The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[mgk920]

I know people are not going to agree with me, but I say hey, it's there businesses. You don't have to eat there or shop there if you don't like how they do business.

Personally, I agree with their principle on it. McDonald's and most fast food places does the exact same thing every time the minimum wage goes up. They either lay off people or jack their prices up.

I strongly suspect that for most, if not all, retail businesses will follow along with the 29.5 hour max week with no potential for overtime for their hourly non-management employees, including those who are now full-time with at least some bennies, as a 'new normal' - and say nothing about 'Why?' simply to avoid the political hassles. And look for salaried lower management (ie, local store and department managers and shift runners) to also at least be dumped into the Exchanges™. To not do so will place those businesses at a serious, perhaps fatal, competitive disadvantage.

This is Basic Econ 101 and is a glaring example of the unintended consequences that will happen when rules are changed.

Mike

[imaplanner]

I know people are not going to agree with me, but I say hey, it's there businesses. You don't have to eat there or shop there if you don't like how they do business.

Personally, I agree with their principle on it. McDonald's and most fast food places does the exact same thing every time the minimum wage goes up. They either lay off people or jack their prices up.

I doubt you are going to find disagreement. It's their business and they should do what is in their best interest. Refusing to hire employees is only going to hurt their business, but that's up to them. Successful businesses do what is in the best interest of the business. Papa Johns is a great example. Obamacare will cost about 3 to 4 cents a pizza. And actually less than one percent of his operating costs according to Forbes. Less than his pizza giveaway. http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmel...bamacare-math/ Less than many other yearly cost of business adjustments. But he wants to make a political statement. In doing so he will likely harm his business, and also make his business less attractive for quality employees. That's his right.

You mention mcdonalds. They are a successful business. When costs go up slightly, they adjust. They don't make a political statement, and they don't tell their employees they will take it out on them. They just adjust. So again, no disagreement from me. They should adjust how they feel they need to.

Obamacare is the law. It's time to let the market do its thing. Successful businesses will continue to succeed. Businesses that were close to failing may fail. Others will step up in their place. Talented employees will seek better employers.

[Gotta Speakup]

The Papa Johns thing is what should happen. Classic economics describes what are known as externalities: costs that are not borne by a producer. In this case its health care. PJ employees will still use it, only its paid by taxpayers and people with insurance. This subsidizes the cost of pizzas. These subsidies increase pizza consumption which is even worse because of the health effects of poor nutrition value foods.

So PJ can either raise prices or employ lower producing employees. Either way, consumers of pizza will now pay the burden of the PJ employees health care either by paying more or having lower quality pizza or longer delivery times. An economic distortion has been eliminated.

[Hink]

The Papa Johns thing is what should happen. Classic economics describes what are known as externalities: costs that are not borne by a producer. In this case its health care. PJ employees will still use it, only its paid by taxpayers and people with insurance. This subsidizes the cost of pizzas. These subsidies increase pizza consumption which is even worse because of the health effects of poor nutrition value foods.

So PJ can either raise prices or employ lower producing employees. Either way, consumers of pizza will now pay the burden of the PJ employees health care either by paying more or having lower quality pizza or longer delivery times. An economic distortion has been eliminated.

I love how educated our members are. This is so clearly put. The hidden costs of healthcare are not being borne by business.

Everyone wants the market to "work", but we cannot pretend much longer that business isn't heavily subsidized by government. If you want smaller government, you are going to have to prove your business model is strong enough to pay for ALL the costs associated with your business. For a very long time we have taxed business at a lower rate to create jobs, we have given them discounts on land or regulations, and we have subsidized their ability to be successful. When business leaders start crying about having to cover more costs, I feel very little sorrow for them. There is a multitude of ways to deal with these costs, they just haven't built them into their business model because they thought they could get a free ride.

Like gas prices or electric prices rising because of carbon taxes or higher cost cigarettes, there are costs in the system that are subsidized for a long time... but at some point you have to put that cost back on the business. If people want to buy it, they will. The cost, service, and value will still create either a successful or a non-successful business.

[michaelskis]

And so the unions killed the tweenkie.

[Planit]

Example 1.

I know people are not going to agree with me, but I say hey, it's there (I think you mean 'their') businesses. You don't have to eat there or shop there if you don't like how they do business.
.

You're right. It is their business and they can exapnd or kill it if they'd like. Personally we aren't going to buy anymore PJ pizzas.


Example 2. Nine Republican Wisconsin Senators have sponsored a bill to arrest any federal employee implementing 'Obamacare' in the state:
http://gawker.com/5961050/9-wisconsi...ment-obamacare



Example 3. John McCain (and several other Republicans) skipped a classified Senate Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee briefing on the Benghazi consulate attack in order to hold a press conference about the lack of information on the Benghazi consulate attack. You and I would have been immediatley fired for that!

[ColoGI]

Example 3. John McCain (and several other Republicans) skipped a classified Senate Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee briefing on the Benghazi consulate attack in order to hold a press conference about the lack of information on the Benghazi consulate attack. You and I would have been immediatley fired for that!

That's not stupid. They are telling you that there is no there there on the Benghazi thing. The base and other low-information voters aren't able to see this posturing, and they are served up red meat. The majority sees that this is all political posturing and can move on with their lives.

[dw914er]

And so the unions killed the tweenkie.

I think people not eating twinkies probably had a helping hand.

[btrage]

And so the unions killed the tweenkie.

If so, then Hostesses' business model was flawed.

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” - Lincoln

"I am glad to know that there is a system of labor where the laborer can strike if he wants to. I wish to God that such a system prevailed all over the world." - ABRAHAM LINCOLN, speech, Mar. 5, 1860

[hilldweller]

"Benghazi" is just a creation of Fox news and nothing more. A horrible tragedy, but not a cover-up by any means. Only the 30% or so of the American populace that treats Fox news as gospel is convinced otherwise.

[wahday]

This is a very interesting discussion. I will only add that the broohaha over healthcare costs is, in my opinion, a red herring. The cost of doing business changes all the time and more often than not, it goes up. The main difference here is that the cause of those increases in prices are easily identifiable (ie. the guvment).

The cost of gas and therefore transportation has risen substantially in the last decade.

Rents on buildings go up.

The cost of materials is constantly rising as are utilities costs on those buildings.

Accommodating these rising costs is usually built into budget projections and long term financial planning for the business. This healthcare cost issue has been public and on the table for, what, 3 or 4 years now? What were they doing to plan all that time? Were they just crossing their fingers and hoping it would get repealed? Because if so, and if they neglected to have any kind of contingency plan, that's just really bad management.

Its all about context. For whatever reason, these complaining businesses see the healthcare issue as an affront to their bottom line, but these other costs they just absorb by raising costs to the consumer or reducing profits. What gives?

[Blide]

And so the unions killed the tweenkie.

I won't argue that labor wasn't a factor but it doesn't sound like that's what ultimately did Hostess in. Having so little capital that a strike would bankrupt a company indicates that were some bigger issues at play such as a flawed business model or poor management. Although it's easier for management just to blame the unions rather than their own shortcomings.

[ursus]

I won't argue that labor wasn't a factor but it doesn't sound like that's what ultimately did Hostess in. Having so little capital that a strike would bankrupt a company indicates that were some bigger issues at play such as a flawed business model or poor management. Although it's easier for management just to blame the unions rather than their own shortcomings.

My wife and I were saying this last night. It sounds like the company was half in the toilet anyway and the strike is becoming catalyst/diversion/excuse to push the closures and liquidation up and deflect some scrutiny and blame. It's a lousy time for all these people to be looking at losing their jobs.

[michaelskis]

Lest's see, Hostess needs to cut costs, union workers don't like the idea of a pay cut so they go on strike. Strike makes it harder for them to make a profit, and the company warns the unions that if the employees don't return and accept they pay cut, they will have to close doors. Their labor cost was the most expensive part of there operation and it was going to go up.

So instead of taking a small pay cut, 18,000 will take a pay elimination, might not get any of their pensions as the company will be liquidating everything. The Government and the Banks will get the first share, pensions will get what ever is left over.

Unions killed the company. Simple as that. You are right, it was a bad business model to let the unions have that much power for that long.

"Benghazi" is just a creation of Fox news and nothing more. A horrible tragedy, but not a cover-up by any means. Only the 30% or so of the American populace that treats Fox news as gospel is convinced otherwise.

Petraeus testifies CIA's Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says

So how much of it is a lie? I don't know.

[btrage]

Lest's see, Hostess needs to cut costs, union workers don't like the idea of a pay cut so they go on strike. Strike makes it harder for them to make a profit, and the company warns the unions that if the employees don't return and accept they pay cut, they will have to close doors. Their labor cost was the most expensive part of there operation and it was going to go up.

So instead of taking a small pay cut, 18,000 will take a pay elimination, might not get any of their pensions as the company will be liquidating everything. The Government and the Banks will get the first share, pensions will get what ever is left over.

Unions killed the company. Simple as that. You are right, it was a bad business model to let the unions have that much power for that long.

I don't like unions, but I accept their right to collectively bargain and strike.

If the market demand for Wonder Bread and Twinkies is still there, then a new company will fill the void and hire workers to create the product.

Labor comes before capital, and if the workers determined that losing their jobs was the lesser of two evils, then they should have the power to make that decision.

[wahday]

This is a complicated case and I don’t think its easy to stick the blame so squarely on the Unions. Hostess has been in financial crisis for about a decade. They filed for bankruptcy in January for the second time since 2004. Workers had already made a number of concessions since that time and an earlier threat to liquidate if unions didn’t fall in line with lower wages never materialized.

There were other factors at play in all of this, including increases in vendor payment terms (sellers taking a larger cut of the profits), changing consumer tastes (how much have they really diversified their products to keep pace with changing markets? Their products look exactly the same as when I was a kid) and high commodity costs. Many have also cited years of financial mismanagement including a lack of capital investments to legacy their labor costs.

Given all of these factors and no discernible change or improvement in management practices, the unions generally felt that the wage cuts were not a long-term, sustainable solution to the problems the company was facing.

[imaplanner]

Lest's see, Hostess needs to cut costs, union workers don't like the idea of a pay cut so they go on strike. Strike makes it harder for them to make a profit, and the company warns the unions that if the employees don't return and accept they pay cut, they will have to close doors. Their labor cost was the most expensive part of there operation and it was going to go up.

So instead of taking a small pay cut, 18,000 will take a pay elimination, might not get any of their pensions as the company will be liquidating everything. The Government and the Banks will get the first share, pensions will get what ever is left over.

Unions killed the company. Simple as that. You are right, it was a bad business model to let the unions have that much power for that long.

I don't think it's nearly that simple. But its a fun game to play. I suppose a rebuttal in similar terms might be - what would you have done mskis? Forced the employees to work there? Make them accept pay cuts and work they don't want to do? Employees shouldn't be allowed to quit or to threaten to quit? Maybe we can use the military to force workers to do what companies want.

[Tranplanner]

And so the unions killed the tweenkie.

What the hell is a "tweenkie"? The preferred junk food of pedophiles and republicans?

[Linda_D]

What the hell is a "tweenkie"? The preferred junk food of pedophiles and republicans?

+5!

[Blide]

From Bloomberg:

In the past 15 months, Hostess has unilaterally ended contractually obligated payments to the workers’ pension plan, and demanded as much as 32 percent cuts in wages and benefits, the union said in the statement.

If true, it's not hard to see why the workers refused to end the strike. There's got to a be a point when it's not even worth working for a company any longer and it seems like most of those union members felt it had reached that point.

I honestly think Hostess was just trying to delay the inevitable here. The company was going to go under, it was just a matter of when. The unions just brought about its demise sooner than management or the private equity company would have liked.

[Maister]

Presidential election 'fixed' by UFO aliens?

How much of this is true? I don't know, but I haven't seen anyone provide a shred of evidence to disprove it.




2340

[Suburb Repairman]

Lest's see, Hostess needs to cut costs, union workers don't like the idea of a pay cut so they go on strike. Strike makes it harder for them to make a profit, and the company warns the unions that if the employees don't return and accept they pay cut, they will have to close doors. Their labor cost was the most expensive part of there operation and it was going to go up.

So instead of taking a small pay cut, 18,000 will take a pay elimination, might not get any of their pensions as the company will be liquidating everything. The Government and the Banks will get the first share, pensions will get what ever is left over.

Unions killed the company. Simple as that. You are right, it was a bad business model to let the unions have that much power for that long.

Bad leadership killed Hostess. That had very little operating capital (one of the biggest sins in running a business, large or small), which is why they've filed bankruptcy twice in the last decade. The "restructuring" they were doing was simply delaying the inevitable, as liquidation was going to happen within the next couple of years anyway. They were really using this restructuring time to try to build value for a more profitable liquidation. The unions simply gave Hostess leadership an out to blame someone other than themselves for the situation.

[otterpop]

It is heartening to know in these tough economic times and high unemployment that those "job creators" we've heard so much about are stepping up by threatening to fire their minimum wage employees or at least cut their hours. Even though he lost the election, that old Romney spirit is being carried on by those brave CEOs who also "like to fire people who provide a service" for them.

[imaplanner]

Petraeus testifies CIA's Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says

So how much of it is a lie? I don't know.

You are aware that Petraeus is saying pretty much the same thing that the administration has been saying. It was likely an act of terror that used the protests as a cover. Susan Rice was saying that. Obama said it on the day or two after the attack. What exactly is the scandal here you are concerned about? One minute Fox is saying Obama should have defended the free speech of a video (he did-documented on video), then he should have called it terrorism (he did-documented on video), then he watched the attack live on tv and ordered help to stand down because he hates America (have fun with that one). Now is it back to the fact that they knew it was terror and didn't say so (they did - see documented on video)? There is a reason why people call it the right-wing bubble of misinformation. It seems increasingly likely that much of the sitting GOP congress is getting all their news from Fox as well- as evident by McCain and others holding a press conference to complain and talk impeachment because of the supposed lack of information while skipping a hearing to provide classified information.

Ask yourself this, what is the conspiracy exactly? If, like Fox keeps saying, Obama watched live video of the attack and ordered people to stand down and not help his own appointed ambassador because he secretely sides with islamic radicals, then this is a serious problem. Do you really think that is the case?

[btrage]

You are aware that Petraeus is saying pretty much the same thing that the administration has been saying. It was likely an act of terror that used the protests as a cover. Susan Rice was saying that. Obama said it on the day or two after the attack. What exactly is the scandal here you are concerned about? One minute Fox is saying Obama should have defended the free speech of a video (he did-documented on video), then he should have called it terrorism (he did-documented on video), then he watched the attack live on tv and ordered help to stand down because he hates America (have fun with that one). Now is it back to the fact that they knew it was terror and didn't say so (they did - see documented on video)? There is a reason why people call it the right-wing bubble of misinformation. It seems increasingly likely that much of the sitting GOP congress is getting all their news from Fox as well- as evident by McCain and others holding a press conference to complain and talk impeachment because of the supposed lack of information while skipping a hearing to provide classified information.

Ask yourself this, what is the conspiracy exactly? If, like Fox keeps saying, Obama watched live video of the attack and ordered people to stand down and not help his own appointed ambassador because he secretely sides with islamic radicals, then this is a serious problem. Do you really think that is the case?

Last night my wife asked me what this whole thing was about, and I honestly couldn't think of what the issue was.

Something about the White House changing talking points??

The GOP is looking for anything they can to undermine this administration. Please focus on taxes, deficit reduction, and jobs, not on this shit.

If you want to have a real discussion about faulty intelligence data, then go back about 10 years when a Republican administration used it to take the country to war.