Obama 2012?

**Thorsen** · 01-30-12, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Or you can make more money doing something else. Using your example Thor if it cost you 10 cups per hour to break even on your employee's salary, but you are only selling 8, you might still hire them if it allowed you to bake coffee cakes that you could sell at a higher profit margin.

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

Isn't that still exactly the same though? In essence you're still hiring someone with the expectation that they will bring you a bigger profit, whether you're making cake or coffee.

Same with DeathGod's example. Aside from the example of someone who is tired of working and so hires someone at a loss (Which is just bad business it seems to me) all your examples are still of a company hiring someone because they either WILL create a profit, or will be expected to create a profit in a short amount of time.

All of this sounds totally reasonable to me too. Why the hell would someone hire someone just to be charitable? That's bad business if you ask me. It's a symbiotic relationship.

Employers need to create services and products, consumers demand more of these products and services, employers hire people to fulfill the increased demand on their output, the company sees increased revenue, the employees are creating a profit for their employer, and receiving compensation for their service (Labor).

If demand for a product or service decreases, the company now has too much supply for too little demand, now some of their employees are no longer profitable, they downsize, removing the employees they need to in order to maintain profits.

I've never heard of a normal business hiring people to not generate wealth. When was the last time someone got hired to stay home and not do anything useful? Why do employers play people? It's compensation for time and labor which the company in turn uses to increase their output.

Take my job, for instance. We have a computer algorithm that looks at past years, and conditions such as weather, local events etc etc, and generates an estimated amount of sales for the day. For each $100 in sales we're allotted a certain amount of hours for employees. Say we have a $3,000 projection for a Saturday, we might be allotted 60 hours (10 people working 6 hours each for the day, 5 for lunch 5 for dinner). If, after the lunch shift, we've only made $1,000 in sales, the hours will be automatically cut. People will be sent home early to maximize profits.

Because an employee is expected to earn profits for his company until it is no longer possible for her to do so. When our supply (Employees on duty) exceeds our demand (Customers) we start to lose money on each hour of clocked time. Thus people are sent home. It's a balancing act I suppose, but in general the idea definitely seems to be to use employees only as a means of generating increased profits beyond what you would have made without the employee, and without paying their wage.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-30-12, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I can understand not understanding every word of every page of an inch thick book. However, if you don't read enough to understand that your payment of $X today could/will be $4X in 3 years, then you have nobody to blame but yourself. Yes, in an ideal world everyone would be ethical, but do YOU trust people that are trying to sell you something?

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

You have someone to blame if it wasnt disclosed to you. Pretty thats one of those items that are suppose to be mentioned.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-30-12, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Thorsen

Isn't that still exactly the same though? In essence you're still hiring someone with the expectation that they will bring you a bigger profit, whether you're making cake or coffee.

Same with DeathGod's example. Aside from the example of someone who is tired of working and so hires someone at a loss (Which is just bad business it seems to me) all your examples are still of a company hiring someone because they either WILL create a profit, or will be expected to create a profit in a short amount of time.

All of this sounds totally reasonable to me too. Why the hell would someone hire someone just to be charitable? That's bad business if you ask me. It's a symbiotic relationship.

Employers need to create services and products, consumers demand more of these products and services, employers hire people to fulfill the increased demand on their output, the company sees increased revenue, the employees are creating a profit for their employer, and receiving compensation for their service (Labor).

If demand for a product or service decreases, the company now has too much supply for too little demand, now some of their employees are no longer profitable, they downsize, removing the employees they need to in order to maintain profits.

I've never heard of a normal business hiring people to not generate wealth. When was the last time someone got hired to stay home and not do anything useful? Why do employers play people? It's compensation for time and labor which the company in turn uses to increase their output.

Take my job, for instance. We have a computer algorithm that looks at past years, and conditions such as weather, local events etc etc, and generates an estimated amount of sales for the day. For each $100 in sales we're allotted a certain amount of hours for employees. Say we have a $3,000 projection for a Saturday, we might be allotted 60 hours (10 people working 6 hours each for the day, 5 for lunch 5 for dinner). If, after the lunch shift, we've only made $1,000 in sales, the hours will be automatically cut. People will be sent home early to maximize profits.

Because an employee is expected to earn profits for his company until it is no longer possible for her to do so. When our supply (Employees on duty) exceeds our demand (Customers) we start to lose money on each hour of clocked time. Thus people are sent home. It's a balancing act I suppose, but in general the idea definitely seems to be to use employees only as a means of generating increased profits beyond what you would have made without the employee, and without paying their wage.

I think somewhere things got a bit twisted. I dont think anyone is saying you hire people to lose money for various reasons. I think it was about the amount of revenue created by an employee that was the issue. Big companies can make bigger profits off of employees then smallers companies can. There really is very little in common between mcdonalds and moms deli other then they both serve food.

**CivilWars** · 01-30-12, 05:04 PM

And I am sure on the 2 mortgages I personally signed for it is all speeded out. I even had amortization tables in both of mine showing what my payment was, how much was interest, and how much went to principle each month. I would be willing to bet there are, and we're at the time, regulations that required such things to be in the paperwork that was signed. Once again, you choosing not to read it is on you. Not you specifically, but the general you of anyone complaining that they were duped.

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

**deathgodusmc** · 01-30-12, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

And I am sure on the 2 mortgages I personally signed for it is all speeded out. I even had amortization tables in both of mine showing what my payment was, how much was interest, and how much went to principle each month. I would be willing to bet there are, and we're at the time, regulations that required such things to be in the paperwork that was signed. Once again, you choosing not to read it is on you. Not you specifically, but the general you of anyone complaining that they were duped.

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

I not debating that it happens every time but im sure it has happened. Shit i dont want to sit thru that shit for myself much less anyone else. I'll vene say it probably doesnt happen often but if it did then both parties share the blame. If it was mentioned and the person forgot or didnt pay attention thats on them. However balloon payments are a shitty practice to be involved in to begin with. If you already know your maximizing what the persons income is to get it approved then you already knew they couldnt afford the balloon payments at the end.

**Langrad** · 01-30-12, 05:18 PM

Im guessing il either not vote or go Obama. The republican candidates are all jokes especially each of their "Tax reform "plans"". Everyone always wants lower taxes and each presidential candidates promises it, but no one ever delivers. Or they deliver for their term and no longer. Im betting that if the tax brackets were 6-5-4-3-2-1 people would still say its unfair I have to pay 6% while they have to pay 1%! What we need is a complete redo of the tax system. Scrap it and restart so we dont have so many confusing (to some) policies and paperwork.

Obama has kept his promise to move troops out of the warzones and conclude those failed travesties. I think the only real big failure was the economic bailout and how that was handled. You cant give money away and not task the companies with a purpose for it, and he really needed to add some laws and regulations with banks to prevent something like this from happening again. We also need to dig a big pit and push the dumber 15% of Americans into it to lessen the bigotry and xenophobia gripping the nation. Also we might see less ponzi schemes in the news.

**CivilWars** · 01-30-12, 05:18 PM

I agree that it is not the best thing to put someone in a loan you know they won't be able to afford. I will also agree that there were probably many loans where the lender didn't properly verbally explain the loan. Where I will disagree is that it wasn't covered in writing. For the third time, if someone failed to read/understand what was in writing, yet still signed it, then they are at fault.

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

**deathgodusmc** · 01-30-12, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Langrad

Im guessing il either not vote or go Obama. The republican candidates are all jokes especially each of their "Tax reform "plans"". Everyone always wants lower taxes and each presidential candidates promises it, but no one ever delivers. Or they deliver for their term and no longer. Im betting that if the tax brackets were 6-5-4-3-2-1 people would still say its unfair I have to pay 6% while they have to pay 1%! What we need is a complete redo of the tax system. Scrap it and restart so we dont have so many confusing (to some) policies and paperwork.

Obama has kept his promise to move troops out of the warzones and conclude those failed travesties. I think the only real big failure was the economic bailout and how that was handled. You cant give money away and not task the companies with a purpose for it, and he really needed to add some laws and regulations with banks to prevent something like this from happening again. We also need to dig a big pit and push the dumber 15% of Americans into it to lessen the bigotry and xenophobia gripping the nation. Also we might see less ponzi schemes in the news.

Not to pick any bones but the only place we left was iraq and that was on the agreement that bush made. Obama actually tried to get an extention.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-30-12, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I agree that it is not the best thing to put someone in a loan you know they won't be able to afford. I will also agree that there were probably many loans where the lender didn't properly verbally explain the loan. Where I will disagree is that it wasn't covered in writing. For the third time, if someone failed to read/understand what was in writing, yet still signed it, then they are at fault.

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

I can agree with that but i think we both know how impatient those loan people are if you actually try to read the agreement.

**CivilWars** · 01-30-12, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I can agree with that but i think we both know how impatient those loan people are if you actually try to read the agreement.

Guess what, they make a commission to work for you. If they don't want you to read the largest contract you will likely sign in your life then fire them. I got my loan docs days in advance of the closing date.

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk