Quote from: Solar on April 12, 2014, 08:44:35 AM
Correct, he is touting Marxist ideals, I was just trying to be polite.

Like you, I too have been in business nearly all my working life having started and sold several over the decades, and every time govt interfered and raised the min wage, I had to let someone go.
The end result was devastating towards production as a whole, not to mention the loss of jobs around the country.
One thing I've learned in all those years, was that it was better to create a company that didn't require hiring employees, which allowed me an early retirement more than 15 years ago.

What businesses have you been in?  The ones I bought are:

- Drop in Childcare
- Restaurant
- Graphic Design
- Print
- Promotional/Marketing

The first and then the second I bought for my wife to run (not at the same time).  But it was too much for me to do that and run my other businesses and my wife was overwhelmed with just managing them.  So I sold them both back off, now she runs the cafeteria at a retirement center.  She can't work for me in our main business, she would try to micromanage me and I would be miserable.  Yes, I tell her that.  I have to.

For our main business, I bought the graphic design first.  I then bought a printer so we could save money printing more of our own materials in house and to expand our design by selling design to their customers, they had virtually no design capability in house.  I bought the promo/marketing business to get more into why our customers design and print, not just what,and again look for cross sales both ways.  We've moved with organic growth into web design and hosting and we're moving into being a promotional vendor, not just a distributor.  My business has grown an average of about 40% a year for five years now and it's not slowing.

I have a great staff.  My job is to grow the business, I'm not involved in operations at all unless there is an issue.   Obviously the model is working.  I don't post on a lot of message boards, basically one political (currently this one) and a Redskins board and that's it.  But it is a nice diversion to have available.

Quote from: Kaz on April 12, 2014, 09:10:43 AM
What businesses have you been in?  The ones I bought are:

- Drop in Childcare
- Restaurant
- Graphic Design
- Print
- Promotional/Marketing

The first and then the second I bought for my wife to run (not at the same time).  But it was too much for me to do that and run my other businesses and my wife was overwhelmed with just managing them.  So I sold them both back off, now she runs the cafeteria at a retirement center.  She can't work for me in our main business, she would try to micromanage me and I would be miserable.  Yes, I tell her that.  I have to.

For our main business, I bought the graphic design first.  I then bought a printer so we could save money printing more of our own materials in house and to expand our design by selling design to their customers, they had virtually no design capability in house.  I bought the promo/marketing business to get more into why our customers design and print, not just what,and again look for cross sales both ways.  We've moved with organic growth into web design and hosting and we're moving into being a promotional vendor, not just a distributor.  My business has grown an average of about 40% a year for five years now and it's not slowing.

I have a great staff.  My job is to grow the business, I'm not involved in operations at all unless there is an issue.   Obviously the model is working.  I don't post on a lot of message boards, basically one political (currently this one) and a Redskins board and that's it.  But it is a nice diversion to have available.

Congrats on your success.

Now you're taxing my brain to try and remember all of my ventures, here's the ones that come to mind.
Dating back to the early 70s, I was a contractor, then Carter screwed up the economy, I moved into private security, became a private investigator/body guard/internal securities.
Left all that behind due to having hits put out on me, I went into health clubs, had a small chain in Sacramento, divorce ended that badly, moved to the Sierra wilderness, built my own home on raw land, all by myself, when I had power brought in, the County made me jump through hoops before they would allow me to connect, so out of principle, I told them to take a hike and started my solar business so as to buy at dealer prices for my own needs and sell to locals.
This was rather lucrative because no one knew anything about solar at the time in the late 80s.

I expanded and started selling complete installed packages for off grid living, business was wonderful, considering I started it for less than $10.0 bucks.
But when govt got involved, they screwed the whole thing up, my 10 year plan was no longer viable, and I had to invest heavily in inventory to offset demand and the price increases that would follow, once my inventory was exhausted, it was nearly impossible to get product because everyone wanted to enter the mkt, large corporations were buying up supply for grid tied home installations, something I refused to do on principle.

I knew the whole thing was a scam and I warned my customers not to buy into the hype, and of course, I was justified later as the utilities were no longer forced to buy power from solar on private homes.

So I became a defense contractor in alternative energy, and that was when I had my fill, so I took my winnings and quit.
Walked away with a huge chunk of cash...I have no bills, owe no money, own everything, and never have to worry about a thing the rest of my life.

Did I mention I really got burned out on people and city life? I hated it so much, I was headed for Alaska, when I found this piece of paradise in the mountains with two private creeks and several Artesian springs.
I bought 10 acres for 22 grand, now worth probably half a mil after my work in developing the land.

But I live in the socialist state of Ca, and may just wind up dumping it all for a piece in Idaho, but I'll wait till 2016 to see what happens to Ca.
I'm hoping for it to collapse.

Quote from: Solar on April 12, 2014, 09:46:44 AMBut I live in the socialist state of Ca, and may just wind up dumping it all for a piece in Idaho, but I'll wait till 2016 to see what happens to Ca.
I'm hoping for it to collapse.

Wow, great story.  I spent my career in Management and Management Consulting, so I've worked in a lot more industries as well.  The majority financial services related.  I worked across the street from the world trade center.  I was in the NY area on 9/11, but was not actually there, fortunately. 

I also lived in San Jose for a while.  I was Global Applications Manager (#2 in their IT department after the CIO) at GE Nuclear Energy.   California is so nice, and it's so being destroyed by socialism, I would never move back because of that.  My daughter is going to Berkley in the fall to pursue her PhD in French.  You'd like her, she's libertarian like me, but she's pro-life like you.  It's one of the areas we debate.

Quote from: Kaz on April 12, 2014, 09:58:51 AM
Wow, great story.  I spent my career in Management and Management Consulting, so I've worked in a lot more industries as well.  The majority financial services related.  I worked across the street from the world trade center.  I was in the NY area on 9/11, but was not actually there, fortunately. 

I also lived in San Jose for a while.  I was Global Applications Manager (#2 in their IT department after the CIO) at GE Nuclear Energy.   California is so nice, and it's so being destroyed by socialism, I would never move back because of that.  My daughter is going to Berkley in the fall to pursue her PhD in French.  You'd like her, she's libertarian like me, but she's pro-life like you.  It's one of the areas we debate.

I like her already.

Ask her if she saw Rand Paul speak and also if Berzerkly is becoming more and more Libertarian, than just a few years ago.
I have a feeling the majority of Obozzo supporters are rethinking Conservatism and leaning Libertarian/
Nov will answer this question, but I believe that to be the case.

Quote from: Solar on April 12, 2014, 06:13:54 AM
They believe Keynes ideas of a National Socialists micromanagement of economies, in that govt spending in a down turned economy will lead to recovery, or simply raising the wage of the lowest paid employee across the board has no ripple effect in the economy in the negative.
After all, it's only a few dollars per hour. Times a million, and these idiots only think of their local 7-11 employee, rather than an entire Nation that will have to deal with the rubber band effect on the economy, or the poor kid looking to enter the job mkt, that can't find work because no one wants to pay an unskilled laborer $20 an hour only to find out he's not fitted for that particular job.

I digress, how is it Keynes is even taken seriously, when he never once took into consideration debt, when making his stupid claims?
If his idea applied in the real world of govt deficit spending in a recession, claiming to effect an economy in the positive, why then didn't it work the same during good times?
Answer, it doesn't, which is why we have a severe deficit and a bubble economy on the verge of implosion.

Point is, these people think govt is the end all to everything, and that business is evil and needs reigned in or it might actually work.

It does blow my mind.  Only morons can buy into idiocy like his.

Quote from: taxed on April 12, 2014, 10:48:09 PM
It does blow my mind.  Only morons can buy into idiocy like his.

Short read.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=52

Quote from: taxed on April 12, 2014, 10:48:09 PM
It does blow my mind.  Only morons can buy into idiocy like his.

Yes, government doesn't create value.  Businesses do.  Government spends and creates nothing, it just consumes.   Businesses spend and create something they sell for more than the sum of the parts.   Which means government spending cannot stimulate the economy, only businesses can.  It's Keynesian Economics is like saying spending more on your credit card will grow your wealth.

Quote from: Kaz on April 13, 2014, 07:34:44 AM
Yes, government doesn't create value.  Businesses do.  Government spends and creates nothing, it just consumes.   Businesses spend and create something they sell for more than the sum of the parts.   Which means government spending cannot stimulate the economy, only businesses can.  It's Keynesian Economics is like saying spending more on your credit card will grow your wealth.

It steals from us producers at the point of a gun.  A consumer, in an ideal world, purchases goods and services with their own earnings.  A thief who mugs someone and takes their money, then buys a soda at the gas station, isn't a consumer.  The government, are a cancer on the free market.  The government should be like a referee in a basketball game, minimally interfering and making sure both sides are not breaking laws.  Instead, the referee is being paid off and launching 3-pointers.

Quote from: taxed on April 13, 2014, 10:30:41 PM
It steals from us producers at the point of a gun.  A consumer, in an ideal world, purchases goods and services with their own earnings.  A thief who mugs someone and takes their money, then buys a soda at the gas station, isn't a consumer.  The government, are a cancer on the free market.  The government should be like a referee in a basketball game, minimally interfering and making sure both sides are not breaking laws.  Instead, the referee is being paid off and launching 3-pointers.

Exactly.  Unfortunately they do far more than plunder companies.  I have a whole sheet which is a checklist of all the government forms and tax filings I have to make for my business monthly, quarterly and annually.  They send several times a year some sort of survey or data gathering questionnaire commissioned by some government agency which they clearly let me know I'm required by law to complete.  And that doesn't even include the random crap.  Ways government helps me:

- I have to fight unemployment proceedings for people who don't qualify.  For example, I had two people in my business who still worked for me and they filed for unemployment.  I fought it and one.  One dropped it, then, the other appealed like three times.  I won every one obviously, but there is no cost or consequence to file and appeal and appeal and if I don't respond to every letter and summons then they can win by default.  And it's illegal for me to fire them for wasting my time because they have the right to file even when they STILL WORK FOR ME!  How is that not fraud?  Whatever.

- Unemployment when I owned a restaurant was unbelievable.  People who filed for unemployment include:  A delivery guy I fired for drinking and smoking pot ... on deliveries.  A guy I fired for taking from the cash register.  A plethora of people didn't show up for work.  A few who came to work for ... one day ... and then didn't come back.  I won every one.  Some appealed, I won those too.  But wow, what a waste of time.

- I had to let a customer service rep go because she had a stroke and she physically couldn't do the job.  She sat in a chair all day doing nothing.  Anyway, I let her go and told her I would not only not fight unemployment but we would write a letter saying she wasn't physically able to do the job to help her get disability benefits.  She filed a claim that we discriminated based on age (she was over 65), disability and ... race.  She is black.   I won.  We had followed the law.  She could not physically do the job.  But the lawyer fees were more than paying her off.  I didn't care, I didn't want her to get a dime.  She didn't.

- I can't change the sign in front of my building because it's not "code," I have no idea why.  But it's grandfathered and my landlord won't file the paperwork to update it so I can change it.

- I bought assets from another business.  The seller hadn't paid his business property taxes.  The government told me they would padlock my doors (and put everyone who works for me out of a job) if I didn't pay them for him.  There was no discussion, they didn't care.  He said he wouldn't pay them.  My attorney said I could pay them and subtract the money from my loan payments to him since he had breached our contract since he was supposed to sell me the assets "free and clear."  Then he finally paid them.

- My first year as a business owner I took 3 vacation days outside Christmas week.  I spent half of one of them on the phone with the IRS.  They had charged me a penalty.  After talking to multiple people on the phone, they finally found in their own records they were wrong and removed the penalty.

- I've had multiple calls with the IRS where they applied payments to the wrong period.  They couldn't notice and correct on their own that I had an overpayment say in one quarter equaling an underpayment on another with a zero balance due, I had to call before someone noticed that and corrected it.  And calling is never fast.  That one has gotten better as most of our filings are electronic.

Government saying they care about jobs is a joke.

Quote from: Kaz on April 14, 2014, 04:59:48 AM
Exactly.  Unfortunately they do far more than plunder companies.  I have a whole sheet which is a checklist of all the government forms and tax filings I have to make for my business monthly, quarterly and annually.  They send several times a year some sort of survey or data gathering questionnaire commissioned by some government agency which they clearly let me know I'm required by law to complete.  And that doesn't even include the random crap.  Ways government helps me:

Let you're CPAs handle all that.  You're gonna go bald.

Quote
- I have to fight unemployment proceedings for people who don't qualify.  For example, I had two people in my business who still worked for me and they filed for unemployment.  I fought it and one.  One dropped it, then, the other appealed like three times.  I won every one obviously, but there is no cost or consequence to file and appeal and appeal and if I don't respond to every letter and summons then they can win by default.  And it's illegal for me to fire them for wasting my time because they have the right to file even when they STILL WORK FOR ME!  How is that not fraud?  Whatever.

I feel your pain on that one.

Quote
- Unemployment when I owned a restaurant was unbelievable.  People who filed for unemployment include:  A delivery guy I fired for drinking and smoking pot ... on deliveries.  A guy I fired for taking from the cash register.  A plethora of people didn't show up for work.  A few who came to work for ... one day ... and then didn't come back.  I won every one.  Some appealed, I won those too.  But wow, what a waste of time.

Been there, done that...

Quote
- I had to let a customer service rep go because she had a stroke and she physically couldn't do the job.  She sat in a chair all day doing nothing.  Anyway, I let her go and told her I would not only not fight unemployment but we would write a letter saying she wasn't physically able to do the job to help her get disability benefits.  She filed a claim that we discriminated based on age (she was over 65), disability and ... race.  She is black.   I won.  We had followed the law.  She could not physically do the job.  But the lawyer fees were more than paying her off.  I didn't care, I didn't want her to get a dime.  She didn't.

Employees are a pain in the ass.

Quote
- I can't change the sign in front of my building because it's not "code," I have no idea why.  But it's grandfathered and my landlord won't file the paperwork to update it so I can change it.

- I bought assets from another business.  The seller hadn't paid his business property taxes.  The government told me they would padlock my doors (and put everyone who works for me out of a job) if I didn't pay them for him.  There was no discussion, they didn't care.  He said he wouldn't pay them.  My attorney said I could pay them and subtract the money from my loan payments to him since he had breached our contract since he was supposed to sell me the assets "free and clear."  Then he finally paid them.

- My first year as a business owner I took 3 vacation days outside Christmas week.  I spent half of one of them on the phone with the IRS.  They had charged me a penalty.  After talking to multiple people on the phone, they finally found in their own records they were wrong and removed the penalty.

- I've had multiple calls with the IRS where they applied payments to the wrong period.  They couldn't notice and correct on their own that I had an overpayment say in one quarter equaling an underpayment on another with a zero balance due, I had to call before someone noticed that and corrected it.  And calling is never fast.  That one has gotten better as most of our filings are electronic.

Government saying they care about jobs is a joke.

I agree.  They are anti-business.  It's a fact.  "We didn't build that".

Excerpted from Kaz's reply #46:  " ... The employer doesn't hire Steve.  He hires Fred who is worth $7.25 an hour since he is forced to pay that.  Steve was worth $5 to him, but not $7.25 ... The employer will figure out an alternative such as hiring Steve, but only part time and firing him immediately if there are any issues, hire fewer Steves, look to ways to automate and streamline and not hire anyone, outsource the work".

Quote from: supsalemgr on April 11, 2014, 02:27:22 PM
"When the federal minimum wage rate is permitted to lag behind the U.S. dollar's purchasing power, our nation's rate of poverty and our median wage's purchasing power are reduced more than otherwise."

The above sentence indicates a true lack of understanding of the issue. When the minimum wage is raised it is a wash on purchasing power as prices will increase accordingly by businesses to offset their increased costs. Also, it causes a drop in employment due to increased costs. Clearly those people who lose jobs or don't get hired because of the increased minimum wage certainly have their purchasing power decreased.

Kaz & SuperSalMgr, no one argues that elimination of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate would not increase employment opportunities for those that cannot perform tasks in a manner to be worthy of the legal minimum rate;  but the purchasing power of their wages would be extremely poorer than that of the eliminated minimum rate.

The purchasing power of a nation's Labor markets' effective minimum rate for their least challenging tasks affects the purchasing powers of the nation's entire wage scales.  This is true for our current definite FMW rate and it would remain true if the effective rate would be a theoretical rate determined by USA's labor markets.
The purchasing power of a nation's effective minimum rate does not affect all wage scales equally but it does affect all of the nation's wages.

Eliminating the FMW rate or grievously failing to retain its purchasing power would severely increase instances and extents of poverty throughout our population.

Due to any reduction of our effective minimum waqe's purchasing power, our  nation experiences net economic and social detriment to similar extents.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on July 04, 2014, 01:03:13 PM
Excerpted from Kaz's reply #46:  " ... The employer doesn't hire Steve.  He hires Fred who is worth $7.25 an hour since he is forced to pay that.  Steve was worth $5 to him, but not $7.25 ... The employer will figure out an alternative such as hiring Steve, but only part time and firing him immediately if there are any issues, hire fewer Steves, look to ways to automate and streamline and not hire anyone, outsource the work".


Kaz & SuperSalMgr, no one argues that elimination of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate would not increase employment opportunities for those that cannot perform tasks in a manner to be worthy of the legal minimum rate;  but the purchasing power of their wages would be extremely poorer than that of the eliminated minimum rate.

The purchasing power of a nation's Labor markets' effective minimum rate for their least challenging tasks affects the purchasing powers of the nation's entire wage scales.  This is true for our current definite FMW rate and it would remain true if the effective rate would be a theoretical rate determined by USA's labor markets.
The purchasing power of a nation's effective minimum rate does not affect all wage scales equally but it does affect all of the nation's wages.

Eliminating the FMW rate or grievously failing to retain its purchasing power would severely increase instances and extents of poverty throughout our population.

Due to any reduction of our effective minimum waqe's purchasing power, our  nation experiences net economic and social detriment to similar extents.

Respectfully, Supposn

I respectfully disagree. Simple example - North Dakota.

Quote from: Supposn on July 04, 2014, 01:03:13 PM
Kaz & SuperSalMgr, no one argues that elimination of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate would not increase employment opportunities for those that cannot perform tasks in a manner to be worthy of the legal minimum rate;  but the purchasing power of their wages would be extremely poorer than that of the eliminated minimum rate.

It also effects employment opportunities for those who WILL not perform those tasks in such a manner. There are millions. The word "extremely" doesn't belong in your sentence; it's grammatically OK, but you back your assertion with nothing and using this ridiculous modifier just makes things worse.

Quote from: Supposn on July 04, 2014, 01:03:13 PMThe purchasing power of a nation's Labor markets' effective minimum rate for their least challenging tasks affects the purchasing powers of the nation's entire wage scales.  This is true for our current definite FMW rate and it would remain true if the effective rate would be a theoretical rate determined by USA's labor markets.
The purchasing power of a nation's effective minimum rate does not affect all wage scales equally but it does affect all of the nation's wages.

One of the hard things about your posts is the fact that I have the read every sentence three or four time to figure out what the hell you're trying -- and so often failing -- to say. The struck words don't need to be there, and just make a formless mush of the entire sentence. As for the last sentence, you are incorrect. The purchasing power of a minimum wage does not affect "all of the nation's wages."

Quote from: Supposn on July 04, 2014, 01:03:13 PMEliminating the FMW rate or grievously failing to retain its purchasing power would severely increase instances and extents of poverty throughout our population.

It's good to see you admit that the minimum wage concept is essentially wealth redistribution (welfare). It could also be described as a remarkably crass and naked method for big government types to literally purchase the votes of the poor, who are always the most susceptible to such efforts.

Quote from: Supposn on July 04, 2014, 01:03:13 PMDue to any reduction of our effective minimum waqe's purchasing power, our  nation experiences net economic and social detriment to similar extents.

Since you seem so obsessed with the purchasing power of the minimum wage, I marvel that you don't rail against inflation -- a direct action of the US government to steal wealth from its people unseen. In terms of the minimum wage, the government's inflation of the money supply -- and the predictable rise in consumer and wholesale prices that follows -- has arguably done more to hurt low-income workers than any other factor. But even when adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage has more than kept pace, largely because of its heritage as a welfare program, rather than a smart economic policy.

It began on the federal level in 1938 -- not exactly the golden age of doing Smart Economic Things, but certainly the first golden age of federal government activism. Not surprisingly, the Democrats at that time held overwhelming supermajorities (on average 77%D - 19%R) in both houses of Congress, and, of course, President-for-Life Franklin D. Roosevelt sat on the throne.

The first mandated wage was $.25/hour. (You can see the federal minimum wage's historical rates here.) To put that in perspective, at around that time, my grandfather was working in a deep-shaft clay mine in southern Ohio -- a fairly well-sought-after job in that time and place -- and earning around 80 cents/hour. Using a simple inflation calculator, like the one here, that $.25 minimum wage rate, had it kept pace with inflation, would be $4.23 today. Instead it is $7.50 -- and current advocates call for it to go to over $10 in the near future. Despite the rhetoric, over the long term the federal minimum wage rate increases have always been completely decoupled from, and far above, the rate of inflation.

Far from being an economic tool, the minimum wage is merely a political tool, one aimed at enslaving low-income workers and the poor. It is particularly egregious in one respect -- the wealth it redistributes is that of the lower classes. The well-trained veteran $33/hour ironworker doesn't take a pay cut when the minimum wage goes to $10. But Sally at the diner, pouring coffee and hustling tips for an $8 wage, just might find herself on the wrong side of the door, so that Judy the owner can find the bucks to give waitress Jackie and counter guy Tommy and cook Jill and dishwasher Freddie a federally-mandated raise. Just like that, Sally's earnings -- or her potential wealth -- just got redistributed.

And just like that, Jackie and Tommy and Jill and Freddie are smiling Uncle Sam's way -- thank ya, Sugar Daddy! -- and Sally is trying out her new EBT card and getting her utility bills paid for her and trying to figure out how to work her new Obamaphone -- thank ya, Sugar Daddy! Everybody's vote gets bought, except for Judy's -- the only one who can see what a total shitburger the whole rotten thing is.

Quote from: supsalemgr on July 04, 2014, 01:11:29 PM
I respectfully disagree. Simple example - North Dakota.

SuperSalMgr, your post is a little short of details; please expand upon it.
Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: TboneAgain on July 04, 2014, 02:38:56 PM... It also effects employment opportunities for those who WILL not perform those tasks in such a manner. There are millions. The word "extremely" doesn't belong in your sentence; it's grammatically OK, but you back your assertion with nothing and using this ridiculous modifier just makes things worse. ...

TBoneAgain, regarding the objectivity vs. subjectivity of social studies:
I use the term  "social studies" rather than "social sciences " because I'm among those that believe the study of economics is more a subjective and less scientific than the studying  any of what's described as the "hard" sciences.

Even among the hard sciences, due to differences of scale, numbers of more or less controllable or precisely measurable factors related to the subjects of specific studies, those studies differ as to objectivity and subjectivity.   . 

As an analogous example I submit investigating factors and methods of controlling or affecting temperatures within a specific large room rather than a much larger specific geographic region:

Within discussions of economic issues, we often encounter agreement as to historical statistics but disagreement as to which statistics are causes rather than affects upon each other.
I understand your reluctance to accept what I would describe as logical arguments and you fault as lacking historic statistical "facts" but that's among the differences between our manners of perceiving economic discussions.

You do not accept what I believe is a logical concept of a labor market's wages and salary scales being all to some extent positively affected by that market's effectively minimum rate for the least challenging jobs or tasks.

Respectfully, Supposn