Obama 2012?

**CivilWars** · 01-29-12, 03:22 PM

And deregulation and anti-monopoly are not mutually exclusive. See phone and electric deregulation for some examples.

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

**deathgodusmc** · 01-29-12, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Bubbasam

Well on average your statement is complete bullshit. Actually it is complete bullshit is my business -a restaurant. My labor costs are about 27-29% on average. Your statement above says that I will be making more from each employee than I pay them. Man...I wish I had a 27-29% profit margin. And I guarantee MOST small business only dream of a profit margin like that. Do me a favor and list me some people you know that own businesses that make more than their employees (labor costs).

100% accurate. As a business owner you pretty much know going in your money isn't based off what you expect to make off of each employees work. 9 times out of 10 the bulk of your money comes from product mark up and the ability to not buy more then you need.

**CivilWars** · 01-29-12, 03:53 PM

Also, with choice we have to realize that some people/companies make bad choices. Deregulation didn't kill the banking industry in and o itself, greed did. Greed by the banks, the investors, and the home owners.

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

**WickedTribe** · 01-29-12, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Bubbasam

Well on average your statement is complete bullshit. Actually it is complete bullshit is my business -a restaurant. My labor costs are about 27-29% on average. Your statement above says that I will be making more from each employee than I pay them. Man...I wish I had a 27-29% profit margin. And I guarantee MOST small business only dream of a profit margin like that. Do me a favor and list me some people you know that own businesses that make more than their employees (labor costs).

I didn't say that you were making more than 100% profit on each employee, I said that you make more than you spend. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any reason to hire new people. If companies lost money for each employee, they'd become less profitable as they grew.

**WickedTribe** · 01-29-12, 04:13 PM

Sageworks | Profits Per Employee Increase

This is pretty basic stuff. Of course a company expects to make a profit on each employee - otherwise, there would be no incentives to grow. Contrary to what the right-wing propaganda machine may tell you, companies don't hire employees as a form of charity.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-29-12, 05:25 PM

After rereading your post original post your not wrong. However the expected profit from an employees labor to wage is extremely low. In most cases for small businesses its almost nonexsistant.

**SapiensErus** · 01-29-12, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

So you support choice, but you also support regulation? Isn't that a little bit of an oxymoron as regulation would limit the choices of someone? So do you support my choice to own firearms, including "assault rifles", or do you support the regulations proposed by many Democrats?

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

This is a very good question, Civ.

Gun Control does not mean a ban. I support gun control but I own guns, in a variety of flavors; and I love shooting them. But I think, and I hope you agree, that some people, who have demonstrated themselves unsafe should not have access to guns. Serial rapists and murderers come to mind... A background check is a form of gun control, and I think we should make sure that certain people can't get them easily. But I would carry concealed if I felt the need for it. I feel pretty safe most of the time...

Some democrats would ban all guns; Biden has said he would. Many would not. There are choices to be made. Not one way or the other. As I keep saying, these issues about choice are never black and white. it seems like the conservative party members are held to a much more strict litmus test on these key talking points. That's one of the reasons I say that Democrats are the party of choice. It is broadly obvious that gun control is grey, and many democrats vary on the subject. They can actually have a discourse about it, and I feel are more likely to do what voters ask for in the end.

Also: The very document the GOP has for there platform description professes to enforce certain things, which despite the language choice can simply be summarized as based on specific religious beliefs. I cannot abide that at all.

**SapiensErus** · 01-29-12, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Also, with choice we have to realize that some people/companies make bad choices. Deregulation didn't kill the banking industry in and o itself, greed did. Greed by the banks, the investors, and the home owners.

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

Deregulation certainly facilitated greed in the end result; likewise I am sure greed facilitated some of the deregulation. I am not sure what you are arguing: Clearly people are greedy and corruptable, so what we need is to regulate certain things to make it so people cannot do that. Right?

Regulations need to be enforced. Strong jaws mean squat without some teeth. That costs money unfortunately. I will use End Of Pipe standards as an example again: EOP standards specify that x level of some pollutant is allowed to be emitted from some facility into the environment. It is determined based on the Best Available Technology (BAT). If a company exceeds EOP for the BAT they pay a fine. Under Clinton the fine grew exponentially per violation. It was not fiscally feasible to avoid an upgrade to the BAT. However, under Bush, the law was adjusted so it was a flat fine. This allowed the polluters (who could afford so) to pay the fine as if it were an operational fee. I just don't get it... A law as a facade is not a law, but lobbyists can make them that way. We need to regulate, and we need to regulate lobbyists and corporate monopolies heavily. In most of these instances tax payers end up paying for the clean up.

Clearly, they have done enough damage to our once strong economy that more harshly regulating them may be in order. Right? What is the alternative?

**SapiensErus** · 01-29-12, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Sageworks | Profits Per Employee Increase

This is pretty basic stuff. Of course a company expects to make a profit on each employee - otherwise, there would be no incentives to grow. Contrary to what the right-wing propaganda machine may tell you, companies don't hire employees as a form of charity.

I know that despite the low profit margin in food I certainly had to terminate employees if labor was not lower than certain guidelines dictated. In fact, in some cases I was instructed to reduce their hours to non-livable wages, and further to assign them to unsavory duties. The desired effect being that they quit rather than we pay out UI. The only welfare I have received in a kitchen has been chow.

**Morningfrost** · 01-29-12, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

And deregulation and anti-monopoly are not mutually exclusive. See phone and electric deregulation for some examples.

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

What people are pointing out is that deregulation isn't always the answer, just like more regulation isn't always the answer. Every question has a different answer, because they are different questions. When it comes to things like EPA regulations, I'd say the answer is fixing the regulations and making sure they're enforced, not more or less regulations. That's actually an answer for a lot of regulations, making sure they are up to date with how things are today, rather than whenever those regulations were passed.

As for your question previously about gun rights....I do support the right to bear arms, but for God's sake there has to be some sort of limit. I'd rather not have the "assault rifles" you mentioned floating around in the hands of civilians. No one requires their own personal arsenal, that's taking things a bit too far. A couple of handguns and a rifle or two, sure. A machine gun? Not so much.

And I wouldn't really place any blame on the home owners for what happened with the banks. If you're living in a tiny-ass place or your parents house, and someone says to you "Hey, do you want a house?" How many people do you think are gonna say "No thanks, I'll stay in my 1-bedroom studio apartment that I share with 3 other people." I won't deny that bank greed aided the situation, but that's also a typical business situation. If there's a way to make more profit and it's within the law, why not? Greed is always present in commercial ventures. It's what drives an economy. Regulations are there to prevent greed from going overboard and causing exactly what happened. If you could strip away regulations and rely on the benevolent nature of every person to keep things in check, the world would be a better place....but you can't, because not everybody HAS a benevolent nature.