I own a very small company, where hiring one additional full-time person is a
major change in the company.I had been thinking of adding a
full-time position this year - but then I started hearing about what Obamacare
was going to do, and how much it was going to potentially cost my company - I
changed my mind. What is the point of bringing on one more person when, under
the new unknown-but-ominous Obamacare taxes, that extra employee's
"extra benefits", on top of everyone elses new "extra benefits",
might just put the company under? Then we ALL would be out of a job, not just
the one guy I didn't hire.So, I didn't hire the additional
person this year. We'll have to see about next year, and how much
Obamacare hurts my company financially with those folks already in place.
To "Open Minded Mormon" so are you appologizing for being wrong about
the rich? They stated that the top 10% own 48.2% of the wealth, not the 66%
that you claim. Did you also note that during the recession they saw their
incomes drop by 36%.You do realize that the wealthy get most of
their money from stocks, so if their incomes rose by 20%, that means that the
stock market is doing good, or at least there is something inflating another
bubble.What point are you trying to make? So far, it only shows
that you didn't read the article.
To "Open Minded Mormon" I guess the wealthy have to work harder.
Currently the top 1% only own 39% of the wealth, according to CNBC. The average salary for the large companies where the CEO is making $60,000/hr
is actually much higher than minimum wage. For example, the oil companies in
North Dakota are paying their workers $90,000/yr to drill for oil. GE averages
$55,000/yr for young professionals. The McDonalds CEO doesn't make 1/10 the
amount you think he does. What company has a CEO making $60,000/hr while the
majority of its workers make minimum wage?The American revolution
had little to nothing to do with wealth, but was a rejection of the oppressive
King of England. The Lamanite-Nephite battles had to do with rejection of
oppressive government. Just look at the Russian revolution. They displaced the
Tsars with Communist leaders that killed more and were even more oppressive.
The French Revolution was not a revolution against the businessmen that were
wealthy. It was a revolution against the Government and the waste that was so
blatant in their nation.
This just in the Deseret News:"Top 1 percent in US took biggest
share since 1928"By Paul WisemanAssociated PressPublished: Tuesday, Sept. 10 2013 2:28 p.m. MDT
@Kent C. DeTerry "The investors have not sat on their money because of
Obama."They most certainly have. Go out and talk to some of
them. They cite a range of Obama policies to explain why they're sitting on
their money: regulatory obstacles -- particularly in areas like energy
production; uncertainty regarding future taxation; perverse incentives in the
employer mandate of Obamacare; and unwritten regulations built into legislation
such as Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.In ways large and small,
Obama's policies have made it impossible for businesses to anticipate
what's coming for them around the corner. This is no climate for growth.
The best they can do is hang onto what they have, and wait him out.It is a poor economist who won't listen to what the business community is
trying to tell him.
So -- The blame again lies with the uber-Wealthy.and their
custodians and idol worshippers mostly in the Republican Party.The
rich get richer, The poor are getting poorer.The 1% used to
own a disproportional 66% of everything,now horde and own an even MORE
disproportional 80% of everything.I think the French, American and
Russian revolutions [including the final Nephite/Lamanite battles] were all
started over far lesser disparity.“This is an impressive
crowd: The ‘haves’ and ‘have mores’. Some people call
you ‘the elite’. I call you ‘my base’”. ~ GW
Nate,The investors have not sat on their money because of Obama.
They have not invested because there has been no significant uptick in demand.
The whole supply-side charade of the past 30+ years is finally being revealed
for the sham it is. When more wealth ends up in the hands of those who actually
produce it, there will be greater demand for products, which will convince
investors to invest in production and jobs rather than in speculative financial
instruments or, well, nothing.
According to the article, labor's share of GDP in the U.S. fell from 65% to
57%. In other developed coutries it fell from 73% to 65%. So labor's share
in other developed countries is as good as ours was at its peak. In simple
English, American workers are getting shafted.
It is with Obama as it was with Roosevelt: capital has seen his hostility and
has determined that it's in their best interest to sit tight and ride out
"In the struggle between capital and labor, capital is winning — and
that's hurting the feeble economic recovery."Need he say