HUD to Roll Out Emergency Loan Program for Unemployed “Homeowners” by Year-End

[SK in CV]

[quote=GH]Not true. My last job they indicated employee overhead was around 33% (unemployment, SS, Insurance, Health etc). They told me they would love to give me what I asked but with all the overhead they could not.

[/quote]

I can’t dispute what your employer told you. At my company, taxes and other employee benefits cost 22% of base salaries, and about 6% of additional compensation. Most of that is employer paid medical insurance and paid time off. Unemployment makes up less than .3%. Just to be clear, that is less than 3/10ths of 1%. On a payroll of over $12M, it is less than $25K a year. Workers comp insurance costs more than unemployment insurance (and that’s with an extraordinarily low worker’s comp classification and rate). If the cost of employer paid unemployment insurance went away, you would not get a raise.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]…..If the cost of employer paid unemployment insurance went away, you would not get a raise.[/quote]

SK, you understand basic economics, right? Imagine that supply and demand chart that you were shown on the first day you were introduced to economics. Now imagine that the ‘good’ is labor, and that the demand for labor is shifted up, because the total cost of labor has been reduced. Will pay (the price of labor) go up or down?

In competitive markets, this is what happens. Although we have notable examples of con-competitive markets (bankers and CEOs), most markets in the US are reasonably competitive.

Don’t try to make ideology out of everything. Sometimes the facts are just the facts.

[SK in CV]

[quote=patientrenter][quote=SK in CV]…..If the cost of employer paid unemployment insurance went away, you would not get a raise.[/quote]

SK, you understand basic economics, right? Imagine that supply and demand chart that you were shown on the first day you were introduced to economics. Now imagine that the ‘good’ is labor, and that the demand for labor is shifted up, because the total cost of labor has been reduced. Will pay (the price of labor) go up or down?

In competitive markets, this is what happens. Although we have notable examples of con-competitive markets (bankers and CEOs), most markets in the US are reasonably competitive.

Don’t try to make ideology out of everything. Sometimes the facts are just the facts.[/quote]

LOL! Do you even know what the word ideology means?

I work in the real world. I can’t afford ideologies.

If the cost of an employer’s payroll burden goes down, it does nothing to demand. It does nothing to supply. It doesn’t mean you will demand more or work for less. And in this case, we’re talking about pennies. Employees aren’t getting those pennies.

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=patientrenter][quote=SK in CV]…..If the cost of employer paid unemployment insurance went away, you would not get a raise.[/quote]

SK, you understand basic economics, right? Imagine that supply and demand chart that you were shown on the first day you were introduced to economics. Now imagine that the ‘good’ is labor, and that the demand for labor is shifted up, because the total cost of labor has been reduced. Will pay (the price of labor) go up or down?

In competitive markets, this is what happens. Although we have notable examples of con-competitive markets (bankers and CEOs), most markets in the US are reasonably competitive.

Don’t try to make ideology out of everything. Sometimes the facts are just the facts.[/quote]

LOL! Do you even know what the word ideology means?

I work in the real world. I can’t afford ideologies.

If the cost of an employer’s payroll burden goes down, it does nothing to demand. It does nothing to supply. It doesn’t mean you will demand more or work for less. And in this case, we’re talking about pennies. Employees aren’t getting those pennies.[/quote]

Another SK educational announcement:

1. The small business is what drives growth in the United States.
2. The small businesses are NOT the 1% as you described.
3. Without GOV intervention and draining money from the economy, more small businesses would survive and be able to compete with large businesses. The increased competition would allow good employees to change jobs from one employer to another for a higher salary THUS increasing salaries from the saved monies from taxes. Your argument is becoming more true, as more burdens are put into place on the small businesses in America by lobbyists from the large businesses. This means the small guys can’t compete and only the big guys have a piece of the pie and YOU have no bargaining chip to increase your salary.

Wake up SK.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
Another SK educational announcement:

1. The small business is what drives growth in the United States.
2. The small businesses are NOT the 1% as you described.
3. Without GOV intervention and draining money from the economy, more small businesses would survive and be able to compete with large businesses. The increased competition would allow good employees to change jobs from one employer to another for a higher salary THUS increasing salaries from the saved monies from taxes. Your argument is becoming more true, as more burdens are put into place on the small businesses in America by lobbyists from the large businesses. This means the small guys can’t compete and only the big guys have a piece of the pie and YOU have no bargaining chip to increase your salary.

Wake up SK.[/quote]

I’m sure that makes sense to you. I have no idea how it’s the least bit related to the topic or the least bit responsive to anything I’ve said.

But for what it’s worth, I agree with you on point 1. I agree with you on point 2, although I never described small business as part of the 1%. And as to point 3….well..I don’t know what your point is and much of it makes no sense at all. And I help run a small business whose only clients are big business, and whose biggest competition is big business and we’ve enjoyed average growth of over 150% per year growth over the last 5 years. And I see neither government intervention nor any money drain in my industry.

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
Another SK educational announcement:

1. The small business is what drives growth in the United States.
2. The small businesses are NOT the 1% as you described.
3. Without GOV intervention and draining money from the economy, more small businesses would survive and be able to compete with large businesses. The increased competition would allow good employees to change jobs from one employer to another for a higher salary THUS increasing salaries from the saved monies from taxes. Your argument is becoming more true, as more burdens are put into place on the small businesses in America by lobbyists from the large businesses. This means the small guys can’t compete and only the big guys have a piece of the pie and YOU have no bargaining chip to increase your salary.

Wake up SK.[/quote]

I’m sure that makes sense to you. I have no idea how it’s the least bit related to the topic or the least bit responsive to anything I’ve said.

But for what it’s worth, I agree with you on point 1. I agree with you on point 2, although I never described small business as part of the 1%. And as to point 3….well..I don’t know what your point is and much of it makes no sense at all. And I help run a small business whose only clients are big business, and whose biggest competition is big business and we’ve enjoyed average growth of over 150% per year growth over the last 5 years. And I see neither government intervention nor any money drain in my industry.[/quote]

Obviously you can’t see it, you haven’t seen an economy with less GOV intervention. Your company is anecdotal and I’m glad to see it’s doing well. You absoloutely did say lower in the thread that business owners are the 1% and that with less GOV regulation they wouldn’t give money back to the people. I offer you that if you lower regulation you will remove barriers of entry and start up costs for small businesses and it will make the market more competitive for good talent. Unemployment is one example but you must look at the big picture and the whole philosophy. Until you can really expand it out you won’t understand it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]Obviously you can’t see it, you haven’t seen an economy with less GOV intervention. Your company is anecdotal and I’m glad to see it’s doing well. You absoloutely did say lower in the thread that business owners are the 1% and that with less GOV regulation they wouldn’t give money back to the people. I offer you that if you lower regulation you will remove barriers of entry and start up costs for small businesses and it will make the market more competitive for good talent. Unemployment is one example but you must look at the big picture and the whole philosophy. Until you can really expand it out you won’t understand it.[/quote]

Eh. I’ve been in business and advising business for more 30 years. You have no way of knowing what I’ve seen or not seen.

I never said that business owners are part of the 1% (that was another poster), sometimes it’s true, sometimes it’s not. Nor did I address regulations related to passing on savings. You may be confusing me with you, you’re the one obsessed with government regulation. I just deal with it.

I would certainly agree with you that if regulations are minimized, that barriers to starting small businesses will also be minimized. But having dealt with payrolls for literally hundreds of small businesses, I can tell you with absolute certainty, nobody didn’t go into business because of the cost of unemployment insurance. FICA or workers comp insurance? Maybe. But unemployment? No chance. It’s like someone not buying a $25,000 car because of the cost of oil. Not gas. Oil. Not oil changes at $30 apiece. The cost of the oil that goes into those oil changes. That’s about how insignificant unemployment insurance is.

And I do understand it. It’s my job. It’s what I’ve been paid to do for the last 35 years.

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]Obviously you can’t see it, you haven’t seen an economy with less GOV intervention. Your company is anecdotal and I’m glad to see it’s doing well. You absoloutely did say lower in the thread that business owners are the 1% and that with less GOV regulation they wouldn’t give money back to the people. I offer you that if you lower regulation you will remove barriers of entry and start up costs for small businesses and it will make the market more competitive for good talent. Unemployment is one example but you must look at the big picture and the whole philosophy. Until you can really expand it out you won’t understand it.[/quote]

Eh. I’ve been in business and advising business for more 30 years. You have no way of knowing what I’ve seen or not seen.

I never said that business owners are part of the 1% (that was another poster), sometimes it’s true, sometimes it’s not. Nor did I address regulations related to passing on savings. You may be confusing me with you, you’re the one obsessed with government regulation. I just deal with it.

I would certainly agree with you that if regulations are minimized, that barriers to starting small businesses will also be minimized. But having dealt with payrolls for literally hundreds of small businesses, I can tell you with absolute certainty, nobody didn’t go into business because of the cost of unemployment insurance. FICA or workers comp insurance? Maybe. But unemployment? No chance. It’s like someone not buying a $25,000 car because of the cost of oil. Not gas. Oil. Not oil changes at $30 apiece. The cost of the oil that goes into those oil changes. That’s about how insignificant unemployment insurance is.

And I do understand it. It’s my job. It’s what I’ve been paid to do for the last 35 years.[/quote]

It’s not unemployment insurance, it’s the whole construct that programs LIKE that are okay. You either agree with the principal of them all or you don’t. If you agree with that $55 cost per employee, you agree with the social security tax, the this tax, the this tax, because people NEED THE GOV to support them and that takes productivity out of the system. Your example is just a small item but it leads to the huge philosophical problem in America and why we are in debt and why our economy isn’t functioning.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]

It’s not unemployment insurance, it’s the whole construct that programs LIKE that are okay. You either agree with the principal of them all or you don’t. If you agree with that $55 cost per employee, you agree with the social security tax, the this tax, the this tax, because people NEED THE GOV to support them and that takes productivity out of the system. Your example is just a small item but it leads to the huge philosophical problem in America and why we are in debt and why our economy isn’t functioning.[/quote]

There you are with the manichean thinking again. We have a recent past president that was obsessed with it. I don’t have to agree with all of them, I can agree with some of them. And you havent even explained what “them” are. (to quote RW Emerson…A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.) We have pretty solid evidence that all taxes do not take productivity out of the system. (See US, 1945 to 2011) The whole slippery slope logic is lazy. Birth leads to milk. Milk leads to coke. Coke leads to alcohol. Alcohol leads to marijuana. And pretty soon we’re all heroin addicts. And then we’re all dead! Oops!

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV] We have pretty solid evidence that all taxes do not take productivity out of the system.[/quote]

LOL! Okay mister fact checker, prove that taxing people does not take productivity out of the system. It by DEFINITION takes productivity out because the GOV ALWAYS spends money less efficiently than the private sector. Find one example where the GOV did something more efficient than the private sector could have and I’ll agree with your argument and more importantly the overall philosophy!

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV] We have pretty solid evidence that all taxes do not take productivity out of the system.[/quote]

LOL! Okay mister fact checker, prove that taxing people does not take productivity out of the system. It by DEFINITION takes productivity out because the GOV ALWAYS spends money less efficiently than the private sector. Find one example where the GOV did something more efficient than the private sector could have and I’ll agree with your argument and more importantly the overall philosophy![/quote]

Pretty much impossible to prove a negative. But the way you worded it, it’s easy. We have taxes, we have production, therefore taxes have not taken productivity out of the system. (you really need to learn to word your questions more carefully.)

Find a definition from any source online that says: Taxes: removes productivity out of the system.

Medicare is more efficient than private insurance. Their administrative costs, on a per patient basis, are a tiny fraction of private insurance.

And stop with the stupid straw man arguments. asking for examples of where the government does things more efficiently than the private sector has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I have said. Zero. Leaping from topic to topic, most of which I probably agree with you, does not prove your point. I don’t know what your point is. You just screw up facts. Make outlandish assertions which are easily disproved and then explain them away by changing the subject. Stick to one. Deal with it. If you’re wrong (which you have been over and over again), acknowledge it and move on. Otherwise, you’re just digging yourself a deeper hole.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SK in CV]
Pretty much impossible to prove a negative. But the way you worded it, it’s easy. We have taxes, we have production, therefore taxes have not taken productivity out of the system. (you really need to learn to word your questions more carefully.)

Find a definition from any source online that says: Taxes: removes productivity out of the system.

Medicare is more efficient than private insurance. Their administrative costs, on a per patient basis, are a tiny fraction of private insurance.

And stop with the stupid straw man arguments. asking for examples of where the government does things more efficiently than the private sector has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I have said. Zero. Leaping from topic to topic, most of which I probably agree with you, does not prove your point. I don’t know what your point is. You just screw up facts. Make outlandish assertions which are easily disproved and then explain them away by changing the subject. Stick to one. Deal with it. If you’re wrong (which you have been over and over again), acknowledge it and move on. Otherwise, you’re just digging yourself a deeper hole.[/quote]

I am calling it out:
The word for this type of blind adherence is best termed:

Pauline Jihadist.

Flame on mo-fos

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV]
Medicare is more efficient than private insurance. Their administrative costs, on a per patient basis, are a tiny fraction of private insurance.[/quote]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml

Medicare isn’t a waste?????!!! You missed the 60 minutes special. Clearly you are lost. LOLOL at it being more efficient than the private market. Thanks for proving my point!

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV]
Medicare is more efficient than private insurance. Their administrative costs, on a per patient basis, are a tiny fraction of private insurance.[/quote]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml

Medicare isn’t a waste?????!!! You missed the 60 minutes special. Clearly you are lost. LOLOL at it being more efficient than the private market. Thanks for proving my point![/quote]

There you go again. Where did i say medicare doesn’t have waste? You just made that up.

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV]
Medicare is more efficient than private insurance. Their administrative costs, on a per patient basis, are a tiny fraction of private insurance.[/quote]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml

Medicare isn’t a waste?????!!! You missed the 60 minutes special. Clearly you are lost. LOLOL at it being more efficient than the private market. Thanks for proving my point![/quote]

There you go again. Where did i say medicare doesn’t have waste? You just made that up.[/quote]

“In fact, Medicare fraud – estimated now to total about $60 billion a year – has become one of, if not the most profitable, crimes in America.”

Not only that, Medicare and Medicad drive the cost of procedures up. It creates inefficiency in the market place. How is that an “efficient market”? Those procedures would have dropped in price if it were privatized with little GOV regulation. Dare me to prove it?

[Author]

Posts