OT: "Small Businesses Are Going on a Hiring Binge"

18 comments

• Josh43

  •

  9 years ago

  Another great Bloomberg article and it makes me smile to see this charismatic black dude in the White House presiding over our economic recovery. Take note, you wingnuts on the right: looks like taking care of our citizens' health has not destroyed the labor market: Bloomberg:"Some business groups have expressed concern that the Affordable Care Act’s mandate for employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide insurance could deter hiring. A Congressional Research Service report Jan. 15 noted a 2013 survey of small employers found most misunderstood the rules on what size companies were required to provide coverage, the deadlines and penalties. The report said the law would result in “a negligible change in the labor force.” Now if only we could get a single-payer health care system like the UK, Sweden, Finland, or Australia we could also attack our serious Medicare debt issues in the future. But single-payer health is socialism -- so that will never happen, here. Right Shark? "Didn't the certain jerk on the left say that even if there was a boom only the top 1% would benefit?" Misrepresenting someone's argument is the work of someone with a pea brain. If you try harder to be logical, Douglas, maybe you can move out of your habitat under a bridge in the forest and into a real home like the rest of us. People in the top 1% are merely affluent. Many are scientists, engineers, and medical doctors who deserve much more. The income and wealth inequality issue centers on hedge-fund managers who do (almost) nothing but speculate on the economy and earn grotesque amounts of money. Then they attempt to buy elections. One of my fav authors is Matthew Yglesias. One of his articles floating around last year pointed out that the top four hedge fund managers out earn more than every kindergarten teacher in America. Fuck that.
• Dougster

  •

  9 years ago

  Josh: "The income and wealth inequality issue centers on hedge-fund managers who do (almost) nothing but speculate on the economy and earn grotesque amounts of money. Then they attempt to buy elections." Unless it's a guy on the left like George Soros. Then it's all cool.
• Dougster

  •

  9 years ago

  Josh: "People in the top 1% are merely affluent. Many are scientists, engineers, and medical doctors who deserve much more. The income and wealth inequality issue centers on hedge-fund managers who do (almost) nothing but speculate on the economy and earn grotesque amounts of money. Then they attempt to buy elections." Democratic Party found they weren't get any traction if they cast their net too wide so now they are trying to water down their position. I think I can see the evolution of the argument. "It's the top 1% who are the problem!" Oh wait, I know a guy who is a doctor and he meets the 1% definition and he is alright, how can you guys go after him? Okay, okay.... Let's water it down. It's only the 0.1% we hate! But I know who built up a small business from scratch into a large one starting with only his own money... Oh, okay-okay... It's only a problem if they have alot of money and made it in finance! But that's what our boy Soros did.... Okay-okay, it's only a problem if they inherited alot of money like the Cock Brothers did! Heck if ultimately nobody anybody knows or that even exists is in the "group" you are after maybe the Democratic Party line won't alienate anyone. Of course, you're in pure conspiracy theory territory by then.
• Josh43

  •

  9 years ago

  Complete nonsense. It's exactly the fucking opposite: the GOP includes the merely affluent to dismiss and discredit what is a valid argument. I
• Dougster

  •

  9 years ago

  So the Occupy Wall Street crowd said "1%" but they actually meant fewer because their math wasn't good? Or the Democratic doesn't want to be associated with them? Ok, so even I'm confused now. Who exactly is the problem? It isn't just wealth based because then we would have to include Liz Warren right? So it has to be have wealth above what? $100 million? And even that's okay providing you didn't earn it in finance and didn't inherit much? Is that who the problem?
• Dougster

  •

  9 years ago

  And let me remind you Josh, that Obama thinks top tax rates should kick in at $250k which is well below 1%. It's hardly like I'm misrepresenting the Democratic Party's view (unless you think people should just ignore all the contradictions like where they want top tax rates to start, George Soros, Liz Warren, etc...)
• Josh43

  •

  9 years ago

  And let me remind you Josh, that Obama thinks top tax rates should kick in at $250k which is well below 1%. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're sure a busy-bee today, Douglas. Maybe you should go out and get laid?? If you try and ignore "The System" you'll have a much better result. Setting the top tax rates at $250K does sound a little too low to me. You're going to include a lot of smart, hard-working, professionals at $250K. However, there have been some studies that suggest that you can increases taxes significantly on incomes over $500K without putting a burden on economic growth. There's an economist named Saez who writes about this. Maybe you sift through financial data and grind out equations all day. I don't; I have to go with some of the economists like Saez whom I trust. How do you feel about the ratio of (CEO Compensation)/(worker compensation) increasing by a factor of 10 since the 1950s? Do you really think we have a new breed of managers that deserve that kind of wealth? I sure don't. Wealth buys power and reinforces itself. When returns on capital gains and dividends exceeds the economic growth rate, wealth accumulates at the top. Then that wealth gets passed on to the next generation (unless, like JS, wealth is squandered on strippers). Something needs to be done to prevent a few wealthy individuals from taking control of American politics (that applies to Soros as well as the Cocks). This is not an attack on capitalism itself. The issue is that there's some "sweet spot" on progressive taxation that promotes economic growth, but which avoids some of the absolutely glaring examples of economically useless spoils going to CEOs and hedge-fund managers
• Dougster

  •

  9 years ago

  Josh: "You're sure a busy-bee today, Douglas. Maybe you should go out and get laid?? If you try and ignore "The System" you'll have a much better result" Actually I've been making arrangements with your sister (again). You're right! Works even better than The System! Of course anyone else who "just asks" her has also had the same degree of "luck". Soft target I guess you coukd call it. :-)
• Mate27

  •

  9 years ago

  Getting your income from capital gains and dividends is pure financial intelligence and should be a mathematical plan most should aspire. It shouldn't be a punishment to accomplish the goal and then be punished for working harder than others. Of course someone will stare "those people didn't earn, they inherited" yet remember when you take incentives away for hard workers in a capitalist society, you get less hard working people. The current administration only has experience with politics and how government is run, they have little experience with how the private sector gets things done so the nation gets divided on new policy. What this current administration needs reminding us that their revenue comes from the taxing authority, and if business becomes too hindered, your big governmental policies will fail too,
• Dougster

  •

  9 years ago

  Good points, meat. And don't forget that capital gains and dividends are from investments, i.e. taking on risk. So yes there should be more reward there than collecting interest from risk free investment or earning wages. Otherwise where is the incentive to take on risk? Given the natural inequality between people I have no idea how you make capitalism but prevent there from being big winner. The fundamental problem, as I am routinely pointing out on TUSCL, is that one part of the population is absolutely mindless cock-sucking circle-jerkers who let the financial media and political blogs do their thinking for them. Because it seems lower risk. You want to take the reward away from people who over the last 6 years have gonna against the herd, ad got it right in the end because they could think for themselves? When they put significant parts of their wealth at risk of losing it all by taking these chances? Thanks, in large part, to these people the Great Recession did not become a Great Depression. I say they deserve their rewards. Others learn to think for themselves, they can do the same.
• bubbaloo

  •

  9 years ago

  It seems all you liberal fucks are always trying to convince yourselves that things are good. Live in the real world. I'll bet none of you have ever owned a business and felt the pain that your leaders inflict.
• sharkhunter

  •

  9 years ago

  I used to have better less expensive health care and so did everyone I know. Now it costs a lot more and they pay a lot less. I guess after you get past a several thousand per year deductible, they'll pay a higher percentage than the old plan I had. As is I'm saving more just in case of any unexpected health expenses and not going to the doctor to save money. I am getting annual blood checkups. I know of no one personally that is really happy about all the health care changes. If I don't use my hsa account much, I'm hoping to get enough in it to cover all medical expenses and have that amount be less than the return for the year. The only good thing in my opinion is that I got the hsa started while I'm still relatively young and healthy. Bad thing is if I ever want the money for other purposes other than medical, I wasted a lot because I'll have to pay double taxes and penalties on it.
• sharkhunter

  •

  9 years ago

  When I say they I'm referring to the health insurance companies. They typically pay less than they used to before all the health care changes for everything I've seen for many people. It appears the changes benefit all the insurance companies instead of most people. That makes sense since none of them are non profit. Someone in the insurance business probably could dispute that but I bet their overall profits went up with all the new laws.
• sharkhunter

  •

  9 years ago

  European QE starts Monday right. Just in time to replace the FED QE that started in 2009. Amazing how all that extra liquidity flows right into the stock market. Actually, sarcasm aside, I'm not sure where else it would go.
• Dougster

  •

  9 years ago

  @shark: I may be more optimistic than most (e.g. bubbaloo) but I think European QE was overkill. Larry Summers gave a pretty good detailed discussion of why at Davos. Still it's unlikely to hurt much even if it is a bit superfluous at this point. I used to have health care that I never even had co-pays for. That changed and I then had co-pays and deductibles. Then I changed jobs and then new co-pays and for greater amounts. Part of the evolution of the healthcare system, doesn't bother my ass none. Like I said I think the boom is great but that doesn't mean there will be an end to challenges facing people. I think healthcare and AI will be the biggest of those challenges over the next 20-30years.
• motorhead

  •

  9 years ago

  Smart talk! I think I need a LDK
• sharkhunter

  •

  9 years ago

  I think I could have just said people were not happy with health insurance companies before and still aren't happy now with all the new laws. For lower and middle class or lower middle class, the health insurance premium increases are more of a burden. I'll take a high deductible plan vesus Obamacare anyday. Obamacare costs a fortune unless you're poor or living off the government. The for profit insurance companies often only pay 80 to 90% of claims after deductibles and then they often deny up to 10% of Claims as unfair or unreasonable to them. My former insurance denied paying the full ambulannce bill after I was in an accident. Instead of taking me to the local hospital less than ten miles away, they stated a hospital about 80 miles away charged less. I was unconscious and it was an emergency. Stupid insurance denied my appeal to. only paid 70%. Seems typical from what I've heard. That's the reason so many people hate insurance companies here.
• sharkhunter

  •

  9 years ago

  I just talked to someone who had hip surgery, our former insurance was supposed to pay 80%, only paid 70%. He's still working on aging off over 30k in bills years later. All the rest f us hope no one needs something like that. You never know how much the insurance might actually pay.