Walmart workers staying home black friday

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

2) No company is going to go after a small start-up over patents. It would be a very bad move from a PR standpoint. Not going to happen.

On the flip side of this...larger companies aren't above stealing the designs of small companies.


(my 12yo is PISSED at Sears/Craftsman now )

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

A big company like Google is not going to go after a 3-person start-up-until they become a real threat.

Maybe, but there are people that buy patents and sue as a business model. Patent abuse costs billions and really does effect startups.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

On the flip side of this...larger companies aren't above stealing the designs of small companies.


(my 12yo is PISSED at Sears/Craftsman now )

My focus is on tech, as this stuff is a little out of knowledge area, as each industry has different nuances to them in regards to the patent game.

Interesting case, though it's a little unclear.

Why not file a provisional patent, which will allow you to test the market and see if you can gain patent protection. Also, the the revenue generated during this period- he sold 200,000 wrenches-along with I'm sure was a nice deal with Sears for the exclusivity clause, and convert from a provisional patent to a non-provisional patent? How similar, and different, are the two tools?

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Maybe, but there are people that buy patents and sue as a business model. Patent abuse costs billions and really does effect startups.

No arguments here. Patent trolls need to be dealt with, and Mark Cuban has made this a big rallying cry. Patents are great, but the requirements and "use" factor for approval and maintain them need to be upped by a lot.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Events like this morning's trip to McD's is one of the most compelling arguments ever against the existence of minimum wage. Worthless fuck that mispacked my order ought to be paying people just to let them hang out.

[stevew]

Agreed about the level of service at those places. I've just started leaving places when it's obvious the situation is fucked. Like I can stand at the counter to order for a minute or two, but if you can't wait on me I bounce. Waited close to 15 minutes at Taco Bell the other day and would have asked for a refund if I had paid cash. Those workers in the fast food field are basically worthless even as food prices rise there. We were travelling, so the wait was extra bad(I had walked out of a Wendy's that gave me the duh face already)

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

2) No company is going to go after a small start-up over patents. It would be a very bad move from a PR standpoint. Not going to happen.

You'd be surprised - I've seen it happen time and time again within the games industry either through 'Patent Trolls' (companies who own patents just to extort money out of others) or large corporations who just want to stifle competition.

4) I think it's a two-way street. Grocery stores need farms just as much as farms need them.

Life doesn't work that way generally - there are lots of farms and only a handful of sources to sell bulk produce to .... as such farmers (in the UK at least, although I expect a similar situation in the US) have to accept what they're offered realistically.

if it helps think of it like you shopping around for a mortgage, only 4 banks will give you a mortgage at the level you need - you have a choice either accept one of them or don't buy the house ....

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Events like this morning's trip to McD's is one of the most compelling arguments ever against the existence of minimum wage. Worthless fuck that mispacked my order ought to be paying people just to let them hang out.

This is more an argument towards paying people better so there is some incentive for people to learn and do a good job imho - at present such positions are filled by people who know they aren't valued and can walk into a similar position down the road where they can be equally useless with little come back.

(I wouldn't object but I've never had it so they accidentally pack more interesting/expensive/numerous items into a bag - just that they always forget something .....)

[Young Drachma]

Banker ruin the economy and no one wants to insult their intelligence and whether they deserve to be paid anything. But fuck up my french fry order and all hell breaks loose. I chuckled.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

This is more an argument towards paying people better so there is some incentive for people to learn and do a good job imho - at present such positions are filled by people who know they aren't valued and can walk into a similar position down the road where they can be equally useless with little come back.

Doesn't that say something about their work ethic to begin with? Or in today's world are you only supposed to match your effort to the level you feel you're valued?

[cuervo72]

Yeah, I worked my ass off at BK when I was there. Was able to man multiple stations, was told that I made the nicest looking sandwiches they'd ever seen. During the rushes I kept shit MOVING. I was good enough that a couple of managers would loan me out/take me to other stores where they were working. My work was appreciated,* but I still made the same $5.25 entry as the others working there (and some of them were real dipshits).


* Except for Brent, with his Camaro and cheesy mustache. That guy was a dick. The two assistant managers (HS girls, one of which was Brent's gf) weren't great either.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by heybrad

Doesn't that say something about their work ethic to begin with? Or in today's world are you only supposed to match your effort to the level you feel you're valued?

The thing is, Bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.

(i have nothing to add. that just popped in my head)

[cody8200]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

The thing is, Bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.

(i have nothing to add. that just popped in my head)

Don't, don't care?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by heybrad

Doesn't that say something about their work ethic to begin with? Or in today's world are you only supposed to match your effort to the level you feel you're valued?

I think some people will work the same regardless of renumeration ... however even in those cases a lot of the time they're generally doing so in the hope that they'll be 'noticed' and promoted/rewarded in some fashion.

At a place like McDonalds most people realise opportunities for advancement/good pay are limited and so its not hugely surprising that they're not overly efficient or enthusiastic imho.

Those who are will generally either move onto other companies in time or lose their drive because lets face it who wants to bust their ass when they know they will get the same pay/rewards by being lazy and inefficient.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

This is more an argument towards paying people better so there is some incentive for people to learn and do a good job imho - at present such positions are filled by people who know they aren't valued and can walk into a similar position down the road where they can be equally useless with little come back.

(I wouldn't object but I've never had it so they accidentally pack more interesting/expensive/numerous items into a bag - just that they always forget something .....)

You don't incentivize people to work harder with base pay money, that only works for a month or 2 before their mindset is levelset. You need to do it with career advancement opportunities, either real or perceived.

You can also potentially use a pay for performance bonus model. But that can be tricky to organize and implement in situations where there isn't a measurable metric.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

You'd be surprised - I've seen it happen time and time again within the games industry either through 'Patent Trolls' (companies who own patents just to extort money out of others) or large corporations who just want to stifle competition.


Life doesn't work that way generally - there are lots of farms and only a handful of sources to sell bulk produce to .... as such farmers (in the UK at least, although I expect a similar situation in the US) have to accept what they're offered realistically.

if it helps think of it like you shopping around for a mortgage, only 4 banks will give you a mortgage at the level you need - you have a choice either accept one of them or don't buy the house ....

1) The patent laws need a reform, and it has been getting bad the last two or three years.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I think some people will work the same regardless of renumeration ... however even in those cases a lot of the time they're generally doing so in the hope that they'll be 'noticed' and promoted/rewarded in some fashion.

At a place like McDonalds most people realise opportunities for advancement/good pay are limited and so its not hugely surprising that they're not overly efficient or enthusiastic imho.

Those who are will generally either move onto other companies in time or lose their drive because lets face it who wants to bust their ass when they know they will get the same pay/rewards by being lazy and inefficient.

Outside of management, is a job at McDonalds seen as a career? I always pictured kids (high school and college), part-timers, and maybe seniors working these gigs.

2) True, though is would be between the farmers/ranchers->packers/distributors->retailers.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I have to agree with Galaxy.

While in Ohio for Thanksgiving, I found out my sister in law is pregnant with another baby. This makes for her 3rd child by the age of 25 with two different fathers. She works at Wal-Mart, and her husband works there as well. These are not managers, they work in the deli. She alone has racked up $30k in student loans and she is not close to getting a degree, all without having to pay a dime in tuition! Her husband has a similar track record. Between the two of them, they will have a total of 5 kids with 5 different parents, only two of the kids have the same mother/father combination!

Throwing more money in education won't fix this. Parenting was lacking here, as their mother kept giving them whatever they wanted without forcing them to do anything for it. They have the latest cell phones, all paid for by their parents. Insurance? Mom and dad. My mother and father in law can barely make their own ends meet, much less provide for this deadbeat couple. I am sure they are not alone in this country. When my wife's parents die, they will have no clue what to do.

This girl's husband has decided he will run for President next year. He wants to run as part of the libertardian party (no, he was not joking).

Sounds interesting. Libertardian party? What's the platform behind that?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I have to agree with Galaxy.

While in Ohio for Thanksgiving, I found out my sister in law is pregnant with another baby. This makes for her 3rd child by the age of 25 with two different fathers. She works at Wal-Mart, and her husband works there as well. These are not managers, they work in the deli. She alone has racked up $30k in student loans and she is not close to getting a degree, all without having to pay a dime in tuition! Her husband has a similar track record. Between the two of them, they will have a total of 5 kids with 5 different parents, only two of the kids have the same mother/father combination!

Throwing more money in education won't fix this. Parenting was lacking here, as their mother kept giving them whatever they wanted without forcing them to do anything for it. They have the latest cell phones, all paid for by their parents. Insurance? Mom and dad. My mother and father in law can barely make their own ends meet, much less provide for this deadbeat couple. I am sure they are not alone in this country. When my wife's parents die, they will have no clue what to do.

This girl's husband has decided he will run for President next year. He wants to run as part of the libertardian party (no, he was not joking).

So they sound like a real pair of winners. And how do you "fix them" as parents? Yes, we need better parents but how do we get there?

There are certainly options- some crazier than others. Just to throw some out there:
-You can have mandatory parenting classes. Everyone in the country has to go to a mandatory, I dunno, 40 hour class about how to be a better parent. Think Home Ec for adults.
-You could limit how many kids someone can have. You could be like China and levy huge taxes on each kid or each kid past 1. You're going to need a bureaucracy to track that and it's a bit eugenics-y for some.
-Or if you want to make China look tame, you could dump some sort of birth control into the drinking water like fluoride. Then the only way you could have that turned off to your house or "get the antidote" or whatever is to pass a "birthing license" class just like driver's ed or a concealed handgun.

There are many more but I'm just throwing three potential ones out there. The point being: just saying "parent bad!" and rubbing their nose in it won't make them better parents.

And how about the kids? They just happened to lose the genetic lottery and were thrown into crappy families. So, as a society, what should we do because it's about to become our problem? You just went from 2 crappy useless mouths to field to a potential 7. That's a problem that, as a society, we do have to deal with- more lower income folks who could commit more crimes, who will be less productive members of society, etc. We could just start back up orphanages or just kill them outright as they probably won't amount to much. It's been a pretty popular trope for a while now.

I mean, you can say "just screw em" and we're doing that more and more. But then don't ask me why we're getting our brains beat in on a global competition level. It's simple as we have to spread our precious resources even thinner across a growing and less productive populace. And that's before we get into the consideration of how morally wrong it is.

But my point is that identifying the parents as bad is just that: identifying the problem. But how do you go about and actually fix it?

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Marc, I fully believe it is possible but it has to be something new and different in such a society where things are changing so fast. In the old days (like 10 years ago), you could've spent 5 years developing a game before coming to market, now it's down to 60 days (or something like that). Selling PCs or groceries or delivering newspapers are not where it's at, one has to be more nimble in the age of short attention spans. Come to think of it, what I have seen in startup businesses (retail) is a shorter lifespan. They do well at first because it's something new and different but then people quickly get tired of it faster than ever. I wonder, though, if everything will become micro-transactions?

I think that is eventually where we are headed, by and large.

At least until there is a large societal shift that sees the value in stability. I used to work for a giant corporation who outsourced and insourced on 7-10 year cycles throughout its history. Honestly, I think it all came down to one VP needing to put his stamp on things, bringing out charts and graphs that showed all the positives and none of the negatives, implementing the plan while glossing over the cost overruns and negatives, and then jumping ship to another company so the next VP could repeat the cycle, only switching the direction of employee flow. Insourcing brings more control but also more accountability while outsourcing brings lower direct costs and higher indirect costs.

But contract work is growing more and more as a standard for work and has for some time. I don't mean "I work for a contractor who works for you", tho those are lucrative business ventures ("I can lock in a cost for a service!"). But in the "I have a 3 month project- come here and work that. Some employees like that flexibility of being able to pick up and do work whenever but it's hard to get the stability there of a full time gig. Employers are doing this more and more and since they can chalk it up as an expense, rather than a wage. And they don't have those pesky problems like offering benefits or severance.

There's even a lot of what I could call "crooked contracting" where you see games people play with hours: making sure people only work 32 so they don't have to offer benefits or requiring a middleman who does nothing but siphon money like my current contracting company which only stands between who I work for and myself, stealing a cut for no benefits or anything. The only service that they offer is being a vendor who can work with my "employer" as I can't 1099 myself to them.

But to get back to the problem with making everything a microtransaction is that it means people have to hone their skills not just at what they do as people but also as data aggregators and salespeople. Rather than spending your time getting better at your job, you spend your extra time getting better at finding a job. It doesn't matter if you're a good programmer if you can't sell yourself. And, as a society and to the social safety net, an unemployed C# programmer is just as useless as an unemployed philosophy major.

To illustrate, I'm cribbing off of a discussion we had at work not too long ago. I work at a medical research institution and they have very hands on IT. This, in turn, leads to (a pampered and) a less IT savvy customer base. One of my coworkers was lamenting this fact and I (jokingly) suggested that if we outsourced our help desk and made it hard to get IT help, then you would have a much more IT savvy customer base. And it's true: I saw it in action that last place I worked. They choose the cheapest help desk option, which was overseas, and, while they grumbled profusely about it, you could gradually see the technical skill of the company get better by necessity. If they couldn't get help from the service desk, they would either get better or fail at their job. Think of it as business evolution: it's not about being the best salesperson, it's about being good enough as a salesperson to survive and also being well versed enough in IT to survive.

Now lets imagine people's abilities on a scale. Is it better to have people who are 25% computer literate and 80% salespeople (or whatever skill) or 10% computer literate and 85% salespeople? There's probably a little bit of an affinity bonus where adding 15% computer literacy may add 1-2% to their sales ability but that may or may not exist. If you drop from 85% to 80% in sales, are you suddenly losing a bunch of sales to a competing place which has 85% sales skills because they spent extra money on IT? I then translated this to our current job. This is a "world class" research institution. Does that drop from 85% to 80% researcher make this institution less able to compete with the other top research institutions and make it merely "very good", thus negating their biggest competitive advantage (i.e. the research)? We didn't really have an answer for that.

To bring this back around to the initial question: what about de-specializing from being just a programmer to being a programmer and a salesperson? Are those skills we want to emphasize as a society? Do we want to cost ourselves a chance to get better at our specialty in an increasingly specialized world? What is the benefit to society of doing that? Or is that something we should be working against when putting up a framework for business (promoting long term employment through tax breaks rather than allowing contracting to count as an expense, etc)?

There are positives and negatives to both and it's a really complex question: Increased societal stability vs Increased economic "efficiency" for producers? Decreased individual specialization vs Increased individual flexibility? And those are just two really obvious and "simple" axes on a multivariable scale.

SI

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think that is eventually where we are headed, by and large.

At least until there is a large societal shift that sees the value in stability. I used to work for a giant corporation who outsourced and insourced on 7-10 year cycles throughout its history. Honestly, I think it all came down to one VP needing to put his stamp on things, bringing out charts and graphs that showed all the positives and none of the negatives, implementing the plan while glossing over the cost overruns and negatives, and then jumping ship to another company so the next VP could repeat the cycle, only switching the direction of employee flow. Insourcing brings more control but also more accountability while outsourcing brings lower direct costs and higher indirect costs.

But contract work is growing more and more as a standard for work and has for some time. I don't mean "I work for a contractor who works for you", tho those are lucrative business ventures ("I can lock in a cost for a service!"). But in the "I have a 3 month project- come here and work that. Some employees like that flexibility of being able to pick up and do work whenever but it's hard to get the stability there of a full time gig. Employers are doing this more and more and since they can chalk it up as an expense, rather than a wage. And they don't have those pesky problems like offering benefits or severance.

There's even a lot of what I could call "crooked contracting" where you see games people play with hours: making sure people only work 32 so they don't have to offer benefits or requiring a middleman who does nothing but siphon money like my current contracting company which only stands between who I work for and myself, stealing a cut for no benefits or anything. The only service that they offer is being a vendor who can work with my "employer" as I can't 1099 myself to them.

But to get back to the problem with making everything a microtransaction is that it means people have to hone their skills not just at what they do as people but also as data aggregators and salespeople. Rather than spending your time getting better at your job, you spend your extra time getting better at finding a job. It doesn't matter if you're a good programmer if you can't sell yourself. And, as a society and to the social safety net, an unemployed C# programmer is just as useless as an unemployed philosophy major.

To illustrate, I'm cribbing off of a discussion we had at work not too long ago. I work at a medical research institution and they have very hands on IT. This, in turn, leads to (a pampered and) a less IT savvy customer base. One of my coworkers was lamenting this fact and I (jokingly) suggested that if we outsourced our help desk and made it hard to get IT help, then you would have a much more IT savvy customer base. And it's true: I saw it in action that last place I worked. They choose the cheapest help desk option, which was overseas, and, while they grumbled profusely about it, you could gradually see the technical skill of the company get better by necessity. If they couldn't get help from the service desk, they would either get better or fail at their job. Think of it as business evolution: it's not about being the best salesperson, it's about being good enough as a salesperson to survive and also being well versed enough in IT to survive.

Now lets imagine people's abilities on a scale. Is it better to have people who are 25% computer literate and 80% salespeople (or whatever skill) or 10% computer literate and 85% salespeople? There's probably a little bit of an affinity bonus where adding 15% computer literacy may add 1-2% to their sales ability but that may or may not exist. If you drop from 85% to 80% in sales, are you suddenly losing a bunch of sales to a competing place which has 85% sales skills because they spent extra money on IT? I then translated this to our current job. This is a "world class" research institution. Does that drop from 85% to 80% researcher make this institution less able to compete with the other top research institutions and make it merely "very good", thus negating their biggest competitive advantage (i.e. the research)? We didn't really have an answer for that.

To bring this back around to the initial question: what about de-specializing from being just a programmer to being a programmer and a salesperson? Are those skills we want to emphasize as a society? Do we want to cost ourselves a chance to get better at our specialty in an increasingly specialized world? What is the benefit to society of doing that? Or is that something we should be working against when putting up a framework for business (promoting long term employment through tax breaks rather than allowing contracting to count as an expense, etc)?

There are positives and negatives to both and it's a really complex question: Increased societal stability vs Increased economic "efficiency" for producers? Decreased individual specialization vs Increased individual flexibility? And those are just two really obvious and "simple" axes on a multivariable scale.

SI

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/20...reelance-jobs/

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So they sound like a real pair of winners. And how do you "fix them" as parents? Yes, we need better parents but how do we get there?

There are certainly options- some crazier than others. Just to throw some out there:
-You can have mandatory parenting classes. Everyone in the country has to go to a mandatory, I dunno, 40 hour class about how to be a better parent. Think Home Ec for adults.
-You could limit how many kids someone can have. You could be like China and levy huge taxes on each kid or each kid past 1. You're going to need a bureaucracy to track that and it's a bit eugenics-y for some.
-Or if you want to make China look tame, you could dump some sort of birth control into the drinking water like fluoride. Then the only way you could have that turned off to your house or "get the antidote" or whatever is to pass a "birthing license" class just like driver's ed or a concealed handgun.

There are many more but I'm just throwing three potential ones out there. The point being: just saying "parent bad!" and rubbing their nose in it won't make them better parents.

And how about the kids? They just happened to lose the genetic lottery and were thrown into crappy families. So, as a society, what should we do because it's about to become our problem? You just went from 2 crappy useless mouths to field to a potential 7. That's a problem that, as a society, we do have to deal with- more lower income folks who could commit more crimes, who will be less productive members of society, etc. We could just start back up orphanages or just kill them outright as they probably won't amount to much. It's been a pretty popular trope for a while now.

I mean, you can say "just screw em" and we're doing that more and more. But then don't ask me why we're getting our brains beat in on a global competition level. It's simple as we have to spread our precious resources even thinner across a growing and less productive populace. And that's before we get into the consideration of how morally wrong it is.

But my point is that identifying the parents as bad is just that: identifying the problem. But how do you go about and actually fix it?

SI

It's a tough situation. Do you believe that having kids is a right? Or is just a responsibility? I fully understand that things happen to good parents-losing a job, disability, ect.-that is not the issue, and certainly deserve short-term support. City school districts seem to be the case study for irresponsible parents, and I don't think it's a case of spending more money.

I do believe that removing tax deductions for having children is a very small smart. If we are arguing against overpopulation, shouldn't we try to remove any incentives that goes against that?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I do believe that removing tax deductions for having children is a very small smart.

I'm not necessarily against that, but any politician that proposes eliminating child credits and child care credits is dead. There's no gain in telling parents their tax bill will go up by several hundred dollars per child.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not necessarily against that, but any politician that proposes eliminating child credits and child care credits is dead. There's no gain in telling parents their tax bill will go up by several hundred dollars per child.

Oh, I agree...it's a pipe dream though.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/20...reelance-jobs/

Sure- it's an article from CNN saying that freelancing is on the rise- and did you notice that it's not that the number of freelancers went up but that the amount of work being outsourced to freelancers is. It lists an even less complete list of plusses and minuses than I did as it just focuses on what is good for the company and the individual but not whether that's the aim for society, as a whole, which is what I was getting at.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

It's a tough situation. Do you believe that having kids is a right? Or is just a responsibility? I fully understand that things happen to good parents-losing a job, disability, ect.-that is not the issue, and certainly deserve short-term support. City school districts seem to be the case study for irresponsible parents, and I don't think it's a case of spending more money.

I do believe that removing tax deductions for having children is a very small smart. If we are arguing against overpopulation, shouldn't we try to remove any incentives that goes against that?

I think getting rid of the child tax credit would be an excellent first step, tho politically untenable. But I don't think people are suddenly going to stop having kids irresponsibly if we remove one tax credit. That's not even a band aid on a gaping chest wound. It's like saying "we can solve the outsourcing problem in this country with a $5000 tax credit" when the difference in cost is 5x that (or more) and it's just a tax loophole for the companies who lobbied for it.

None of us here are elected officials (well, except Senator but he hasn't chimed in here yet) so we don't have a populace to answer to. If you were dictator of the United States, how would you fix the problem?

SI

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Sure- it's an article from CNN saying that freelancing is on the rise- and did you notice that it's not that the number of freelancers went up but that the amount of work being outsourced to freelancers is. It lists an even less complete list of plusses and minuses than I did as it just focuses on what is good for the company and the individual but not whether that's the aim for society, as a whole, which is what I was getting at.

SI

I know. I just thought it was an interesting article, that's all.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think getting rid of the child tax credit would be an excellent first step, tho politically untenable. But I don't think people are suddenly going to stop having kids irresponsibly if we remove one tax credit. That's not even a band aid on a gaping chest wound. It's like saying "we can solve the outsourcing problem in this country with a $5000 tax credit" when the difference in cost is 5x that (or more) and it's just a tax loophole for the companies who lobbied for it.

None of us here are elected officials (well, except Senator but he hasn't chimed in here yet) so we don't have a populace to answer to. If you were dictator of the United States, how would you fix the problem?

SI

I know it wouldn't stop people from having kids. You also have other social programs/nets that low-income parents can access (and sometimes abuse).

You wouldn't want me to be dictator as the U.S.

Let me ask you this, do you believe that having children is a right, regardless of one's ability to provide and care for them?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

To bring this back around to the initial question: what about de-specializing from being just a programmer to being a programmer and a salesperson? Are those skills we want to emphasize as a society? Do we want to cost ourselves a chance to get better at our specialty in an increasingly specialized world? What is the benefit to society of doing that? Or is that something we should be working against when putting up a framework for business (promoting long term employment through tax breaks rather than allowing contracting to count as an expense, etc)?

There are positives and negatives to both and it's a really complex question: Increased societal stability vs Increased economic "efficiency" for producers? Decreased individual specialization vs Increased individual flexibility? And those are just two really obvious and "simple" axes on a multivariable scale.

SI

If I play conspiracy theory guy for just a moment...the easiest way to continue employing US based labor is to get "smart" people who do not fit the specific criteria that I'm looking for & lowball them.

And how do I find such people? Well, if I'm just 1 company, I cannot expect this to be a very reasonable approach. If I'm 50 of the largets Fortune 500 companies though...I might have a real strategy.

So if those 50 companies take software programmers and "promote" them into project management, functional management (i.e. give them flashy job titles like "Architect") but essentially have them do job functions that are important, but outside of their core skills...those 50 companies can create a pseudo-workforce that can be laid off later & subsequently have "out of date" skills so to speak. In the meantime, we can outsource the sw development & let that go when the time comes to trim back or go into "maintenance mode".

And what that does is effectively neuter the software developers' core skills & make them less "qualified" to do actual sw development (or ride the bike again, if you will) 3-5 years later when they are laid off & back in the job hunt. Rinse & repeat across many technology verticals.

Or at least thats what I'd hypothesize if I were you know...into conspiracy theories.

[sterlingice]

I think it's a lot simpler than that. You're a company and you don't like having to pay a team of 5 "indispensable guys" $100-$200K. You have them document their tasks and split them up into smaller little parts and turn it over to a team of 10 making $40K. Never mind that there are gaps of knowledge that the indispensable guys had - those can't been seen on spreadsheets- but they won't show up until further down the line because of the monopolistic powers, economies of scale, and political power.

And if a bunch of companies do that on a micro level, it has the same effect on the macro level.

SI

[SteveMax58]

Thats true & we see the same things in my company as well as companies that we work with. But where do they all get these ideas from? Why does the spreedsheet cruncher enter the values they enter? And why does the exec trust those values without asking about what might be missing in those values?

I think if you go up a level beyond the spreadsheet crunchers, you'd find its groupthink in action. And where this groupthink comes from are the "consultants" and exec social circles where these poorly formed opinions occur. Not unlike poorly formed opinions that we might more conventionally assign to lower income classes (racial/ethnic prejudices, homophobia, etc.).

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

It's a tough situation. Do you believe that having kids is a right? Or is just a responsibility? I fully understand that things happen to good parents-losing a job, disability, ect.-that is not the issue, and certainly deserve short-term support. City school districts seem to be the case study for irresponsible parents, and I don't think it's a case of spending more money.

I do believe that removing tax deductions for having children is a very small smart. If we are arguing against overpopulation, shouldn't we try to remove any incentives that goes against that?

One of the problems with removing 'tax incentives' is that one of the reasons for poor parenting imho is long work hours, removing tax incentives puts even more pressure on parents to generate income to support their families ... and leaves them less time with them.

Poor parenting isn't restricted to those poorly off or well off imho, it can be a mindset (ie. no interest in parenting) or simply lack of time (working 80+ hours a week and frankly knackered) .....

I know I parent better when I'm working 'sensible' hours than I do if I'm working 80+ hours a week and I try my best to be a very attentive parent, but if you're working long hours then often you're naturally distracted or absent when you should be giving input and advice to your kids.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

One of the problems with removing 'tax incentives' is that one of the reasons for poor parenting imho is long work hours, removing tax incentives puts even more pressure on parents to generate income to support their families ... and leaves them less time with them.

Poor parenting isn't restricted to those poorly off or well off imho, it can be a mindset (ie. no interest in parenting) or simply lack of time (working 80+ hours a week and frankly knackered) .....

I know I parent better when I'm working 'sensible' hours than I do if I'm working 80+ hours a week and I try my best to be a very attentive parent, but if you're working long hours then often you're naturally distracted or absent when you should be giving input and advice to your kids.

It is a mindset, but the number one responsibility of a parent should be able to provide for themselves and their families financially and emotionally (this doesn't mean a lavish lifestyle, either), on their own. If you decide to have children, and you're not in the financial position to have them, should you be rewarded for that with tax incentives (someone else pays for those tax incentives)? If you have a children, isn't it your responsibility to be involved in their education, and not think it is the school's job alone (or to be a baby-sitter)?

[Jacob Typer]

Maybe its time for Wal Mart workers just to stay home.....

[DaddyTorgo]

Valid point someone brought up in discussion that hasn't been pointed out here:

If WalMart, etc. aren't paying their employees at least a "living wage" in the market they're in then the rest of us taxpayers are effectively subsidizing their low wages through foodstamps/welfare etc. to their workers.

Meanwhile the companies are raking in profits and (some are) dodging taxes.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Valid point someone brought up in discussion that hasn't been pointed out here:

If WalMart, etc. aren't paying their employees at least a "living wage" in the market they're in then the rest of us taxpayers are effectively subsidizing their low wages through foodstamps/welfare etc. to their workers.

Meanwhile the companies are raking in profits and (some are) dodging taxes.

I've mentioned this a couple of times - however its like smoking causing deaths, its a hidden effect which most people don't realise and so ignore ....

(same thing with uninsured people getting treated in hospitals, they don't get 'free' care its passed onto everyone in society ... which is one of the many reasons why ObamaCare is a good thing imho)

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Valid point someone brought up in discussion that hasn't been pointed out here:

If WalMart, etc. aren't paying their employees at least a "living wage" in the market they're in then the rest of us taxpayers are effectively subsidizing their low wages through foodstamps/welfare etc. to their workers.

Meanwhile the companies are raking in profits and (some are) dodging taxes.

It's a good point and a reason minimum wages are so important, but can you get welfare if you're making $10/hour? I wish I knew that back in the day. I'm sure if you have kids you can food stamps, but that's subsidizing bad decisions more than its subsidizing low wages.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

It's a good point and a reason minimum wages are so important, but can you get welfare if you're making $10/hour? I wish I knew that back in the day. I'm sure if you have kids you can food stamps, but that's subsidizing bad decisions more than its subsidizing low wages.

Valid point on welfare - was just using that as one example of a program but you're probably right.

Disagree on foodstamps. If you're making that little then you need your cash to go to healthcare & bills, and use foodstamps to cover your food.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I've mentioned this a couple of times - however its like smoking causing deaths, its a hidden effect which most people don't realise and so ignore ....

(same thing with uninsured people getting treated in hospitals, they don't get 'free' care its passed onto everyone in society ... which is one of the many reasons why ObamaCare is a good thing imho)

That's true - I think you did mention it.

[sterlingice]

In short, more privatizing the profits and socializing the losses

SI

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by molson

It's a good point and a reason minimum wages are so important, but can you get welfare if you're making $10/hour? I wish I knew that back in the day. I'm sure if you have kids you can food stamps, but that's subsidizing bad decisions more than its subsidizing low wages.

The problem with not subsidising people if they have kids they can't afford is that if you DONT then its even more likely you'll pay more in the future.

By this I mean if someone grows up on a really poor diet they're more likely to have health issues in the future, combine that with poor education and its likely their work prospects aren't so great either .... which means society either pays in the early years or potentially for the entirety of their life.

The idea for assistance in my mind isn't to simply subsidize people, but to encourage good choices and good parenting etc. (I mentioned for instance making some child related payments linked to school attendance or suchlike) .. this however is a very delicate area and its very hard to draw a firm line on because there are always exceptional circumstances and such things need a 'human touch' (for instance if a child is in ill health and is in and out of hospital a lot then you can't victimise a parent because they're not in school, similarly you can't allow all such parents to just indicate they're 'home schooling' ).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

In short, more privatizing the profits and socializing the losses

SI

Welcome to Hollywood.

[molson]

SO, what do you guys think the minimum wage should be again? Like $20/hour or something? I think the costs of a lot of necessities (and lottery tickets) would go up if people had a little more money to burn. The people at the bottom (especially the ones with kids) are always going to be struggling some.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by molson

SO, what do you guys think the minimum wage should be again? Like $20/hour or something? I think the costs of a lot of necessities (and lottery tickets) would go up if people had a little more money to burn. The people at the bottom (especially the ones with kids) are always going to be struggling some.

I don't advocate the minimum wage going up too much (although I do think it could stand to jump a bit; based on age most likely - ie. if you're an 18 year old college kid living at home you likely don't need quite the same as someone who's 25 and relying on a salary for a living) - I advocate ensuring that the costs of such people go down, through providing health insurance outside of their work, free education etc. .... then recouping that money by actually taxing corporations rather than allowing them to pay a minimal amount through tax dodges.

This ensures that the money isn't wasted (ie. many uneducated people won't buy healthcare if they were given an extra $x per week because they might not plan ahead or have long term thoughts) and goes where its required for the good of all of society.

I'd also invest some of the increased revenue from corporate taxation into the nations infrastructure which in turn would generate jobs and make the country/corporations more competitive on a global scale ....

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

SO, what do you guys think the minimum wage should be again? Like $20/hour or something? I think the costs of a lot of necessities (and lottery tickets) would go up if people had a little more money to burn. The people at the bottom (especially the ones with kids) are always going to be struggling some.

I'm not saying it has to go up (although I think it should get a bump up, yeah). Just pointing out that it's all tied in there: minimum wage, government assistance, your tax dollars, corporate profits.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I don't advocate the minimum wage going up too much (although I do think it could stand to jump a bit; based on age most likely - ie. if you're an 18 year old college kid living at home you likely don't need quite the same as someone who's 25 and relying on a salary for a living) - I advocate ensuring that the costs of such people go down, through providing health insurance outside of their work, free education etc. .... then recouping that money by actually taxing corporations rather than allowing them to pay a minimal amount through tax dodges.

This ensures that the money isn't wasted (ie. many uneducated people won't buy healthcare if they were given an extra $x per week because they might not plan ahead or have long term thoughts) and goes where its required for the good of all of society.

I'd also invest some of the increased revenue from corporate taxation into the nations infrastructure which in turn would generate jobs and make the country/corporations more competitive on a global scale ....

The costs and tax thing I get a lot more than what I perceived as an attack on the hourly rates and what these companies pay. I'm sure in a lot of liberal European countries, people would be struggling a hell of lot more if they were relying on their wages to the degree people do in this country. I think in a capitalist society (Euro or American style), the bottom incomes alone are always going to just barely support a living existence.

[Young Drachma]

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart...es-gdp-2012-11

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Meanwhile the companies are raking in profits and (some are) dodging taxes.

Wal-Mart's profit margins aren't impressive-rather tight.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I don't advocate the minimum wage going up too much (although I do think it could stand to jump a bit; based on age most likely - ie. if you're an 18 year old college kid living at home you likely don't need quite the same as someone who's 25 and relying on a salary for a living) - I advocate ensuring that the costs of such people go down, through providing health insurance outside of their work, free education etc. .... then recouping that money by actually taxing corporations rather than allowing them to pay a minimal amount through tax dodges.

This ensures that the money isn't wasted (ie. many uneducated people won't buy healthcare if they were given an extra $x per week because they might not plan ahead or have long term thoughts) and goes where its required for the good of all of society.

I'd also invest some of the increased revenue from corporate taxation into the nations infrastructure which in turn would generate jobs and make the country/corporations more competitive on a global scale ....

Corporations would just relocate their headquarters and legal incorporation to tax-friendlier countries. Not the smartest stragety, because you'll just push corporations to out other places-at least from a headquarter and legal standpoint.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Wal-Mart's profit margins aren't impressive-rather tight.

Not speaking specifically of Wal-Mart necessarily about that.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Not speaking specifically of Wal-Mart necessarily about that.

What corporations then?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What corporations then?

Pick some - plenty of them are raking in good profits.

In the same report, BEA said corporate profits in the third quarter rebounded to $1.752 trillion (annualized) from $1.665 trillion in the second quarter. Profits in the third quarter grew an annualized 22.7 percent after dropping 1.4 percent in the second quarter. Corporate profits on a year-on-year basis increased 18.6 percent, compared to 14.5 percent in the second quarter

GDP Up 2.7% in Q3, Corporate Profits Grow


News Release: Gross Domestic Product

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/pdf/gdp3q12_2nd.pdfs -- see page 15

Not going to take the time to go out and dig up individual corporate profits over the recent past...I don't think that the "corporate profits are healthy" statement is one that is really widely disputed.

[RainMaker]

Worth pointing out that Walmart actually supports legislation that increases the minimum wage because it is much harder on their competitors.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Corporations would just relocate their headquarters and legal incorporation to tax-friendlier countries. Not the smartest stragety, because you'll just push corporations to out other places-at least from a headquarter and legal standpoint.

Thats why i wouldn't tax them through 'profit' but rather on transactions in some manner, this would avoid a lot of the present tax evasion which corporations do by moving 'visible profit' to a tax friendly country.

At the moment corporations are acting as bullies to governments saying 'tax us less or we'll move our corporate HQ's etc.' ....

The thing is countries actually have a HUGE advantage over corporations without the population of them the corporation can't actually do business - as such the US can play far harder ball than they are to force their hands and regain tax revenue (remember 70% of the US GDP is consumer based thats a truck load of money).

Or to put it another way - a corporation like Apple makes billions of dollars in profit from US sales but pays a pittance in tax, if that tax was doubled over night (in a way they couldn't avoid) they'd still be making a huge profit .. as such they'd still sell in the US because it'd be bad business not to, yes they're making less per unit sold - but they already do that in many countries which aren't as 'flexible' as America is towards corporations .... I haven't seen Apple stop trading in Europe for instance where VAT is charged per sale at 15%.

Basically if someone bullies you rolling over and playing dead (like governments have largely done so far) only encourages them to take further advantage of you in the future - this can be seen in the US through the incredibly poor consumer protection and labor laws generally imho ... its about time things changed and society looked after the people within it, not the corporations.

(end rant )