U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-07-2016, 12:51 PM
 
6,942 posts, read 3,136,532 times
Reputation: 4425

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
The only thing an employer is obligated to do is hire a person that best fits the job. They aren't there to do what is "right" by anyone else. They may, if they're a decent employer. But the purpose of a business is NOT to provide jobs.
That's the rules of today but I forsee laws changing that place a much greater onus on employers. It is a privilege to be allowed to run a business in one of the best markets in the world not a right. If employers continue treating the citizens of the USA like they are then the rules are going to change.


Employers quite literally owe US citizens a living as it is the citizens of this nation that allow these businesses to operate in the first place. Any decision a company makes that adversely effects someone (mass lay offs or lay offs of any sort or firings without significant cause) should be under intense govt agency scrutiny. If a lay off has to happen that companies income minus a very narrow definition of expenses needs to have a tax rate change to ensure that no one at the top is lining their pockets at the expense of someones job and that they will be in the unemployment line along with their employees and not collecting passive income from money they siphoned off sipping scotch on their yacht.


Without the US military (who are 90% poor people) and our mature markets none of these buisnesses could exist in peace making the huge money they do not to mention the vast infrasctrure (although its decaying, likely because incomes are going into off shore accounts rather than in 90% tax rates for major companies).


This is especially true of any companies that have even one forign national that is siphoning money off of a US operation who should only be allowed to lease land and equipment and their utility should be re-evaluated every month and if they are not employing a minimum number of people at certain wages then the leases are pulled and they go home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2016, 07:51 AM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
30,325 posts, read 55,268,516 times
Reputation: 31927
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
That's the rules of today but I forsee laws changing that place a much greater onus on employers. It is a privilege to be allowed to run a business in one of the best markets in the world not a right. If employers continue treating the citizens of the USA like they are then the rules are going to change.


Employers quite literally owe US citizens a living as it is the citizens of this nation that allow these businesses to operate in the first place. Any decision a company makes that adversely effects someone (mass lay offs or lay offs of any sort or firings without significant cause) should be under intense govt agency scrutiny. If a lay off has to happen that companies income minus a very narrow definition of expenses needs to have a tax rate change to ensure that no one at the top is lining their pockets at the expense of someones job and that they will be in the unemployment line along with their employees and not collecting passive income from money they siphoned off sipping scotch on their yacht.


Without the US military (who are 90% poor people) and our mature markets none of these buisnesses could exist in peace making the huge money they do not to mention the vast infrasctrure (although its decaying, likely because incomes are going into off shore accounts rather than in 90% tax rates for major companies).


This is especially true of any companies that have even one forign national that is siphoning money off of a US operation who should only be allowed to lease land and equipment and their utility should be re-evaluated every month and if they are not employing a minimum number of people at certain wages then the leases are pulled and they go home.

As long as this is a free country, employers can hire as many or as few people as they want. They can replace workers with automation, and pay as little as they can get away with and still find people applying (but at least minimum wage) or pay them $100k, it's their choice. Neither a small "mom & pop" nor a large corporation is in business to provide jobs. They are in business to make money for the owners or shareholders, it's always been that way and always will be. The government regulation already in effect is putting a squeeze on profits, so they are going to do whatever they must to balance it out and keep the same level of profit, or hopefully, increase it.

Anyone that doesn't like it can feel free to stop patronizing companies that are in business to make money rather than provide jobs, but then they would have to live off-grid and be self-sustaining and make their own food, clothing and shelter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2016, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Ft Myers, FL
2,631 posts, read 1,336,798 times
Reputation: 4860
Yes, but at some point the only candidates able to pass through all the hoops will be Stepford Wives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2016, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
24,203 posts, read 18,032,107 times
Reputation: 28469
We already have large swathes of society that are virtually unemployable, many of whom probably want to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2016, 10:59 AM
 
441 posts, read 266,971 times
Reputation: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
As long as this is a free country, employers can hire as many or as few people as they want. They can replace workers with automation, and pay as little as they can get away with and still find people applying (but at least minimum wage) or pay them $100k, it's their choice. Neither a small "mom & pop" nor a large corporation is in business to provide jobs. They are in business to make money for the owners or shareholders, it's always been that way and always will be. The government regulation already in effect is putting a squeeze on profits, so they are going to do whatever they must to balance it out and keep the same level of profit, or hopefully, increase it.
I think the OP (and I know I) were focusing on the unfairness of the qualitative aspects of hiring (unfair tests, practices that have disparate impact, disqualifying applicants for any kind of legal trouble no matter how minor, etc.) and not the quantitative ones (obligating employers to create jobs and not automate/outsource them, everyone but the higher-ups being underpaid, etc.) (although I think they need to be addressed too).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2016, 12:26 PM
 
6,942 posts, read 3,136,532 times
Reputation: 4425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
As long as this is a free country, employers can hire as many or as few people as they want. They can replace workers with automation, and pay as little as they can get away with and still find people applying (but at least minimum wage) or pay them $100k, it's their choice. Neither a small "mom & pop" nor a large corporation is in business to provide jobs. They are in business to make money for the owners or shareholders, it's always been that way and always will be. The government regulation already in effect is putting a squeeze on profits, so they are going to do whatever they must to balance it out and keep the same level of profit, or hopefully, increase it.

Anyone that doesn't like it can feel free to stop patronizing companies that are in business to make money rather than provide jobs, but then they would have to live off-grid and be self-sustaining and make their own food, clothing and shelter.
I am not sure if you have been paying attention but there is a proliferation of tiny homes, personal gardens and the like and corporations are using politics to actively make life hard on these people.


I was reading an article where using water run off was being criminalized and a great number of muni's are putting pressure on tiny home owners. Charging weird fees if someone puts power back into the grid with solar or wind, etc etc. People that are trying to live this sort of life style are facing great pressure.


Corporations and companies don't just want the same freedom as everyone else they want total control of peoples lives and total control of OUR markets, once a company gets big enough they can engage in all sorts of anti-competitive behavior and lobby for special protections all while doing mass lay offs and then choking some previous employees with non compete clauses etc etc.


The breadth and depth of the shananigans is so great that a book could be written about it (and probably has somewhere). Corporations support environmental groups and insurance groups to create onerous expensive ARTIFICIAL barriers to entry to maintain their monopolys and control the markets and keep start ups down. I tried looking at starting a side business that I had all the equipment and skills for and the insurance costs alone make the endeavor cost prohitive so it has to stay a hobbie.


It is also almost impossible for an individual to protect his own idea without AT LEAST 30-40 grand just in legal fees before you get your first FAIR royalty check.


So now that the major companies and even some larger "mom and pops" have the people right where they want them, totally dependent and unable to do much on their own but get a shabby job at what ever the masters decide to pay.


Even if you go for it your land tax business tax and insurance are going to be so steep that you will have very little to roll back into your buisenss and will just remain with your head barely above water until a tiny upset drowns you and then if you have a bank loan on top of that you better be doing something illicit on the side to cover expenses otherwise your done.


I think major corporations should have intellectual property stripped from them and the inventor should retain the patent regardless of who he was working for and certain things like meds should be price fixed, make sure the inventor themselves or the team who actually developed it is compensated WELL and screw the rest of the company, they can make a few bucks off the margins, we as a people could create laws to this effect. Either that or start taxing corporate income at 90% to fund govt labs again so that these scientsits have alternatives and are not taking big pharma jobs out of duress.


The systems should be working for the people. If you are the founder of a company you should make big money, if you are some shlep CEO that weassled yoru way in or some "share holder" who brown nosed your way in or what ever then you should be able to have the rug pulled out from under you as they are nobodys.


So yes people that are actually creating intellectual property or doing real work should be well compensated but that's not what most companies are now, they leverage capital they did not really earn and this process goes on decade after decade and paper trail of who actually did something useful gets more and more obfuscated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2016, 12:40 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
30,325 posts, read 55,268,516 times
Reputation: 31927
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
I am not sure if you have been paying attention but there is a proliferation of tiny homes, personal gardens and the like and corporations are using politics to actively make life hard on these people.


I was reading an article where using water run off was being criminalized and a great number of muni's are putting pressure on tiny home owners. Charging weird fees if someone puts power back into the grid with solar or wind, etc etc. People that are trying to live this sort of life style are facing great pressure.


Corporations and companies don't just want the same freedom as everyone else they want total control of peoples lives and total control of OUR markets, once a company gets big enough they can engage in all sorts of anti-competitive behavior and lobby for special protections all while doing mass lay offs and then choking some previous employees with non compete clauses etc etc.

Yes, and I agree that some, if not much of the government regulation on citizens has been created to protect big business, and of course, to provide revenue for the government itself in licenses and permits.
Ownership of water falling from the sky is a ridiculous concept, and the people in those munis should vote out the leaders there. I remember as a manager in utilities back in the 1980s telling people who complained about the water rates that the water was free, they were just paying us to treat it and deliver it to their house. We recently had a neighbor build a rental tiny house in the front yard. Because our lots are at least 12,000 sf and there was sufficient setback from the street, it was approved by the city. I have a greenhouse full of vegetables in my front yard and many neighbors have large plots of vegetable in their front yards. On the other hand, if you have a motor home or trailer, it must be hidden behind a fence by city law. It's a matter of what the residents want, in our city the 50,000 or so tend to show up at council meetings and let their wishes be known.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2016, 12:49 PM
 
6,942 posts, read 3,136,532 times
Reputation: 4425
The problem is the cost or raw land is insane and police are cracking down on "squatters" (ie people that want a job but cant afford the COL where the jobs are so they set up RV's or tiny homes on land they don't own because the land is 300-500k in a lot of areas). A lot of these situations are being created by large companies that buy up large swaths of land and then leverage them against the very people they are trying to hire. It is evil and it should be criminalized and people put in jail. In most populous locals it amounts to a monopoly but they get around it by lobby and loop holes.


I wanted to drill a natural gas well on some family property and was told that if I were caught I could be jailed because the state owned the minerals. I was looking at creating my own gasoline from methane but nope cant because the state will come take it. You have to be politically connected mega corp to get a "lease" then you can do what ever you want.


When people start getting shackled you will start seeing a lot more polite behavior. Don't even get me started on real property being sold to forign nationals.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
Yes, and I agree that some, if not much of the government regulation on citizens has been created to protect big business, and of course, to provide revenue for the government itself in licenses and permits.
Ownership of water falling from the sky is a ridiculous concept, and the people in those munis should vote out the leaders there. I remember as a manager in utilities back in the 1980s telling people who complained about the water rates that the water was free, they were just paying us to treat it and deliver it to their house. We recently had a neighbor build a rental tiny house in the front yard. Because our lots are at least 12,000 sf and there was sufficient setback from the street, it was approved by the city. I have a greenhouse full of vegetables in my front yard and many neighbors have large plots of vegetable in their front yards. On the other hand, if you have a motor home or trailer, it must be hidden behind a fence by city law. It's a matter of what the residents want, in our city the 50,000 or so tend to show up at council meetings and let their wishes be known.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2016, 12:16 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
24,203 posts, read 18,032,107 times
Reputation: 28469
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
The problem is the cost or raw land is insane and police are cracking down on "squatters" (ie people that want a job but cant afford the COL where the jobs are so they set up RV's or tiny homes on land they don't own because the land is 300-500k in a lot of areas). A lot of these situations are being created by large companies that buy up large swaths of land and then leverage them against the very people they are trying to hire. It is evil and it should be criminalized and people put in jail. In most populous locals it amounts to a monopoly but they get around it by lobby and loop holes.

I wanted to drill a natural gas well on some family property and was told that if I were caught I could be jailed because the state owned the minerals. I was looking at creating my own gasoline from methane but nope cant because the state will come take it. You have to be politically connected mega corp to get a "lease" then you can do what ever you want.

When people start getting shackled you will start seeing a lot more polite behavior. Don't even get me started on real property being sold to forign nationals.
For the people who can't afford to live in the rich, prosperous areas, I have to wonder why they remain there. Places like SF, Boston, etc., are basically for the upper middle class to well off now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2016, 12:49 PM
 
6,942 posts, read 3,136,532 times
Reputation: 4425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
For the people who can't afford to live in the rich, prosperous areas, I have to wonder why they remain there. Places like SF, Boston, etc., are basically for the upper middle class to well off now.
Because its the only place there are jobs, so even if they are living out of a camper they can buy food and save money to leverage some place else. But if they are forced to pay the rent in that area then they cant put anything in the bank to start a little business far far away.


Its a real catch 22, most rural or semi rural areas don't have jobs, but they are virtually giving away land for small business, however you have to have at least some capital to get things going ... where do you get that capital, you have to extract it from the richer areas without being fleeced yourself.


I am sure some people are just mentally ill and wander the parks of new York too but I suspect there are a lot of people trying to save up and leave with enough money to do something but in order to save that money you have to avoid paying the steep rental rates while you are working there ... some how otherwise you will just be another check to check slave.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top