The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (mortgages, squatters, property management)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Simple.

Companies who have to spend their economic profits, as directed by the government, on wage increases that are above the market set level for compensation for a specific position won't be able to spend that money on:

- New employees
- Expansion (launching new product, new locations, etc)
- R&D

e.g - Spending $50,000 to pay janitors more money has a lower positive net effect than $50,000 spent on R&D to develop a new product that the market is demanding.

No one said pay a janitor 50k a year and the problem with your argument is that most companies getting a tax break are using it for stock buybacks.
Tax cut scoreboard: Workers $6 billion; Shareholders: $171 billion

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

No one said pay a janitor 50k a year and the problem with your argument is that most companies getting a tax break are using it for stock buybacks.
Tax cut scoreboard: Workers $6 billion; Shareholders: $171 billion

I never said anyone said anything. In fact nothing has actually been said except " i.e. no wage increase to your employees-no tax break." as a policy proposal (from you).

I'm explaining to you how that policy would actually increase unemployment since I've, you know, actually run a company before my current funemployment and have pretty great insight into how companies work from a fiscal perspective.

As for "stock buy backs" (not that I read anything from CNN since they are untrustworthy) are you saying that stock buybacks do not benefit workers? Are you sure about that?

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

I never said anyone said anything. In fact nothing has actually been said except " i.e. no wage increase to your employees-no tax break." as a policy proposal (from you).

I'm explaining to you how that policy would actually increase unemployment since I've, you know, actually run a company before my current funemployment and have pretty great insight into how companies work from a fiscal perspective.

As for "stock buy backs" (not that I read anything from CNN since they are untrustworthy) are you saying that stock buybacks do not benefit workers? Are you sure about that?

It depends on the personalities of what will become the new owners (when you buy back stock you are no longer a public company, rather a pseudo private company). So while its nice not having to answer to "share holders" sometimes owners can be just as iron fisted with labor. It just depends on WHO is in what positions.

I would say that having an owner is probably better so long as the owner is not in some other country in a corporate office, if you work along side and have a relationship with said "owner" or soon to be owner then its a WAY better deal to have stock buy backs, but if they are some faceless entity in another state/country then it may not make any difference.

At the end of the day all that matters is are your protectors in place, because once your network is "reorganized" then you are hanging in the wind.

Share holders are fickle and dont really care about the people working, alot of them are boomer pensioners who just want to make sure they can sit around in comfort doing nothing. At least with returning to a private company it becomes owners running the company who have a vested interest in the actual health of the company and not just the quarterly dividend pay outs so they can go play golf.

[rodentraiser]

Originally Posted by jm1982

There are certain economics at play . Someone can’t rent out a building for less than the mortgage and expenses or they are losing money .

You stop and think about how houses got built back in the day and up to the turn of the century. People just built them. There were no inspections, no one to say they had to be a certain style or a certain square footage or that they had to have all the bells and whistles we require today. I sometimes wonder what a pioneer would think if he were to come back and see all the things he would be required to do if he built a house today.

Did you know the return / cap rate on most apartment buildings is about 3% in L.A these days . That’s if nothing goes wrong .

Many properties for sale you’d lose money on rents every month .

Many people don’t look at the other side of the story and think all these landlords are just greedy and all the rent is pure profit .

Well, it can't be too bad or more people would be selling their rentals.

What are “ditch diggers” doing now ? Wages will go up when businesses or the city can’t find enough ditch digger job applicants .

I don't think so. There are employers right now down on their hands and knees looking for workers, but I haven't noticed them exactly raising the wages to attract those workers.

Another thing that could be causing that, though, is the spread of the corporate business model. An independent business can make marketing decisions and raise wages if the owner wants. But if you work for a franchise corporation, even if you could afford it and wanted to raise wages, as a franchise owner, you're pretty much powerless to do anything. And so many of our businesses today have owners who are layers and layers removed from how those businesses are run or how they relate to the community.

[rodentraiser]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Consider spending less time looking for the cheapest possible place to live and instead look for ways to increase your income. By the way, I hear Jackson, Mississippi is inexpensive. Why not there or are you looking for cheap places that APPEAL to you?

Funny thing about disability pay, though. If you can work, they figure you're not disabled. And as far as I'm concerned, they're right. Believe me, if I could work at something, I'd already be doing it.

But yes, I am looking for something that appeals to me. I plan to make just one more move and I don't want to spend the rest of my life some place that I hate living in.

As to Mississippi? I react badly to the heat and if you throw in the humidity with it, I may as well just give it up here and now. I can take a couple of air-conditioned months of dry heat in summer, but not much more than that.

Besides, I think something will turn up here. I've only been seriously looking for a couple of months. I have the rest of the summer and beyond that if I need more time.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by jm1982

We don’t need government mandated minimum wages or rent control .
We need the market to determine what rent and pay should be.

But that isn't at all what that poster said.

He said, "The world needs ditch diggers too" Yes, and these ditch diggers also need a place to lay their head at the end of the day.

We all want the lowly service people to be there for us when we want a burger or some clothing... but god forbid they want a place to sleep that costs less than $1500 a month... "not our problem, they should have done better in life".

He wasn't asking for a subsidy.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

It depends on the personalities of what will become the new owners (when you buy back stock you are no longer a public company, rather a pseudo private company). So while its nice not having to answer to "share holders" sometimes owners can be just as iron fisted with labor. It just depends on WHO is in what positions.

I would say that having an owner is probably better so long as the owner is not in some other country in a corporate office, if you work along side and have a relationship with said "owner" or soon to be owner then its a WAY better deal to have stock buy backs, but if they are some faceless entity in another state/country then it may not make any difference.

At the end of the day all that matters is are your protectors in place, because once your network is "reorganized" then you are hanging in the wind.

Share holders are fickle and dont really care about the people working, alot of them are boomer pensioners who just want to make sure they can sit around in comfort doing nothing. At least with returning to a private company it becomes owners running the company who have a vested interest in the actual health of the company and not just the quarterly dividend pay outs so they can go play golf.

My only point was that the "stock buy back" issue was only brought up because it was being presented as a negative effect of the tax cuts.

At least you're admitting that stock buy backs could actually benefit workers, and YES, it does depend in terms of the overall benefit, but all in all, I can't see it negatively having an effect on workers.

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

My only point was that the "stock buy back" issue was only brought up because it was being presented as a negative effect of the tax cuts.

At least you're admitting that stock buy backs could actually benefit workers, and YES, it does depend in terms of the overall benefit, but all in all, I can't see it negatively having an effect on workers.

Stock buy backs CAN have a positive effect but if these tax cuts stay for too long it will turn to a negitive, UNLESS we come to find out these new owners are alturistic and actually reinvest into their companies.

The whole thing with the tax structure of the 40's and 50's was that it COMPELLED reinvestment and job creation in order to get the cuts. IF you tried to hoard too much cash you were taxed rediculously high (up to 91 or 92%), but if you did what you were suppose to do then the taxes were pretty low.

I am not sure how Trumps tax cuts are going to work or if they will actually create GOOD jobs. I think the big problem now is that there has been so much treterory that young people have seen all they want to do is smoke a bowl and check out. They watched their parents and friends of the family toil, get skills/education whatever and at the end of it all get laid off, not be able to find work without moving to timbucktu only to find out it pays peanuts, even people that joined the military get crap stations/assignments due to our over excessive expeditionarism.

It does not take much to get by, so why would young people be incentivized to work hard when they have seen the power and leverage that large companies have and how easy it is for degreed professionals with decades of experience to be tossed out on their a$$es.

We have a hard road ahead of us and the greed machine is still running strong leaving waste and devestation in its wake. And there are still a good number of people that think this is the way it should be, they post on here even. Just wait until most of the nation is like Detroit or Portland or some combination of both. People are not motivated to make others rich, there needs to be a pay day for them too and not the paltry wages that we see today. Since the trust is broken I would not be surprised if we start seeing employee favoring contracts to ensure that the employer pays if they want some work done.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

Stock buy backs CAN have a positive effect but if these tax cuts stay for too long it will turn to a negitive, UNLESS we come to find out these new owners are alturistic and actually reinvest into their companies.

Nearly all of them will. Where else would the money go? Companies don't horde money. When you run a company (as I did for over a decade), you see dollars, and you send them like little soldiers to make MORE dollars. The myth of the "money hoarding" fat cat is just a leftist bogeyman invention. Companies will only horde money strategically, but not out of greed. Any company run by such a comic book villain would become noncompetitive very quickly. Some big companies do hold reserves, but compared to what they spend on expanding operations, R&D, it's many percentages lower.

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Nearly all of them will. Where else would the money go? Companies don't horde money. When you run a company (as I did for over a decade), you see dollars, and you send them like little soldiers to make MORE dollars. The myth of the "money hoarding" fat cat is just a leftist bogeyman invention. Companies will only horde money strategically, but not out of greed. Any company run by such a comic book villain would become noncompetitive very quickly. Some big companies do hold reserves, but compared to what they spend on expanding operations, R&D, it's many percentages lower.

I know Exxon does this, they have such a massive hoard of money they are able to leverage it to do alot of damage in the oil markets.