(05-18-2016 04:53 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 11:22 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  I'm vehemently opposed to the minimum wage vote bribing games.

But this one is a legit change that needed to be updated.

Sadly, our poor G5 athletic programs have had to take advantage of the disparity...but now won't be able to overwork without paying anymore...and will have even more budgetary obstacles.





Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Bribing games or ensuring that someone who has a job and is busting their ass more than 40 hours a week can put food on the table without public assistance. Forcing companies to treat their workers right isn't asking too much.

Read more carefully.

The jacked up thing is that 47K in Arkansas is a whole lot different than it is in California or New York. Costs of living are wildly different.

Average salaries are different. It just isn't the same economy.

I wonder how it affects entry level teachers who spend extra hours grading home work?

Cat Osterman is at 45K (last report) and you know she is working more than 40 hours with the team. TXST is going to have to start with asst. coaches and work from there.

The criminal part of all this is that the salary test shouldn't be that big of a deal. The companies who are playing dirty mostly wouldn't qualify if they were carefully audited.

Generally the people getting screwed are named "assistant manager" at Dollar General or Wal-Mart or Taco Bell and fail the other parts of the test.

If Sally is making $24k as an assistant manager at Dollar General and has to work 50 hours a week (often knocking her hourly rate below the people working "for" her) she invariably does not spend the majority of her time managing the other employees, doesn't have the ability to hire and fire, isn't interviewing prospective employees, setting their rate of pay nor is she setting their schedule and may not be managing two or more people. She isn't a learned professional (doctor, lawyer, CPA, engineer, dentist, RN or APN). She isn't an exempt administrative professional (HR director, IT director) and isn't engaged in outside sales (traveling the county selling directly at the customer's place of business.

People fitting these roles aren't paid under $30k very often and while I will completely concede there are people under $47k who fit but most of those under $47k fit the white collar exemption (Doctors, lawyers, teachers). In the higher ed rules, teachers/professors aren't subject to the $47k threshold and academic counselors and advisors are exempt from the threshold if hired at the same pay as the institution pays entry level full time teachers.

(05-18-2016 05:35 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  The jacked up thing is that 47K in Arkansas is a whole lot different than it is in California or New York. Costs of living are wildly different.

Average salaries are different. It just isn't the same economy.

I wonder how it affects entry level teachers who spend extra hours grading home work?

Not at all. Teachers are exempt from the $47k threshold as are lawyers doctors and I believe pharmacists.

(05-19-2016 01:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 05:35 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  The jacked up thing is that 47K in Arkansas is a whole lot different than it is in California or New York. Costs of living are wildly different.

Average salaries are different. It just isn't the same economy.

I wonder how it affects entry level teachers who spend extra hours grading home work?

Not at all. Teachers are exempt from the $47k threshold as are lawyers doctors and I believe pharmacists.

you will just see employers making sure that none of their employees go over 40 hours a week. in the long run, many folks will make less because most people I know that have employees will restructure their labor costs to work around this new mandate. as for teachers, all but 1 of the ones I know are salaried not hourly, and most put in extra hours. the hourly one is only allowed half days so as to not qualify for any bennies.

(05-18-2016 03:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:00 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  So when are they adjusting AMT for inflation?

Have you considered hiring an accountant?

Because starting with the 2012 tax year the exemptions for AMT increased AND were tied to inflation. There just ain't been much inflation.

But to answer your question, they started with the tax year beginning January 1, 2012. It didn't become law until January 1, 2013 but it was made retroactive.

It wasn't retroactive based upon 1969 dollars. It was meant to tax the ultra wealthy. Instead it now taxes the upper middle class who don't
make enough to take advantage of other loopholes in our tax system.

We continue to pass laws (in all areas) that help the bottom 60% (voters) and the top 1% (lobbyists), shrinking the middle class.

(05-19-2016 07:21 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 01:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 05:35 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  The jacked up thing is that 47K in Arkansas is a whole lot different than it is in California or New York. Costs of living are wildly different.

Average salaries are different. It just isn't the same economy.

I wonder how it affects entry level teachers who spend extra hours grading home work?

Not at all. Teachers are exempt from the $47k threshold as are lawyers doctors and I believe pharmacists.

you will just see employers making sure that none of their employees go over 40 hours a week. in the long run, many folks will make less because most people I know that have employees will restructure their labor costs to work around this new mandate. as for teachers, all but 1 of the ones I know are salaried not hourly, and most put in extra hours. the hourly one is only allowed half days so as to not qualify for any bennies.

I think the whole thing is grossly overblown.

The assistant deputy to the associate AD getting paid $24k and expected to work a 50 hour week the week of a home football game will get Monday off instead of having to work Monday-Saturday and be back in on Monday.
Maybe his kids will know who he is and his wife won't get fed up that he's never home and doesn't make enough to cover the bills without her working as well.
Not getting worked up over that.

Maybe Sally down at Dollar General doesn't get paid $24k for working 45 hours a week and yeah it will be a real hardship if she gets cut back to $21k but the law was never meant to cover her in the first place. Inflation just empowered the store owner to screw her.

Places that treat their workers like **** will have problems if the economy recovers. As I've mentioned before, we had a labor shortage toward the end of Clinton's term as president and $10 an hour starting wages in fast food was common in Little Rock. There is no guarantee capital will be dominant over labor forever.

(05-19-2016 07:51 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:00 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  So when are they adjusting AMT for inflation?

Have you considered hiring an accountant?

Because starting with the 2012 tax year the exemptions for AMT increased AND were tied to inflation. There just ain't been much inflation.

But to answer your question, they started with the tax year beginning January 1, 2012. It didn't become law until January 1, 2013 but it was made retroactive.

It wasn't retroactive based upon 1969 dollars. It was meant to tax the ultra wealthy. Instead it now taxes the upper middle class who don't
make enough to take advantage of other loopholes in our tax system.

We continue to pass laws (in all areas) that help the bottom 60% (voters) and the top 1% (lobbyists), shrinking the middle class.

Middle class are no longer the majority in most of the US.

The average American earns less today than 20 years ago in real spending power.

But your voter/lobbyist split is wildly inaccurate.

People in the bottom 40% of earnings are half as likely as the top 40% to be registered to vote and among those registered the top 40% is nearly twice as likely to vote.

The poor folks pouring out of the van to vote makes great video but they are far removed from being the majority of voters. The median US voter makes well over the median wage for all the country and much better educated than the average American.

Poor folks figured out before the middle class that the politicians will show up and make a nice speech about being on their side and when it comes time to cast an Aye or Nay the politician is going with the dude who can fund his election and find him a cush job after politics.

(05-19-2016 07:21 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 01:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 05:35 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  The jacked up thing is that 47K in Arkansas is a whole lot different than it is in California or New York. Costs of living are wildly different.

Average salaries are different. It just isn't the same economy.

I wonder how it affects entry level teachers who spend extra hours grading home work?

Not at all. Teachers are exempt from the $47k threshold as are lawyers doctors and I believe pharmacists.

you will just see employers making sure that none of their employees go over 40 hours a week. in the long run, many folks will make less because most people I know that have employees will restructure their labor costs to work around this new mandate. as for teachers, all but 1 of the ones I know are salaried not hourly, and most put in extra hours. the hourly one is only allowed half days so as to not qualify for any bennies.

This it is just basic math. Change any wage / labor law you want all that get hurt is the employee. No one puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to work any job or live in an area work the job situation stinks. Let the free market determine what folks will work for. If it was not fair people would find and equivalent paying job that was fair in their eyes. Businesses are just going to cut employees, pass on more tasks to less people, hire more part time and temp labor to keep full time folks from going over 40 hours.

When I got out of the army and worked at a box making plant before college the plant was probably staffed with 60% or more people that were brought in through a temp agency. No overtime, no benefits and can be sent home at anytime based on need. Unless you have a union government job your are just wasting your time worrying about any of this.

When they reduced the level for full time from 40 to 30 hours for health care benefits all that happened is a lot of people lost pay because employers made sure part time did not go over 29 hours. Who lost in that situation? The employer just had to hire a few more people at no additional cost. The part time employee just lost out on thousands in income a year.

If the middle class is no longer the majority, why did you make a split at 40%, seems like the 60% mark would indicate a majority.

Then you decide to use the bottom 40% vs. the next 40% and say they are twice as likely to vote in the 41-80% category. That would indicate that a large percentage of that population is not middle class. I can agree that historically the median voter makes over the median wage. The problem is that median wage voter may no longer be considered middle class.

Given the turnout for Sanders and Trump I'd wager the median wage voter is lower this election cycle, of course that may not remain in November.

(05-18-2016 04:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 04:11 PM)airtroop Wrote:  Another option, one I've used on more than one occasion, is to simply deem them as independent contractors and 1099 them for their services with non-compete and non-disclosure agreements in place. Obviously, this strategy only works in certain professions but coaching is potentially one of them. Point is, the smart institutions and "bidnessmen" will find a way to survive and believe me when I say brain gears are churning right now in every sector impacted with this update...there will always be options to keep labor costs down in addition to the obvious: pink slips.

A non-compete clause is a fast way to get the independent contractor relationship deemed to be employment and with it an obligation to pay FICA, medicare tax, unemployment insurance, and worker's comp insurance and penalties.

And for the record.

You can't do independent contractor with coaches, head or assistant because the NCAA requires you supervise and monitor their activity and report all outside earnings.

Making a coach an independent contractor is a guaranteed finding of lack of institutional control if there is any NCAA violation.

See - that's why I always had a legal beagle like you on speed dial...it worked fine and totally legally so for my particular business model. As for your response, it's very informative and I'd never considered the "institutional control" aspect of it. OTOH, that's why I used the word "potentially" (I should have used possible with a question mark after it instead) in my original post.

(05-19-2016 09:17 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 07:21 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 01:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 05:35 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  The jacked up thing is that 47K in Arkansas is a whole lot different than it is in California or New York. Costs of living are wildly different.

Average salaries are different. It just isn't the same economy.

I wonder how it affects entry level teachers who spend extra hours grading home work?

Not at all. Teachers are exempt from the $47k threshold as are lawyers doctors and I believe pharmacists.

you will just see employers making sure that none of their employees go over 40 hours a week. in the long run, many folks will make less because most people I know that have employees will restructure their labor costs to work around this new mandate. as for teachers, all but 1 of the ones I know are salaried not hourly, and most put in extra hours. the hourly one is only allowed half days so as to not qualify for any bennies.

This it is just basic math. Change any wage / labor law you want all that get hurt is the employee. No one puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to work any job or live in an area work the job situation stinks. Let the free market determine what folks will work for. If it was not fair people would find and equivalent paying job that was fair in their eyes. Businesses are just going to cut employees, pass on more tasks to less people, hire more part time and temp labor to keep full time folks from going over 40 hours.

When I got out of the army and worked at a box making plant before college the plant was probably staffed with 60% or more people that were brought in through a temp agency. No overtime, no benefits and can be sent home at anytime based on need. Unless you have a union government job your are just wasting your time worrying about any of this.

When they reduced the level for full time from 40 to 30 hours for health care benefits all that happened is a lot of people lost pay because employers made sure part time did not go over 29 hours. Who lost in that situation? The employer just had to hire a few more people at no additional cost. The part time employee just lost out on thousands in income a year.

You seem to conveniently overlook the many periods through out our history where business owners took advantage of employees out of greed. That doesn't seem like a good solution either.

(05-19-2016 06:01 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 09:17 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 07:21 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 01:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 05:35 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  The jacked up thing is that 47K in Arkansas is a whole lot different than it is in California or New York. Costs of living are wildly different.

Average salaries are different. It just isn't the same economy.

I wonder how it affects entry level teachers who spend extra hours grading home work?

Not at all. Teachers are exempt from the $47k threshold as are lawyers doctors and I believe pharmacists.

you will just see employers making sure that none of their employees go over 40 hours a week. in the long run, many folks will make less because most people I know that have employees will restructure their labor costs to work around this new mandate. as for teachers, all but 1 of the ones I know are salaried not hourly, and most put in extra hours. the hourly one is only allowed half days so as to not qualify for any bennies.

This it is just basic math. Change any wage / labor law you want all that get hurt is the employee. No one puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to work any job or live in an area work the job situation stinks. Let the free market determine what folks will work for. If it was not fair people would find and equivalent paying job that was fair in their eyes. Businesses are just going to cut employees, pass on more tasks to less people, hire more part time and temp labor to keep full time folks from going over 40 hours.

When I got out of the army and worked at a box making plant before college the plant was probably staffed with 60% or more people that were brought in through a temp agency. No overtime, no benefits and can be sent home at anytime based on need. Unless you have a union government job your are just wasting your time worrying about any of this.

When they reduced the level for full time from 40 to 30 hours for health care benefits all that happened is a lot of people lost pay because employers made sure part time did not go over 29 hours. Who lost in that situation? The employer just had to hire a few more people at no additional cost. The part time employee just lost out on thousands in income a year.

You seem to conveniently overlook the many periods through out our history where business owners took advantage of employees out of greed. That doesn't seem like a good solution either.

Big corporations are the problem - they are the ones sending jobs overseas. This kicks some small business owners in the nuts. And that isn't good for America. I don't have a problem with the spirit of this - but as usual most of those who govern don't have a damn clue about how things work in reality.

(05-19-2016 09:19 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  If the middle class is no longer the majority, why did you make a split at 40%, seems like the 60% mark would indicate a majority.

Then you decide to use the bottom 40% vs. the next 40% and say they are twice as likely to vote in the 41-80% category. That would indicate that a large percentage of that population is not middle class. I can agree that historically the median voter makes over the median wage. The problem is that median wage voter may no longer be considered middle class.

Given the turnout for Sanders and Trump I'd wager the median wage voter is lower this election cycle, of course that may not remain in November.

For Sanders, yes. Trump's core supporters are older, working class white men.

(05-19-2016 06:12 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 06:01 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 09:17 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 07:21 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 01:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Not at all. Teachers are exempt from the $47k threshold as are lawyers doctors and I believe pharmacists.

you will just see employers making sure that none of their employees go over 40 hours a week. in the long run, many folks will make less because most people I know that have employees will restructure their labor costs to work around this new mandate. as for teachers, all but 1 of the ones I know are salaried not hourly, and most put in extra hours. the hourly one is only allowed half days so as to not qualify for any bennies.

This it is just basic math. Change any wage / labor law you want all that get hurt is the employee. No one puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to work any job or live in an area work the job situation stinks. Let the free market determine what folks will work for. If it was not fair people would find and equivalent paying job that was fair in their eyes. Businesses are just going to cut employees, pass on more tasks to less people, hire more part time and temp labor to keep full time folks from going over 40 hours.

When I got out of the army and worked at a box making plant before college the plant was probably staffed with 60% or more people that were brought in through a temp agency. No overtime, no benefits and can be sent home at anytime based on need. Unless you have a union government job your are just wasting your time worrying about any of this.

When they reduced the level for full time from 40 to 30 hours for health care benefits all that happened is a lot of people lost pay because employers made sure part time did not go over 29 hours. Who lost in that situation? The employer just had to hire a few more people at no additional cost. The part time employee just lost out on thousands in income a year.

You seem to conveniently overlook the many periods through out our history where business owners took advantage of employees out of greed. That doesn't seem like a good solution either.

Big corporations are the problem - they are the ones sending jobs overseas. This kicks some small business owners in the nuts. And that isn't good for America. I don't have a problem with the spirit of this - but as usual most of those who govern don't have a damn clue about how things work in reality.

some of that is the result of everything becoming a world market. people look for the best price and most shop online. labor costs and materials and taxes vary depending on where you are in the world and companies are always looking for ways to be cost competitive and as a result are willing to relocate. I try to always "buy american" but often it is hard to tell where a product came from.

(05-19-2016 06:01 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 09:17 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 07:21 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 01:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 05:35 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  The jacked up thing is that 47K in Arkansas is a whole lot different than it is in California or New York. Costs of living are wildly different.

Average salaries are different. It just isn't the same economy.

I wonder how it affects entry level teachers who spend extra hours grading home work?

Not at all. Teachers are exempt from the $47k threshold as are lawyers doctors and I believe pharmacists.

you will just see employers making sure that none of their employees go over 40 hours a week. in the long run, many folks will make less because most people I know that have employees will restructure their labor costs to work around this new mandate. as for teachers, all but 1 of the ones I know are salaried not hourly, and most put in extra hours. the hourly one is only allowed half days so as to not qualify for any bennies.

This it is just basic math. Change any wage / labor law you want all that get hurt is the employee. No one puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to work any job or live in an area work the job situation stinks. Let the free market determine what folks will work for. If it was not fair people would find and equivalent paying job that was fair in their eyes. Businesses are just going to cut employees, pass on more tasks to less people, hire more part time and temp labor to keep full time folks from going over 40 hours.

When I got out of the army and worked at a box making plant before college the plant was probably staffed with 60% or more people that were brought in through a temp agency. No overtime, no benefits and can be sent home at anytime based on need. Unless you have a union government job your are just wasting your time worrying about any of this.

When they reduced the level for full time from 40 to 30 hours for health care benefits all that happened is a lot of people lost pay because employers made sure part time did not go over 29 hours. Who lost in that situation? The employer just had to hire a few more people at no additional cost. The part time employee just lost out on thousands in income a year.

You seem to conveniently overlook the many periods through out our history where business owners took advantage of employees out of greed. That doesn't seem like a good solution either.

Yes before cars and airplanes it was hard to move to another job and or area with better jobs.

I joined the Army because nobody could pay for my college. I didnt care for the Army life so I did not reenlist went to college. I did not like the corporate rat race job so I started my own business. See pretty easy. The Army had a ton of guns and none were pointed at me forcing me to stay. I doubt anyone else's job does either. Unless you are mentally or physically challenged you are where you are in life because of you and only you. It is not your job it is your employers job to give to you. You are selling your skills to the employer. If you think your skills is worth more or you hate your employment then your job is to get a new job and stfu. Or work for some union government service like the TSA where you can be as ****** and lazy as you want and still get good pay and benefits and get raises based on time and not actually performing your position well.

(05-19-2016 06:12 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 06:01 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 09:17 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 07:21 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 01:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Not at all. Teachers are exempt from the $47k threshold as are lawyers doctors and I believe pharmacists.

you will just see employers making sure that none of their employees go over 40 hours a week. in the long run, many folks will make less because most people I know that have employees will restructure their labor costs to work around this new mandate. as for teachers, all but 1 of the ones I know are salaried not hourly, and most put in extra hours. the hourly one is only allowed half days so as to not qualify for any bennies.

This it is just basic math. Change any wage / labor law you want all that get hurt is the employee. No one puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to work any job or live in an area work the job situation stinks. Let the free market determine what folks will work for. If it was not fair people would find and equivalent paying job that was fair in their eyes. Businesses are just going to cut employees, pass on more tasks to less people, hire more part time and temp labor to keep full time folks from going over 40 hours.

When I got out of the army and worked at a box making plant before college the plant was probably staffed with 60% or more people that were brought in through a temp agency. No overtime, no benefits and can be sent home at anytime based on need. Unless you have a union government job your are just wasting your time worrying about any of this.

When they reduced the level for full time from 40 to 30 hours for health care benefits all that happened is a lot of people lost pay because employers made sure part time did not go over 29 hours. Who lost in that situation? The employer just had to hire a few more people at no additional cost. The part time employee just lost out on thousands in income a year.

You seem to conveniently overlook the many periods through out our history where business owners took advantage of employees out of greed. That doesn't seem like a good solution either.

Big corporations are the problem - they are the ones sending jobs overseas. This kicks some small business owners in the nuts. And that isn't good for America. I don't have a problem with the spirit of this - but as usual most of those who govern don't have a damn clue about how things work in reality.

How are US based corporations going to compete with foreign corporations where they pay crap? If the corporations labor cost is double or triple the cost of a foreign one it will not survive on a small % of good ole Mericans buying Merica only products. This is why you are seeing large plants moving away from big unionized cities and being built in BFE Alabama or over seas partly do to insane union wages and benefits. Yes they are greedy scum bags at the top but they also have to survive as a business and please stock holders. We all want to demonize corporations but where is most of your 401K? Hmmm people don't complain when they see double digit returns on their retirement accounts. Playing devils advocate a little but extreme one sided comments on either side of an issues gets on my nerves the truth is always in the middle.

(05-20-2016 11:17 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 06:12 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 06:01 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 09:17 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 07:21 AM)runamuck Wrote:  you will just see employers making sure that none of their employees go over 40 hours a week. in the long run, many folks will make less because most people I know that have employees will restructure their labor costs to work around this new mandate. as for teachers, all but 1 of the ones I know are salaried not hourly, and most put in extra hours. the hourly one is only allowed half days so as to not qualify for any bennies.

This it is just basic math. Change any wage / labor law you want all that get hurt is the employee. No one puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to work any job or live in an area work the job situation stinks. Let the free market determine what folks will work for. If it was not fair people would find and equivalent paying job that was fair in their eyes. Businesses are just going to cut employees, pass on more tasks to less people, hire more part time and temp labor to keep full time folks from going over 40 hours.

When I got out of the army and worked at a box making plant before college the plant was probably staffed with 60% or more people that were brought in through a temp agency. No overtime, no benefits and can be sent home at anytime based on need. Unless you have a union government job your are just wasting your time worrying about any of this.

When they reduced the level for full time from 40 to 30 hours for health care benefits all that happened is a lot of people lost pay because employers made sure part time did not go over 29 hours. Who lost in that situation? The employer just had to hire a few more people at no additional cost. The part time employee just lost out on thousands in income a year.

You seem to conveniently overlook the many periods through out our history where business owners took advantage of employees out of greed. That doesn't seem like a good solution either.

Big corporations are the problem - they are the ones sending jobs overseas. This kicks some small business owners in the nuts. And that isn't good for America. I don't have a problem with the spirit of this - but as usual most of those who govern don't have a damn clue about how things work in reality.

How are US based corporations going to compete with foreign corporations where they pay crap? If the corporations labor cost is double or triple the cost of a foreign one it will not survive on a small % of good ole Mericans buying Merica only products. This is why you are seeing large plants moving away from big unionized cities and being built in BFE Alabama or over seas partly do to insane union wages and benefits. Yes they are greedy scum bags at the top but they also have to survive as a business and please stock holders. We all want to demonize corporations but where is most of your 401K? Hmmm people don't complain when they see double digit returns on their retirement accounts. Playing devils advocate a little but extreme one sided comments on either side of an issues gets on my nerves the truth is always in the middle.

yes I hear people decry big corporations, but millions of people work at a big corporation..

(05-20-2016 11:17 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  How are US based corporations going to compete with foreign corporations where they pay crap? If the corporations labor cost is double or triple the cost of a foreign one it will not survive on a small % of good ole Mericans buying Merica only products. This is why you are seeing large plants moving away from big unionized cities and being built in BFE Alabama or over seas partly do to insane union wages and benefits. Yes they are greedy scum bags at the top but they also have to survive as a business and please stock holders. We all want to demonize corporations but where is most of your 401K? Hmmm people don't complain when they see double digit returns on their retirement accounts. Playing devils advocate a little but extreme one sided comments on either side of an issues gets on my nerves the truth is always in the middle.

There ain't black white yes no answer in there.

We do have a problem because companies in the US are incentivized to think in terms of quarterly and annual reports and are competing against companies in Germany and Japan where they will shake off a bad quarter or bad year without panicked layoffs to preserve stock price as long as they believe they are trending correctly for the 5 and 10 year goals.

That's a dysfunction of our markets rather than our corporations but we can alter the tax code and estate code to make short-term holding of securities more painful than long-term.

We have a system of forced overhead. You have a big company then you have to spend money on health insurance for employees, hire people to select it, explain it and interact with it. Then you also have to pay workers compensation insurance premiums and those benefits include lost wages, defined benefit for dying or losing a limb AND medical expenses. We compete against companies we don't worry about employee health insurance because the employee pays a payroll tax to fund his/her health insurance and if the employee gets hurt on the job the medical coverage provided out of that payroll tax covers the medical needs, the worker's comp coverage is just insurance for lost wages, and defined benefits for death or loss of a limb, the worker's comp company doesn't have to pay the for the back surgery, MRI, physical therapy and pain meds.

We have declared corporations are citizens, well ugly fact is they ain't and we don't treat them like people when taxing them. Apple can get a tax incentive to hold billions in Ireland and escape the IRS when Ireland imposes a 0% tax on it for so many years. You cannot. If you take a job in Ireland and earn $100,000 you owe Uncle taxes on $100,000 minus the taxes paid to Ireland.

Unions? We compete all the time against labor that is more unionized than the US. Tennessee politicians begged VW employees to not unionize declaring it would result in the plant being moved, VW pretty much called those claims BS and said they supported the plant unionizing, of course they do, the union in Germany by law is guaranteed seats on the Board of Directors and the direct interaction of labor and management means they don't get many strikes as the union sees the books in details, knows what the long term plans are, they are like partners.
So we encourage short-term thinking, we increase overhead, and we create tax loopholes that reward holding cash outside the US. Great system.