Sfld Mock Election

Who you voting for?

  • Total voters
    111
Status
Not open for further replies.
Better education is always good, but do construction workers, department store salesperson, restaurant workers etc etc. How would better educating those people give them more money. We will always need those people around to keep the ship running smooth. Someone has to work their jobs and whoever does should make a decent wage is all I am saying.

Personally I would rather go to school and work in some office but thats not an option right now. I agree on the better education, I would take it. At the same time I know there are people out there who would just rather work, as longs as they contribute to society they should be able to have a good life too (to an extent, like I said earlier, if you work at micky Ds then you might just be a lazy prick).

Funny thing is when I think about it I dont really fall into the category of people who need help. I guess becuase I was once there I still feel the sting.

Another reason why I feel the way I do is probably becuase in 2001 I lived a lot better then I do now but now I MAKE DOUBLE WHAT I DID IN 2001. :(
 
If demand exists for jobs that pay low wages, they'll pay low wages.

If people were better educated and didn't have to work at shitty restaurants or department stores, they (employers) would have to offer higher pay to fill positions or seek out people who choose to accept that pay.

Its basic laws of supply and demand.
 
It's many employers fault we're getting paid the shitty salaries we do. When I worked for Komatsu, a co-worker of mine got fired. He had been working there for a year and was making $11/hour driving a forklift. Three days later they replaced him with someone else. I asked the new guy how much he was being paid ( I know it's wrong), he told me he was getting paid $9/hour, and he was doing the same exact job. Employers take this to their advantage. Good business is making as much profit, wasting as little as possible. What better way than paying people a little less. My point is, if you quit your job, your employer could give 3 shits. They know there's a line of people willing to do the exact same job and for less. My example is small potatoes, but this is happening more and more to college graduates also.
 
metaru_gia said:
It's many employers fault we're getting paid the shitty salaries we do. When I worked for Komatsu, a co-worker of mine got fired. He had been working there for a year and was making $11/hour driving a forklift. Three days later they replaced him with someone else. I asked the new guy how much he was being paid ( I know it's wrong), he told me he was getting paid $9/hour, and he was doing the same exact job. Employers take this to their advantage. Good business is making as much profit, wasting as little as possible. What better way than paying people a little less. My point is, if you quit your job, your employer could give 3 shits. They know there's a line of people willing to do the exact same job and for less. My example is small potatoes, but this is happening more and more to college graduates also.
Click to expand...

lol at your sig.
 
Which is why we shouldn't be taxing the shit out of businesses. The first place they cut expenses, whether we like it or not, is employment.
 
charlie a.k.a. chuck said:
lol at your sig.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I originally wanted to make the car look like his airplane.

Tony, you're right. When they raised minimum wage to whatever it is now. I noticed some companies, like McDonald's, had simply just raised they're prices(not by much) to counter the spike in employee salaries. I don't think there's a simple solution to any of this.
 
McDonalds actually pays over minimum wage b/c they couldn't fill their positions at minimum wage which brings me back to my point about supply/demand in the job market. If nobody is willing to work at a given wage rate, employers are forced to increase such rates or figure out an alternative.

They're already testing outsourced drive through tellers at McDonalds. Next thing you know some guy/girl from India will be taking your Big Mac order.:rolleyes:
 
Tonymac said:
McDonalds actually pays over minimum wage b/c they couldn't fill their positions at minimum wage which brings me back to my point about supply/demand in the job market. If nobody is willing to work at a given wage rate, employers are forced to increase such rates or figure out an alternative.

They're already testing outsourced drive through tellers at McDonalds. Next thing you know some guy/girl from India will be taking your Big Mac order.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

fuck i already cant understand the hatians in the drive through its only gonna get worse LMAO
 
Are you not afraid that if we give the companies tax breaks they will just take the money and continue their shady practices? Being a good human and a good business man does not necessarily go hand in hand.
 
It's the same thing with Domino's Pizza. My first job was at a Domino's, I was a Customer Service Rep.(the guy who takes your order). I have a friend who is now the Manager of that Domino's I worked at. Now when you call his Domino's, the call goes to a call center in who knows where. The order just comes up on a screen in his store, and he makes the pizza. No more having to employee CSRs, not all Domino's are like this, but soon they all will be. Not all companies are assholes, some actually care about their people, others just claim to care.
 
How would a reduction in taxes lead to shady practices? And what exactly are you referring to when you talk about such practices.

If anything, the opposite would hold true.

I do believe that corporations need regulation to maintain ethical behavior - that's a given. *cough ENRON*
 
All these companies that receive tax breaks have gotten comfortable receiving them. If you cut them off, they will either take it out on the consumer, or their employees. What I think is, we should give consumers incentives to buy products made in the U.S. instead of giving the companies incentives. That way more consumers would buy American products, and the companies will make more sales. And I'm talking about American companies who make their products using American labor. Not like Ford or Dodge, who claim to be American and some of their products are made in Mexico. Or the biggest descarado of them all, Nike, who claims to be an American company, even though almost all their products are made in Indonesia. And like this there are plenty of other companies.
 
metaru_gia said:
All these companies that receive tax breaks have gotten comfortable receiving them. If you cut them off, they will either take it out on the consumer, or their employees. What I think is, we should give consumers incentives to buy products made in the U.S. instead of giving the companies incentives. That way more consumers would buy American products, and the companies will make more sales. And I'm talking about American companies who make their products using American labor. Not like Ford or Dodge, who claim to be American and some of their products are made in Mexico. Or the biggest descarado of them all, Nike, who claims to be an American company, even though almost all their products are made in Indonesia. And like this there are plenty of other companies.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately in practice that doesn't work.

Shutting out foreign investment would be like shooting ourselves in the feet. Any incentive to buy american is an indirect trade barrier to not buy foreign goods/services. You'll see a backlash from perusing with such practices. We'd also lose stake globally and further fuck ourselves over. Carter tried that crap back in the 70's and really messed us up - look it up.

Like it or not, globalization is real, here to stay, and MUST be taken into careful consideration if we want our businesses to succeed.

drftnR14 said:
I got some water for ur parched throat
Click to expand...

Thanks. :)

I'm actually trying to think of any large scale fully American companies (from materials to labor to distribution to sales) and i can only think of...1 haha. American Apparel. I've been buying from them for years...they make nice t-shirts and v-necks (check them out haha). Knowing its 100% American is comforting.
 
Last edited:
Tonymac said:
How would a reduction in taxes lead to shady practices? And what exactly are you referring to when you talk about such practices.

If anything, the opposite would hold true.

I do believe that corporations need regulation to maintain ethical behavior - that's a given. *cough ENRON*
Click to expand...

Shady as in everything, tax evasion/ loop holes, paying as little as possible and heads of companies getting huge ass gold parachutes.

I just believe if you give the companies huge tax breaks it wont trickle down to the consumer or employees. The CEOs and such will just pocket the extra cash.

Bottom line is someone is always going to pay and its usually the consumer of the employees. Last thing a company wants to do is absorb losses or pay out extra if everything is going better then expected.

Although I will say my buddy works at Publix and he gets great performance bonuses, from everything I here about Publix they are how a company should be run (minus the bullying my buddy got to give money to charity meanwhile he lives in an efficiency :laugh:).
 
You have a very negative and romantic view of corporations.

CEO's bank b/c they're good at what they do. There are famous CEO's in the industry who demand insane salaries b/c nobody else seems to accomplish what they do. Same way pro-athletes and celebrities rake in huge amounts of cash.

The Board of Directors (in a publicly traded company) are who assigns these positions and sets their salaries. Consider all they (the Board) want is an increase in shareholder equity (stock prices). That's how they make money - that's how stock holders benefit.

Business fraud comes into question when there's coercion between board members and the CEO's, CFO's, etc. That is where and why regulations exist today.

If companies are earning extra profits and shareholder equity does not increase, you better believe that the chiefs are going to come under scrutiny by the Board. Profits are never just pocketed. Maybe they'll get bonuses for what they do - but earning a few extra billion as a corporation is good for a multi-million dollar bonus in the eyes of Board members.

Companies like Proctor & Gamble, GE, Johnson & Johnson, etc - know how to treat their employees and don't lay people off or cut salaries unless its absolutely necessary. The few bad apples in the field certainly seemed to have spoiled the harvest when it comes to perception, that's for sure. These guys didn't get where they are by shitting on their workers and pocketing all the profits. It all trickles down b/c the most valuable resource (in modern corporate schools of thought) to a company is its employees.
 
I am very negative for sure, it must be a South Florida thing or becuase I have had very few reasons to jump for joy in my life, I think everyone has been a little negative the past few years.
 
...

oh so thats how the U.S. is. I guess i should just give into Big Brother no matter how corrupt they get. This has been one of the most bullshit thing i've read so far.
Click to expand...

I meant it as a general statement, What makes this country great is the fact that we are not the same as every other country. Socialism is just communism remodeled or close to it. We are a country that fought for independence and we should stay independent from how the world operates. Democrats would turn this place into a government controlled society. As for the failures of the last 8 years you really cant blame it all on the president because the truth is the house and senate are dominated by the dems since Bush came into office. The dems took control when Bush got into office the first time, whats going on currently is a product of those policies.

During Reagans admin he set up an Economic plan that would take ten years to see the fruits of it. By the time Clinton came into to play as president he was riding on an economic plan that was generated by a republican president from 15-16 yrs earlier. It was known as Reganomics. If it were to be the same for every president and how policies really come into play after the presidency than the last 8yrs have been a product of Clintons admin. So when the next president comes into play we all would be dealing with Bushes 8yrs.

Obama's character is shady and the guy wants to talk to Chavez down in South America:ugh:?? Mind you he has been linked with Khalidi who was a leader for the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) a known terrorist network overseas, this was just put out on the news yesterday.

Everyone is entitled to who they want to vote for, when it comes down to it though character affiliations are just as important. If McCain was someone who affiliated with people like this you can guarantee people in the media would be crying foul and everyone knows it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom