Unemployment is the Best Way to Create Jobs

[Townsend]

I guess that would depend on your world view.  

If you admire companies that provide employment, and good benefits to about 90K people, than yes.

If you view corporations as institutions who's only goal is to take advantage of workers and produce profits for fat old men, than they are not.

I suppose it's kind of a subjective interpretation.

But is Verizon the good guys?

[we vs us]

. . .and taxes.  We can't seem to learn the lesson that corporations do not pay taxes, consumers do.

If I am a company and my business plan calls for a 12% net margin, I am going to make that, no matter how you tax me.  I will simply raise the cost or lower the quality of my product to account for any increase you impose.  I don't have to worry about being competitive, because I know that my competitors will do the same.

. . . . until one of your competitors discovers that diving under your 12% net margin to gain your market share is a good idea.  Or that pricing themselves higher than you will give them a perceived premium over your product.

You're describing business conditions in a theoretical environment, which is a static market where participants aren't competing.  In 99.9% of existing markets that's simply not the case.

The entirety of the GOP economic model at this point assumes that taxes are at such a level that they distort all markets, and are one of the primary drivers of price.  They are not.  By any measure, the tax burden is as tiny as its been in nearly a hundred years.  

[Gaspar]

. . . . until one of your competitors discovers that diving under your 12% net margin to gain your market share is a good idea.  Or that pricing themselves higher than you will give them a perceived premium over your product.

You're describing business conditions in a theoretical environment, which is a static market where participants aren't competing.  In 99.9% of existing markets that's simply not the case.

The entirety of the GOP economic model at this point assumes that taxes are at such a level that they distort all markets, and are one of the primary drivers of price.  They are not.  By any measure, the tax burden is as tiny as its been in nearly a hundred years.  

No mater what the tax level, if I have a 12% margin and my competitor has a 13% margin, and we compete on similar products, the battle is between us.

When you manipulate our taxes, that does not change.  Our business model, and the commitment we've made to investors and creditors remains.  We simply adjust our markup.

This is not a "GOP v.s. Democrat" issue.  This is how business works.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I ask for a wage/salary, and then I ask for raises based on my perceived performance.  I am happy if they are granted, and sometimes when they are not, I seek a different job.

I am happy that my company is willing to pay for part of my health care.  They do not have to, but, in order to be  competitive and to give employees group healthcare purchasing power, they do.

Obamacare will make my healthcare more expensive.  We are estimating about 12%. It will also make healthcare more expensive for these union workers.  That is why they are protesting.

You ask for a wage/salary... which is EXACTLY what the union is doing.  There is nothing in law or custom that requires ANY company to accede to any such request.  They either agree or disagree based SOLELY on the FACT that they feel they can continue to have satisfactory economic performance or not.  This is one of the purest forms of "law of supply and demand" that exists in the world.  The company can just say no at any time.  They have analyzed the cost/benefits and have decided that any of these benefits are appropriate.  And when economic conditions change, the negotiations end up with give-backs from the union members to the company.  The ebb and flow is continuous and does indeed go both ways regularly.

As it turns out, we have seen in recent years that the incompetence of many of these top managements have lead to bankruptcy where the top officers wrote themselves big bonus checks, gutted the company, and left the employees twisting in the breeze.  Some endured consequences (Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling).  Most did not.  GM, Chrysler, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, etc.

According to the RWRE propaganda, the company is the only entity to endure costs such as this, so health care reform couldn't possibly affect you in any way, if you are a W-2 employee.  But then, we all know that is just another one of those RWRE lies, and since all costs associated with you are declared by the company as part of your "Total Compensation" package, then health care reform will end up costing you less to the tune of a few hundred billion in Federal expenditures (think deficit and debt here).

12% increase in NOT a health care reform - it IS the increased costs we have seen since the "Harvard School of Business" methods achieved their lofty position in American society.  And the Republican controlled Congress passed a Medicare bill to give almost a trillion in subsidies to American pharmaceuticals - at your expense, of course.  

[Townsend]

Here's an article about infrastructure being a way to go.

Not all that surprising since it's been done before.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/infrastructure-jobs-program-next-decade-201411918.html

Not sure what happened with the Verizon thing.  Group them as good?  Evil?

Anyway, there's that article up there.

[Gaspar]

You ask for a wage/salary... which is EXACTLY what the union is doing.  There is nothing in law or custom that requires ANY company to accede to any such request.  

. . .

12% increase in NOT a health care reform

That was a thoughtful response. . .couple of points. . .

First of all, to ask for a raise or request more benefits, I do not leave my office and stand outside with a sign that says my company is unjust.  Nor do I yell profanity at fellow workers who wish to continue working.

Second.  the 12% is an estimate provided by our insurer.  It is based on several factors, but the primary reason they site is that they now have to cover pre-existing conditions.  Additionally, they warned that additional increases will be necessary but they cannot forecast these yet until they establish a baseline (uncertainty).

[nathanm]

So, if unions would destroy VZW, why is it that at&t hasn't been destroyed by their mostly-unionized workforce? Unlike Verizon, their wireless division is mostly union. Even a lot of the retail stores are unionized.

Also, I think it's funny that you're complaining about a 12% increase in health insurance and calling it the result of Obamacare when for many companies health insurance cost has been going up 8-10% a year (and sometimes more) for the last two decades. There is a reason health care reform is and was seen as a dire necessity.

And if your competitor doesn't pass on increased taxes, you can't either, unless you want to lose business. That stinging sensation you just felt? That's the feeling of the invisible hand smacking you upside the head for trying to ignore it.

[Conan71]

Here's an article about infrastructure being a way to go.

Not all that surprising since it's been done before.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/infrastructure-jobs-program-next-decade-201411918.html

Not sure what happened with the Verizon thing.  Group them as good?  Evil?

Anyway, there's that article up there.

"...the plan is likely to include tax credits for businesses that hire, a job-training program similar to one in Georgia that essentially lets companies "hire" unemployed people for free for an eight-week period, and infrastructure spending."

I'm truly intrigued by this.  I've long advocated the government getting something in return for unemployment benefits as paying for long-term idleness is adding daily to the deficit and debt and essentially killing the workforce. 

I'll have to do some Googling and see what all this entails.  Instead of a requirement of "Look for X number of jobs this week to keep your benefits", it becomes: "Go to work for your benefits".

Of course this will be seen as corporate welfare by those who are not well endowed mentally.  If it's a public/private partnership which gets the economy and u/e numbers moving in the right direction, I really don't care what people call it.

[Conan71]

So, if unions would destroy VZW, why is it that at&t hasn't been destroyed by their mostly-unionized workforce? Unlike Verizon, their wireless division is mostly union. Even a lot of the retail stores are unionized.

Also, I think it's funny that you're complaining about a 12% increase in health insurance and calling it the result of Obamacare when for many companies health insurance cost has been going up 8-10% a year (and sometimes more) for the last two decades. There is a reason health care reform is and was seen as a dire necessity.

And if your competitor doesn't pass on increased taxes, you can't either, unless you want to lose business. That stinging sensation you just felt? That's the feeling of the invisible hand smacking you upside the head for trying to ignore it.

The competitor has to eventually pass along that increase unless they can take advantage of loopholes you cannot take advantage of.

[Red Arrow]

The competitor has to eventually pass along that increase unless they can take advantage of loopholes you cannot take advantage of.

You are forgetting that the purpose of a business is to provide employment, not make a profit providing goods and/or services to a customer.  When will you learn?

[nathanm]

The competitor has to eventually pass along that increase unless they can take advantage of loopholes you cannot take advantage of.

Unless we've started in with a gross receipts tax I'm not aware of, that's not true at all. Corporate income tax is paid on net income (after generous deductions for depreciation and other non-cash expenses), not gross. Anyway, your competitor doesn't have to do anything. Amazon lost money for nearly 10 years before becoming profitable. Or perhaps your competitor might be comfortable with a smaller profit margin than you are. Or perhaps, as I alluded to earlier, they might just have built their business with cheaper money.

RA, no. The purpose of a public company is supposed to be to provide a return to shareholders. Instead, most large companies have been redirected into returning as much as possible to upper management, all other considerations be damned.

Or, more snarkily, Adam Smith says "wut?"

[Red Arrow]

Union members don't seem to understand that money isn't manna from Heaven. 

It comes from Obama.  Haven't you seen the videos?

[Gaspar]

So, if unions would destroy VZW, why is it that at&t hasn't been destroyed by their mostly-unionized workforce? Unlike Verizon, their wireless division is mostly union. Even a lot of the retail stores are unionized.

Also, I think it's funny that you're complaining about a 12% increase in health insurance and calling it the result of Obamacare when for many companies health insurance cost has been going up 8-10% a year (and sometimes more) for the last two decades. There is a reason health care reform is and was seen as a dire necessity.

And if your competitor doesn't pass on increased taxes, you can't either, unless you want to lose business. That stinging sensation you just felt? That's the feeling of the invisible hand smacking you upside the head for trying to ignore it.

Wow!  You guys just see a thread that involves a "unionized company" and jump right into rebuttal without anything to rebut. 

Is there ANYTHING here to indicate that ANYONE said ANYTHING about unions destroying Verizon? 

This thread is about the union protesting increases in their healthcare costs as a result of Obamacare.  It has nothing to do with the union's relationship with Verizon. 

[Red Arrow]

When you manipulate our taxes, that does not change.  Our business model, and the commitment we've made to investors and creditors remains.  We simply adjust our markup.

Or go out of business.

[Conan71]

Unless we've started in with a gross receipts tax I'm not aware of, that's not true at all. Corporate income tax is paid on net income (after generous deductions for depreciation and other non-cash expenses), not gross. Anyway, your competitor doesn't have to do anything. Amazon lost money for nearly 10 years before becoming profitable. Or perhaps your competitor might be comfortable with a smaller profit margin than you are. Or perhaps, as I alluded to earlier, they might just have built their business with cheaper money.

RA, no. The purpose of a public company is supposed to be to provide a return to shareholders. Instead, most large companies have been redirected into returning as much as possible to upper management, all other considerations be damned.

Or, more snarkily, Adam Smith says "wut?"

Gross, net, doesn't matter.  If company GE A has overseas operations which allow them to pull accounting shenanigans company B cannot take advantage of, company A has a distinct tax advantage and never winds up having to up-charge the consumer.  Instead they get a tax payer-funded edge on the competition.

That return to shareholders is the result of profitable operations.  Knock off the contrarian parsing, please!