ping: Nate .. old baja pics

Page 7 of 7  
TBone wrote:


Word play huh? I stated a fact. Most in the USA around the poverty level do indeed have a home, car, tv, A/C and more. Deal with it.

You certainly are arguing that issue exactly. You say employees should get the same return on their 'investment' as the owners. Sorry, but employees are not taking anywheres near the risks that the employees are. Higher risk, higher returns. Plain and simple except for the simple minded.

The owner probably lost everything they owned if the company was in it's early stages. The owner almost always has far more of a risk than any employee.

A job and the benefits it returns, paycheck, insurance, vacations, profit sharing, retirement plan, 401K, SS, WMC, etc. All at the owners expense.

Why? Because owners of new businesses very likely do put a huge amount of their own assets to start it and sustain it until it sustains itself. They take enormous risks despite your claims they don't.

Figures you can't answer a simple question. You complain all workers should make a living wage. How much should an unskilled entry job such as a door greeter make...ok, specifically, where you live. How much should a walmart door greeter make where you live? $10? $20? $30/hr? What Tom...name it....or just be vague and not answer and complain about business owners instead.

Because its a classic example of an unskilled job that you feel should earn a living wage yet refuse to state just how much they should make. You keep saying livable wage but refuse to state how much such a worker should make. Tell me in a particular city, I don't care....NAME IT TOM! You can't but you can whine really good!

So lets make minimum wage $20/hr. Would that reduce poverty one bit? Hell no Tom but you'll never comprehend why it would not change a thing.

You did when you told me I was wrong for getting back more from my company than my original investment. You told me that was greed.

Sucks to be you then Tom? I'm earning well above 8% on my stock investments. If you're not then you've got serious financial investment problems you need to deal with rather than whine here!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

There actually is a difference between "around the poverty level" and "below the poverty level". But even there, I can say that you are completely full of shit. There is also a major wordplay on home. Home can be anything from a Mc Mansion to a run down shack that doesn't even have running water. Sorry Miles, but while many may have some of the things that you listed in the broadest sence of the words, most DO NOT have all of them.

Sorry Miles, but you are completely full of shit. Once the business returns it's initial investment, the owner is at no more risk than any other employee if it fails.

Here we go with that maybe / probably / almost bullshit again. To follow your rules Miles, it either is or it isn't. How about the ones that work for public companies? What risk do their CEO's have for the money they make? I know that you like to fall back to the starting small business owner to back up your bullshit but that is a small number of people. Even you don't fit there anymore as your company is established and if it were to fold tomorrow, you would be no worse off than any of your employees. Actually, you would be better off with your much higher salary and double digit (LOL) returns on your investments that you paid yourself more than enough money to make.

LOL, yea, sure. First of all, any of these expenses are at the business expense, not the owners and not all companies are individually owned. Second, with the amount of uninsured worker here in the US, I would hardly use that a benefit for most and many of the ones that do have insurance are fairly underinsured. 401K sounds good but in reality, unless you are willing to pay your workers enough where they can afford to contribute to them, they mean nothing. As for SS, that is a requirement by the gubberment and if not, probably wouldn't be done. Retirement plans usually means a pension of some type and where you have takes care of yourself very well there, do you offer the same for your employees?

Once again Miles, you don't answer the question and resort to your typical spin so I'll ask again, WHY WOULD THEY JUST WALK AWAY????

Nobody could answer that general of a question Miles and you know that.

Not all but for a full time job hiring adults, yes.

Around the area where I live, probably between $12 to $15 an hour could get a single person by without worring if they will be able to eat and stay warm.

Well, here I would say it would take between $12 to $15 and hour and that would be far from luxury living but would put food on the table in a nice although small 1 bdrm apartment. The point is Miles, if the job isn't worth making a living, then why does it exist?

Sure I do Miles, because greedy pricks like yourself will just jack the prices on everything rather than giving up a penny of your own income.

Damn Miles, now you are spinning yourself.

Sure you do.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Now I understand why your own business endevors haven't led to anything major. Most business owners continue to roll their own money back into the company again and again. If the company begins to struggle due to market issues or whatever the owner most certainly will scrape anything they have to build it back up and keep it running. When a company fails the owner usually fails with it whether you think so or not.

Bull. No two situations are exactly the same. You have stated that once a business returns the original investment then theres no more risk to the owner than the employee. You state it as if thats all cases. It's not even most cases except in your version devoid of reality.

What?? In a public company or any other the CEO's don't necessarily own the company. They are an employee who may have some ownership. If a company fails the major owner(s) will most likely fail with it. The larger the corporation the more diversified the ownership is in most cases.

WTF are you rambling about? If my company folded tomorrow I certainly would lose most of what I own with it. If it starts sinking I most certainly will pour whatever funds I have tied to my own personal property if I felt it would allow it to survive. I would also use my own private funds to make last payrolls etc. I would be the last one paid. Employees would be first. I realize in your world of hate you can't comprehend that concept.

Bull. Any money left in the business is the owners. Theres two places for it. The owners pocket or retained earnings put back into the company. All expenses are that of the owners for every penny they spend is that much less they have for themselves or to put into the company.

So a totally unskilled job should pay $12-$15 an hour? That would also push up wages of other jobs above that. Which in turn will shove prices up. The net result is that the poverty level would remain largely unchanged. I realize you disagree but salaries above market value would do nothing more than raise the market value of goods to match.

Because there are people who need a place to start and work their way up. Same reason part time jobs exist.

lol, always blame employers for all of your problems. Ah yes, the perfect world where the government sets wages and prices of goods. Go move to a country where that very thing exists and then tell me how great it is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You have no idea how any of my businesses have done Miles but I see you are back to the half-truths again. Unless you are an idiot, you should have incorporated by now, even if it is just an LLC. The minute that you do that, the corp becomes its own identity and the money it makes belongs to the business, not you. Sure, you may own it and control where the money goes but the money is part of the business so in reality, you are investing the businesses money back into it, not yours. As for investing your own money back into the business if it gets into trouble, that's a whole different issue. If the business gets into trouble, that's most likely your fault as you are the one running it and if you dump your own money back into it without knowing what went wrong and being sure that you can correct the problem then you are an idiot and deserve to lose it all. I had one business fail and had a few friends lose a business or two as well and we are all just fine Miles. The trick is to know when the ship is sinking and if you cannot save it (which sometimes happens), to get out gracefully and minimize losses.

And the same goes for salaries as well Miles but then you just don't want to hear it and think that I can simply rattle off a cure all salary.

Sorry Miles but as usual, you are wrong. Do you really own anything???

Thanks for repeating what I already said and with that, please justify the huge salaries that they make since they are truly just employees and at no more risk than any other.

Where do you come up with this crap? Sure, that may be the case for a tiny "mom and pop" but they tend not to be all that rich either. I am talking about larger businesses that employ more than 10 people.

Then you are either an idiot or does your company own most of your assets so that you can minimise your tax liability?

Then you would be re-investing in your company and so would any employee that didn't jump ship when and if they get the chance because with the current job market, they would also be risking their home and livelihoods should they become unemployed. But what would you do if you knew early on that you couldn't save it? I doubt that you would let it drain you and if you had half a brain, you would take a loan on the companies assets to try and save it.

Perhaps because that is an act of desperation and stupidity.

LOL, not really. If it is a corp of any type, the money is the businesses under control of its officers. The owner/officer takes a salary just like any other employee along with bonuses and whatever other crap they choose to use to get the most money with the least tax impact. I know that you try and justify your greed by saying that every dime the company makes is all yours and every penny that you don't take is a re-investment in the company but quite frankly, that is a load of crap.

Unskilled doesn't make it easy Miles or unnecessary. That is just an excuse people like you use to justify screwing others.

As it should.

Why Miles? Because the rich execs don't want to give up a penny?

Only with your short sighted right wing greedy viewpoint. If more people have money to spend, they will spend it. That means a bigger market and more money for everyone but that goes against everything that you believe.

With people like you, you are probably right.

Bullshit and just more lame justifications. Why should people have to work up to just being able to survive?

I already do as it has happened here and with the way things are going, probably will again.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

You're talking only about ones legal liability if a company fails. Where your logic becomes absurd is what happens when the company is cash strapped. The owner has a few choices. Fold up shop, or use their own funds to build it back up or sell. Most will put their own funds into it just as they did when they first started the business.

WTF are you rambling about? A company could need the use of more funds than it has available for a variety of reasons. Who knows. It could be doing quite well or going slow due to the economy or whatever. If changes are in order for whatever reason then cash is needed. The owner may wish to make greater changes than the company has in retained earnings.

I have no idea nor do I necessarily feel their salaries are justified. I agree with you that in some cases they seem absurd. Ask the owners why they pay them so much, not me. However, you seem to base your entire belief on business economics on what a very few select large corporate CEO's earn which are only gross examples and not representative.

More than 10 huh? My company has about 125 employees. Most of your rhetoric seems to apply to a very few huge conglomerate corporations that make the mainstream news rounds.

Oh geez. You're clueless TBone. You fail to realize that most owners will in fact do what it takes to keep their business (their dream, their life) afloat. You feel owners just routinely close up shop when the going gets rough. Some might, most do not. They believe in their company as it's their lifes work and more than just $'s. A concept your hatred seems to fail at.

Huh? If I dump a few $100,000 into my company to re-invest and the employees continue working the risk is identical? If it fails I'm out a few 100 grand. The employee won't risk anywheres near that much. Besides, the owners work far more hours than the typical 40 hour week. Try nights, weekends, holidays. Whatever it takes.

Paying employees before myself is an act of desperation and stupidity? If thats the liberal compassionate way of viewing such acts then I'm glad I'm not one!

Prices will go up from the mom & pop shops all the way up to the huge corporations. Raise costs and everything beneath will go up. In your dream world I guess you wish to control both wages and cost of goods.

Nope. It's called economics.

You didn't do so good in basic economics class did you? Call it greed or whatever you want. It doesn't change what happens when consumers have more money. It balances out all the same in the long run. You can't regulate salaries and expect greater buying power.

Sigh. Ya, people shouldn't have to learn a skill and work their way up. Good grief.

Sorry but the USA doesn't regulate wages other than minimum wage and a few issues such as OT etc. And it only regulates a select few markets.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here we go again with you putting your feelings as what most will do.

Even in your above example, unless the company is very small like a mom and pop, if the owner can afford to dump this much money into the company and the company itself cannot afford to do it, then the owner is being greedy and paying themself way to much. A well run company should have that cash on hand or be able to get it if needed.

That is simply not true Miles but even there, these few huge companies tend to be the ones that employ the masses.

How is that Miles, you also talk about investing 100's of thousands into your company and yet, your staring wage is below what someone would need to survive.

And as said before Miles, as with you and many like you, it is a matter of control which is the same reason that you and many like you, make the starting wage way below what most need to even survive. You like to maintain that control over them. As for closing up shop, if the company gets big enough, most owners short of the greedy ones could afford to return enough money back to the company to supply it with enough funds to save it and it would be up to the ones controlling it to come up with a way to use the companies assets to generate the required funds.

Here is the big question Miles, when you say that you dump a few hundred grand back into the company, are you talking company funds or money out of your personal bank account?

Paying your employees before yourself is a good thing Miles. Running the company down to the level that it cannot afford payroll is what's stupid and desperate.

Once again Miles, you see only what you want to see. Wages are not directly linked to the cost of goods. If an employee is making X dollars a month but is only working at 50% capability is given a 20% increase in wages and his output is increased to 75% capability, you have actually decreased the worker contributed cost of goods. If you have more customers, unless your workers are already working at 100%, they can work harder for that increase due to increased denmand for your products which as stated above, can actually reduce your labor costs per piece.

Maybe in your right wing world.

Once again, you more than prove that you really don't know WTF you are talking about.

Work their way up to what Miles, just getting by??? Sorry Miles, but that is just greed and ignorance. People that show up and work hard should start out making enough to get by and work their way up to having the nicer things in life.

Like I said many times Miles, crack open a history book and get back to me.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Just as you feel most business owners are greedy bastards who think only for themselves. Course you somehow relate that only to republicans that are the greedy bastards!

Yes Tom, it is very true. The absurdly paid CEO's you see in the news are extreme examples glorified by people like you. They are not in the majority. Not even close.

My company pays well above the going wage. Also well above benefits including vacation, insurance, profit sharing, matched 401K contributions and more. If all corporations paid their lowest skilled workers $15-$20/hr it would do nothing to raise their standard of living. Ya, I know, thats because greedy bastards would raise the costs of goods which in turn raise costs not only for consumers but for businesses as well. So go move to a country with regulated wages and prices of goods and tell me how great it is.

lol, geez your hatred of all business owners is showing in extreme ways! Now start talking about the controlling liberals with their oppressive social programs. Ya, they just want to help and has nothing to do with power right? Go figure.

Both. If the company needs more funds than it has available either liquid or not then it borrows. If it borrows more than it has in equitable assets then somethings gotta give. Usually the owner takes the risk to back the loans. Large corporations are not what we're talking about here Tom. Those are extreme examples where the company isnt owned by a single owner, nor even a few owners. In those few cases the risks are split up.

Geez Tom, you're clueless! Most businesses have good years and bad. Take large construction companies. They work on about a 4-8% profit margin on a multi-million $ job. They build by turning over the profits from one job to fund another with a bank backing it up. One slow growth year for an area will certainly cause such a scenario. Any funds the company has are tied up with projects that are in progress. Bad business practice? To you perhaps.

Sorry Tom but a salary wage is earned by being productive. A worker thats says they know they suck, do lousy work, but ask for more pay and THEN they'll do better is worthless. The same goes for a company that fails to recognize quality workers and pay them well. Those companies often loose their good employees to the competition.
\> Once again, you more than prove that you really don't know WTF you are

OK Tom, you win. Tell me what country regulates wages where it has raised the standard of living through increased buying power.

Huh? Go ahead Tom. Explain how the USA regulates wages other than what I stated and how it has increase the buying power and lowered poverty.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can sure tell that you don't live in California, Nate... lol We refinanced our old, run down house in CA for $320k to build this one.. we were in what's a "starter" area in Fresno... anywhere near a big city and it would of been twice that cost..

they wanted to, but to the average worker it would be like an almost rich persons house.. Some of the houses in town are little more than shacks (with dish and ac) and some are far nicer than ours..

didn't like.. and that I sure can't say that for the gringos here.. In general, I think the locals are a mixture of curious and grateful of the income.. maybe a bit envious, but I don't pick up on that much... The "trickle-down" theory works here.. We're building houses, so the builders are busy and hiring, the trades are all doing well, the trucking industry is booming and pushing for better roads, etc.. Most of the local stores and restaurants have been doing well enough to remodel and direct marketing for the gringo customer... A lot of folks are doing very well with us here and seem to enjoy absorbing us (and our bucks) into the community..

montana bringing the millions of dollars that they got for selling their homes in california that the property values here are

class to afford a decent home. this (amongst other political reasons) is why the natives tend to dislike californians (im not saying it

their homes in the San Francisco area for a few million and come buy homes in our area for cash, usually at over market prices.. I think it's sort of different here because we're driving the gringo home prices up very fast but not really effecting the price of the local home, except that the demand on material has really made those costs go up... Then again, I'd guess than the average wage in the area has more than triples in the last 5 years..

I've got a freaking cold.. bout the 3rd one this winter, and still sitting in the sun looking at the water.. One downside of being in a place like this is that between folks going to visit family and family visiting here, we always seem to have some kind of bug going around... Must be all the huggin' and hand shakin' they do here..lol
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.