The Wall Street Occupation
- Thread starter Ubereil
- Start date
dteowner
Shoegazer
Well then, please do tell.
What will be the cost to business if they do not offer insurance?
What will be the cost to business of policies in Obama's insurance exchange?
What will be the cost to business with facilities in multiple states and/or multiple nations?
What will be the cost to business if they are contractually obligated to offer different levels of benefits (union employees getting more than salary)?
What are the mandatory benefits versus optional benefits and what's the cost breakdown?
Will businesses have to honor domestic partner and/or civil union benefits?
If you can definitively answer even 4 of 6 as they will enforced in 2014, I'll give you a gold star. Otherwise, we'll take it as a quiet admission that perhaps you've been just a little quick on your class warfare attacks?
Thrasher
Wheeee!
All of that should be known. So-called experts should be on top of this. If not, they are not doing their job.
Three things:
I wasn't so much defending their stance as explaining it.
I AGREE that they should take rape reports to the police IE I disagree with OWS stance on this.
The blogger's suggestion to a sollution isn't incompartiable with councelling rapists. And I quoted it for the facts (which would highlight the benefits of councelling - getting the rapists to understand that, really, they are rapists), not for the interpretation.
Because every dollar cut from spending is a dollar removed from your economy, thus even further decreasing demand, slowing up the recovery and decreasing your long term revenue. In other words, Cutting those dollars now won't really help to decrease your deficit.
Übereil
GothicGothicness
SasqWatch
- Joined
- October 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,292
Well, if you saw the movie I posted perhaps it is because they're being offered a bonus ?
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,292
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
Given that large portions of the bill haven't been implemented and are subject to who the government/agencies interpret the bill when they are implemented the best you can do is estimate and the range is pretty big. Not sure how you can expect any 'experts' to do much better when the government can't even tell us.
i would love to see a ton of these protestors get the living shit beaten out of them by the police
Thrasher
Wheeee!
Hmm, that sounds like a cop out to me. Companies are looking for a government scapegoat to blame their lack of hiring. The reality is that the demand is not there.
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
You're a bit late to that party I'm afraid.
Like most things, it's a little of both. It's a real concern, but it's also an easy excuse. There are plenty of cases where there is demand, but companies are afraid to hire, though I'm sure there are plenty where there just isn't much demand either.
dteowner
Shoegazer
So which is it, champ? Here I gave you full marks for "a modicum of gray matter" and you seem to be letting me down. Could you answer even 4 of 6 definitively as the laws will stand in 2014? Your complete lack of an attempt (for that matter, a complete avoidance of the problem entirely) kinda says to me "no". It then follows that you have no basis for your class warfare bullshit. Imagine that.Thrasher said:
dteowner
Shoegazer
It's a very serious problem with a consumer-based economy, particular one based on service industries. You really run into a chicken/egg problem. Crappy economy, people get scared for their jobs. Scared people don't spend. Economy gets worse. Business cuts jobs. Unemployed people really don't spend. Economy gets worse. Business cuts more jobs.
The thing is, there IS hiring going on. It could be even better since the negative loop above also works as a positive loop. What I'm seeing is that companies are being ridiculously picky about whom they hire. In the past, they wanted someone reliable that could learn the job in a reasonable time. These days, they want someone that did every aspect of the exact same job for the past 20 years. That's completely unreasonable by business. On the other side, workers simply don't want to work. Unemployment benefits have been extended for so long that people get out of the habit of working. Entry level wages aren't much more than unemployment and people are simply too short-sighted to consider that you're not entry level forever and unemployment eventually runs out. Similarly, they think that they'll start at $50/hr and be the queen bee from day 1. That's completely unreasonable by workers.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
Listen asshole, I am not an expert on this. For fuck's sake. But the people who are paid to be the experts should be able to bound the problem. Not doing so or trying is just a lazy copout.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
Bullshit. There are LOTS more people whose benefits have run out than have been extended.
I'm pretty sure dte isn't claiming that *all* workers are getting out of the habit of working.
I understand what he's getting at though. I live in an area with a very high unemployment rate, and I know a lot of people who have been unemployed for 6 months or more. Unemployment pays more than a lot of jobs here, and a lot of people seem satisfied with just waiting for their unemployment benefits to run out before seriously trying to find a job.
I understand what he's getting at though. I live in an area with a very high unemployment rate, and I know a lot of people who have been unemployed for 6 months or more. Unemployment pays more than a lot of jobs here, and a lot of people seem satisfied with just waiting for their unemployment benefits to run out before seriously trying to find a job.
dteowner
Shoegazer
I'm well aware that you're not an expert on this, and quite honestly I wouldn't expect you to be so. Obamacare is such a trainwreck that nobody really knows what it means, which is exactly what I said is hampering business in the first place. You, on the other hand, were extremely quick to identify a different root cause of it all (greed of those evil corporations, doncha know). By your own admission, you lack the background to make such a determination (just like the rest of us, including business), but you're foaming-at-the-mouth certain that it MUST be some sinister plot to enrich the rich.
I've got no problem with you skewing every situation we discuss thru your class warfare prism. I just wish you'd have the intellectual integrity to own up to it once in a while.
dteowner
Shoegazer
Taken from an industry newsletter:
This probably supports my assertion that companies are being too picky more than anything else.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
I am not a human resources expert. Those that are should be able to bound the costs. Not doing so is just a copout. And if there is no motivation to hire, why should they when they can line the pockets of execs further?
We have a very similar problem here as well. Almost the same sorts of employees re sought after.
Why is it so ? Imho simply because companies didn't train enough. Intead, they either kept the money together in order to survive the crisis of the last decade (here), or they just didn't train enough becaue there were just too many jobless people out there.
The term "human resources" in itself is in-human.
This term speaks out every single bit of the current belief-system that EVERYTHING can be described in term of money - the so-called "Economization Of Life", so to say (as I call it).
Humans aren't anymore humans - but "resources". And resources are always expendable. Replaceable. Enough money can buy EVERYTHING.
It doesn't care anymore if a thing is living, breathing. It doesn't matter anmore whether there is "Humanity" in it or ot.
All that matters is if "it" can (help) generate money.
And even at the danger of repeating myself once again : This is what I hate most of the Nazis - apart from their racism - that they were defining humans in terms of ability to produce or not to produce. And in the end of every production is money - received through the selling of an product.
Found this via an German-language article : http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_n...ells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street
They must consider this movement as a not small threat; otherwise they wouldn't "use" for much money for going against it.
This isn't democratic, imho, because in a real democracy criticism would be allowed and tolerated …
They must consider this movement as a not small threat; otherwise they wouldn't "use" for much money for going against it.
This isn't democratic, imho, because in a real democracy criticism would be allowed and tolerated …
dteowner
Shoegazer
An interesting response to the whole OWS thing, me thinks. While Thrasher won't like the website, the article does a fairly good job of expressing the opinion without too much partisan foaming.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/14/dude-you-killed-your-job/
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/14/dude-you-killed-your-job/