this particular topic

[john hennessy]

i am new to this forum, i read with interest the vicious way in which some people here treat other forum members.

 

i don't believe there is any intentional bad blood between members but that it is more like a sport with words.

 

having said that, members who are not engaged in building or owning a specialty vehicle, even if they are not engaged at this time but intend to, have no place here.

 

i have been to several different counties in the world and lived in many parts of the U.S. in this time i have always found a form of comradery between people involved with the car hobby irispective of their political, religious and economic view of the world.

 

the topics seldom interfear with that common interest.

 

i am a degree qualified electro mechanical engineer, i have an associates degree in vehicle body repair and an A.S.E. certified master mechanic among other qualifications but i do not think this has any effect on the difference between what i know and what other car people know, we are all car people. however i do not like my nabours to know what i do for a living.

 

having said the above there are some other things i should tell you about me, i am English, not British, not Austrailian and not from New Zealand, i am not a U.S. citizen, but before you jump to the conclusion that if i don't like it, i should go home, i am legally here which cost a considerable amount of money to achieve, i am liable for the same taxes as a U.S. citizen but am not allowed to vote.

 

having lived here for some 24 years with some breaks, i have noticed the real standard of living for most Americans dwindle to a point that if it had been like this when i originally came, i would have gone back home straight away, only to return on a vacation.

 

however my situation as of now is that i live in a rural area of Arizona which has not recovered from the great recession of 2008, my only net worth is in my now unsellable house and the prospects of gainful employment are zero.

 

this, i blame on my own stupidity, for not understanding that most American businesses both large and small, only care about making money at any cost.

 

take for instance multi national corporations, they proclame their Americaness at ever oppotunity except at tax time when they are an off shore corperation and not subject to U.S. taxes.

 

small businesses are just as guilty, a business that employs just a small number of workers will deduct income tax from its employees wages before the worker even sees them and at tax time claims a deduction for buying a new vehicle and the gas it used in the year, the result being that the workers paid for that new vehicle and its running expenses not only by the fruits of their labour generating profits for the business but also with the taxes they thought were going to provide various government services they need.

 

most large corporations openly give money to politians for one thinly disguised reason or another to bias their position to the corporations advantage,

 

small businesses also do this by being members of the chamber of commerce, an organisation which accepts money from foregn governments and foregn controlled corperation and uses that in the lobbying system to further these foregn companies agendas which may be the demise of American small businesses.

 

do you not think that a company like Walmart would give money to the chamber of commerse to promote the removal of the minmum wage, if so think again.

 

almost 20% of american workers on a payrole who are subject to deductions directly from their wages have no privaledges like overtime pay or vacation time and are paid by commission only, they are not able to claim tax deduction for any expences like a self employed person is but may be required by their employer to invest considerable amount of money for equipment to get the job in the first place.

 

most peoples interface with technology is in the vehicle they drive, this technology is generally beyond their comprehension and is usually their most expensive purchase other than the house they live in.

 

however most vehicle technicians are paid "flat rate" a system where they get paid a rate for only the work they do correctly, this is o.k. if your work is repetative on the same or similar vehicles day in day out, if you work for an independant shop then this is not the case and to earn 40 hours pay for 40 hours work is in most cases impossible so they work in excess of 50 hours to get 40 hours money, there is no vacation pay and no enhanced overtime rate, the law specifically allows this, add to the situation that most vehicle technicians are self taught, be it "on the job" or at "college" at their own expense and on day one are expected to have a professional level tool kit which will cost around $20.000. you can see that because of the technical level required, the "college" option is now predominant i you want to get the job.

 

to compound this problem, the hours to perform a particular task are not open to modification due to unexpected difficulties encountered performing the task but are established by the vehicle manufacturer and set in stone based on warrenty obligations and the cost of those. every time a new vehicle appears on the market the manufacturer sets times for all jobs and the technician must climb a steep learning curve if he or she wants to make any wages.

 

i have said enough but while these inequities exist in the business world, there is no hope of a solution.

[Off Road SHO]

Wow. Just wow.

[coffee break]

John, you did chose the proper location for a thread of this nature. Having lived in the South all my life, I don't have your experience of traveling, but I do read the papers so to speak.

There is no such thing as fairness on this earth. Each society has it's class or caste system. If you really want to be a pessimist you may say, "Life's a b!tch, then you die"

Having said that, Don't give up! Make some lemonade.

[Manshoon11]

that most American businesses both large and small, only care about making money at any cost.

 

Not accurate.

 

they proclame their Americaness at ever oppotunity except at tax time when they are an off shore corperation and not subject to U.S. taxes.

 

They pay taxes in the country they are operating in and cannot bring the dollars home without paying said taxes.

 

a small number of workers will deduct income tax from its employees wages before the worker even sees them

 

There is no requirement to pay income taxes first.

 

the result being that the workers paid for that new vehicle and its running expenses not only by the fruits of their labour generating profits for the business but also with the taxes they thought were going to provide various government services they need.

 

The employee isn't paying for anything in this scenario.

 

Is it also evil when I or others take deductions when filing our taxes? My tax rate is 2x what my effective tax rate is. Am I evil?

 

most large corporations openly give money to politians for one thinly disguised reason or another to bias their position to the corporations advantage

 

Right. So is larger government the solution? (more power for which a corporation can purchase)

 

do you not think that a company like Walmart would give money to the chamber of commerse to promote the removal of the minmum wage, if so think again.

 

They would.

 

almost 20% of american workers on a payrole who are subject to deductions directly from their wages have no privaledges like overtime pay or vacation time and are paid by commission only, they are not able to claim tax deduction for any expences like a self employed person is but may be required by their employer to invest considerable amount of money for equipment to get the job in the first place.

 

Your cost of employment is your wage. Add up all benefits and all income earned. Include the taxes that the employer pays on YOUR behalf. Include all of the insurance the employer must also pay for you. Artificial demands for increases in benefits, wages etc. will be offset in some way.

 

And they ARE able to deduct those expenses.

 

to compound this problem, the hours to perform a particular task are not open to modification due to unexpected difficulties encountered performing the task but are established by the vehicle manufacturer and set in stone based on warrenty obligations and the cost of those. every time a new vehicle appears on the market the manufacturer sets times for all jobs and the technician must climb a steep learning curve if he or she wants to make any wages.

 

The rate is set at a level that is expected to be met. This includes the ability to, on average, achieve profits. Any employee starts by costing the employer money. The employer takes a chance by hiring anyone. Sounds like a great deal to me.

 

i have said enough but while these inequities exist in the business world, there is no hope of a solution.

 

There is no such thing as equality. No one is forced to apply to these jobs you highlight. Everyone wants profit sharing. How about loss sharing too? :puke:

 

Most want stable, reliable income. They decide to not take risks to achieve this. The capitalist starts on day one with all of his money invested. Not only does he expect to regain the invested funds, but to earn a rate of return. This pursuit of profits precedes the hiring of employees.

 

:grouphug:

[Mondo]

I agree with this guy

 

[Manshoon11]

Contrarian argument? LOL. That TED talk is the antithesis of contrarian.

 

 

 

Now for some long forgotten contrarian logic.

 

T

he economic goal of any nation, as of any individual, is to get the

greatest results with the least effort. The whole economic

progress of mankind has consisted in getting more production with

the same labor. It is for this reason that men began putting burdens on

the backs of mules instead of on their own; that they went on to invent

the wheel and the wagon, the railroad and the motor truck. It is for this

reason that men used their ingenuity to develop 100,000 labor-saving

inventions.

All this is so elementary that one would blush to state it if it were

not being constantly forgotten by those who coin and circulate the new

slogans. Translated into national terms, this first principle means that

our real objective is to maximize production. In doing this, full employment—

that is, the absence of involuntary idleness—becomes a necessary

by-product. But production is the end, employment merely the

means. We cannot continuously have the fullest production without

full employment. But we can very easily have full employment without

full production.

Primitive tribes are naked, and wretchedly fed and housed, but

they do not suffer from unemployment. China and India are incomparably

poorer than ourselves, but the main trouble from which they

suffer is primitive production methods (which are both a cause and a

consequence of a shortage of capital) and not unemployment. Nothing

is easier to achieve than full employment, once it is divorced from

the goal of full production and taken as an end in itself. Hitler provided

full employment with a huge armament program. The war provided

full employment for every nation involved. The slave labor in

Germany had full employment. Prisons and chain gangs have full

employment. Coercion can always provide full employment.

Yet our legislators do not present Full Production bills in Congress

but Full Employment bills. Even committees of businessmen recommend

“a President’s Commission on Full Employment,” not on Full

Production, or even on Full Employment

and Full Production. Everywhere

the means is erected into the end, and the end itself is forgotten.

Wages and employment are discussed as if they had no relation to

productivity and output. On the assumption that there is only a fixed

amount of work to be done, the conclusion is drawn that a thirty-hour

week will provide more jobs and will therefore be preferable to a

forty-hour week. A hundred make-work practices of labor unions are

confusedly tolerated.

:rant:

[speedwagon]

It never ceases to amaze me that a person can be a liberal democrat union member and when they finally are able to buy a small piece of land and 3 cows, they suddenly start listening to rough limpbrow, and become a republican. It is entirely possible to be an employer and pay and treat your employes well and fairly and still make a good return on your investment and time, But only too often greed turns a person into something previously held in contempt. If you wish to be an employee, find one of the good employers, do well by them, and leave when you feel that you are being treated unfairly. As they will leave you if you do not treat them fairly. I have been- a business man, management, a union official/worker, a union employer, union worker, and old and retarded, in that order and find that our system is not perfect, but works as well as possible when humans are involved. Personally "I play with the toys in the closet"

[Manshoon11]

rough limpbrow

 

:rofl:

[john hennessy]

Manshoon11,

 

i will address the points in the same order.

 

1. i have worked for businesses that are not greedy and do not look on profits as the #1 over workers, i do not know of any that are still in business, having been beaten out of the market by cut throat practices.

 

2. they will always choose a place where there is no taxation, and the whole point is home is not the U.S. its a tax shelter.

 

3. employeres are required to deduct tax and social security from a full time employee who has not claimed 1099 self employment option.

 

4. a self employed person can claim for cost of doing business but an emlployed person cannot claim for necesary expenses to keep their job.

to use the mechanics example, a self employed mechanic travels 50 miles to work under a sevice contract to fix vehicles, he can claim for his time and any milage expenses incured, a mechanic employed by a company cannot claim for the cost of going to work even if its the same 50 miles.

 

5. the size of the government is not the problem, the honesty of the elected officials is but when the foxes are in charge of the hen house, they will eventually eat all the chickens, unfortunatly the electorate don't seem to notice that the eggs are getting less and less.

 

6. and they do.

 

7. again, 20% of all workers in this country have no benefit package at all and are by law exempt from enhanced overtime rate.

they may be required to work more than 40 hours a week but recieve no wages at all, in which case the employer will deduct any costs from the employee pay on a week when they do earn money, some sales consultants employed by Macy's are paid like this.

 

8. the rate is set by the vehicle manufacturer to limit the cost of warrenty claims and to promote the service department business, the difference in what the company charge for an hour labour and what the technician gets paid has been steadily increasing, in 1960 it was approximatly a 60 - 40 split in favor of the company, now it is on adverage 80 - 20 split in favor of the company.

if you have prooven skills then the employer doesn't really take a chance at all.

 

9. well, what can i say, when the rate is set so low, i guess the employee is loss sharing all the time and with no benefit package there is no profit sharing either.

 

10. commission bases employment is not a stable or reliable income, if the capital system were to operate correctly, what you say is true, where capitalists invested there money in the economy to make it grow but when its in an off shore bank it is not invested in the economy, i would add to your last line "and a stable, reliable" income for its employees.

 

man this is fun.

[Manshoon11]

i have worked for businesses that are not greedy and do not look on profits as the #1 over workers, i do not know of any that are still in business, having been beaten out of the market by cut throat practices.

 

There is a lot of information missing there. Any business that survives, while another does not is likely to be more efficient. That more efficient business continues to employ people. Their wages continue to be >0.

 

they will always choose a place where there is no taxation, and the whole point is home is not the U.S. its a tax shelter.

 

A business operating in China will be taxed accordingly by China. How is this no taxation? Why does the business become evil by choosing to only pay foreign taxes and keep those dollars overseas? USD is useful beyond our borders.

 

3. employeres are required to deduct tax and social security from a full time employee who has not claimed 1099 self employment option.

I was a bit off on this comment earlier.

 

a self employed person can claim for cost of doing business but an emlployed person cannot claim for necesary expenses to keep their job.

to use the mechanics example, a self employed mechanic travels 50 miles to work under a sevice contract to fix vehicles, he can claim for his time and any milage expenses incured, a mechanic employed by a company cannot claim for the cost of going to work even if its the same 50 miles.

 

But there are many things this person can claim. I do not want you to think I am defending the current system or tax code.

 

the size of the government is not the problem, the honesty of the elected officials is but when the foxes are in charge of the hen house, they will eventually eat all the chickens, unfortunatly the electorate don't seem to notice that the eggs are getting less and less.

We've had these same allegations against "big business", most notably around 1900. Government has exploded in size. And you say that the eggs are getting less and less. What is your solution in light of this?

 

again, 20% of all workers in this country have no benefit package at all and are by law exempt from enhanced overtime rate.

they may be required to work more than 40 hours a week but recieve no wages at all, in which case the employer will deduct any costs from the employee pay on a week when they do earn money, some sales consultants employed by Macy's are paid like this.

 

You think this is a problem. I don't. It is a problem for you, and you don't have to accept one of these jobs. Despite the alarms you raise, there are many that walk in there and ask for an application.

 

he rate is set by the vehicle manufacturer to limit the cost of warrenty claims and to promote the service department business, the difference in what the company charge for an hour labour and what the technician gets paid has been steadily increasing, in 1960 it was approximatly a 60 - 40 split in favor of the company, now it is on adverage 80 - 20 split in favor of the company.

if you have prooven skills then the employer doesn't really take a chance at all.

 

It is always a chance, just to what degree....

 

I'll take your figures at face value. What does "the company" do with the 80% of the revenues?

 

well, what can i say, when the rate is set so low, i guess the employee is loss sharing all the time and with no benefit package there is no profit sharing either.

I kind of see what you are saying, but I am being very specific.

 

Everyone wants more money if the company is highly profitable, but no one wants to share in losses when the company is failing. Even when I am making no money for the company, I get positive pay. For that period of time, my company is in the red.

 

commission bases employment is not a stable or reliable income,

 

No commission is not reliable. I changed careers due to having a job that was 80 percent travel. I would be home up to 1 week at a time, but it may be longer.......2 or even 3 weeks. I was personally unhappy with that uncertainty. I moved on. Someone else took my place.

 

if the capital system were to operate correctly, what you say is true, where capitalists invested there money in the economy to make it grow but when its in an off shore bank it is not invested in the economy, i would add to your last line "and a stable, reliable" income for its employees.

 

What do you consider the $USD you have right now? Is it not "in the economy"? When is it in the economy? When you buy something? And then what? Is it then removed from the economy again? Should those same dollars never stop flowing? When you are on Ebay, do you wish those offshore dollars were bidding against you on items?

 

 

Thanks for being civil. :grouphug:

[john hennessy]

Mansshoon 11,

 

the moment we loose the ability to be civil we loose any hope of winning, that then would descend into anarchy.

 

an overall thought appears to be running through your arguments, that there is plenty of employment and people can, at will change jobs if they don't like who they work for.

 

when most people leaving colledge have a student loan of many thousands, people of lesser education seem to only have work oppotunities in service industries with poor wages and the unemployment rate is as high as it is, much higher than the government posts in some regions, people tend to take what they can get and adopt a dog eat dog mentality just to keep the wolf from the door.

for many, the great recession is still as bad as ever.

 

as far as dollars in the economy, do you know where money comes from?

we have a situation where banks create money on a daily basis, it would seem without any consern for how much is in circulation.

 

any main street bank that writes a morgage is creating money, they are permitted to loan many times the amount that they have on deposit, thus creating money.

this is only off set by funds going out of the economy by being placed on deposit somewhere, any where.

 

when a business is making a loss, there bank recommends that it is layoff time for its employees.

 

a multi national company, we will call it a holdings company in that it holds stock in other companies it has created, one company is a genuine U.S. company, this handles the retail side of the operations, another company is a mexican company, this handles the manufacturing, since the NAFTA agreement, the plant in Mexico charges the U.S. company for the goods it produces, this would be o.k. if this charge reflected the actual cost of manufacture, alas this cost is grossly over inflated, almost to a point where the retail price is non profitable but due to the lax taxation in mexico for mexican companies almost no tax is applied to the exported goods, just like if you live in one U.S. state and buy goods from another, the U.S company is operating at a break even state and thus pay little in tax, so the mexican company pays no tax and the U.S. company pays no tax but the holding company makes all the profits from both and is free of the tax burden.

if you see a company that states it is a wholly owned subsidiary of another company, this is what is going on.

 

just a note about where the 80% goes in the car industry, have you ever heard of GMAC, before the crash of the auto industry giant, this was a subsidiary of G.M. which financed car dealerships nation wide because they were all in debt up to their eyes and as the market went belly up so did they and because of the nature of banks and generating money, at first GMAC was the hot stock to buy because it was extending their risk and inventing money in the process but just like the housing bubble which was also a money generating sceme which GMAC had also expanded into ( anti truss) had no actual capital to weather the crash in the auto business or the housing market.

part of the dealership agreement with G.M. was that they finance the vehicles sold with GMAC but they were already finance through the dealer requirement agreement, every time the dealership sold a car one agreement superseeded the other from wholesale to retail, thus inventing money.

 

i do hope you are not someone who believes that the dollar is supported by a pile of gold in Fort Knox.

 

on average a corporation in the U.S. has about 30 - 40 % capital compared to its borrowing, most banks have less than 10% capital and the rest is borrowed from the federal reserve bank at almost 0% interest, the federal reserve is a non government organisation owned and operated by a multitude of international banks given the task of manufacturing money, a task they are very good at.

 

the housing crash was partly allowed to happen due to the bundled investments being covered under a credit default swap which, like an insurance policy garrenteed the value of the bundle. alas,if they had called it an insurance they would have had to proove that they had sufficient capital to cover the risk but by calling it something else they did not and when the shortfall was discovered the house of cards came tumbling down, together with the value of the home that i just spent my life saving building with my own hands

 

if you build a house and buy all the parts to build it, you pay sales tax on these materials, if you keep them in a pile on your lot, that is all you pay, however if you rearrange these items into a house then up goes your property tax.

 

if you buy a house no one pays tax on anything, because they are tax exempt.

[MightyMike]

What's your point John? Can you summarize it in one sentence?

[john hennessy]

o.k. i've been found out,

 

when i joined this forum, i was surprised to actually see a topic clasification for politics and religion, well what can i say, i had to dip my toe in that water, if only to see wether i would be censored.

 

i was very careful not to go the religion way and also not bash any one particular politition or party, so i chose economics.

 

while the veiws held in the posting may be mine, i was please that there were good and sensable responses with no personal attacks, so can only conclude that true to the forum, you can have a political argument in civil manner.

 

just one last thing to say, .

 

i hope that persons reading my posts will check things out for themselves, and if you are told something by someone more than three times without the addition of raw data to back it up, then treat it with suspision.

 

idon't think there is a solution,we are far beyond that, even an armed rising would not work, if successfull, who would run the country then, a bunch of fanatics with guns drawn.

 

how many people still think that the Iraquis were resposable for 911?

 

it wouldn't bother me if the presedent was from the planet mars if he, she or it was a good presedent.

Edited July 12, 2014 by john hennessy

[Manshoon11]

an overall thought appears to be running through your arguments, that there is plenty of employment and people can, at will change jobs if they don't like who they work for.

 

If this were unhampered, there would be jobs for any that were willing and able.

 

when most people leaving colledge have a student loan of many thousands, people of lesser education seem to only have work oppotunities in service industries with poor wages and the unemployment rate is as high as it is, much higher than the government posts in some regions, people tend to take what they can get and adopt a dog eat dog mentality just to keep the wolf from the door.

for many, the great recession is still as bad as ever.

 

People need to align their skills with jobs. This can't be planned from the top, it just needs to happen.

 

as far as dollars in the economy, do you know where money comes from?

$USD is created by the government when it spends. Loans create deposits, etc...

 

we have a situation where banks create money on a daily basis, it would seem without any consern for how much is in circulation.

 

No, banks do not care. Fractional reserve banking means that it is in their interest to extend credit.

 

when a business is making a loss, there bank recommends that it is layoff time for its employees.

 

Optimally.

 

 

the U.S company is operating at a break even state and thus pay little in tax, so the mexican company pays no tax and the U.S. company pays no tax but the holding company makes all the profits from both and is free of the tax burden.

if you see a company that states it is a wholly owned subsidiary of another company, this is what is going on.

 

I don't know everything about this topic. But, I do hold the view that we should have free trade. No tariffs. No export subsidies. True competition amongst states, countries etc.... If it is cheaper for a company to operate in Nevada to sell into California, then California has decisions to make to rectifiy this.

 

i do hope you are not someone who believes that the dollar is supported by a pile of gold in Fort Knox.

 

Without government taxation and legal tender laws, there would be no U.S. Dollar.

 

on average a corporation in the U.S. has about 30 - 40 % capital compared to its borrowing, most banks have less than 10% capital and the rest is borrowed from the federal reserve bank at almost 0% interest, the federal reserve is a non government organisation owned and operated by a multitude of international banks given the task of manufacturing money, a task they are very good at.

 

Now I am glad I asked the questions I asked. I see common ground between us.

 

if you build a house and buy all the parts to build it, you pay sales tax on these materials, if you keep them in a pile on your lot, that is all you pay, however if you rearrange these items into a house then up goes your property tax.

 

 

Good one.

[Mondo]

Manshoon, I take it your for a race to the bottom... no problem with our way of life descending into that of a 3rd world country (some say we're already approaching it). Basically, survival of the fittest, damn everyone else.

Henry Ford was smart enough to realized his workers needed a wage that would allow them to purchase his products. I think corporate America has forgot that. It's more of a get all you can while you can mentality nowadays.

Imagine if all the tax breaks went to the middle class instead of corporations, do you really think there would be no businesses, that some enterpreanor couldn't make a profit or compete? One problem is competition isn't fair among business. Large businesses have lobbied to make laws that give them advantage over others. I was surprised that business didn't want universal healthcare for the fact that it would be an equal cost for all businesses. One less thing to have to factor when competitively bidding.

It's not always trying to make the biggest profit, it's sometimes just trying to outbid others that leads to no health insurance, matching 401, etc... downward we go

[john hennessy]

one sentence, difficult but i'll try.

 

if the poor were gone and the middle class were gone, then the least rich of the rich would be the poor and become the target of the super rich.

[speedwagon]

one sentence, difficult but i'll try.

 

if the poor were gone and the middle class were gone, then the least rich of the rich would be the poor and become the target of the super rich.

 

And this too shall come to pass. And at that point I will be looking up laughing.

[NVP66S]

I'm on this site to discuss cars and get away from political crap, but I can't resist this thread any longer. I'll start with a quote from Robert Heinlein: "Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded - here and there - now and then - are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny majority is kept from creating or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck" "

 

I'll add an observation of my own: Capitalism is an economic system concerned with the creation of wealth. Socialism is a government system concerned with the distribution of wealth. Rich nations are rich because they allow capitalism to create wealth and poor nations are poor because their governments do not allow capitalism to create wealth.

 

And I'll throw in: "You don't help the poor by hurting the rich"

 

I've been around the block several times, more professionally than socially, but I know folks from all walks of life. I have the acquaintance of a few billionaires and got to know pretty well a direct descendent of Commodore Vanderbilt, to whom a lot of "I hate the rich" invective is directed. Let me say this: I have never, never heard anyone discussing how to keep the poor down. If that really is the case It's most likely from politicians or professors. Not capaitalists.

[powderbrake]

It is difficult to resist flaming the drivel that I have seen in this topic, and I do not agree that corporations work to keep the workers down.

 

I have been a principal or owner of 4 businesses. A service business, a real estate business, a sporting goods busines, and a manufacturing company. I have been president of two manufacturing companies. I have endured having 3 companies I worked for or was president of, be purchased by 2 different manufacturing companies and one venture capitalist. I purchased a manufacturing company and rolled it into the one I was running.

 

So, I've been around the block a few times, and I have had 55 years of manufacturing experience. I have NEVER heard or experienced any owner, principal, stockholder, venture capatalist or executive express any comments related to screwing the worker, or keeping him down.

 

In fact, there is always great concern that in times of change, the workers, both plant and office, be carefully treated to insure their staying with the company, and that their insurance, benefits and fringes be maintained.

 

If you have at least a partial fragment of a brain, you know that the people are the assets that are important, and you cannot succeed without them.

 

I am no different than most executives, owners or presidents of companies. They know what it takes to make a buck ( which is the basic purpose of business) and who helps them do that. Those evil "people" and "corporations" are the minority, not the representative group.

 

So to those who claim the companies are ruining everything, I say, get off your butt and start a company and see what it takes. Yes you have the right to complain and bitch and snipe from the sidelines, this is America. We have a constitution and hundreds of years of soldiers fighting and dying to protect your right to bitch.

 

I also have a right to ignore your silly ass bitching, and so I choose to ignore it.

[xcarguy]

It is difficult to resist flaming the drivel that I have seen in this topic, and I do not agree that corporations work to keep the workers down.

 

I have been a principal or owner of 4 businesses. A service business, a real estate business, a sporting goods busines, and a manufacturing company. I have been president of two manufacturing companies. I have endured having 3 companies I worked for or was president of, be purchased by 2 different manufacturing companies and one venture capitalist. I purchased a manufacturing company and rolled it into the one I was running.

 

So, I've been around the block a few times, and I have had 55 years of manufacturing experience. I have NEVER heard or experienced any owner, principal, stockholder, venture capatalist or executive express any comments related to screwing the worker, or keeping him down.

 

In fact, there is always great concern that in times of change, the workers, both plant and office, be carefully treated to insure their staying with the company, and that their insurance, benefits and fringes be maintained.

 

If you have at least a partial fragment of a brain, you know that the people are the assets that are important, and you cannot succeed without them.

 

I am no different than most executives, owners or presidents of companies. They know what it takes to make a buck ( which is the basic purpose of business) and who helps them do that. Those evil "people" and "corporations" are the minority, not the representative group.

 

So to those who claim the companies are ruining everything, I say, get off your butt and start a company and see what it takes. Yes you have the right to complain and bitch and snipe from the sidelines, this is America. We have a constitution and hundreds of years of soldiers fighting and dying to protect your right to bitch.

 

I also have a right to ignore your silly ass bitching, and so I choose to ignore it.

 

I'm not much for argu . . . ah . . . . debating politics or economics (not even going to pretend that I can add anything to this thread that's beneficial one way or the other), but I do want to say that the Company with which I am currently employed has been good to me (and my family, for that matter) in ways that I had never dreamed of before coming aboard in 2007. In the past, I've also worked for those who would squeeze you like the proverbial lemon for everything they could take from you. Sometimes it was a case of bad management at a certain level; other times it was just the way the organization did business as a whole. Anyway, I’ll sit back down and be quiet for some ringside viewing.

 

:cheers: . . . . . :flag: . . . . . . . :lurk: