"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:46:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:





All that does is raise the overall tax bar. Eventually the taxes paid by
all will go up
proportionally or consistent with a progressive tax structure.

Taxes for the government is like honey to bears.

and wages paid to the middle class is viewed by companies as an
unnecessary expense.


Oh, please.

Isn't that chip on your shoulder starting to get sorta heavy?

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:46:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


All that does is raise the overall tax bar. Eventually the taxes paid by
all will go up
proportionally or consistent with a progressive tax structure.

Taxes for the government is like honey to bears.
and wages paid to the middle class is viewed by companies as an
unnecessary expense.


Oh, please.

Isn't that chip on your shoulder starting to get sorta heavy?

Eisboch




That's no chip, it's the whole block.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:46:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:





All that does is raise the overall tax bar. Eventually the taxes paid
by
all will go up
proportionally or consistent with a progressive tax structure.

Taxes for the government is like honey to bears.

and wages paid to the middle class is viewed by companies as an
unnecessary expense.


Oh, please.

Isn't that chip on your shoulder starting to get sorta heavy?

Eisboch

It's certainly hyperbole, but it's not far off the mark either. Employees
are an expense that companies would like to minimize whenever possible.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:46:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:





All that does is raise the overall tax bar. Eventually the taxes paid
by
all will go up
proportionally or consistent with a progressive tax structure.

Taxes for the government is like honey to bears.

and wages paid to the middle class is viewed by companies as an
unnecessary expense.


Oh, please.

Isn't that chip on your shoulder starting to get sorta heavy?

Eisboch

It's certainly hyperbole, but it's not far off the mark either. Employees
are an expense that companies would like to minimize whenever possible.

--
Nom=de=Plume




I know that is the conventional wisdom among many but I can tell you for
sure it just isn't
always true. Forget maggots like AIG and the banking industry that leach
off the toils of others.

Think about real businesses.

A key and necessary ingredient to a successful company is growth. Growth is
not possible
without the contributions of qualified and competent employees. Profit
optimization is also key and automation may replace people for some jobs,
but overall the health and future prosperity of a company is largely
dependent on it's employees and growth means more of them. Any honest
business owner knows this. For any product or service there is an ideal $$
in revenue per employee ratio to strive for.
When that ratio is optimized, more employees create more revenues, assuming
market demand. It is good for the business and good for the employees.

That's where the current economic geniuses in Washington have missed the
boat while they have their noses stuck in their textbook reviews of
Keynesian economics. Contrary to popular current opinion, not all business
is bad and growing businesses create jobs.

Eisboch

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:58:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:




A key and necessary ingredient to a successful company is growth.

growth in what?

productivity. and you can do this by reducing headcount and making
people 'work harder'.

Growth is
not possible
without the contributions of qualified and competent employees. Profit
optimization is also key and automation may replace people for some jobs,
but overall the health and future prosperity of a company is largely
dependent on it's employees and growth means more of them. Any honest
business owner knows this. For any product or service there is an ideal $$
in revenue per employee ratio to strive for.

or you j ust make 'em work longer hours, no vacation etc

americans already work 20% more than any other country in the
industrialized world. american workers have been sold a bill of goods
so long they honestly believe it

the social democracies of europe are just as rich as we are. they have
more vacation and universal healthcare

but our rich folks are richer than their rich folks. and to the right
wing, that's the only thing that matters


That's where the current economic geniuses in Washington have missed the
boat while they have their noses stuck in their textbook reviews of
Keynesian economics. Contrary to popular current opinion, not all business
is bad and growing businesses create jobs.

for businesses to grow you need people to spend

people only spend if they have a good income and feel secure in their
jobs

how's that working out?

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:46:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:





All that does is raise the overall tax bar. Eventually the taxes paid
by
all will go up
proportionally or consistent with a progressive tax structure.

Taxes for the government is like honey to bears.

and wages paid to the middle class is viewed by companies as an
unnecessary expense.


Oh, please.

Isn't that chip on your shoulder starting to get sorta heavy?

Eisboch

It's certainly hyperbole, but it's not far off the mark either. Employees
are an expense that companies would like to minimize whenever possible.

--
Nom=de=Plume




I know that is the conventional wisdom among many but I can tell you for
sure it just isn't
always true. Forget maggots like AIG and the banking industry that leach
off the toils of others.

Think about real businesses.

A key and necessary ingredient to a successful company is growth. Growth
is not possible
without the contributions of qualified and competent employees. Profit
optimization is also key and automation may replace people for some jobs,
but overall the health and future prosperity of a company is largely
dependent on it's employees and growth means more of them. Any honest
business owner knows this. For any product or service there is an ideal
$$ in revenue per employee ratio to strive for.
When that ratio is optimized, more employees create more revenues,
assuming market demand. It is good for the business and good for the
employees.

That's where the current economic geniuses in Washington have missed the
boat while they have their noses stuck in their textbook reviews of
Keynesian economics. Contrary to popular current opinion, not all
business is bad and growing businesses create jobs.

Eisboch



You're just wrong. Why do you think there was such a push for robots in car
manu? Remember those high health care costs at GM?

The optimal ratio is one person doing everything with minimal effort.

Never said "all business is bad" and neither did anyone in the current
administration, the current Congress, or any where else in the sane world.
Since the optimal ratio is nearly impossible to achieve, the next best thing
is growing businesses to create jobs, but the shareholders don't want lots
of employees. They want lots of profit, thus there is always going to be
tension between those two points.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


A key and necessary ingredient to a successful company is growth. Growth
is not possible




You're just wrong. Why do you think there was such a push for robots in
car manu? Remember those high health care costs at GM?

The optimal ratio is one person doing everything with minimal effort.



Nonsense. Not all companies are the same. Non-robotic assets that
contribute to depth and overall expertise are critical components of many
companies and enable growth both in sales and revenues.
When you have growth, the company owner(s), employees and community benefit.
I started a company as a one-man-band. It was much, much better in all
respects 11 years later with close to 100 employees. Small, but still
contributed to meaningful employment for those people involved and added
credibility to the company as a whole.

Cynics tend to believe all business owners are out to minimize their
company's dependence on quality employees. I disagree. If one has an idea,
product or a method and can leverage that expertise through several others,
everyone benefits. I eagerly sought and hired good people and the company,
employees and I benefited.

This is the reason I believe legislation is needed to encourage small
business startups and expansion.
It's not the time to penalize small businesses that are struggling to stay
alive. High capital gains taxes is part of the penalty, both for those who
invest in their own business or for those who provide funding for one.

Eisboch

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:04:11 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:46:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:





All that does is raise the overall tax bar. Eventually the taxes paid by
all will go up
proportionally or consistent with a progressive tax structure.

Taxes for the government is like honey to bears.

and wages paid to the middle class is viewed by companies as an
unnecessary expense.


Oh, please.

Isn't that chip on your shoulder starting to get sorta heavy?

oh please. have you looked at your 401K?



Eisboch

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:04:11 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


Oh, please.

Isn't that chip on your shoulder starting to get sorta heavy?



oh please. have you looked at your 401K?


I have very little invested in the stock market. None in a 401K.
I am not much of a gambler with our future financial security.
The $$ that I *did* invest in 2000 has more than tripled.
Might buy another boat.

Eisboch

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:53:41 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:04:11 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


Oh, please.

Isn't that chip on your shoulder starting to get sorta heavy?



oh please. have you looked at your 401K?


I have very little invested in the stock market. None in a 401K.
I am not much of a gambler with our future financial security.
The $$ that I *did* invest in 2000 has more than tripled.
Might buy another boat.

Eisboch

unfortunately the right wing has destroyed pensions in this country so
the middle class only has 401K's left to help us retire


that's why the right stole those, too.