Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-06-2009, 07:16 AM   #26
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Again, I understand why you won't get that, being in the industry you're in.
You say things with no logic. It doesn't matter what job I am in or industry I am in, the business models are the same. Simply because you have a bias against credible journalism doesn't mean that all about journalism is wrong. It just means you have a bias.
And to assume that newspapers are not insterested in quality is ridiculous. You haven't a clue what quality is because you are biased towards one singular point of view.
__________________
YES WE DID!!! AGAIN!!!
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 08:51 AM   #27
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
Well, if even Bumbles can understand that companies hire/layoff based on the impact to the bottom line, it's interesting that a number of Democrats want to add an 8% tax on payroll to help pay for health care, while at the same time Obama can't figure out why businesses aren't hiring more.

As a side note - it seems like a fair number of companies are figuring out that outsourcing customer support to India isn't always a great move - Dell did a re-examination of this a few years back, and moved some of it back.
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 11:06 AM   #28
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
As another side note, I'm listening to the Planet Money podcast #125 (Nine Fingered Economy) - talking about how the Japanese yakuza (mobs) are outsourcing contract killings to the Chinese. Apparently the costs of Japenese killers are pretty high due to retirement, prison-time benefits, family support, etc.
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 11:13 AM   #29
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by bumbleroot View Post
You say things with no logic. It doesn't matter what job I am in or industry I am in
Sure it does. You're used to putting out an inferior product, so quality isn't really something you'd understand. Hell, for that matter, profit isn't something you're really all that familiar with either. No wonder you're such a proponent of socialism!

Now let the big folks get back to their discussions about business. Stick to the Tiger Woods threads and you might be all right...
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 11:25 AM   #30
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by FafnerMorell View Post
Well, if even Bumbles can understand that companies hire/layoff based on the impact to the bottom line, it's interesting that a number of Democrats want to add an 8% tax on payroll to help pay for health care, while at the same time Obama can't figure out why businesses aren't hiring more.
Under the Bumbletard plan collecting taxes can produce more jobs, it does not stifle job growth. So, an 8% payroll tax should be good for the job market. Maybe Bumbles can tell us what percentage of job growth we should expect from an 8% tax hike?

Bubbles wrote, "On the contrary, taxes are collected and can increase business growth as well as adding jobs."
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 01:12 PM   #31
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
Originally Posted by Lurikeen View Post
Under the Bumbletard plan collecting taxes can produce more jobs, it does not stifle job growth. So, an 8% payroll tax should be good for the job market. Maybe Bumbles can tell us what percentage of job growth we should expect from an 8% tax hike?

Bubbles wrote, "On the contrary, taxes are collected and can increase business growth as well as adding jobs."
Yeah, it gets kind of tough to follow what he's saying, because he'll say stuff like that, but then argue that "companies look for an ROI" and "A company in laying off people will make sure they are not going to lose money in doing so" (presumably, he's realize that a company considering hiring people would also make sure they're not going to lose money in doing so.

I suppose he could be thinking that if all the businesses get hit with a 8% additional tax, they'll simply raise prices by a similar amount - since as long as all the businesses do it, it's just inflation rather than being less competitive - but this gives companies with labor outside the US (who avoid that tax) a direct 8% cost advantage over companies considering doing US hiring. Maybe he's thinking of a world where there is no foreign competition? Or that the government then spends that money in a matter that passes it back to the businesses? (I seem to recall there's a minimum of 40% and typically more like 70-80% overhead in every buck that passes through the government, so they'd be spending $8 to get $2-4 back. And that assumes the government spending isn't biased towards lobbying, special interests, etc.
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 03:16 PM   #32
Lith Ahntalon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 1,193
Send a message via AIM to Lith Ahntalon Send a message via Yahoo to Lith Ahntalon
http://www.despair.com/government.html
__________________
Right mind, right action.
Lith Ahntalon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2009, 07:09 AM   #33
Karthanon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 578
And on a side note, it's -46C with windchill right now. Damn.

Running the minivan to warm it up right now. Screw you, Al Gore!
Karthanon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2009, 02:07 PM   #34
Michael Cumberlan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 617
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
So laying off people is never going to affect quality?

Get this through your head: I'm comfortable being the only one suggesting something. It wouldn't be the first time, and it won't be the last. I'm not all that interested in your popularity contests.
Bumbles ... try this as a concrete example ....

You have 50 sales people that cover the U.S. They generate on average 1 million in sales per person (50 mil total), with some generating more and some generating less at a salary of 100K (5 mil.) Each of these people covers approximately the same sales area. You lay off 25 of them. You have saved the company 2.5 million dollars. IF the other 25 can do the SAME work in roughly the same time frame as the original 50 did, well, YAY. But what if it is PHYSICALLY impossible to cover 1,000 clients with 25 people just because of things like geography and time zones (even including the Internet, teleconferencing and Webexs.) The company did the math, but they often don't take intangibles like that into account. More subtle, lets say that you top performers were getting their numbers because they spent a LOT more time with their best clients, and now they can't, so the clients don't buy as much.

Accountants and MBAs (the ones calculating ROI) have no way of knowing this stuff or taking it into account. Layoffs work great where the job is plug an play - as are in fact many of them, including sales jobs AND there was underutilized re4source in the pool. Programming (taking outsourcing out of the equation) is another one. Study after study says that productivity is NOT linear, but is related to the amount of multitasking done (less is better.) Taking 10 programmers work and dispersing it to 8 people only works is there was enough work for about 7 people OR you work the 8 people EXTRA overtime (when is the last time programmers only worked 40 hour weeks?) I work in the proramming industry, and laugh at management after yet another layoff when they come into my office and want to know WHY the project delivery time just moved 8 weeks - YOU FIRED the ONLY PERSON who was WORKING on your project - we have to get someone else up to speed now before we can even get to the point we were yesterday.
Michael Cumberlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 10:06 AM   #35
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Originally Posted by Bumbles
Explain this to me. There is no reason for that. You lay off 10% of your sales staff because you can do the same job with 90% of your staff and still continue the growth.
No matter why companies reduce headcount, there will be "additional costs associated" with the cuts. That's the point, Bumbles: your differentiation between the private and public sector is flawed. That isn't to say that there are no differences between the two, only that the differences you are identifying are bogus.

As for this specific example, companies reduce their sales headcount for any number of reasons. In a weak labor market, management may operate under the philosophy that they can clean out their least efficient staff and replace them with cheaper, more productive employees. In a slow economy, companies may reduce headcount simply to improve cash flow, short-term survival being more critical than plans for long-term growth. On the other hand, a company may indeed plan to continue sales growth with a smaller sales force. That still doesn't mean that those reductions will have no impact on sales. There will still be associated costs, just as with your sophomoric model of government budgeting.

Originally Posted by Bumbles
You apparently aren't too familiar with management if you think that.
Who else but Bumbles could combine such a fantastic sense of superiority with such a limited world view? I don't even have to feel bad about how I treat you, Bumbles.

Originally Posted by Bumbles
The point is, taxes are the highest marginal income. Period.
That depends on your point of view. It is true that from a revenue standpoint, and if we ignore the Laffer Curve, taxes produce a wonderfully high margin. However the actual cost (call it hidden cost, if you like) of taxes is that there will be less of whatever you tax, and that cost for the economy is quite high.

Originally Posted by Bumbles
If a company could charge taxes would they even create goods? Probably not since they would have to do nothing but collect money. If you could raise money by taxing others would you need to work?
It would be hard for me to come up with a better illustration of why taxation is so expensive. Every dollar taxed and spent by the government is a dollar's worth of goods or services consumed by an entity that did not have to produce anything in trade.

Originally Posted by Bumbles
Is there a return for taxes? Yes there is. Is there a cost for cutting taxes? Yes there is. Raising taxes is more productive to an economy than cutting taxes. Both in conjunction with each other work even better.
Until this point, you have pointed out that there are benefits associated with government spending as well as costs associated with government spending cuts. (And you have used taxation and spending interchangeably for this argument, which I do not approve of, but which I will not make a case against right now.) That may be true. However that is a far different thing than to claim that taxes and spending produce a net increase in economic productivity. That...is utterly ridiculous and I doubt that, having thought it through, even you believe it to be true.

As for the final sentence in that quote, what does that even mean? Cutting taxes and raising taxes together works even better? What are you talking about, cutting one kind of tax and raising another kind?

Originally Posted by Bumbles
So if you are whining about the deficit, then don't whine about paying taxes because you are asking the government to fix something which will cost more doing it your way than it would just raising taxes.
First of all, I am not asking the government to fix a damn thing. I would prefer that it just stop causing the problems in the first place. Second, there are two ways to cut the deficit.
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2009, 06:32 AM   #36
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
By the way, apparently the business of government is good!

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...terstitialskip

The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.
Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.
The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.
The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.
"There's no way to justify this to the American people. It's ridiculous," says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a first-term lawmaker who is on the House's federal workforce subcommittee.
Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.
USA TODAY analyzed the Office of Personnel Management's database that tracks salaries of more than 2 million federal workers. Excluded from OPM's data: the White House, Congress, the Postal Service, intelligence agencies and uniformed military personnel.
The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.
Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries:
•Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.
New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.
•Pay caps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2009, 06:47 AM   #37
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
I recall hearing recently that the Obama administration has been spending >$245,000 on average for each job that's been created as part of the bailout. We'd get a sizeable savings if the government would just employ them all for a year at $71k. Perhaps a 100,000 person Nobel Peace prize polishing crew, and another 100,000 person crew to build a shelf for the anticipated Nobel economics prize to go next to it.
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2009, 08:14 AM   #38
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
The 700 Billion spent could have been used to let every American live completely income tax-free for about 6 months... Consider that for a moment... And that includes corporate income taxes. How nice would it be to receive your entire check for 6 months? And what kind of sales on products could corporations run if they could skip paying payroll taxes for the same amount of time? THAT would have been stimulus!
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2009, 11:26 AM   #39
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
President Obama recently gave several speeches about the need for businesses to recieve funding and loans. At the same time, plans are affot to almost doube the taxes on capital gains.


We obviously don't require our Presidents to be economics experts, but it would be nice if they even knew what the stock market WAS.

(Hint: when people invest, what exactly are they investing IN?)
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:20 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.