Make those lazy job-creators pay

• By FRANK J. FLEMING
• Last Updated: 11:27 PM, November 25, 2012
• Posted: 10:31 PM, November 25, 2012

Original Link:  http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/make_those_lazy_job_creators_pay_T37Nt3GwdcATnO7bGs3xnM

(Note I copy the article in it's entirety to this site to preserve the original in case it gets "moved". I do suggest using the link above and reading some of the comments. Thank you)

Frank J. Fleming

The US unemployment rate has been pretty lousy for a while. Luckily, no one blames President Obama for this, as the recent election showed. And why should they? The government has done everything right: It enacted a huge stimulus, built infrastructure, passed ObamaCare to make sure employees are healthy and it supplied businesses with millions and millions of people just standing around waiting for work.

So if the government has done its part, and there still aren’t enough jobs, then who should we blame? Obviously, it’s the fault of those lazy, good-for-nothing businesses and job creators.

Wealthism a Definition

Define: Wealthism
: a belief that wealth is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that financial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular class.

: Financial prejudice or discrimination.

'Tis the Season (to Pass Blame)

'Tis the Season (to Pass Blame): <p>
Most people believe that a politician will save them. If the economy is bad, like it is now, we assume it's the government's fault. And there is no season where blame is passed around more than during an election year. But, it's time to stop blaming others and take a good hard look at ourselves…</p>

Reposted from Rich Dad

Rich People = Douche Bags and Whiny Brats?

All rich people are crooks, jerks, selfish, greedy and arrogant. They flaunt their money in your face and laugh at others for being poor. Look at all the rich people in the world and ask yourself, how did they get there? The Rockefeller held a monopoly on oil and funded prohibition so cars wouldn't run on ethanol. The Kennedy's we're rum runners. Johnson and Johnson were coke dealers. Money is the root of all evil!

In his ground breaking documentary "Born Rich" Jamie Johnson gave the world a glimpse behind the Wizard of Oz's curtain of wealth and those who inherit it. The movie shows real life events and interviews with some of the worlds wealthiest kids. Young adults who have inherited (or will soon inherit) massive fortunes passed on by their family. While I personally loved the movie and it's raw truths. It sparked waves of hatred both with financially elite and those that despise them.

Yet I felt no anger, angst or even jealousy for these young adults because it clearly showed that they too have to deal with their own problems and demons. That money didn't make them any better or worse than other people their age. That they we're after all just kids, like you and I (once were) facing the challenges of life, family and society.

So what about the brats and douche bags they become someday? Sure they were kids with problems, that doesn't mean they have to end up as jerks right? We all have problems. Fair enough. In truth many of them do end up quite nice, honest and decent. It's just you might not even notice them, or rather you may know them but not even know they are rich. Because the often soken and unspoken motto for society among the wealthy (In America at least) is to not talk about money. Many of the young adults in the film share that they didn't even know their family was rich until a certain age or event revealed it. Perhaps a newspaper article or a childhood friend exposes their dark secret they didn't even know.

What kind of effect would that have on a person? On a kid?

Imagine it. Imagine growing up in a normal sized house for your neighbor hood. Attending a public school with 'normal' kids. No butlers or nannies running about. No cheafuer or Mercedes  Your family doesn't flaunt it's wealth. (Most of the families in the video are generations of wealth not kids of rappers and movie stars. You know people with private lifestyles who prefer to remain private.) Being treated absolutely equal and un-special by your peers, teachers and friends.

Until someday, perhaps someone recognizes your father in article about a large donation. Or a teacher asks if your last name is connected with such and such business. Suddenly your world is turned upside down. People who didn't even notice you before now resent you for your wealth. Teachers and coaches are now watching you at arms length to see "Is this kid different than the others" "Is he a spoiled brat" "Is his wealth the cause of his actions". Perhaps friends who once seemed close now begin to distance themselves not because they don't like who you are, but are uncomfortable with all the attention and hostility that comes from others by just being around you.

Could wealthism (A prejudice towards someone for their financial class) be even more insidious and dangerous than racism to a childs development? I truly mean no disrespect to the serious problem racism has been and continues to be. But hear me out....

A child born Black or Jewish didn't choose to be born and raised the way they were either. They grow up knowing that several times in their life they will encounter great hatred and prejudice from someone not for who they are or the choices they made, but for what they were born as. And when that day comes, society will be there to support them. To tell them it's ok, that "the prejudice person was wrong and unjust". That society no longer condones that kind of prejudice and hate. Not for something you born into. You we're born Black or Jewish and today's news, school and society has your back. So stand proud and overcome it. Use it to push yourself forward toward success!

So where can the "rich kid" turn when his classmates and teachers distance them? When bullies hound them?When 'fake friends' appear liking them for what they have and what they can give them not for who they are? Worst of all, will they even see it coming? Will they have time to brace themselves for the impact? Or will it just hit them someday like running into a brick wall, when a classmate points out that the museum their visiting has their name it?

Society today puts a great deal of pressure, attention and blame on those with wealth. Whether they acquired it or inherited it. But it's our actions, our perceptions of wealth and wealthy people that have led to their private nature and secrecy. Who want's to talk about money when it changes the perception of you to anyone you talk to? Who would want to talk about money when the mere mention of it, and how much you have could illicit quiet calm hateful eyes, loud angry blaming or even warm smiles of deceit? Isn't this a lot for any young adult to bear, isn't it too much?

And if they complain will someone rub their shoulder? Or just tell them to suck it up and stop acting like a spoiled whiny rich brat?

70% of the 400 richest people in United States are self-made billionaires.

Wooden Signs

So it's become clear that the Bakers union ignored advice from the Teamsters union, ignored concessions and offers from the Hostess CEO's, ignored market conditions and ignored the balance sheets and went on strike anyway.

What a bunch of Ding Dongs!


So I wanted to talk about mindsets. For awhile I saw tons of flaming posts on facebook about how "evil" and "greedy" these CEO's were. Everyone just assumed the Unions and Strikers we're right and righteous. Fighters of equality and justice! But why?

I think in the beginning for a Union to be formed there has to be some perceived injustice and unfairness. So a Union comes about as a powerful negotiation tool to right a wrong. But that doesn't mean they continue in that fashion. Because they are allowed to accept fees (dues) and in fact demand them from their members they turn into a center for profiteering. Union bosses collect wages for their duties thus giving them incentive to maintain their position not necessarily for the good of others.

Union corruption aside, what about the average striker? I worked under some awful conditions in my time. Horrible bosses, low pay and perhaps unhealthy conditions. Yet for some reason I never got the idea to take a day off without pay, make a wooden sign and yell at my boss. Why should that better things? If a single man were to yell at his boss and refuse to work we would expect him to be fired. But if a group of people do it we assume they must be right? Is this just some kind of psychology scenario? If a bunch of them are yelling it must be ok. If only one guy yells he's a psycho?

The company, CEO, Union, and workers should be positioning themselves towards the same goal: Making things better for workers and customers. Sometimes a Union slap in the face is in order, CEO's are not perfect and don't listen to the needs of their workforce. But the growing power of Unions in America is troubling because they often do not listen to the needs of the company, the customers or the market. They only look at the needs of themselves and their workers. Like investors who demand constant profits from a company this leads to weak long term outlook. In basic terms: Sometimes you need to do things that are uncomfortable or risky so that your company continues to innovate and provide to it's customers. No customers no company, no company no workers, no workers no union! Look at Hostess, the CEO's showed them the books. The Teamsters pleaded for the Bakers Union to heed the facts and return to work. Yet they didn't listen. They put their "needs" (wants really) above all others. Now their all jobless!

(Actually it get's worse. The Union Baker only accounte for 30% of the company staff. Yet they brought the whole thing down. That means 70% of the workforce got screwed for something they would not have even benefited from. Plus we don't get twinkies!)

So what does it? What thought goes through a persons mind that says "I offer nothing new. I do no more work than before. I learn no new trades. I offer no competitive or productive advantage to my company who is dire straits. Yet I demand more pay!"

When a company has weak profits it's because it fails to provide MORE for it's customer in some way. More value through better product, lower prices, easier availability, better brand awereness. In order for a company (product or service) to generate more revenue it must provide more value of some kind. Price hiking only works in moderate amounts. Raise your prices too much and you open the door for your competition.

Ultimately we can't treat someone else's business, which is designed to serve customers not employees, as our salvation from everything. It's not our personal retreat from those we don't like. It's not a source for easy work and high pay without providing value to others. It's not there to guide us in morals and retirement plans.

If we want more we should seek more from ourselves. Build ourselves up, gain more knowledge so that we can serve others better. If you need more pay don't pick up a wooden sign and hurt someone. Instead find more ways to serve society. Start a business, start an ebay account, help others market their products, find new ways to generate cash online or offline by helpings others.

The day you decide to hurt your own company, to take a day off (or 2 days, or a week) and make a wooden sign calling others greedy for not giving you more for the same amount of work as the day before, that's the day you should be ready for the blowback.

"Hostess is a corrupt company," Baker's Union said, "and is attempting to shut their plant down because we are not willing to conform and take slave wages. We won't do that." 

You went on strike while a company was filing bankruptcy! And what are these "slave wages" you speak of? You mean the above-minimum wage your 300 union members and 700+ non union members we're making before you lead them out into the streets into unemployment?


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bakers-union-member-hostess-was-no-longer-a-baking-company-2012-11#ixzz2CY9MJmCj

Unions Killed The Twinkie

I am re-posting this from a cached copy. I am unsure if the original was taken down or temporarily unavailable  So here it is without any edits or commentary:

by Mike Flynn 16 Nov 2012 post a comment

The most interesting tidbit in the sad demise of Hostess is the fact that the Teamsters union ignored a strike by a fellow union and crossed the picket-line in a bid to save the company. The Teamsters, not exactly a shrinking violet, got a look at the company's books and realized the dire financial situation Hostess was in. They even implored the Bakers' Union, which called a strike, to accept wage concessions and get back to work. Alas, they didn't, and now the company faces liquidation. The Bakers' Union ultimately accomplished what mere physics couldn't; they pushed the Twinkie past its sell-by date. 

Hostess Brands Inc. had warned employees that it would file to unwind its business and sell off assets if plant operations didn't return to normal levels by 5 p.m. Thursday. In announcing its decision, Hostess said its wind down would mean the closure of 33 bakeries, 565 distribution centers, approximately 5,500 delivery routes and 570 bakery outlet stores in the United States.
The company also announced that it would immediately lay-off its 18,500 workers. The Bakers' Union only represented around 30% of the company's total workforce. All other workers had already accepted wage concessions and changes to the company's work-rules. 70% of the workforce accepted pay cuts of around 4% over five years. Given the general state of the economy, that seems very modest and would have allowed the company to continue operating. But, the Bakers' Union instead went on strike, without even offering counter-demands. As a result, they have forced 100% pay cuts on all employees.
The behavior of the Bakers' Union goes a long way to explain why, increasingly, we can't have nice stuff in this country. A significant portion of the public thinks it ought to be immune from the consequences of its decisions and choices. They want to keep having free stuff, paid for by mythical "other" people.
We're not so much facing strong economic headwinds as we are a great reckoning, reaping the consequences of decades of poor policy choices. Virtually every economic challenge we face can be directly tied to a well-intentioned, but misguided, government policy decision. Yet, many still labor under the illusion that even more government action can fix these problems.
Like the Bakers' Union, many of us hope to avoid reality. But, such hopes have an expiration date. We've reached ours.

Study Finds Rich People Give Much Less To Charity Than Poor People

Is this article bias?: http://www.examiner.com/article/study-finds-rich-people-give-much-less-to-charity-than-poor-people

"The study by philanthropy.com accumulated data by following the donation patterns of every state. It concluded that people who make between $50,000 and $75,000 a year donated 7.6% of their discretionary income to charity. Conversely, those making $100,000 or more only donated 4.2%."

Maybe the findings could be true...... but they were tracking individuals. If you are making more than 200k a year and listing it as personal income you aren't getting the full tax breaks, thus excluding you from the bias attack of the article.

You should be incorporated and making the donations through the corporation. No reason to get hit by capital gains tax, then income tax, then donate what's left over. Better to just do it at the "smarter level" aka before taxed as personal income.

"An even curiouser trend found that if the local population contained 40% of people making $200,000 a year then the donation rates plummeted to a paltry 2.8%."

I love numbers. Let me show you:

• 50,000 x 7.6% = $3,800
• 75,000 x 7.6% = $5,700
• Total: $9,500

Looks good so far? Now let's see what happens when we "track" the rich people:

• 100,000 x 4.2% = $4,200
• 200,000 x 2.8% = $5,600
• Total: $9,800

So wait a minute... they donated less as a %, but donated more overall. But we are still faced with another problem. The "study" lumps the group into "100,000 or more". So what about the rich people? I hardly classify 100k a year as "Rich". 

Gates Foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/foundation-fact-sheet.aspx)

Statistics

Number of employees: 1,058⁽¹⁾
Asset trust endowment: $36.2 billion⁽³⁾⁽¹⁾
Total grants paid since inception: $25.0 billion ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾
Total 2010 grant payments: $2.6 billion⁽⁴⁾
Total 2011 grant payments: $3.4 billion⁽⁵⁾