PDA

View Full Version : Who would you prefer to work for?



genglandoh
08-02-2013, 09:06 AM
1. A company that is only making a profit because of a Government subsidy.
2. Or a company that is making a profit without the need of a Government subsidy.

I would pick option 2.

Flying Orca
08-02-2013, 09:07 AM
I'd prefer to work for a NON-profit. Oh wait, I do.

Paul Pless
08-02-2013, 09:07 AM
it depends

Paul Pless
08-02-2013, 09:08 AM
I'd prefer to work for a NON-profit. Oh wait, I do.is it govt subsidized?:D

Canoeyawl
08-02-2013, 09:11 AM
1. A company that is only making a profit because of a Government subsidy.
2. Or a company that is making a profit without the need of a Government subsidy.

I would pick option 2.

I would pick the one with Social Security, Oh wait...

ccmanuals
08-02-2013, 09:17 AM
Don't essentially ALL companies receive at least an indirect subsidy in that they enjoy the gov't provided infrastructure and protection?

Canoeyawl
08-02-2013, 09:23 AM
Don't essentially ALL companies receive at least an indirect subsidy in that they enjoy the gov't provided infrastructure and protection?\

In this country they do.

But one could go to any of several countries on the African continent to avoid government subsidies.

David G
08-02-2013, 09:25 AM
I need more information. Is one of the firms populated with simpletons?

Mrleft8
08-02-2013, 09:31 AM
I'd prefer that you just give me your money, while I sit back and relax under a palm tree.

Captain Intrepid
08-02-2013, 09:32 AM
I'd prefer to work for the company that offers the more rewarding work.

Gerarddm
08-02-2013, 09:40 AM
Just another attempt to order the world into back and white choices, which is futile and puerile.

The world is a set of infinitely shifting greys. Deal with it.

genglandoh
08-02-2013, 09:43 AM
If the company is contracted with DARPA or DoD in any way does that mean it is getting a government subsidy or are they working for a living?

Good question but I would make it a little more general.
If a companies major customer is the Government is this a Government subsidy?

If there are many companies competing for the business then not they are not getting a Government Subsidy.

Keith Wilson
08-02-2013, 09:56 AM
Does the company use the internet? Can its workers read and write, and are they reasonably well-educated? Does it ship its products in trucks that drive on roads and over bridges? Is there clean drinkable water piped to the plant? Will the police come and stop somebody who tries to steal the contents of the warehouse? Do the salesmen fly on airplanes that land at airports? Is the machinery in the plant not likely to kill the workers too often? Is the air in the city where it's located reasonably breathable? Do the banks it works with have to follow the law? If a customer won't pay, is there recourse through the courts? Is its property not likely to be confiscated by armed mobs?

If any of these are true, the company receives a "government subsidy".

I am SO f***ing tired of witless anarcho-libertarian BS!

Flying Orca
08-02-2013, 10:04 AM
is it govt subsidized?:D

Depends what you mean by subsidized. The government is our customer, essentially, purchasing our services on behalf of the people we support. I think I prefer the term "funded" to "subsidized". ;)

Flying Orca
08-02-2013, 10:05 AM
I am SO f***ing tired of witless anarcho-libertarian BS!

Amen, brother.

genglandoh
08-02-2013, 10:07 AM
Does the company use the internet? Can its workers read and write, and are they reasonably well-educated? Does it ship its products in trucks that drive on roads and over bridges? Is there clean drinkable water piped to the plant? Will the police come and stop somebody who tries to steal the contents of the warehouse? Do the salesmen fly on airplanes that land at airports? Is the machinery in the plant not likely to kill the workers too often? Is the air in the city where it's located reasonably breathable? Do the banks it works with have to follow the law? If a customer won't pay, is there recourse through the courts? Is its property not likely to be confiscated by armed mobs?

If any of these are true, the company receives a "government subsidy".

I am SO f***ing tired of witless anarcho-libertarian BS!

I am talking about specific government subsidies targeted to one industry or company.

The examples you list are infrastructure spending that benefits everyone.

Arizona Bay
08-02-2013, 10:16 AM
You mean like the Oil industry...

ccmanuals
08-02-2013, 10:17 AM
Amen, brother.

and Amen

Keith Wilson
08-02-2013, 10:20 AM
I am talking about specific government subsidies targeted to one industry or company.So what's wrong with that? There are some activities which are of great general benefit, but are not profitable enough in the initial stages for private industry to be interested. Either the government can do it themselves, or they can subsidize a private firm; the latter is sometimes preferable. It can be done badly, of course, like anything else human beings do, but there's nothing at all inherently wrong with the idea.

To answer your question, I'd pick #2, all else being equal, because the current destructive anarcho-libertarian hysteria on the right makes all subsidies, wise or foolish, targets of ignorant congressmen and hence uncertain.

genglandoh
08-02-2013, 10:21 AM
You mean like the Oil industry...

The Oil industry makes a profit even without the subsidies so they fit into option 2.

genglandoh
08-02-2013, 10:24 AM
So what's wrong with that? There are some activities which are of great general benefit, but are not profitable enough in the initial stages for private industry to be interested. Either the government can do it themselves, or they can subsidize a private firm; the latter is sometimes preferable. It can be done badly, of course, like anything else human beings do, but there's nothing at all inherently wrong with the idea.

To answer your question, I'd pick #2, all else being equal, because the current destructive anarcho-libertarian hysteria on the right makes all subsidies, wise or foolish, targets of ignorant congressmen and hence uncertain.

Can you give us an example?

Arizona Bay
08-02-2013, 10:24 AM
They don't make a profit if all the forms of 'subsidy' are taken into account.

How much did the Iraq Invasion cost again???

Reynard38
08-02-2013, 10:29 AM
Don't essentially ALL companies receive at least an indirect subsidy in that they enjoy the gov't provided infrastructure and protection?

And don't they and we pay for this infrastructure with our taxes?

John of Phoenix
08-02-2013, 10:42 AM
I am SO f***ing tired of witless anarcho-libertarian BS!F' an A Bubba, well told. :)

John of Phoenix
08-02-2013, 10:49 AM
The Oil industry makes a profit even without the subsidies so they fit into option 2.If they're profitable (hugely so actually), perhaps you can you explain the rationale for their continued subsidies.

genglandoh
08-02-2013, 11:18 AM
If they're profitable (hugely so actually), perhaps you can you explain the rationale for their continued subsidies.

I think this is something we can agree on.
I am against subsidies of all kinds including for the oil Industry.

Canoez
08-02-2013, 11:19 AM
If they're profitable (hugely so actually), perhaps you can you explain the rationale for their continued subsidies.

.Y>.

Arizona Bay
08-02-2013, 11:27 AM
I think this is something we can agree on.
I am against subsidies of all kinds including for the oil Industry.

Including the military, who seem to have become the acquisition and protection arm of the oil industry?
How about environmental protection and clean up costs?
Health issues?

Curtism
08-02-2013, 11:38 AM
I'd prefer to work for the shop that's in my 1965 yellow pages, still has the same phone number, most of the same employees who are considered family . . . and one of them practically has to die before the company has an opening.

Unfortunately, the big box cheap-crap dealers, hedge fund/investment firms and huge conglomerates have managed to buy out or flush most of those companies from existence.

Tom Hunter
08-02-2013, 11:43 AM
I don't think you could find a company that met the requirement of option 2 anywhere in the United States.

John of Phoenix
08-02-2013, 12:54 PM
Submitted for your consideration...

----------------------
H.R. 601: Permanent Repeal of Oil Subsidies Act

Introduced: Feb 08, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)
Sponsor: Rep. Edward “Ed” Markey [D-MA5] (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/edward_markey/400253)
Status: Referred to Committee

STATUS
This bill was assigned to a congressional committee on February 8, 2013, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole.

PROGRESS


Introduced
Feb 08, 2013


Referred to Committee
Feb 08, 2013


Reported by Committee
...


Passed House
...


Passed Senate
...


Signed by the President
...



PROGNOSIS
5% chance of getting past committee.
2% chance of being enacted.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr601
-------------------
"2%" That's not a prognosis, it's a death warrant.

Osborne Russell
08-02-2013, 01:23 PM
It's not just irrelevance of the question -- who would you rather work for -- and the irrelevance of the criterion -- subsidized or not -- it's the disregard of the practical factor that there's no reason to believe that things will stay the way they are when you make the choice.

Atomic energy was felt worthy of subsidy for decades. Whether it was or not, it wasn't irrational. Government subsidy is government. Hard to believe that this needs explanation. If it's in the national interest, what 's the problem? It can be done well or done badly, like everything.

The implication that it's always bad has no facts to support it. There may be times when it's critical, such as war or natural disaster.

Typically subsidies turn into bad policy because the circumstances that justified them in the first place change, but the subsidies continue. That doesn't mean subsidies are bad.

genglandoh
08-02-2013, 03:00 PM
1. A company that is only making a profit because of a Government subsidy.
2. Or a company that is making a profit without the need of a Government subsidy.

I would pick option 2.

The reason I would choose working for a company that is making a profit without the need of a Government subsidy is very simple.
I think they will be in business longer.
The best business plan is to make a product that customers are willing to pay for because the customer can see the costs/benefits are good.

If you decide to work for a company that needs Government subsidies to make a profit you are at risk because and the company may fold it the subsidies go away.

LeeG
08-02-2013, 03:13 PM
You mean like the Oil industry...

I'm sure he means the military industrial complex and associated private military firms.

John of Phoenix
08-02-2013, 03:14 PM
The best business plan is to make a product that customers are willing to pay for because the customer can see the costs/benefits are good.Who do you work for?

wardd
08-02-2013, 03:28 PM
i'd want to work for a company that pays and treats me well

ccmanuals
08-02-2013, 04:33 PM
Oil and gas companies and big agri are subsidized by the gov't and they seem to be doing pretty well.

Canoeyawl
08-02-2013, 04:35 PM
http://www.energyefficienthomedesign.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/condoleezzarice-ship-bow.jpg

John Smith
08-02-2013, 04:41 PM
I am talking about specific government subsidies targeted to one industry or company.

The examples you list are infrastructure spending that benefits everyone.

In some way shape or form don't ALL companies benefit everyone? Certainly people who take Tylenol for a headache benefit.

If the cost of employing people is a tax deduction, what company isn't subsidized in some way.

Most would like to work for whatever company made it most advantageous for them to work there. No?

John Smith
08-02-2013, 04:44 PM
The Oil industry makes a profit even without the subsidies so they fit into option 2.

They make a bigger profit with the subsidies. That's likely true of most businesses.

This is a more complex question than you want to make it. If your private company who gets no direct subsidies invents a new product and patents it, isn't the patent protection a government subsidy?

John Smith
08-02-2013, 04:45 PM
If they're profitable (hugely so actually), perhaps you can you explain the rationale for their continued subsidies.

Then they would be less profitable.

John Smith
08-02-2013, 04:47 PM
The reason I would choose working for a company that is making a profit without the need of a Government subsidy is very simple.
I think they will be in business longer.
The best business plan is to make a product that customers are willing to pay for because the customer can see the costs/benefits are good.

If you decide to work for a company that needs Government subsidies to make a profit you are at risk because and the company may fold it the subsidies go away.

Like GM?

John Smith
08-02-2013, 04:48 PM
If I may, where would you prefer your pension to be in the hands of?

LeeG
08-02-2013, 04:55 PM
I like working at a place where I can hire belly dancers if I want

wardd
08-02-2013, 04:58 PM
I like working at a place where I can hire belly dancers if I want

only if you don't say anything sexual to them

pefjr
08-02-2013, 04:58 PM
1. A company that is only making a profit because of a Government subsidy.
2. Or a company that is making a profit without the need of a Government subsidy.

I would pick option 2.ROFL. You hit a leftie nerve geng, these Robin Hood men of the forest don't like to talk about someone else's profit. They assume you are taking advantage of a cheap labor force or cheating on the taxes or something. I would buy into #2 , of course, but they will him haw around all night and probably accuse you of being...... well, Keith already has blown a fuse.:d

LeeG
08-02-2013, 05:03 PM
only if you don't say anything sexual to them

I would never do that as it is improper. I provide the lamb marinated in yoghurt and many spices, grilled then layed on a bed of rice.

Keith Wilson
08-02-2013, 05:05 PM
these Robin Hood men of the forest don't like to talk about someone else's profit. They assume you are taking advantage of a cheap labor force or cheating on the taxes or something.Dishonest debating tactics, #23 in a series:
Make up stupid stuff and claim those who disagree with you believe it. See also 'straw man ' or 'aunt Sally" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

Captain Intrepid
08-02-2013, 05:06 PM
The reason I would choose working for a company that is making a profit without the need of a Government subsidy is very simple.
I think they will be in business longer.
The best business plan is to make a product that customers are willing to pay for because the customer can see the costs/benefits are good.

If you decide to work for a company that needs Government subsidies to make a profit you are at risk because and the company may fold it the subsidies go away.

A government subsidy is just the government deciding that the costs/benefits are good. That's no more likely to change than the opinions of non governmental customers.

So in the end, the best business model is to have a product or service that fills a unique and vital niche in the market.

pefjr
08-02-2013, 05:18 PM
Dishonest debating tactics, #23 in a series:
Make up stupid stuff and claim those who disagree with you believe it. See also 'straw man ' or 'aunt Sally" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).See what I mean, vern .......I mean geng? LOL

Mrleft8
08-02-2013, 05:24 PM
I want to work for the CIA.

CWSmith
08-02-2013, 05:24 PM
1. A company that is only making a profit because of a Government subsidy.
2. Or a company that is making a profit without the need of a Government subsidy.

I would pick option 2.

If you find me a company that is building robotic spacecraft to explore other planets without the funding of the government, I will be interested. I have not been able. Likewise, I am unable to find a school that has the resources to teach advanced students of science without government assistance. It is time that people start to appreciate what government does.

genglandoh
08-02-2013, 05:33 PM
Based on some of the responses I am wondering if some even know what a Government subsidy is.

I am also wondering why so many post their comments but to not answer the question.

Reynard38
08-02-2013, 05:46 PM
Mine was in the control of a private company, now it's in the hands of the PBGC.
Good thing I've got a 401k, DC plan, 2 IRA's, and my wife's SEP.
Thinking of taking a lesser amount now from the PBGC and putting it into another investment account.
Bird in the hand.

Phillip Allen
08-02-2013, 05:54 PM
Don't essentially ALL companies receive at least an indirect subsidy in that they enjoy the gov't provided infrastructure and protection?

that's right... "you didn't build that!"

Canoeyawl
08-02-2013, 06:37 PM
Based on some of the responses I am wondering if some even know what a Government subsidy is.

What is your definition?

There are all sorts of subsidies. You can look up Subsidy here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy). "Government subsidy" would be painting with a pretty broad brush and basically meaningless...
Among the definitions listed you may find "Employment subsidy" and in that group you will find Social Security.

So to answer your question, I am unlikely to leave the US to find work.

ljb5
08-02-2013, 08:31 PM
Amazing how a myth like this will evolve into a liberal justification for the out of control government we now enjoy. The last project I worked on was a major development of over 3500 residential units, a mix of singlefamily homes, condos, apartments and over 2 million sq ft of mixed useretail and office. I was a consultant representing the local fire agency andschools.
As I recall the developer needed to upgrade the sewer systemabout 5 miles upstream of the site and allow for future additional demand. Samefor road improvements and associated wet and dry utilities. All told, the developerpaid close to 30% of the project cost on utility upgrades or, close to about 50 million before they graded a lot. Me, I was in charge of overseeing theconstruction of the 2 fire stations and 3 schools the developer had to provide, I wrote the mitigation agreement for the school system and not only did the developer pay for the schools but the cleaning supplies and pencils for the first year to boot. After the build out, 2000 jobs were created and the city now enjoys a couple of million tax dollars a year from the retail. But I suppose if you live in a city where the officials take the freebies rather thanmitigate the developer impacts, you may want to pay a little more attention to results and not touchy feely lip service.
The construction industry is the life blood of the economy,as long as the current bunch of economic retards are running things, nobody's building anything...

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that you owe your job to government regulations, that community got two new fire stations and the project was a success?

wardd
08-02-2013, 09:39 PM
1. A company that is only making a profit because of a Government subsidy.
2. Or a company that is making a profit without the need of a Government subsidy.

I would pick option 2.

don't mic companies give primarily to republicans?

ljb5
08-03-2013, 12:05 AM
Nope, I owe my job to the fact that I'm really freaking good at what I do.

Good for you, Malcom, but here's the first rule of business: No one pays you to be good at what you do. They pay you to be good at what they need to get done.

Think about it.

If someone is paying you to oversee the construction of two fire stations and three schools, it's probably not because they like to sit back and admire how good you are at sitting in meetings.

Aside from that, you're far from the only person on this forum who is good at their job or has to deal with government agencies or regulations.

ccmanuals
08-03-2013, 09:49 AM
Malcom Brown, your anecdotal experience doesn't invalidate the idea. Do your projects pay the salaries of fire and police? What roads did you use to get your construction equipment to the site? Do your sites have their own power, sewer and water plants?

John of Phoenix
08-03-2013, 09:55 AM
Maybe some of the reds would like to explain WHY there are subsidies in the first place.

genglandoh
03-17-2017, 12:03 PM
Trump has already started to propose ending subsidies in some industries.

Well if you live by the Government Subsidy you die by the Government Subsidy.

Norman Bernstein
03-17-2017, 12:57 PM
Trump has already started to propose ending subsidies in some industries.


Trump proposes.... but only God disposes.

Subsidies to corporations, if you include ALL of the benefits that lobbyists successfully lobby for, are NOT going away... they're going to increase. There may be some symbolic cuts, strictly for the sake of optics.... but those cuts will be small, in comparision to the tax revenue lost when Trump and a complicit congress dramatically cuts corporate taxes. Those lost tax revenues ARE the subsidies.

Lew Barrett
03-17-2017, 01:19 PM
Some people are so engaged with themselves they dig up their own four year old trolls for additional exposure.

Too Little Time
03-17-2017, 05:41 PM
I prefer to be self-employed. I prefer my wife to do all the heavy lifting.