesnt work that way. It may work like that for .00000001% of some businesses out there, but not the majority. Not even close.
So, like i have always said, youll get your healthcare at the expense of a job. Businesses are just doing what they always do, they pass costs onto the consumer, and yes they will lay people off.
IF i came into your business and tol you that your rent is now DOUBLE what it was last month, you would have 2 choices: A) shed costs (layoffs, materials) B) close up shop. If your answer is C) just pay that added rent and not change anything, that points more to the ineptitude of you running a business vs my knowledge of economics
remember, I run million dollar businesses daily, i ran my own company for 5 years, I have direct knowledge of this.
P.S. Thats not to say that if you are making $100k a month in profit and your rent is $100 and goes to $200 you have to lay someone off. Im talking in general normal terms because market rent is a reflection of local sq/footage and in most cases doubling of rent would severely cripple a local business.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I didnt, at all really. You were just talking about doing taxes and spending and saving so I went with that.
whats the point?3) businesses operate along 2 curves, the SRAC and LRAC curves. Costs are divided into 2 categories , can you name them? Explicit and implicit.
Facepalm. I've never acted like business profit is some some guy with a Ferrari shitting on poor people. Ever.4) A dollar that increases cost, is a dollar that cannot be invested unless that cost is related to investment. Meaning, you like to act like a businesses PROFIT is some guy with a ferrari shitting on poor people. Its not. MOST businesses REINVEST and expand as they gain more in profit. That leads to hiring. that leads to growth. That leads to more tax revenues.
Never say never.In short, when a business is TAXED, it passes that cost ONTO the consumer, it NEVER absorbs it because it CANNOT. A business is designed to run FOR PROFIT. They dont just ABSORB costs and say "oh well we will just pay an extra 1 million in taxes this year no big deal, thats 12 less yachts for us". It doesnt work that way. It may work like that for .00000001% of some businesses out there, but not the majority. Not even close
I guess then I'm that single outlier who has zero knowledge of economics yet runs a profitable business that can afford to pay his employees more than minimum wage and healthcare it up and not complain about taxes and Obamacare in the process. LOL.IF i came into your business and tol you that your rent is now DOUBLE what it was last month, you would have 2 choices: A) shed costs (layoffs, materials) B) close up shop. If your answer is C) just pay that added rent and not change anything, that points more to the ineptitude of you running a business vs my knowledge of economics
Hmmm. I think you might understand what I'm saying more than you think you do.P.S. Thats not to say that if you are making $100k a month in profit and your rent is $100 and goes to $200 you have to lay someone off.
ok what type of business do you own.
you cant convince me otherwise, any business owner who gets a COST added to him will pass that cost on, because they have to. Its econ 101. This notion that you operate some business and you can do what others cant is just factually wrong. At some point when your SRAC meet up with your LRAC projections, you WILL have to make a choice. Are you really going to force me to break it down into apples and apples?
Your Cost =X
Your Revenue = Y
Your Profit=y-X=Z
IF, at some point your X=Y you will have no choice, BUT to cut something. benefits, labor, operations, etc.
Youre the business owner, you are the one that took the risk to open a business to employ people. YOU OWN those jobs, not the workers. If your cost rises, you will, at some point in the graph, be forced to make cuts. This is what is happening in Obamacare and you are claiming "oh they are circumventing the law"
LOL for someone who claims to be scientific, you should know this isnt even a debate. Years of economics back this up, i can post charts if you wish.
Im sure youll try to say something about how noble you are and you would refuse to pay your rent so someone can stay employed, but thats just not factually true. Your responsbility is to run your business as a profit, if you do that, job layoffs are not a problem. If your profit gets encroached upon, you make cuts in areas to absorb that cost or you raise prices or you do both.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Childcare.
My business model Isn't new or novel at all. Some go down a different path, but there are some big name companies who follow a similar model.This notion that you operate some business and you can do what others cant is just factually wrong.
If my X = my Y, I don't have to shift the costs to the customers. I go get more Y by getting more clients, offering more services, whatever. A lot of companies seem to be doing the opposite. Instead of offering more services, or a better product, they just increase the cost on the same product or service. Inflating the market value. All of this helps me in the long term by not inflating the market price of my service. Now I can clear a profit by having the lowest cost to the consumer.At some point when your SRAC meet up with your LRAC projections, you WILL have to make a choice. Are you really going to force me to break it down into apples and apples?
Your Cost =X
Your Revenue = Y
Your Profit=y-X=Z
IF, at some point your X=Y you will have no choice, BUT to cut something. benefits, labor, operations, etc.
Another problem is greed. And before you say "greed doesn't exist blah blah blah", stop. Greed exists, we're all greedy to some extent, some more than others. Like you mentioned before, some absorb costs that are comparatively small to their profits, like your example of someone clearing 100k a month in profit absorbing a $100 increase in rent like its no big deal. So why then is it a big deal to absorb 100k in healthcare costs to someone who clears millions of dollars in profits? Everyone wants to invest in a quick short term gain, no one it seems can handle the long term. No one wants to invest in any kind of long term stability if it means coming off some of their profits.
I could charge $20/hr for the services we provide. And we could probably clean up pretty quick and get out before the market for it collapses. But I don't. I can charge a percentage of that and undercut the market, get more long term clients and still make about the same in profit over a long term.
It doesn't have anything to do with how noble I am. I know how to use capitalism to my advantage and benefit everyone in the process. My responsibility is to run my business as effectively as I can. When my costs go up, I simply do what any business person should be doing in the first place, offering a better/extra service/product.Im sure youll try to say something about how noble you are and you would refuse to pay your rent so someone can stay employed, but thats just not factually true. Your responsbility is to run your business as a profit, if you do that, job layoffs are not a problem. If your profit gets encroached upon, you make cuts in areas to absorb that cost or you raise prices or you do both.
I'm not the only one who practices this method. There are quite a few millionaires and business owners out there who think the same way, they're just getting tuned out by the echo chamber because the hivemind thinks its "socialism". Lol.
this is all i needed to see. You dont know how business works.
You cannot expand without hiring. So now business are magic entities that just "go out and get more profit" like its grown in the back yard. LOL funny
So if you operate at $10,000 in revenue a month to break even, and now your costs go to $15,000 a month, you have to make that up. Right now you are operating at a -$5000 hole.
You are at capacity, so you must hire more resources. Problem is that costs investment aka money. Labor doesnt grow on trees. You cannot take on more work without expansion. A prudent business owner would figure out how to become more efficient and capitalize on the labor you have to see if they can make a difference. But at those numbers you cannot. You will have to lay people off, or cut costs.
Or you are arguing that you are cool with overworking and underpaying your labor force in order for you to make up the extra revenue. Sounds very anti liberal to me.
Remember you are supposed to operate at max profit already. Meaning you cannot just add more work to your labor force because if you can, you were inefficient to begin with.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Shit. Fuck me, right? Running a business while keeping people employed with benefits and turning a profit. Must be doing something wrong. LOL
Sometimes you can expand without hiring. But no, didnt say profit was grown in the backyard.You cannot expand without hiring. So now business are magic entities that just "go out and get more profit" like its grown in the back yard. LOL funny
Welcome to the Intro to Deficit Spending 101! There will be a test after this lesson.So if you operate at $10,000 in revenue a month to break even, and now your costs go to $15,000 a month, you have to make that up. Right now you are operating at a -$5000 hole.
...so you must hire more resources. Problem is that costs investment aka money. Labor doesnt grow on trees. You cannot take on more work without expansion. A prudent business owner would figure out how to become more efficient and capitalize on the labor you have to see if they can make a difference. But at those numbers you cannot. You will have to lay people off, or cut costs.
This might separate the smart business owners from the SMART business owners.
Not cool with that at all, but my people get paid more than minimum wage, which is more than the market rate, so I'm not worried about that.Or you are arguing that you are cool with overworking and underpaying your labor force in order for you to make up the extra revenue. Sounds very anti liberal to me.
Deficit spending applied to govt , not small business.
You just dont know what you are talking about. You double talk yourself into a corner. Deficit spending to a small business would be a short term loan to meet payroll or something while waiting for business or accounts to be settled, it is NOT for operating at a loss.
ONLY THE GOVT can operate at a loss. No private company can do that.
Seriously, go take a Macro Econ class, you are just making stuff up to fit your logic, which is proven through years of theory and research and examples to be wrong.
AND LOL at smart business owners operate at a loss with deficit spending. Thats the last i needed to read. You really have no idea what you are talking about. I hope you never have to deal with what im talking about, but history isnt on your side. There will come a time you will have to make a choice, and a lightbulb will go off)
*unsubscribed
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I'm afraid to get in the middle of this business savvy dick measuring contest but you both seem to be a little rigid in your thinking. You both make valid points. Blank is right that businesses can operate at a loss, a large percentage do when the first start especially. Of course that is not sustainable forever but savings and capital raising can pay bills until profitability can be reached. Vteck is also correct that many companies will choose to reduce workforce as a method of dealing with increased costs. There isn't going to be a single universal response to health care changes by companies. Every company will handle it differently depending on their circumstances. It is pointless to argue as if business is some monolithic entity that will behave as a single company might. These theoretical arguments aren't going anywhere.
Why do you disagree with what I said, and then confirm what I said. Deficit spending. Governments use it, business use it. Period. This is indisputable. Lol.
I've taken macro, I've taken micro. All of it backs up what I'm saying.Seriously, go take a Macro Econ class, you are just making stuff up to fit your logic, which is proven through years of theory and research and examples to be wrong.
To say that only governments use deficit spending is demonstrably false. I would venture to say more than half of all businesses use or have used deficit spending at some point, shit, I'd say 90% unless you have some kind of unlimited capital already. I just don't think you fully understand what it is, or maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm talking about. I feel like you believe the only method to run a successful business is through the profit motive. It works for some, but some of the big ones in the public eye, you see what ends up happening to them.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both "operated at a loss" when they first started. They seemed to do alright. History and facts are both on my side though. So I think I'll do just fine.AND LOL at smart business owners operate at a loss with deficit spending. Thats the last i needed to read. You really have no idea what you are talking about. I hope you never have to deal with what im talking about, but history isnt on your side. There will come a time you will have to make a choice, and a lightbulb will go off
But hey, you can still prove me wrong. Just show me that deficit spending isn't used in businesses AT ALL, and I'll concede. Good luck. Lol.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit_spending
I particularly like the part that says:
"The term may be applied to the budget of a government, private company, or individual"
LOL.
Anyone else want to debate facts?
Yeah. I didn't say companies didnt reduce workforce to cover increased costs. I'm just saying there are other ways of doing it. And I'm saying deficit spending is one of those ways, Vteckidd, it seems to me, is suggesting that only governments use deficit spending, and that's far from accurate.
Agreed. I don't understand why he said private companies don't use deficit spending because in other statements he seems to acknowledge that they do. Facebook operated at a loss for years. I think they just started turning a profit recently. My point is, you all seem to be trying very hard to find flaws in each others details, insulting each other along the way, and the discussion is getting further and further away from the original topic.
I would say most businesses operated at some degree of loss unless you already had a great deal of capital to start.
I'm not trying to insult anyone. Maybe I'm misunderstanding him, but I'm not trying to pretend like the principles of economics cease exist because I'm not a vulture capitalist. Lol. I operate well outside of the profit motive system, and a lot of other companies do too. That's just how it is sometimes. Lol
They don't operate at deficit spending in LRAC Jesus you guys don't read what I write at all.
Its OK only see what you want to see.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Profit is what businesses run on, not credit. No sustainable business model operates on credit only. Period.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Go to any bank and tell them your business plan is to run at a deficit. They will laugh you out of the building.
You are not seeing my point. This is what you do though when we get in technical debates. You pick out info to prove a point I was never arguing then say something like "because facts"
Or you respond with stuff like "so what" or "your point being ?"
Businesses cannot operate longterm at a loss. Deficit spending doesn't solve your increase in srac or lrac curves.
Therefore no private business can operate with deficit spending
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Revenue. Revenue is what businesses run on
A business loan is pretty much deficit spending. I don't even have to get it from a bank
If I get 100 more clients and I need to pay 10 employees before I see the revenue from those extra clients, I can dip into profits I've already made, I can dip into my savings account, or I can get a bank loan to cover the expenses. Deficit spending.
Who said anything about long term?Businesses cannot operate longterm at a loss. Deficit spending doesn't solve your increase in srac or lrac curves.
Now you've confused me. Why are businesses operating with deficit spending, despite you saying they don't?Therefore no private business can operate with deficit spending
I am laughing in this thread. I actually have created and run profitable small businesses, for many years. I also have worked in both mid-size and Fortune 50 companies for years. All employ very different business models. One thing is in common - none stay in business, or attract shareholders, without showing profitability.
If you are operating your small business at a deficit for more than 3 years, the IRS does not consider you a business, but rather a hobby.
Business or Hobby? Answer Has Implications for Deductions
Now, there are some ways that you can get around it, but that generally means that you have an asset that is depreciating at a faster rate than the revenue that you are bringing in. The IRS does not consider normal daily operations to be in the same category as a depreciating asset.
Now, in the case of FB and Amazon, they had high revenue and a substantial number of employees, and they could show gradual reduction of deficit spending with a realistic profit motive. Additionally, they could prove that they had no other source of income, and had venture capitalists backing the corporation. They were/are in a different class than a small business entity.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
"The concept of deficit spending in economics is not limited to government use. Businesses of all sizes may choose to spend more money up front in hopes of generating funds to pay off the investment at a later date. For example, a manufacturer may choose to purchase new machinery for a factory, with the understanding that the newer equipment will allow the business to produce more units of goods in less time, and possibly at a lower unit cost. Over time, the benefits derived from this strategy pay off the accumulated debt and allow the business owners to enjoy a budget surplus rather than a budget deficit."
wisegeek.org/what-is-deficit-financing.htm
Blank lives in a fantasy world. Everyone should be aware of this by now.
Thank you for this uneducated filler post. We needed that.
Who said anything about long term deficit spending?
Why bring it up if you are only talking about short term?
Business models tend to be long term, not short term.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I was addressing a point about me expanding so I could increase my bottom line, not that my business model was long term deficit spending.
I said if I was only breaking even because of increased business costs, instead of raising my costs, I'd go increase my revenue. Get more clients, hire more employees. If I have to spend more than I'm making so I can get more revenue at the end, that would be deficit spending. The End.
And if i go to my bank and say
" i have a brilliant idea and need a loan, i want to sell AC temperature units with mercury in them. I need $10,000 to produce 100 units that i plan to sell for $5 a piece"
What should i be told?
Risk management would say that is more risky than passing the added cost onto customers.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
:facepalm:
Lets say you watch 10 children a month, with 10 employees, $10,000 a month. You are at capacity. IE each child needs 1 employee. You are operating at a profit, paying all salaries, rent, implicit and explicit costs, etc.
Now, Obamacare comes a long and says "you now have to provide your 10 employees healthcare" at a cost of $2000 a month. you will be now -$2000 in the hole.
You have 2 choices
A) Increase the cost PER CHILD to your customer to make up the difference which can make you uncompetitive
B) Shed costs which means you lay 2 employees off and go down to 8 kids / 8 employees. Or you tell your employees they now have to do the work of 2 employees to stay employed (overworked and underpaid)
Now, your say you would do option C) Hire more employees to to more work and take on more revenue. But you are already -$2000 in the hole. Hiring costs even more money. And who is to say you can get more clients? What if your facility is too small? WHat if you would need a bigger building? What if you need more supplies to watch the kids?
The whole point is that expansion requires profit for investment. It is foolish to be losing money and to combat that and say "ill just go hire more people to make up for my added costs".
Case in point, Far far far better and smarter CEOs operating billion dollar companies, ARENT doing what you are suggesting, they are doing what IM suggesting. Shedding jobs and working within the confines of the law.
That is the telling tale that you are wrong. Sorry man
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
You should be laughed out of the bank
I agree....... now lets apply that logic to Obama's economic policy and "laugh him out of the bank"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
