• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Company exec: you are fired if Obama wins!

Exactly. I won't give the name of the national chain, but I do know that a small corporation based in my community has already quietly told its managers to expect some their employees to be dropped to "part-time" (sigh, probably 38 and a half hours) if Obama is re-elected because it won't be able to afford the insurance.

You've reminded me that I just read that Olive Garden is testing two markets with making all of their help part-time to avoid Obamacare. That's the reality.
 
Yes, there are the ones "connected" to Obama that will benefit more so they will vote their own pocketbooks to make more money.

I'll guess that the greater majority of the wealthy are not in the renewable energy field.

probably true. Of course, the middle class would be better off with Romney because of his non-dysfunctional economic policies and young people would be better off under Romney because of his more serious approach to structural deficits and commitment not to distort various markets (including the student loan market) and non-dysfunctional economic policies. Oh and everyone who is working now and planning on relying on a public subsidy system when they retire will be better too, as Obama has no long term plan (and no short term plan other than gimmicks) to make these plans sustainable.

But yeah, rich people would be better off under Romney too. Can't let that happen.

Cause they're, you know, rich.
 
Of course not. He's just saying that is a very nice life you have there ... it would be a shame if anything were to ... happen to it.

In a word, exactly.
 
You've reminded me that I just read that Olive Garden is testing two markets with making all of their help part-time to avoid Obamacare. That's the reality.

What I find trully shocking is that this sort of thing could have been predicted by applying basic economics and common sense about incentives.

I mean, since we have been repeatedly told that Obamacare is such a great pro-growth system that allows people to maintain their existing coverage, I can't believe there is some fringe, archaic relic of the past like high-school microeconomic theory that actually could have predicted this outcome that no one thought would ever happen in a million years.
 
You mean won't be able to stay afloat while building the largest new house in America appropriately named Versailles. Maybe he should have researched what happened to some of the occupants of the original residence with that name.

more of the leftwing nonsense that people should run businesses to provide jobs
 
probably true. Of course, the middle class would be better off with Romney because of his non-dysfunctional economic policies and young people would be better off under Romney because of his more serious approach to structural deficits and commitment not to distort various markets (including the student loan market) and non-dysfunctional economic policies. Oh and everyone who is working now and planning on relying on a public subsidy system when they retire will be better too, as Obama has no long term plan (and no short term plan other than gimmicks) to make these plans sustainable.

But yeah, rich people would be better off under Romney too. Can't let that happen.

Cause they're, you know, rich.

many leftwing schemes-especially when it comes to taxes-are based on spite and "screwing the rich" than any sound economic policies or relation to reality
 
If one exec wants to reduce then that is fine because I'm sure there are execs out there who would be more than happy to take his share of the market. Capitalism rules! When it works, even execs who try to bully their employees end up being the losers.
 
In a word, exactly.

Cause, you know, the natural reaction of a worker who learns that government incentives will trigger layoffs is to murder their emoployer. I mean, who could restrain themselves?It's as natural as breathing, it is.
 
many leftwing schemes-especially when it comes to taxes-are based on spite and "screwing the rich" than any sound economic policies or relation to reality

Pretty sure Obama admitted this when talking about the "Buffett Rule". Something along the lines of it doesn't matter if tax revenues fall because of the higher rates, it is still the right thing to do.
 
Pretty sure Obama admitted this when talking about the "Buffett Rule". Something along the lines of it doesn't matter if tax revenues fall because of the higher rates, it is still the right thing to do.

the affirmative action poster child noted that he might favor higher taxes on investments even if it doesn't bring in more revenue because its "fair"

fair to whom? investors who are paying far more taxes on their income than half the nation. high salaried people who tend to invest what is left over after expenses and income taxes? the people who whine the most about investment income tax rates are those who are sucking on the public tit and not paying any income taxes
 
You mean won't be able to stay afloat while building the largest new house in America appropriately named Versailles. Maybe he should have researched what happened to some of the occupants of the original residence with that name.

I'm sure he started building the house when his company was doing well. What he's saying now is that his company isn't going to do well if Obama is elected, so his house is immaterial. Who could have foreseen that we'd have an administration that is so thoroughly and completely anti-business?
 
If one exec wants to reduce then that is fine because I'm sure there are execs out there who would be more than happy to take his share of the market. Capitalism rules! When it works, even execs who try to bully their employees end up being the losers.

problem here is that this sort of market wide cost increase does not give anyone a competitive advantage unless there is a systematic difference in the application of the law. Here, for instance, since smaller companies are exempt, were smaller restaurants as efficient as larger ones one would expect for the number of smaller restaurants to increase and hire on aggreagte more full-time workers (without health care). of course, since there are huge diseconomies of scale and this is unlikely to actually happen, this executive becoming more efficinet by reducing regulatory costs will cause other businesses to behave similarly.

So what we are seeing here is "literally" (according to Joe Biden) the tip of the iceberg.
 
Every employer knows that if Obama wins this election and raises taxes by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire it will be the biggest tax increase in the history of this country.........Inflation will run rampart.......Unemployment will rise to at least 11%.......Obama wants cradle to grave welfare and to make this a socialist state...........He would have nothing to lose at this point if reelected.
 
If one exec wants to reduce then that is fine because I'm sure there are execs out there who would be more than happy to take his share of the market. Capitalism rules! When it works, even execs who try to bully their employees end up being the losers.

No, if there's no way for a business to get a return on money then no one will step in. Union pukes and liberals never believe what business leaders say right down to the point when the business closes its doors for the last time and they are all left without a job.
 
Union members will rue the day they supported Obama at their first contract renegotiation after Obamacare's full implementation.
 
problem here is that this sort of market wide cost increase does not give anyone a competitive advantage unless there is a systematic difference in the application of the law. Here, for instance, since smaller companies are exempt, were smaller restaurants as efficient as larger ones one would expect for the number of smaller restaurants to increase and hire on aggreagte more full-time workers (without health care). of course, since there are huge diseconomies of scale and this is unlikely to actually happen, this executive becoming more efficinet by reducing regulatory costs will cause other businesses to behave similarly.

So what we are seeing here is "literally" (according to Joe Biden) the tip of the iceberg.

I disagree. There is always an entrepreneur who takes advantage of an opening or gets out before the bubble bursts. To assume that a few big players can dominate the entire market is naive and underestimates the ability of some individuals to take a risk and take over the territory ceded by competitors. Furthermore, you gotta ask yourself how horrible an executive this guy is if during the greatest recession since the Great Depression he hasn't already done all he can to maximize efficiency without ceding territory. At this point, he would most likely be acting spitefully, not in his own rational best interest, and he would be chopping off his own foot to scorn the government.
 
You've reminded me that I just read that Olive Garden is testing two markets with making all of their help part-time to avoid Obamacare. That's the reality.

If you gave me a free coupon I would not eat there. And that was before you posted this. Erstaz imitation faux Italian - cannot get much worse than that. Life is too short to eat anything less than very good food especially when you know better.

Okay - back to the topic. ;)
 
the affirmative action poster child noted that he might favor higher taxes on investments even if it doesn't bring in more revenue because its "fair"

fair to whom? investors who are paying far more taxes on their income than half the nation. high salaried people who tend to invest what is left over after expenses and income taxes? the people who whine the most about investment income tax rates are those who are sucking on the public tit and not paying any income taxes

What in the world does an attack on affirmative action have to do with the topic?

And tit sucking has nothing to do with it either.

Please stay on topic.
 
No, if there's no way for a business to get a return on money then no one will step in. Union pukes and liberals never believe what business leaders say right down to the point when the business closes its doors for the last time and they are all left without a job.

Here is my evidence.

1. We just came out of a Great Recession which means that companies have spent the last 3 years maximizing efficiency without ceding territory.
2. At this point, it is highly probable that any further "reduction" or attempts to further maximize efficiency would just mean ceding territory.
3. Once territory is ceded, anyone who wants it is free to take it up.

In other words, the exec has no bargaining power at this point. It is a Zero Sum Game. His loss will just be some other execs gain.
 
What in the world does an attack on affirmative action have to do with the topic?

And tit sucking has nothing to do with it either.

Please stay on topic.

I was merely describing the tax hiking turd accurately. It is you who diverts
 
I was merely describing the tax hiking turd accurately. It is you who diverts

It seems your cheap shot to involve one of your pet issues of race where it has no place.



Again.
 
You've reminded me that I just read that Olive Garden is testing two markets with making all of their help part-time to avoid Obamacare. That's the reality.

Didn't know about this. What did you read?

And yes, unlike the spending of "imaginary" money so common in the Beltway, real business owners have to make real business decisions, some of them painful.
 
Didn't know about this. What did you read?

And yes, unlike the spending of "imaginary" money so common in the Beltway, real business owners have to make real business decisions, some of them painful.

Here ya' go:

The breadsticks may be unlimited for Olive Garden customers but the Italian restaurant chain’s owner is not so generous towards its employees. Darden Restaurants, which owns Olive Garden and also Red Lobster, is placing more of its workers on part-time status in an effort to pay less for health care costs required under President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Darden Restaurants has kept details under wraps other than saying it is testing the plan in four U.S. different markets, including central Florida, across the US. The company operates some 2,000 restaurants in the U.S. and Canada and employs about 180,000 people, 75 percent of whom are on part-time status and work for less than thirty hours a week.



Read more: Restaurant Chains Avoid Obamacare Costs By Hiring Part-Time Workers | Care2 Causes
 
Cause, you know, the natural reaction of a worker who learns that government incentives will trigger layoffs is to murder their emoployer. I mean, who could restrain themselves?It's as natural as breathing, it is.

The natural reaction of any organism to a threat to it's existence is to eliminate that threat. You also overlook the inherent human inclination to revenge.
 
I disagree. There is always an entrepreneur who takes advantage of an opening or gets out before the bubble bursts. To assume that a few big players can dominate the entire market is naive and underestimates the ability of some individuals to take a risk and take over the territory ceded by competitors. Furthermore, you gotta ask yourself how horrible an executive this guy is if during the greatest recession since the Great Depression he hasn't already done all he can to maximize efficiency without ceding territory. At this point, he would most likely be acting spitefully, not in his own rational best interest, and he would be chopping off his own foot to scorn the government.

What opening are you talking about?

Businesses are driven by profits. In a competitive marketplace, where each firm faces stiff competition from the others, incentives are to reduce costs as much as possible without compromizing on quality or service or anything else (i.e., minimizing quality-adjusted costs). The Obamacare mandate is a tax - a big cost imposed on a business. It is a variable cost in respect of full time employees, but not with respect to part-time employees. To the extent that part-time employees are not of materially lower quality than full-time employees (which is a reasonable proposition in this relatively low skill/low investment service), a firm can do a better job at keeping costs down through more part time workers as compared to more full-time workers doing the same job and producing the same "ouput".

As a result, each firm in this competitive market has an incentive to substitute away from full time workers towards part time workers.

THAT is the economics and THAT is what the "entrepreneur who takes advantage of an opening" is incentivized to do, not to pile on extra costs that consumers don't give a crap about and which makes them less competitive against their rivals. Unless they are not very good entrepreneurs, but the market has a way of dealiong with them over time.

And this guy has alterantives for his investment. As a result, what he is concerned with is the rate of return on his investment in this business relatvie to what he could earn in equivalent (risk-adjusted) other businesses. And if his return is not big enough in the restaurant game any more (say because one of his largest costs - labour - just went up substantially because of Obamacare) then either he figures out a way to avoid that cost increase (as here), he figures out a way to pass that increase onto consumers (which generally requires market power), or he stops investing additional capital in this business and directs his money to other businesses with a higher rate of return (returns in the restaurant business are not that good, I don't think).

The only way your argument makes sense is if the input becoming more expensive is so important and is so differentiated from the alternative that you cannot substitute away from it without massively harming the quality of your output. You know, like dropping Green Day from a concert ticket and picking up the guy who sings at the local Starbucks on open mike night. If those were your chocies and someone was dumb enough to drop Green Day, sure, some entrepreneur would see that the cost of the input was worth it. But we're talking about wait staff, not rock starts or nuclear physicists.

Oh, and as a general matter, taxes on inputs not only harm overall purchase of those inputs, but also reduces the amount paid to the people who own the inputs (in this case full time wait staff services and the people who are full time wait staff, respectively). So the Obamacare tax reduces full-time employment and reduces the net wages paid to those employees that are maintained at full-time.

All of this is pretty basic stuff.
 
Back
Top Bottom