Economics

bholler

Chimney sweep
Staff member
Jan 14, 2014
21,477
central pa
Hire the best and pay them commensurately. Sounds like a capitalist socio-economic model.

Don't think people in this country want to see a European-model tax structure to pay for socialist programs.
No from what I have seen the American "capitalist" model is hire as few people as you can pay them as little as you can get away with. There will always be people to replace those that get fed up and leave.

If socialism discorages ambition as many claim capitalism discorages taking care of your workers. Or anything else that could possibly reduce the bottom line.

And yes many people would prefer the paying higher taxes if it meant paying less out of pocket for other things
 

bholler

Chimney sweep
Staff member
Jan 14, 2014
21,477
central pa
Maybe they should hire the $15/hr deserving high school dropout burger flippers at $25/hr so they can really support themselves well instead of the cream of the crop... ;)



So what I've suggested several times here about the system is fine, but the rules are broken...?
Our system is not fine. That is clear.
 

PaulOinMA

Minister of Fire
Oct 20, 2018
655
MA
I can't see Joe Blow Average American wanting to pay a lot more in taxes for benefits-for-all in a more socialist economy.

A very liberal friend of mine is partner and president of a law firm in CT. He finally got fed up with some of the attorneys not pulling their weight. His group in the firm, worker's compensation, was very successful and disproportionately funding the entire firm.

He implemented a much more compensation-for-performance system. Attorneys not needing a fulltime admin will have to share admins.

I commented, "how very Reagan of you." he laughed. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: moresnow

bholler

Chimney sweep
Staff member
Jan 14, 2014
21,477
central pa
I can't see Joe Blow Average American wanting to pay a lot more in taxes for benefits-for-all in a more socialist economy.

A very liberal friend of mine is partner and president of a law firm in CT. He finally got fed up with some of the attorneys not pulling their weight. His group in the firm, worker's compensation, was very successful and disproportionately funding the entire firm.

He implemented a much more compensation-for-performance system. Attorneys not needing a fulltime admin will have to share admins.

I commented, "how very Reagan of you." he laughed. :)
So they punished the admins because the attorneys were not performing well? Yeah that sounds like Reaganomics to me. The guys at the top make out while the workers suffer.
 

NickW

Member
Oct 16, 2019
195
SE WI
Our system is not fine. That is clear.
You just posted about democratic socialism, how that is how this country has worked for a long time, how neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism works, we just need more social programs...?

I'm sorry, I just don't get what you're trying to say and maybe you don't (or maybe you do) understand what I've been trying to get across...

The system that I say isn't broken is already a combination of capitalism and socialism. The "rules" that I say are broken are what keeps the crooked politicians and 1% where they are and screws the rest of us financially. Socially, as far as I'm concerned, the money that goes to healthy non-contributing members of society should go to programs that truly do benefit those in need or have "done their time".
 

bholler

Chimney sweep
Staff member
Jan 14, 2014
21,477
central pa
You just posted about democratic socialism, how that is how this country has worked for a long time, how neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism works, we just need more social programs...?

I'm sorry, I just don't get what you're trying to say and maybe you don't (or maybe you do) understand what I've been trying to get across...

The system that I say isn't broken is already a combination of capitalism and socialism. The "rules" that I say are broken are what keeps the crooked politicians and 1% where they are and screws the rest of us financially. Socially, as far as I'm concerned, the money that goes to healthy non-contributing members of society should go to programs that truly do benefit those in need or have "done their time".
The basic idea of our system is good. But just about everything about how it is executed is wrong for all but those at the very top. And it has been that way for decades. To me that means a broken system.
 

PaulOinMA

Minister of Fire
Oct 20, 2018
655
MA
… So they punished the admins because the attorneys were not performing well? Yeah that sounds like Reaganomics to me. The guys at the top make out while the workers suffer.
No. Read it again.
 

bholler

Chimney sweep
Staff member
Jan 14, 2014
21,477
central pa
No. Read it again.
I beleive you said the attorneys weren't pulling their own weight. In response he fired some of the admins. How am I wrong there?
 

NickW

Member
Oct 16, 2019
195
SE WI
Nowhere is anything said about anyone getting fired. Only that non-performing attorneys who did not need a full time admin would have to share an admin. Maybe a new attorney was hired who performed and got one of the other admins and then 2 existing attorneys had to share one...
 

PaulOinMA

Minister of Fire
Oct 20, 2018
655
MA
Attorneys not needing a fulltime admin will have to share an admin. If two attorneys only need a part-time admin, why should the company pay for two fulltime admins?

A former boss came back to the U.S. after running our European Technology Center in Liege, Belgium. He's the boss I mentioned in the COVID-19 thread. Great guy. Great boss.

He noticed a group of people that was always sitting in the cafeteria playing cards and drinking coffee. He asked why they were always there.

He was told that the government's goal is zero unemployment. They have to be kept on the payroll to do business in Belgium even though there is no work for them to do. Great economic system, huh? :)
 

bholler

Chimney sweep
Staff member
Jan 14, 2014
21,477
central pa
Attorneys not needing a fulltime admin will have to share an admin. If two attorneys only need a part-time admin, why should the company pay for two fulltime admins?

A former boss came back to the U.S. after running our European Technology Center in Liege, Belgium. He's the boss I mentioned in the COVID-19 thread. Great guy. Great boss.

He noticed a group of people that was always sitting in the cafeteria playing cards and drinking coffee. He asked why they were always there.

He was told that the government's goal is zero unemployment. They have to be kept on the payroll to do business in Belgium even though there is no work for them to do. Great economic system, huh? :)
If it was all about the admins why did you say the attorneys were not pulling their weight? To me if the attorneys are not pulling their weight why not make them do it of get rid of them?

Also Belgium does not have a socialist economy.
 
Last edited:

bholler

Chimney sweep
Staff member
Jan 14, 2014
21,477
central pa
Nowhere is anything said about anyone getting fired. Only that non-performing attorneys who did not need a full time admin would have to share an admin. Maybe a new attorney was hired who performed and got one of the other admins and then 2 existing attorneys had to share one...
There was nothing said about new attorneys at all.
 

bholler

Chimney sweep
Staff member
Jan 14, 2014
21,477
central pa
My point is when I was running my cabinet shop if I had a cabinet maker that was not producing I didn't get rid of their helper if that employee was good. I tried to get them to produce if they couldn't they got replaced sometimes by that helper.
 

vinny11950

Minister of Fire
May 17, 2010
1,658
Eastern Long Island, NY
This story is just bananas. In a free market economy. I am beginning to think the son in law is running some type of scam with the supply chain he was put in charge of.

 

Seasoned Oak

Minister of Fire
Oct 17, 2008
7,071
Eastern Central PA
In my opinion, living paycheck to paycheck in it's most basic form, is only being able to cover your most basic needs, food, clothing and shelter, before your next paycheck arrives. As one country song say's "there's no month end at the end of the money".
I see this a lot. Must be true as 50 to 80% according to reports of americans are living week to week. And just whose fault is that. Most of the people buying and renting houses from me make a higher annual salary than i do but also live paycheck to paycheck. I wouldnt blame the Govt. for that or minimum wage or "society",most of them make well over min wage anyway. No wonder they are not prepared for retirement. Or any other kind of emergency(like this one) . Its about personal choices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Highbeam and NickW

Seasoned Oak

Minister of Fire
Oct 17, 2008
7,071
Eastern Central PA
I have zero income currently and not exactly sure when that is going to change. I do have savings and will be able to pay all the listed above, except the savings part. So technically I consider myself as living pay check to pay check.Everyones's life is based on the income they earn. Just curious what the meaning behind the term truly is? "My paycheck sucks, so I can't budget for non essentials and if I don't have a paycheck I can't pay my required bills"?
You are definitely in the minority if you have savings. I would say everyones life is more based on what they spend rather than what they make. A wise man once said "Strive to live on a fracton of your income, save and invest the rest". A very good formula for success.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Highbeam and NickW

mcdougy

Feeling the Heat
Apr 15, 2014
424
ontario
I know it's all personal choice, and this event is a rarity, but there is also the old saying of "I've never seen a hearse stop at the bank machine" It's all a balancing act of what risk your willing to take and how much/what way you enjoy your life. I don't look down on someone for living month to month, I give them credit for having big balls that they make it work somehow. Wether that's the wealthy guy or the struggling guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seasoned Oak

Seasoned Oak

Minister of Fire
Oct 17, 2008
7,071
Eastern Central PA
I give them credit for having big balls that they make it work somehow. Wether that's the wealthy guy or the struggling guy.
Its definitely a balance. The other extreme is a close family member,regular job but has managed to amass a few million in stocks. I keep wondering when he will break out and buy something. Until now it hasnt happened. Mid sixties heavy smoker. I guess his kids will show him how to enjoy that at some point. Definitely in the minority though ,that kind of austerity. But you have to consider what kind of bailouts should be considered when its Govts or citizens that do not plan for emergencies or short term income gaps.
 

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
82,668
South Puget Sound, WA
You are definitely in the minority if you have savings. I would say everyones life is more based on what they spend rather than what they make. A wise man once said "Strive to live on a fracton of your income, save and invest the rest". A very good formula for success.
One of the best books I read on this was: Your Money or Your Life by Vivki Robin and Joe Dominguez. Give a copy to your kids too.
Amazon product
 
Last edited:

Seasoned Oak

Minister of Fire
Oct 17, 2008
7,071
Eastern Central PA
I did read a few books on the subject but after i had already started doing what i set out to do , basically telling me i was going in the right direction.
My goal was spending my winters in the south pacific, which i did achieve to some extent. Not to get rich. Which was good cuz i never got rich. Asset wise i did ok for my area id say.
 

Sodbuster

Minister of Fire
Sep 22, 2012
1,454
Michigan
I don't need a book to teach me how to live within my means. If you need credit to buy it, you can't afford it, the only exception would be your main home. Too many people today live off "whats the monthly payment?" not what's the actual price. We drive older cars, although we could afford new, cars are a terrible investment. Either fix them yourself, or find a trusted mechanic and keep them going, if fixing is not your thing. Bottom line is you should never live off credit. We have zero debt with the exception of property taxes, those you can't escape.
 

Seasoned Oak

Minister of Fire
Oct 17, 2008
7,071
Eastern Central PA
I don't need a book to teach me how to live within my means.
Yea its just common sense mostly, but unfortunately it looks like 50 to 80 % of the country DOES need a book or some other incentive to live within their means cuz they certainly are not doing so otherwise. Emergencies of all kinds will happen, you can count on it. There is actually a book called "Life for dummies" . Another one called "Life skills 101" i guess to get out of your parents basement.
 
Last edited:

PaulOinMA

Minister of Fire
Oct 20, 2018
655
MA
A group of folks that cuts and splits their own wood would be expected to be fiscally responsible. ("wood would" looks funny)

Even my dad thought I was overly frugal ... and he was born in 1919 and grew up poor during the depression.

He asked "you're not denying yourself anything are you?" about my frugality. I replied that I learned it from him.

I told our former financial guys I was buying a new car in 2001. They commented "that's all?" when I told them what I was buying.