Darden Restaurants practicing bad business to encourage Romney votes?

Sapient's picture

Darden Restaurants has gotten involved in politics. They claim they're testing an idea to reduce the amount of full time employees so they can avoid giving benefits that are required under Obamacare to full timers. Not only is their test unnecessary, it is presenting a dishonest viewpoint of how Obamacare works.

The Democrats (as usual) have done a horrible job explaining the benefits of Obamacare and answering the objections. While Obamacare isn't far reaching enough, it is abundantly better than the abundantly more expensive ER plan that Mitt Romney claims to back (even though he created an Obamacare-like plan in his state as Governor).

For companies like Darden that hope to reduce the amount of full time employees in an attempt to avoid giving benefits to full timers, they will be subject to a penalty. I work at a business in which we should have 4 full time workers at my position, but my company has always had 6-8 part time workers at the position to avoid providing benefits. As a result all of us are less informed and aren't as productive at our job as we could be. Obamacare fines businesses "that have workers who are not full-time employees, where a combination of employees working 120 hours per month (around 30 hours per week) count as one employee. "

In this situation more businesses will be encouraged to hire more full time employees, and provide benefits for more part time employees. Republicans and right wing media would like to skew the facts to lead you to believe that Obamacare helps create a nation of part-timers. No. The current landscape creates a nation of part-timers, Obamacare seeks to make an impact in that area.

Disclosure: I have been without healthcare for almost 10 years now.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Beyond Saving's picture

 The counting multiple part

 The counting multiple part time employees as full employees is only relevant for determining whether or not a business qualifies as having over 50 full time employees. That isn't an issue for Darden since they already have substantially more than 50 employees and no way to get below that short of going out of business. As far as the $2000 per employee penalty, converting a large portion of your workforce to part time makes financial sense. 

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/final-health-reform-bill-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act.aspx

See section 1513

Quote:

E) FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS TREATED AS FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES

.—øAs added by section 1003(c) of HCERA¿ 

Solely for purposes of determining whether an employer 

is an applicable large employer under this paragraph, an 

employer shall, in addition to the number of full-time 

employees for any month otherwise determined, include 

for such month a number of full-time employees determined 

by dividing the aggregate number of hours of service of 

employees who are not full-time employees for the month 

by 120.

In an industry that naturally has a lot of part timers because of condensed times of high consumer traffic and traditionally an attractive job for those who desire part time work with flexible hours, it is most likely far more profitable to move your full time workers to part time. Any attorney will tell you the same and no doubt Darden has had an army of attorneys and accountants determining the best ratio they should seek to have in full-time/part-time workers to meet labor needs while minimizing the cost of Bamacare. The "affordable" care act has a minefield of fines and penalties but there are methods to get through the minefield and attorneys and accountants will do their jobs and find them.  

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

Brian37's picture

It is corporate social

It is corporate social engineering. It is once again allowing corporate bullying to silence the dissent of the worker. Keep them poor so you can control them.

You do not want any collective bargining on the part of the worker, but yet it is ok for big business to pool its money together to silence dissent.

You don't want of the people, you want of the rich for the rich and by the rich.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Vastet's picture

"converting a large portion

"converting a large portion of your workforce to part time makes financial sense. "

No it doesn't. It's this short sighted and greedy attitude which is driving the gap between the rich and the poor. They'll learn the hard way, as will the rest of those who fail to think things through.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

digitalbeachbum's picture

 http://www.aarp.org/health/

 

http://www.aarp.org/health/health-care-reform/health_reform_factsheets/

 

http://www.aarp.org/health/health-care-reform/info-04-2010/a_user_s_guide_to_health_care_reform.html

 

People are so un-informed. They have been blasted by misinformation from sources like FOX news and the GOP that they are confused. The truth of the matter is that the GOP knows this is a good idea for American. They only wanted to take credit for their selves. They wanted to make Obama look bad.

For four years now the GOP has dragged their feet to make Obama "a one term President" which was their biggest mistake. They decided to make the middle class suffer in the hope that Obama would look bad and the middle class would not vote for him.

This is why Romney was losing the election and why now he is pandering to the middle class to get their vote. He knows that the "tea smokers" and they right wing "bible thumpers" won't win the election for him. He needs to lie to win.

Did you notice that he went from "the first thing I will do, on the first day of being elected, will be to repeal Obamacare" to "I wont' repeal Obamacare"?

Romney and the GOP are douchebags.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Beyond Saving's picture

Vastet wrote:"converting a

Vastet wrote:
"converting a large portion of your workforce to part time makes financial sense. " No it doesn't. It's this short sighted and greedy attitude which is driving the gap between the rich and the poor. They'll learn the hard way, as will the rest of those who fail to think things through.

in what way do they lose?

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

Vastet's picture

Hard to keep up profits when

Hard to keep up profits when you're losing customers because the majority of businesses are taking the same short sighted approach, resulting in a net loss of disposable income for the average customer, resulting in a net loss of business as customers are lost.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Sapient's picture

 My business could have 4

 My business could have 4 highly informed and well trained employees that would be the best in the area at what we do instead we have 6 part time employees for the same position.  As a result we often are less informed of new products, pricing, procedures, and everything about our job.  As a result of the great "financial sense" that it makes to have part time workers instead of full time, my company has less informed, less effective employees who resent the fact that the powers above don't care.  Our morale is lower, our ability is lower, our customer service is not what it could be.  

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Beyond Saving's picture

 Stellar customer service

 Stellar customer service is hardly a selling point for the Olive Garden, it simply isn't an area that they choose to focus on nor one that the average Olive Garden customer expects. I could see how such a tactic might hurt a company like Ruth's Chris or Morton's which charges a premium to provide a dining experience. Darden restaurants are not upscale, do not seek to provide an upscale experience and do not charge upscale prices. It is pointless for a company to attempt to be something they are not when it isn't appropriate for their niche demographic. I doubt the average Olive Garden customer either knows or cares whether the manager of the location is full time or part time.

Also, I think it is rather absurd to assume that part time workers are somehow inferior to full time customers. The staff I just got done bullshitting with at my local favorite hangout are all part time and are exemplary at their jobs. But no doubt such concerns is why Darden is doing a test in a handful of locations before deciding whether or not to adopt the policy company wide. I doubt it makes one iota of difference, I could be wrong but the beauty of free market capitalism is that anyone is able to open a business that does something that might be better and if it is in fact better will make larger profits. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

Vastet's picture

"Also, I think it is rather

"Also, I think it is rather absurd to assume that part time workers are somehow inferior to full time (employees)*."

*Fixed?
I think its absurd to claim otherwise. Part time workers have less reason to care or work hard or learn, as they need a second job which requires a split in their attention on every level.
What exactly motivates someone to work harder when they only get 16 hours a week, have been refused more, get shitty wages, and are refused more?
Every part time position I've held or seen was a joke.

"I could be wrong but the beauty of free market capitalism is that anyone is able to open a business that does something that might be better and if it is in fact better will make larger profits. "

The horror of free market capitalism is that people trade short term profits for long term fiscal instability.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Brian37's picture

Vastet wrote:"Also, I think

Vastet wrote:
"Also, I think it is rather absurd to assume that part time workers are somehow inferior to full time (employees)*." *Fixed? I think its absurd to claim otherwise. Part time workers have less reason to care or work hard or learn, as they need a second job which requires a split in their attention on every level. What exactly motivates someone to work harder when they only get 16 hours a week, have been refused more, get shitty wages, and are refused more? Every part time position I've held or seen was a joke. "I could be wrong but the beauty of free market capitalism is that anyone is able to open a business that does something that might be better and if it is in fact better will make larger profits. " The horror of free market capitalism is that people trade short term profits for long term fiscal instability.

This is what far too many business owners DONT get. I am the most productive for my position.If I had two jobs I would do the bare minimum to conserve energy. But you are DEAD RIGHT that if someone is part time they arent going to have a very caring attitude nor the energy.

I am sick of idiots measuring "hard work" in terms of hours. I've seen lazy asses put in more hours and do far less.

I'd like the "free  for all" market idiots please explain what the fuck would be so bad about giving workers 40 hours a week and a life outside their job? Did it ever occur to you fuckwads that if you did your workers would have stability and actually care.

"It costs too much", no. You don't want to pay. You can, you just don't want to. I am so sick of labor being the first thing to be cut. That is just profit padding at the expense of the worker.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Beyond Saving's picture

Brian37 wrote:Vastet

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"Also, I think it is rather absurd to assume that part time workers are somehow inferior to full time (employees)*." *Fixed? I think its absurd to claim otherwise. Part time workers have less reason to care or work hard or learn, as they need a second job which requires a split in their attention on every level. What exactly motivates someone to work harder when they only get 16 hours a week, have been refused more, get shitty wages, and are refused more? Every part time position I've held or seen was a joke. "I could be wrong but the beauty of free market capitalism is that anyone is able to open a business that does something that might be better and if it is in fact better will make larger profits. " The horror of free market capitalism is that people trade short term profits for long term fiscal instability.

This is what far too many business owners DONT get. I am the most productive for my position.If I had two jobs I would do the bare minimum to conserve energy. But you are DEAD RIGHT that if someone is part time they arent going to have a very caring attitude nor the energy.

Why? IME there are plenty of full time workers who are significantly lacking in attitude and energy. It is difficult to give a fuck about your job for 40 hours a week. Especially since many jobs don't actually require the employee to be there so many hours, which leads to employees sitting around with no work to do which leads to significant dissatisfaction. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I am sick of idiots measuring "hard work" in terms of hours. I've seen lazy asses put in more hours and do far less.

I agree 100%, I think our whole idea of "full time" or "part time" employees is absurd and using hours as the measure to determine pay inefficient and unfair. Unfortunately, it is a situation that is forced by our various labor laws that control who can be an exempt salaried employee, which employees must be hourly and the all important part-time, full-time distinction.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

I'd like the "free  for all" market idiots please explain what the fuck would be so bad about giving workers 40 hours a week and a life outside their job? Did it ever occur to you fuckwads that if you did your workers would have stability and actually care.

It is much easier to have a life outside your job if you are working less than 40 hours a week. It might surprise you to learn that many people actually want to work part time because they have lives outside of work. This is especially true for the restaurant industry where many of the workers willing to put up with all the shit do it because the hours are very flexible which makes it good for people with other obligations like single parents and college students.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

"It costs too much", no. You don't want to pay. You can, you just don't want to. I am so sick of labor being the first thing to be cut. That is just profit padding at the expense of the worker.

Payroll is by far the largest expense for most employers, so yeah it is usually one of the first things cut- especially since if you need to cut, you are not making money which usually means you are not getting business which means you don't need as many employees. This is especially true in the service industry which requires a large number of people to serve relatively few customers at a low cost. As you should know, it takes quite a few people to get a burger in front of a customer and clean up after they leave at profit margins that are much smaller than the majority of products.   

Why don't you get cable? "It costs too much" no, you don't want to pay. You can, you just don't want to. I am so sick of cable being the first thing to be cut. That is just profit padding at the expense of the cable company (and workers). You are aware that business owners don't just fart money out of their asses right? Any good business owner must be a cheap fucker when it comes to managing the company budget because if a company fails to make a healthy profit it dies and everyone loses their job.

In the case of Darden, in the 1st quarter or 2013 they earned $110.8 million. Sounds like a lot of money right? Well they have 185,000 employees, so the profit per employee is just shy of $600- about $200 a month (and that is actually a really good quarter for them). Could you buy everyone health care out of that? Perhaps, but you wouldn't have much left over. Now what happens if there is no profit? Well then the company can't borrow money, its stock price goes to hell so it can't get bonds. What does that mean? It can't build new restaurants, it can't purchase new equipment for the kitchen, it can't advertise etc. It will go out of business and every person that works for them will have to find a new job. Who does that help? 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/darden-restaurants-1q-profit-revenue-rises-112043177--finance.html

When a company is making large profits everyone working for it benefits, when it doesn't make profits everyone will suffer.    

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

Cpt_pineapple's picture

This is resturants right? So

This is resturants right? So a lot of the employees will be students? Like in college or high school right?

 

But if the law passes, then there only be full time positions and students will have to quit or drop out of school.

 

 

 

Beyond Saving's picture

Sapient wrote: My business

Sapient wrote:

 My business could have 4 highly informed and well trained employees that would be the best in the area at what we do instead we have 6 part time employees for the same position.  As a result we often are less informed of new products, pricing, procedures, and everything about our job.  As a result of the great "financial sense" that it makes to have part time workers instead of full time, my company has less informed, less effective employees who resent the fact that the powers above don't care.  Our morale is lower, our ability is lower, our customer service is not what it could be.  

So you are saying they should lay off two employees? Which two?

I find it ironic that businesses are condemned from the left when they hire many part time workers and are equally condemned when they fire people and consolidate the responsibilities to a fewer number of people. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. You very well might be right that your particular job might be done better by fewer full time employees. But I don't think you can make a blanket statement about which way is better. Every business is unique, has its own challenges and its own situations. A one size fits all approach never works and it is quite possible that your employer has very good reasons for hiring 6 part time employees rather than 3 or 4 full time. 

There are a number of other considerations beyond just the financial- for example, if you only have four people and one person calls in sick is it going to cause a significant problem? The restaurant industry in particular tends to hire younger people and pays low wages which is a combination that frequently leads to employees with poorer work ethics or life events that prevent them from always showing up to work. There isn't a restaurant manager in the country that doesn't deal with employees calling off their shift on a regular basis. Since it is an industry where the work that needs done has to be done right now, putting the excess work off until tomorrow is not an option. It is easier to ensure that a sufficient staff shows up when you hire many part time employees rather than a smaller staff of full time employees.  

No doubt there are probably dozens if not hundreds of other reasons why various employers choose to hire part time instead of full time. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

Sapient's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:Sapient

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sapient wrote:

 My business could have 4 highly informed and well trained employees that would be the best in the area at what we do instead we have 6 part time employees for the same position.  As a result we often are less informed of new products, pricing, procedures, and everything about our job.  As a result of the great "financial sense" that it makes to have part time workers instead of full time, my company has less informed, less effective employees who resent the fact that the powers above don't care.  Our morale is lower, our ability is lower, our customer service is not what it could be.  

So you are saying they should lay off two employees? Which two?

Yes, the one that is a compulsive liar to clients and the one who appears to hate his job (and the clients) when working with clients.  The 4 that are incredible at their job should get more hours.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

EXC's picture

Is it impossible for

Is it impossible for leftists to even consider unintended consequences of a new law?

Darden would never have existed if there had been a law requiring them to pay for a large number employee's' expensive healthcare. The business model would not have worked and the investors would have invested their money elsewhere. There are in a low margin competitive market. They rely on waiters willing to work for pretty much tips only.

The unintended consequence of Obamacare are that customers will balk at the higher prices. They will close restaurants if forced to pay for healthcare for low skill employees. Companies will hire illegal immigrants to get around this law. Restaurants that hire fewer workers will succeed. So you'll have to go to a buffet to avoid paying for waiters. Restaurants will use robot waiters that don't require healthcare.

 

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

Vastet's picture

Is it impossible for

Is it impossible for rightists to even consider unintended consequences of current law?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

digitalbeachbum's picture

EXC wrote:Is it impossible

EXC wrote:

Is it impossible for leftists to even consider unintended consequences of a new law?

Darden would never have existed if there had been a law requiring them to pay for a large number employee's' expensive healthcare. The business model would not have worked and the investors would have invested their money elsewhere. There are in a low margin competitive market. They rely on waiters willing to work for pretty much tips only.

The unintended consequence of Obamacare are that customers will balk at the higher prices. They will close restaurants if forced to pay for healthcare for low skill employees. Companies will hire illegal immigrants to get around this law. Restaurants that hire fewer workers will succeed. So you'll have to go to a buffet to avoid paying for waiters. Restaurants will use robot waiters that don't require healthcare.

What are you talking about?

# 1 - Darden never had to pay for expensive insurance. Don't you understand how it works? Darden pays very little for health care.

# 2 - Higher prices? LOL. Do you watch FOX news?

# 3 - Illegal immigrants? The GOP wants to get rid of them, which is why food was left to rot in the fields when specific states tried to enforce their new "immigrant laws".

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Brian37's picture

I see both sides having

I see both sides having valid arguments. It is against the law to enter the country illegally, and it should be. But I do get tired of people making it out to be a race or nationality issue, you are still taking about human evolution and that humans will always seek resorces. So from a humanitarian standpoint, I aslo understand why people do it.

My stanpoint is this, without a doubt, kick out the violent criminals who come in illegally. But for the non violent ones, while I wont rat you out, I'd also say it is still a risk and if you do get caught it would be hard for me to say you didn't break the law becuase you did.

Kids however are a completely different issue. A kid born here or brought here has no choice and I don't think it is human to punish them for what their parents did.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Beyond Saving's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:EXC

digitalbeachbum wrote:

EXC wrote:

Is it impossible for leftists to even consider unintended consequences of a new law?

Darden would never have existed if there had been a law requiring them to pay for a large number employee's' expensive healthcare. The business model would not have worked and the investors would have invested their money elsewhere. There are in a low margin competitive market. They rely on waiters willing to work for pretty much tips only.

The unintended consequence of Obamacare are that customers will balk at the higher prices. They will close restaurants if forced to pay for healthcare for low skill employees. Companies will hire illegal immigrants to get around this law. Restaurants that hire fewer workers will succeed. So you'll have to go to a buffet to avoid paying for waiters. Restaurants will use robot waiters that don't require healthcare.

What are you talking about?

# 1 - Darden never had to pay for expensive insurance. Don't you understand how it works? Darden pays very little for health care.

That is the point, they never have and now they have to (or put their workers part time). It is a new and very large expense for the company. Maybe you don't pay for health insurance out of your own pocket, but I do pay for my employees health insurance and it is very expensive. 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

# 2 - Higher prices? LOL. Do you watch FOX news? 

Well where else is the money going to come from? Businesses can't just print money you know, it has to come from customers and higher expenses means you need to increase revenue. Higher prices is generally the logical step to take. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

digitalbeachbum's picture

Brian37 wrote:I see both

Brian37 wrote:

I see both sides having valid arguments. It is against the law to enter the country illegally, and it should be. But I do get tired of people making it out to be a race or nationality issue, you are still taking about human evolution and that humans will always seek resorces. So from a humanitarian standpoint, I aslo understand why people do it.

My stanpoint is this, without a doubt, kick out the violent criminals who come in illegally. But for the non violent ones, while I wont rat you out, I'd also say it is still a risk and if you do get caught it would be hard for me to say you didn't break the law becuase you did.

Kids however are a completely different issue. A kid born here or brought here has no choice and I don't think it is human to punish them for what their parents did.

I agree

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

digitalbeachbum's picture

Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

EXC wrote:

Is it impossible for leftists to even consider unintended consequences of a new law?

Darden would never have existed if there had been a law requiring them to pay for a large number employee's' expensive healthcare. The business model would not have worked and the investors would have invested their money elsewhere. There are in a low margin competitive market. They rely on waiters willing to work for pretty much tips only.

The unintended consequence of Obamacare are that customers will balk at the higher prices. They will close restaurants if forced to pay for healthcare for low skill employees. Companies will hire illegal immigrants to get around this law. Restaurants that hire fewer workers will succeed. So you'll have to go to a buffet to avoid paying for waiters. Restaurants will use robot waiters that don't require healthcare.

What are you talking about?

# 1 - Darden never had to pay for expensive insurance. Don't you understand how it works? Darden pays very little for health care.

That is the point, they never have and now they have to (or put their workers part time). It is a new and very large expense for the company. Maybe you don't pay for health insurance out of your own pocket, but I do pay for my employees health insurance and it is very expensive. 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

# 2 - Higher prices? LOL. Do you watch FOX news? 

Well where else is the money going to come from? Businesses can't just print money you know, it has to come from customers and higher expenses means you need to increase revenue. Higher prices is generally the logical step to take. 

Insurance will go down. 10 million more insured plus the removal of all the waste will immediately reduce health care costs.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Beyond Saving's picture

digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Insurance will go down. 10 million more insured plus the removal of all the waste will immediately reduce health care costs.

How in the world is that going to happen? Insurance companies are going to be required to accept people they otherwise would have refused to insure, they are no longer allowed to put lifetime limits on the coverage and all insurance policies have to cover a bunch of things they never covered before like birth control pills. If the insurance company has to cover more shit they have to charge more money. That is why health insurance rates went up the legal maximum this year. It isn't getting cheaper, you can't have your cake and eat it too. 

That is before you even consider the consequences of introducing coercion into the market. Previously, employers could choose not to include health insurance as a benefit. Now they have to. Insurance companies know that and will charge a premium on the rates because the employers do not have a choice. Kind of like when you go to a concert and beer is $8 for a tiny cup because you can't get it anywhere else. Why? Because insurance companies are greedy. They are not getting the new customers because they are offering a superior product or a cheaper price. They are getting them because the government is forcing them. Why would the insurance companies lower prices? Just to be nice? Health insurance companies are ran by assholes, that isn't going to change. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

EXC's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote: # 1

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

# 1 - Darden never had to pay for expensive insurance. Don't you understand how it works? Darden pays very little for health care.

I know that has been their business model. Obamacare will drive them out of business.

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

# 2 - Higher prices? LOL. Do you watch FOX news?

It's simple math. The average cost of healthcare is now over $10K/yr

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/average-cost-of-us-health-coverage-per-employee-is-expected-to-cross-the-10000-threshold-for-the-first-time-in-2012-according-to-aon-hewitt-130847468.html

That is not much less than the salary of a minimum wage worker. So with the fast rising healthcare prices they would soon have to double what they pay per employee. Obama care is essentially the equivilent of doubling the minimum wage. So it is going to be layoff city at companies like Darden.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

# 3 - Illegal immigrants? The GOP wants to get rid of them, which is why food was left to rot in the fields when specific states tried to enforce their new "immigrant laws".

Not really. The big money wing of the party loves access to cheap labor. To stop illegal immigration, you'd have to jail and fine a lot of republican employers.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

digitalbeachbum's picture

Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Insurance will go down. 10 million more insured plus the removal of all the waste will immediately reduce health care costs.

How in the world is that going to happen? Insurance companies are going to be required to accept people they otherwise would have refused to insure, they are no longer allowed to put lifetime limits on the coverage and all insurance policies have to cover a bunch of things they never covered before like birth control pills. If the insurance company has to cover more shit they have to charge more money. That is why health insurance rates went up the legal maximum this year. It isn't getting cheaper, you can't have your cake and eat it too. 

That is before you even consider the consequences of introducing coercion into the market. Previously, employers could choose not to include health insurance as a benefit. Now they have to. Insurance companies know that and will charge a premium on the rates because the employers do not have a choice. Kind of like when you go to a concert and beer is $8 for a tiny cup because you can't get it anywhere else. Why? Because insurance companies are greedy. They are not getting the new customers because they are offering a superior product or a cheaper price. They are getting them because the government is forcing them. Why would the insurance companies lower prices? Just to be nice? Health insurance companies are ran by assholes, that isn't going to change. 

Why do you think insurance companies and the AARP are supporting the Affordable Health Care Plan?

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

digitalbeachbum's picture

EXC wrote:digitalbeachbum

EXC wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 # 1 - Darden never had to pay for expensive insurance. Don't you understand how it works? Darden pays very little for health care.

I know that has been their business model. Obamacare will drive them out of business.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

# 2 - Higher prices? LOL. Do you watch FOX news?

It's simple math. The average cost of healthcare is now over $10K/yr

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/average-cost-of-us-health-coverage-per-employee-is-expected-to-cross-the-10000-threshold-for-the-first-time-in-2012-according-to-aon-hewitt-130847468.html

That is not much less than the salary of a minimum wage worker. So with the fast rising healthcare prices they would soon have to double what they pay per employee. Obama care is essentially the equivilent of doubling the minimum wage. So it is going to be layoff city at companies like Darden.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

# 3 - Illegal immigrants? The GOP wants to get rid of them, which is why food was left to rot in the fields when specific states tried to enforce their new "immigrant laws".

Not really. The big money wing of the party loves access to cheap labor. To stop illegal immigration, you'd have to jail and fine a lot of republican employers.

Wow.

1 - The Affordable Health Plan will keep them in business. They are using fear tactics to scare people in to voting for Romney

2 - The Affordable Health Plan will keep average costs per year to $8000 or below.

3 - I guess that is why conservatives have tried/did pass laws kicking or forcing illegal immigrants from living in their states.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Beyond Saving's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:Why do

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Why do you think insurance companies and the AARP are supporting the Affordable Health Care Plan?

Why wouldn't they? The law forces people to purchase their product, it is a cash cow for both the insurance companies and AARP (which makes money selling insurance policies). They will be making a lot more money short term from companies that previously didn't purchase health insurance.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Wow.

1 - The Affordable Health Plan will keep them in business. They are using fear tactics to scare people in to voting for Romney

How? It certainly doesn't help them stay in business. It may or may not drive them out of business. It will certainly make it harder to stay in business. Their success will depend on their ability to mitigate the costs of bamacare either through increasing revenue or avoiding the penalties like they are trying by making more workers part time. 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

2 - The Affordable Health Plan will keep average costs per year to $8000 or below.

Evidence? Where did you get that number? A DNC talking point memo? Perhaps you ought to try reading the law and explain to me exactly how these costs are going to magically go down. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/final-health-reform-bill-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act.aspx

By the way, unemployment would never go above 8%, Bama said so, it must be true. Regardless, even if your randomly made up number was accurate $8,000 a year per employee is a significant cost to an employer like Darden. As I pointed out above, Darden only makes a profit of $200 a month per employee $200 X 12 = $2400 per employee per year. Obviously that is not nearly enough to cover $8,000.

Although, Darden probably hires a large proportion of young people without families, which lowers the costs, their actual costs would probably be $4000-$5000, which is still way more money than they have. So what do they do? They either get rid of employees or they raise prices or a combination. The budget has to balance. And in the case of a large corporation like Darden, its life is short lived if it does not make a decent profit. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

Brian37's picture

EXC wrote:Is it impossible

Beyond wrote:
 Payroll is by far the largest expense for most employers

You don't say?

I'm Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room, our top story tonight "Thank you captain obvious"

And? So profits are always more important than human beings then? Ok, got it. Thank you proffessor. Can I work in your sweat shop when you get that plutocracy big money is acheaving?

And that is exactly what the problem is. And it matters not one lick to you that I provide you examples of rich people who don't think like you, like my prior owners. Private business I am fine with, but not when it is screwing society over.

And the killer is that small business like you buy into that corporate mentality which make it harder on you too but you are too blind to see it.

If you say you take care of your workers, GREAT, but there are not enough like that at the top and that slash and burn attitude bleeds down to people like you. Give that attitude enough time and it will affect even you.

You quote all those websites to say "it does work". Really? It worked so well that we are in a recession. I don't know about you, but when something DOES NOT work it seems stupid to repeat it. So the only way it works is for the ones who set it up to work for them only.

 

EDIT, sorry for the title of the post, I actually hit quote on another post and thought by editing the name out it would quote Beyond.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Brian37's picture

Quote:They either get rid of

Quote:
They either get rid of employees or they raise prices or a combination. The budget has to balance. And in the case of a large corporation like Darden, its life is short lived if it does not make a decent profit.

Wow, you and Beyond are really educating me. People shouldn't go into or hold onto a business that is not making  a profit? You know, if it were not for you two I never would have known that.

I love this bait and switch. Treat the non business owner like they have downs syndrom and ignore any economist or business owner who dissagrees with them.

The point you miss about profit margin is that the demand isn't there to make it big enough, so instead of making the lives of the employees more stable, you shoot yourself in the foot. If you wont listen to me I think maybe a billionaire who makes more than you might know something, you think? Nick Hanour BILLIONAIRE says our economy is bad because there is not enough money in the pockets of the worker.

Untill you realize that the demand works down to up, you will not understand what NICK HANOUR A BILLIONIARE, and I agree with him, you will continue shooting yourself in the foot and society as well.

Nick Hanour, Suzy Orman, my prior bosses all rich people who get it. This mess was caused by one class and one class only, not me, not the middle class, and not even the mom and pop shops. This mess is was caused by the heavy weights who have treated humans like mere tools and numbers on a page.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Beyond Saving's picture

Brian37 wrote:Quote:They

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
They either get rid of employees or they raise prices or a combination. The budget has to balance. And in the case of a large corporation like Darden, its life is short lived if it does not make a decent profit.

Wow, you and Beyond are really educating me. People shouldn't go into or hold onto a business that is not making  a profit? You know, if it were not for you two I never would have known that.

At least we agree on that. So now tell me how does Darden make a profit if they provide healthcare to all of their employees? I provided you the numbers, they make $200 a month profit per employee- using the most conservative numbers of $300 per employee per month to pay for health insurance ($3600 a year, probably unrealistic) how does Darden make a profit? The OP criticized them for getting rid of full time employees, ok so what is their alternative? How do they balance that budget?

The management at Darden is faced with the reality that they have to make the numbers work or lose all of their jobs. If you are going to criticize how they decide to do that you ought to have at least some idea of what they should do instead. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The point you miss about profit margin is that the demand isn't there to make it big enough, so instead of making the lives of the employees more sowtable, you shoot yourself in the foot.

I understand exactly how supply and demand works, it is the only thing I think about every day to make sure I am making enough money to cover payroll. I also know that raising prices tends to have downward pressure on demand. So in an industry where demand has been slumping, how does Darden pay the costs you say they should when they do not have enough money and raising prices would probably reduce demand for their product even more?

 

Brian37 wrote:

If you wont listen to me I think maybe a billionaire who makes more than you might know something, you think? Nick Hanour BILLIONAIRE says our economy is bad because there is not enough money in the pockets of the worker.

Untill you realize that the demand works down to up, you will not understand what NICK HANOUR A BILLIONIARE, and I agree with him, you will continue shooting yourself in the foot and society as well.

Nick Hanour, Suzy Orman, my prior bosses all rich people who get it. This mess was caused by one class and one class only, not me, not the middle class, and not even the mom and pop shops. This mess is was caused by the heavy weights who have treated humans like mere tools and numbers on a page.

 

I'll see your billionaire and raise you 100. Appeals to authorities who are not authorities are meaningless. Congrats on finding three though, there are only 412 in the US. If you want to change my mind, give me some data I can sink my teeth into. Tell me where the money comes from and what options are available to Darden other than the ones I listed. 

They can 

A. Raise prices and pay their employees all the benefits you think they should - downside: raising prices would likely cause them to lose more customers, not a brilliant idea when many of your restaurants are already failing.

B. Do nothing and go into debt to pay what Bamacare requires- downside: they lose money ever year and will slowly be forced to close restaurants until they have to declare bankruptcy and are bought out by someone else who will probably promptly cut costs. 

C. Cut expenses elsewhere- if they have enough waste somewhere in their budget. downside- there probably isn't nearly enough waste in their budget, if there is someone really needs to be fired ASAP. 

D. Do exactly what they are doing and reclassify their employees so they do not have to pay the bill. Downside- liberals like you get mad. 

To me, it is absolutely no surprise that they choose option D. And it is no surprise to me that Papa Johns chooses option A since they do a higher volume of business with fewer employees and 14 cents a pizza probably isn't going to change demand dramatically. Darden on the other hand would have to raise their prices on the order of 15-20% to maintain their current levels of profit which could create major problems. IMO, Darden restaurants are already overpriced for what you get so I rarely go to them because for what they ask I can get better food elsewhere.

Tell me, what other options do they have?

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

digitalbeachbum's picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Brian37's picture

Why is Darden in that

Why is Darden in that position? LONG TERM OVER ALL CLIMATE, but he has no right to blame his empoyeees. And it is sick that he would even dare suggest he has any right to use his business to bully his emploees. I am quite sure he is based in a right to screw the employee state so any poor sap who makes the mistake of being overheard at work saying "I'm voting for Obama", he can now even morso make an excuse to fire that person(even if he cant follow them into the voting booth) So please tell me why the boss gets to use his business for a polictial billboard, but dissentors wouldn't be alowed to? I am confused? I thought fascism was when you didn't allow for dissent?

Again you make this about his rights and your rights which says you do not care about the workers. It proves to me that if you had your way only busness owners could run for office or vote, which says to me you do want a monopoly.

You and he can pull your "poor me" garbage all you want. But in this country it is WE the people, not WE the rich only.

The climate he and you buy into is never to care about cost of living or pay gap. So by not caring about his workers in that context they could not create the demand that would force him to hire more workers, because that is what demand will do given time. That has been going on for 30 years and he and the Koch brothers and people like you who buy into "me me me me me me me me" wouldn't be in that position

My prior owners dont think like that. Now while it was true that they couldn't give me everything I might have wanted, they still gave me two pay raizes I did not ask for, now name me any boss that is going to give someone lazy a pay raise they didn't ask for?

The difference is people like Darden use "its the economy" as the excuse, when what they are really doing is looking for a way to get cheaper labor, like my current boss. He wont fire me flat out because that would make him look like an a hole. But when you cant get what you want you become a bully, so Darden's tactic is emotional blackmail, and my current boss, his tactic is to try to starve me to death. Because the next guy he might hire he could get cheaper.

An ethical boss isn't just going to make out about themselves. The problem long term hasn't been one person or wealth by itself. It is of all the business owners, the ones controling our climate are ruining it.

Now I also just thought of something else. In other threads you said both parties are corrupt. Well if the Koch brothers (and don't lie to me and say Romney is merely the lesser of the two evils to them) and don't lie to me and say "wealthy people donate to Obama too". Then hypocritically want the Koch broghters to support your candidate. If they can have influence on the republican party what makes you think they care about you, what would stop them from turning your candidate into a pawn for them as well?

If my prior bosses said "Sorry brian, gotta let you go" I could and would believe them and would know that they had no ill intent., Not that they would in any case. Darden does because he is out for himself and blackmail and bullying is the way far too much of the Corporate world works. You side with him merely because of the label "business owner". But after admitting that business owners can also range in politics, you cannot use the "economy" as an excuse when I quote rich people myself.

You side with him merely because of a shared label. That is just as absurd as saying "an atheist cant be wrong", or my co-worker "Mormons are good people", neglecting the real history of violence the founders of that religion conducted.

If everything you posted here worked like you said we would NOT be in this mess. Now for the love of life, you don't have to listen to me. Henry Ford probabley wouldn't think like you, Nick Hanour certainly doesn't, Suzy Orman who says "people first" certainly wouldnt agree with you and none of them are poor, Robert Riech is a professor of economics, so he knows what you know. And could probably deconstruct those links you posted quite easly. So argue with  those people.

It is possilbe to make a buck without screwing others over, unfortunatly the corporate world does not care and will crush any worker or mom and pop shop that gets in its way. And globally especially, humans are not human, they are mere tools the corporate world uses. Now while they haven't wiped out small business, they can push us all off a cliff and almost did if we hadn't bailed out the car companies and banks.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Brian37's picture

Quote:I'll see your

Quote:
I'll see your billionaire and raise you 100. Appeals to authorities who are not authorities are meaningless
Unless those athorities agree with you then they are athorities right?

Ok, then Dawkins is wrong and creationism is true. Got it, and we were never in a resssion, that was just my imgagination. Thanks for putting me strieght.

Where do CEOs usually get their education? Playing x boxes and watching the Old Time Gosple hour? Would you like to guess if Nick has a degree? If he didn't he still had to become a billionaire by learning from others. I don't think you get that high up by not listining to others.

I thonght most take business courses that get to that level at a minimum and or have business degrees from colleges? So don't jerk me around.

It simply amounts to crying when you don't get what you want all the time.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Beyond Saving's picture

Brian37 wrote:Why is Darden

Brian37 wrote:

Why is Darden in that position? LONG TERM OVER ALL CLIMATE, but he has no right to blame his empoyeees. And it is sick that he would even dare suggest he has any right to use his business to bully his emploees. I am quite sure he is based in a right to screw the employee state so any poor sap who makes the mistake of being overheard at work saying "I'm voting for Obama", he can now even morso make an excuse to fire that person(even if he cant follow them into the voting booth) So please tell me why the boss gets to use his business for a polictial billboard, but dissentors wouldn't be alowed to? I am confused? I thought fascism was when you didn't allow for dissent?

I am not aware of Darden saying anything about their employees or suggesting how they vote. They are simply responding to the law that was passed and making what they believe to be the best decision for their business overall. They are in this position because your lot wanted Bamacare, now those of us who have to foot the bill have to find a way to pay it because one thing we know for damn sure is you aren't picking up the tab. It is like you and me going out for lunch and you order cavier, lobster and the finest wine running up a $300 bill and I only have $250 in my pocket. Then you expect me to pick up the tab, and bitch at me for not leaving a tip. They don't have the money, so they are doing what is necessary.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Again you make this about his rights and your rights which says you do not care about the workers. It proves to me that if you had your way only busness owners could run for office or vote, which says to me you do want a monopoly.

I don't view business as employer vs. employee, both are there with the same goal- to make money. It is a team effort and you do what is best for the team, if the team is better off without you, it is better off without you. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You and he can pull your "poor me" garbage all you want. But in this country it is WE the people, not WE the rich only.

The climate he and you buy into is never to care about cost of living or pay gap. So by not caring about his workers in that context they could not create the demand that would force him to hire more workers, because that is what demand will do given time. That has been going on for 30 years and he and the Koch brothers and people like you who buy into "me me me me me me me me" wouldn't be in that position

The company is trying to stay in business, that benefits everyone who works for it. How are employees served by running a company into bankruptcy?

 

Brian37 wrote:

blah, blah, blah.... usual class warfare bullshit...

Ok, show me where the money comes from. Where does Darden get the money to do what you think they should? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now I also just thought of something else. In other threads you said both parties are corrupt. Well if the Koch brothers (and don't lie to me and say Romney is merely the lesser of the two evils to them) and don't lie to me and say "wealthy people donate to Obama too". Then hypocritically want the Koch broghters to support your candidate. If they can have influence on the republican party what makes you think they care about you, what would stop them from turning your candidate into a pawn for them as well?

I don't expect anyone to care about me, I operate under the assumption that everyone puts their self interest first. That is why I support a system in which other people pursuing their selfish interest helps me. The Koch brothers are only interested in my interest insofar as it is profitable for them to be interested. Olive Garden only cares about me insofar as I eat at their restaurant. My employees only care about me as long as I pay them wages. My business partners only care about me to the extent that I can fulfill my contracts and promises. We are all pursuing our selfish interests but our interests are not mutually exclusive and often go together. Olive Garden wants my money, I want food, I trade money for food. My employees want my money, I want their labor, we trade. It is mutually beneficial and in no way one party screwing the other or adversarial. 

What makes you think that Bama & Co. cares about you? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

If my prior bosses said "Sorry brian, gotta let you go" I could and would believe them and would know that they had no ill intent., Not that they would in any case. Darden does because he is out for himself and blackmail and bullying is the way far too much of the Corporate world works. You side with him merely because of the label "business owner". But after admitting that business owners can also range in politics, you cannot use the "economy" as an excuse when I quote rich people myself.

Show me how the math works. We have the numbers, it is a publicly traded company. HOW the fuck does Darden cover the costs? Where does the money come from? The records show they do not have it now. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You side with him merely because of a shared label. That is just as absurd as saying "an atheist cant be wrong", or my co-worker "Mormons are good people", neglecting the real history of violence the founders of that religion conducted.

I am siding with him because I can do math. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

If everything you posted here worked like you said we would NOT be in this mess. Now for the love of life, you don't have to listen to me. Henry Ford probabley wouldn't think like you, Nick Hanour certainly doesn't, Suzy Orman who says "people first" certainly wouldnt agree with you and none of them are poor, Robert Riech is a professor of economics, so he knows what you know. And could probably deconstruct those links you posted quite easly. So argue with  those people.

I do argue with those people. I argue with everyone who is wrong. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

It is possilbe to make a buck without screwing others over, unfortunatly the corporate world does not care and will crush any worker or mom and pop shop that gets in its way. And globally especially, humans are not human, they are mere tools the corporate world uses. Now while they haven't wiped out small business, they can push us all off a cliff and almost did if we hadn't bailed out the car companies and banks.

Most people make bucks without screwing others over. Your victimization is mostly in your own head. You are a big crybaby that should grow up and take some responsibility about where you are in life. For the most part, people running businesses are not the monsters you make them out to be.

Back to Darden, they have a concrete business decision that needs to be made. We have the numbers, they make $200 monthly profit per employee, health insurance will cost them over $300 per month per employee- how do they pay the bill? Before I jump all over them and condemn them for a decision they make I am going to have a better solution in mind. What is your solution? That they fart out millions dollars? Perhaps if they sold a side of crack with their endless salad bowl? You are portraying these people you have never met as evil for doing what it takes to keep their employees employed. Tell me, what other option do they have?

As usual, the capitalists will find a way to make things stretch and make the system work. Meanwhile, you will sit there and criticize us for not doing it right and call us monsters, uncaring, evil etc. for doing what has to be done. Then I'm sure you will come up with more regulations to make it even harder to keep your sorry ass employed. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

Brian37's picture

Quote:Downside- liberals

Quote:
Downside- liberals like you get mad. 

Yea I do get mad, but "liberal" isn't a slur to me, so maybe call me a pediphile or cerial killer and then I will not only consider those slurs, but liable too. But liberal, yea, thats like saying gay and trying to shame a gay guy for being "different".

And again you still have yet to explain to me how someone richer than you can agree with me if they are always doing something wrong, then Nick is a Downside liberal like me because he says the middle class and working poor are the bulk of the economy that creates the demand. Wait, crap, I cant quote him, he's not poor. Richer than you too, even more reason not to quote him.

I am clearly out of my league here.

Here is your formula

Rich good=screw everyone else=I get what I want

I think billionaire Nic might use this logic

Stability=considering all classes,

I dont think Nic wants to end the private sector simply because he knows how tough it is for the middle and poor.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Beyond Saving's picture

Brian37 wrote:Quote:I'll see

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I'll see your billionaire and raise you 100. Appeals to authorities who are not authorities are meaningless
Unless those athorities agree with you then they are athorities right?

Ok, then Dawkins is wrong and creationism is true. Got it, and we were never in a resssion, that was just my imgagination. Thanks for putting me strieght.

Where do CEOs usually get their education? Playing x boxes and watching the Old Time Gosple hour? Would you like to guess if Nick has a degree? If he didn't he still had to become a billionaire by learning from others. I don't think you get that high up by not listining to others.

I thonght most take business courses that get to that level at a minimum and or have business degrees from colleges? So don't jerk me around.

It simply amounts to crying when you don't get what you want all the time.

 

Nick has a degree in Philosophy. And yes, you do get that high up by not listening to others. He made his fortune in Amazon when virtually everyone was criticizing the company for spending too much money in advertising. "Experts" were coming out of the woodwork crowing about how flawed Amazons business plan was and how it would never last. Then when Nick & Co. stuck with it and made it work people couldn't jump on board fast enough and when Amazon went public Nick became a very wealthy man involved in one of the most successful IPO's of all time. In my personal experience, if people are telling you that you are crazy and you are going to fail and you don't have a chance etc. you are doing something that will be quite profitable. To be a billionaire you have to do something that no one has ever done before, generally that means most people think it won't work or it has to be creative enough that other people never even thought about it. People like me can copy other peoples business plans and simply mimic them in a different location, but that strategy will never make you billions. Maybe millions if you do it really well. 

I am too lazy to get you numbers, but a very large portion of the extremely wealthy do not have business degrees and many do not have any degrees at all. Many either dropped out of college, never went or have completely unrelated degrees. If you are starting your own business and desire to be a billionaire, college is a waste of time. My college did nothing for my career except cost me significant money. Who knows, maybe if I didn't waste 3 years in college I would be a billionaire, I was a lot more ambitious back then. 

The best place to learn business is by doing it, reading about others who are successful and talking to people who are successful. 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

Beyond Saving's picture

Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Downside- liberals like you get mad. 

Yea I do get mad, but "liberal" isn't a slur to me, so maybe call me a pediphile or cerial killer and then I will not only consider those slurs, but liable too. But liberal, yea, thats like saying gay and trying to shame a gay guy for being "different".

I don't mean it as a slur, I mean it as an adjective to describe a group of people with particular political beliefs. If I wanted to slur you I would have said "dumb fucks like you get mad." Don't worry, if I intend to throw an insult at you I will do so directly. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

And again you still have yet to explain to me how someone richer than you can agree with me if they are always doing something wrong, then Nick is a Downside liberal like me because he says the middle class and working poor are the bulk of the economy that creates the demand. Wait, crap, I cant quote him, he's not poor. Richer than you too, even more reason not to quote him.

Um I have already pointed out that there is great diversity of political belief among the super rich. Just like there is with the not so rich. Should we determine our leadership based on who the richest person is? Because apparently you are saying that wealth alone is a measure of how right someone is? I disagree. Many wealthy people have been very wrong in the past on a large variety of political issues. 

Nick can say whatever he wants, I will agree with him when I agree and disagree when I disagree. I don't see why I should give him more credibility simply because he has money. Now if I wanted to start an internet business, I would be greatly interested in consulting with him on it. 

I consider arguments on the strength of the argument, not based on how much money the person making the argument makes. For example, how does Darden pay the bill? How do they do what you want? If you can explain to me exactly what Darden should do different I would consider it an argument worth considering. I strongly suspect that you cannot, but would love for you (or any lurkers out there) to prove me wrong. 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

Vastet's picture

TBH, your new healthcare

TBH, your new healthcare system does not inspire this foreigner to live in the US. I think its better than the nothing you had before, but its all horribly wrong.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Brian37's picture

Quote:college is a waste of

Quote:
college is a waste of time. My college did nothing for my career

Holly shit, and you accuse me of wanting to keep people dumb? Once again it's all about money with you. Not only did you insult me, but insulted yourself without realizing it.

I am not working in the field I went to college for, but SO what? It still provided me with the structure of time management, conflict resolution, exposing me to diversity, not to mention all the things I got to learn even if I don't use them.

So being able to read 1984 wont make you a billionaire, so that makes it socially worthless so screw reading it right? You are nuts.

I wouldn't trade being a billionaire if it ment lossing all the current knowledge I have in my head.  An education IS ALWAYS worth it, even if you don't get rich with it. It still teaches you basic life skills. It is basically like a job, you do the work you get paid, you dont and you get fired. When is that ever wrong?

And getting back on Darden, you are also nuts on that topic trying to say "He's just trying to explain to the employees what is in the best intrest of the company" Yea THE COMPANY. Meaning profits, not better pay or benifits or more hours.

You stupidly think this is my first job and have never heard a boss blow smoke up my ass with "Take one for the team". Some don't do that and some bosses tuely think of their employees as human. After this story broke and I first heard of this guy there is no way he cares about the company like you are trying to falsely paint him out to be.

This is yet another example of denial. Guys like him if they could would pull the same type of monopoly the coal mine industry did in WVA paying employees, not with cash, but company script, and owned the housing and grocrey stores as well so by the time the employees paid all their bills they had nothing, it was legallized slavery.

When my former bosses said "we are family" I believed them and they treated me like that. Darden sounds like spoid brat and claiming he's only trying to explain things, is a buch of bull. Citizens united is basically allowing bullying to mask itself as virtue when all it really is is passive agressive blackmail.

"I know what's best for you". Not only a lie, but consesending crap. He knows what is best for himself.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Beyond Saving's picture

Brian37 wrote:Quote:college

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
college is a waste of time. My college did nothing for my career

Holly shit, and you accuse me of wanting to keep people dumb? Once again it's all about money with you. Not only did you insult me, but insulted yourself without realizing it.

I am not working in the field I went to college for, but SO what? It still provided me with the structure of time management, conflict resolution, exposing me to diversity, not to mention all the things I got to learn even if I don't use them.

So being able to read 1984 wont make you a billionaire, so that makes it socially worthless so screw reading it right? You are nuts.

I wouldn't trade being a billionaire if it ment lossing all the current knowledge I have in my head.  An education IS ALWAYS worth it, even if you don't get rich with it. It still teaches you basic life skills. It is basically like a job, you do the work you get paid, you dont and you get fired. When is that ever wrong?

Apparently they didn't teach you how to comprehend conditional statements in college. I said "If you are starting your own business and desire to be a billionaire, college is a waste of time." So IF you want to be a billionaire, going to college is not going to help you with that goal. If you have other goals or have other things you desire to get out of college that is fine and in that case the second half of the statement does not apply. Given the choice to redo my life I would probably go through college again, it was a good experience. But college did not make me wealthier.

 

Brian37 wrote:

And getting back on Darden, you are also nuts on that topic trying to say "He's just trying to explain to the employees what is in the best intrest of the company" Yea THE COMPANY. Meaning profits, not better pay or benifits or more hours.

You stupidly think this is my first job and have never heard a boss blow smoke up my ass with "Take one for the team". Some don't do that and some bosses tuely think of their employees as human. After this story broke and I first heard of this guy there is no way he cares about the company like you are trying to falsely paint him out to be.

This is yet another example of denial. Guys like him if they could would pull the same type of monopoly the coal mine industry did in WVA paying employees, not with cash, but company script, and owned the housing and grocrey stores as well so by the time the employees paid all their bills they had nothing, it was legallized slavery.

When my former bosses said "we are family" I believed them and they treated me like that. Darden sounds like spoid brat and claiming he's only trying to explain things, is a buch of bull. Citizens united is basically allowing bullying to mask itself as virtue when all it really is is passive agressive blackmail.

"I know what's best for you". Not only a lie, but consesending crap. He knows what is best for himself.

So tell me how the numbers work. Darden is making $200 per employee per month profit, healthcare is going to cost them over $300 per month per employee. Where does the money come from? What options does Darden have other than the ones I listed? Which option do you believe Darden should take? If you, Brian37 owned the entire company, what would you do? 

For you it is an academic question that you can sit and make up vague accusations about their motivations when really you don't know shit because you don't know any of the people making it. For them, it is a real decision that must be made and the wrong choice could lead to all of them losing their jobs. They may or may not be assholes. I don't know them either. But if you are going to say that their decision is wrong, it seems to me you should be able to point out a decision that would be a good one in your eyes. Instead, all you have is ad hominem attacks against people you don't know simply because you have had some bosses you don't like. So if you answer anything in this post, tell me what would Brian37 do if he was making this decision?  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

Beyond Saving's picture

 I was thinking this

 I was thinking this morning Brian, are you aware that your new billionaire crush Nick is one of the main players responsible for the "dot com crash" that you love to use as an illustration of the dangers of the economic climate? He was an old money millionaire who used his inherited fortune to speculate during the dot com bubble, being one of the people to fuel the bubble and then walking away from the mayhem and destruction a very wealthy man. 

Are you aware how Nick currently makes his money? He buys small internet businesses for a few million, guts them, remakes them and then flips them to mega corporations like Microsoft and Google for hundreds of millions in profit. The original founder is left with a few million, and most of the employees are replaced or find themselves working for the big corporation, which I probably don't need to tell you that a large corporation is probably less likely to be generous to the workers at the bottom than a small owner operated business. (Kinda the same way the evil Romney made his money) So I guess it is ok for him to do that as long as he says pretty words you agree with? I'm sure if we replaced Nick with Romney or the Koch brothers you would be screaming about how such tactics are an example of the terrible climate where the rich don't care about the little guy.  

Oh sure, he still owns most of the family business he inherited and I believe he is operating as CEO of it. I don't know how much time he puts into it, it certainly isn't a major portion of his net worth, but I am sure he treats those employees perfectly. But what about all the poor saps he sells to evil corporations for profit?

Or is Nick like George Soros or Warren Buffett where all their immorality and stomping on the little guy is excusable because they are publicly liberal?

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken