Everything Business Thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:14 am

Zarniwoop wrote:And you’ll get zero argument on anyone about that provided it was employee equity (original or deferred) that purchased the assets for the company.


Have you seen anyone on this site ever say Co-ops should be barred? That ESOPs should be illegal?

Did you know that ESOPs are mostly one share fractionally split among all the employees in the program?

I'm glad you're good with the idea of employee owned enterprise. It requires acknowledging that employees do and should have a stake in the business.

A few modifications to the law and perhaps we'll see more of it.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14395
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 667 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:26 am

I am 100% for employees bargaining for as much as they can get.


They have ZERO right to anything ... until they sign a legal contract to secure it


I am 100% for shareholders giving up stake in their firms should they do choose.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:27 am

Zarniwoop wrote:They have ZERO right to anything ...

Wrong.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14395
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 667 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:46 am

yes I know you think that.


luckily most Americans and even m ore importantly...our courts disagree.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:50 am

Zarniwoop wrote:yes I know you think that.


luckily most Americans and even m ore importantly...our courts disagree.

Why the hell do you keep saying that?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14395
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 667 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:53 am

because you keep claiming workers have a right to things they don't.

so i'm being nice and correcting you.



in reality though...just like you i'm giving my opinion on a message board. feel free to read it or ignore it. no biggie either way. i'm bored right now. if I don't discuss this, i'll find something else to do.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:17 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:because you keep claiming workers have a right to things they don't.

so i'm being nice and correcting you.

in reality though...just like you i'm giving my opinion on a message board. feel free to read it or ignore it. no biggie either way. i'm bored right now. if I don't discuss this, i'll find something else to do.

You keep suggesting that I'm over here advocating seizing capital. That's not true. Especially not for this outfit. I just want these employees taken care of.

Keep this up and you're gonna have me quoting William Jennings Bryan again.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14395
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 667 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:28 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:because you keep claiming workers have a right to things they don't.

so i'm being nice and correcting you.

in reality though...just like you i'm giving my opinion on a message board. feel free to read it or ignore it. no biggie either way. i'm bored right now. if I don't discuss this, i'll find something else to do.

You keep suggesting that I'm over here advocating seizing capital. That's not true. Especially not for this outfit. I just want these employees taken care of.

Keep this up and you're gonna have me quoting William Jennings Bryan again.


I'm not suggesting anything...in the case we are talking about...Sears...you have said that the employees should be taken care of in terms of severance. Sears doesn't have the money to do that. You then said they should be paid before the owners of the junk bonds.

Which of those things, if either, do I have wrong?
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:35 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:You keep suggesting that I'm over here advocating seizing capital. That's not true. Especially not for this outfit. I just want these employees taken care of.

Keep this up and you're gonna have me quoting William Jennings Bryan again.


I'm not suggesting anything...in the case we are talking about...Sears...you have said that the employees should be taken care of in terms of severance. Sears doesn't have the money to do that. You then said they should be paid before the owners of the junk bonds.

Which of those things, if either, do I have wrong?

No, they DO have the money to do that. They just don't have the money to do that after they pay off the bondholders.

Yes, the company is insolvent and thus entering bankruptcy, but that bankruptcy prioritizes the creditors over the employees and thus choosing to send them off for government subsidy that you and I pay for rather than compensate the employees with severance before liquidation. That debt can get refinanced and repackaged six ways from Sunday for the entity that emerges from the courthouse (Its Chapter 11 so we're talking reorganization here) So I see no need to subsidize Sears by letting them lay off 140,000 people for nothing.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14395
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 667 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:41 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:
I'm not suggesting anything...in the case we are talking about...Sears...you have said that the employees should be taken care of in terms of severance. Sears doesn't have the money to do that. You then said they should be paid before the owners of the junk bonds.

Which of those things, if either, do I have wrong?

No, they DO have the money to do that. They just don't have the money to do that after they pay off the bondholders.

Yes, the company is insolvent and thus entering bankruptcy, but that bankruptcy prioritizes the creditors over the employees and thus choosing to send them off for government subsidy that you and I pay for rather than compensate the employees with severance before liquidation. That debt can get refinanced and repackaged six ways from Sunday for the entity that emerges from the courthouse (Its Chapter 11 so we're talking reorganization here) So I see no need to subsidize Sears by letting them lay off 140,000 people for nothing.



by law they have to pay their creditors first. that is the debt they are going into bankruptcy over....to try to have those obligations reduced.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:50 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:No, they DO have the money to do that. They just don't have the money to do that after they pay off the bondholders.

Yes, the company is insolvent and thus entering bankruptcy, but that bankruptcy prioritizes the creditors over the employees and thus choosing to send them off for government subsidy that you and I pay for rather than compensate the employees with severance before liquidation. That debt can get refinanced and repackaged six ways from Sunday for the entity that emerges from the courthouse (Its Chapter 11 so we're talking reorganization here) So I see no need to subsidize Sears by letting them lay off 140,000 people for nothing.



by law they have to pay their creditors first. that is the debt they are going into bankruptcy over....to try to have those obligations reduced.

Yes. And what I am saying is that the law should be changed to require severance for employees before they may use bankruptcy law to reduce or reorganize the debt.

My argument is predicated on the layoffs creating a public burden. It benefits the company to lay these folks off, but it does not benefit society.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14395
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 667 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Rocker » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:21 pm

I agree with MB on this.
Image
User avatar
Rocker
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:23 am
Location: Upper deck of the Old Sombrero
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:28 pm

Rocker wrote:I agree with MB on this.



That's it...I'm changing my chart!!!!!!

You are now just left of Engels
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Rocker » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:31 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Rocker wrote:I agree with MB on this.



That's it...I'm changing my chart!!!!!!

You are now just left of Engels


Do you bite your thumb at me?
Image
User avatar
Rocker
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:23 am
Location: Upper deck of the Old Sombrero
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby PanteraCanes » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:32 pm

MB should be more than happy to know that Sears has probably paid for more than their fair share of the unemployment benefits. Considering they have been around a long time and probably been paying a ton of taxes for a long time. They have probably overpaid at this point.

https://eligibility.com/unemployment/where-do-unemployment-benefit-funds-come-from


The U.S. Department of Labor’s Unemployment Insurance program is funded through unemployment insurance taxes paid by employers and collected by the state and federal government. The taxes are part of the often-discussed payroll taxes all employers pay. Employers pay federal taxes of 6 percent on the first $7,000 in annual income earned by every employee. Employers who pay on time get a tax break at 5.4 percent.

The amount collected by each state varies as does the amount of income it is collected on—the first $7,000 to $34,000 an employee earns each year, depending on the state. States create their tax systems based on the costs needed to cover their unemployment claims. Contrary to popular belief, employees are very rarely required to pay into unemployment insurance. There are only three states—Arkansas, New Jersey and Pennsylvania—that ask employees to contribute and only in specific situations.
User avatar
PanteraCanes
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:36 pm

Rocker wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

That's it...I'm changing my chart!!!!!!

You are now just left of Engels


Do you bite your thumb at me?


Yes, as I lift my monocle higher to look down upon you
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:56 pm

Not enough, Pantera.

Don't go getting me started on the sham that is unemployment benefits.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14395
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 667 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:00 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:What are you saying here?

I think it's great when companies offer stock options, but I feel like you are angling for a far more socialized version.

I'm arguing that the employees should receive severance from the company and that it be required by law. By working for that company they have stake in that company's success or failure.

Take care of the employees first, then the bankers can fight over the rest.

Have you played out the situation farther than that?

Let’s make this our neighborhood savings and loan and a newly opening store. What happens when your new law forces all the assets of the defunct business to the 25 employees and empties the savings and loan of the capital it has to invest, which is also the savings of the local community? Instead of 25 people finding new jobs, you have a completely dead business, a crippled or dead financial institution and a group of innocent people who lose their life savings so 25 people get some severance package.

Ironically, your policy would probably destroy small business and local financial institutions because they could not afford to make a loan that works for both parties, letting the mega banks completely control the industry.

For the record, this would be an area where I’d agree you’ve correctly identified a problem, but completely missed on a reasonable solution.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:38 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:I'm arguing that the employees should receive severance from the company and that it be required by law. By working for that company they have stake in that company's success or failure.

Take care of the employees first, then the bankers can fight over the rest.

Have you played out the situation farther than that?

Let’s make this our neighborhood savings and loan and a newly opening store. What happens when your new law forces all the assets of the defunct business to the 25 employees and empties the savings and loan of the capital it has to invest, which is also the savings of the local community? Instead of 25 people finding new jobs, you have a completely dead business, a crippled or dead financial institution and a group of innocent people who lose their life savings so 25 people get some severance package.

Ironically, your policy would probably destroy small business and local financial institutions because they could not afford to make a loan that works for both parties, letting the mega banks completely control the industry.

For the record, this would be an area where I’d agree you’ve correctly identified a problem, but completely missed on a reasonable solution.


Leftist (aka socialist) ideas could be bad for small business?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13584
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:07 pm

Tonight I learned that severance pay is socialist.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14395
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 667 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:22 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:I'm arguing that the employees should receive severance from the company and that it be required by law. By working for that company they have stake in that company's success or failure.

Take care of the employees first, then the bankers can fight over the rest.

Have you played out the situation farther than that?

Let’s make this our neighborhood savings and loan and a newly opening store. What happens when your new law forces all the assets of the defunct business to the 25 employees and empties the savings and loan of the capital it has to invest, which is also the savings of the local community? Instead of 25 people finding new jobs, you have a completely dead business, a crippled or dead financial institution and a group of innocent people who lose their life savings so 25 people get some severance package.

Ironically, your policy would probably destroy small business and local financial institutions because they could not afford to make a loan that works for both parties, letting the mega banks completely control the industry.

For the record, this would be an area where I’d agree you’ve correctly identified a problem, but completely missed on a reasonable solution.

Ken, I think your scenario has way too many variables for me to mount any kind of "not true because" argument. So instead I'll address your primary concern.

I'm not suggesting the employees get all the assets and the bank can have what they don't want.

Im suggesting that while in bankruptcy, severance is paid to the employees that are let go. About a month's worth of payroll.

And a simple bond or insurance policy would ensure the money is available.

Once that is done, the business and creditors can do what they gotta do.

Banks have loan loss reserves. They can survive a default or two if they write good loans.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14395
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 667 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:33 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:Have you played out the situation farther than that?

Let’s make this our neighborhood savings and loan and a newly opening store. What happens when your new law forces all the assets of the defunct business to the 25 employees and empties the savings and loan of the capital it has to invest, which is also the savings of the local community? Instead of 25 people finding new jobs, you have a completely dead business, a crippled or dead financial institution and a group of innocent people who lose their life savings so 25 people get some severance package.

Ironically, your policy would probably destroy small business and local financial institutions because they could not afford to make a loan that works for both parties, letting the mega banks completely control the industry.

For the record, this would be an area where I’d agree you’ve correctly identified a problem, but completely missed on a reasonable solution.

Ken, I think your scenario has way too many variables for me to mount any kind of "not true because" argument. So instead I'll address your primary concern.

I'm not suggesting the employees get all the assets and the bank can have what they don't want.

Im suggesting that while in bankruptcy, severance is paid to the employees that are let go. About a month's worth of payroll.

And a simple bond or insurance policy would ensure the money is available.

Once that is done, the business and creditors can do what they gotta do.

Banks have loan loss reserves. They can survive a default or two if they write good loans.

The big banks that can afford the higher insurance and survive a defaulted loan would be fine. The local institutions’ costs would go up, meaning fewer loans and higher rates. This would push more and more people to the larger banks and make every default a major issue.

If your goal is to push more business to the banks and strengthen the large companies who can borrow money to invest better than your average Joe and make sure that Amazon, Wal Mart and other massive corporations always have an advantage, you are good to argue that position.

I thought we were looking out for the little guy? Or is looking out for the little guy making sure they get a month paid in addition to the unemployment benefits that are already able to be collected while they search for a new job, but not worry about the long term consequences of a few hundred feel good checks for $1800?
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Everything Business Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:36 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Ken, I think your scenario has way too many variables for me to mount any kind of "not true because" argument. So instead I'll address your primary concern.

I'm not suggesting the employees get all the assets and the bank can have what they don't want.

Im suggesting that while in bankruptcy, severance is paid to the employees that are let go. About a month's worth of payroll.

And a simple bond or insurance policy would ensure the money is available.

Once that is done, the business and creditors can do what they gotta do.

Banks have loan loss reserves. They can survive a default or two if they write good loans.

The big banks that can afford the higher insurance and survive a defaulted loan would be fine. The local institutions’ costs would go up, meaning fewer loans and higher rates. This would push more and more people to the larger banks and make every default a major issue.

If your goal is to push more business to the banks and strengthen the large companies who can borrow money to invest better than your average Joe and make sure that Amazon, Wal Mart and other massive corporations always have an advantage, you are good to argue that position.

I thought we were looking out for the little guy? Or is looking out for the little guy making sure they get a month paid in addition to the unemployment benefits that are already able to be collected while they search for a new job, but not worry about the long term consequences of a few hundred feel good checks for $1800?

Tell you what, we'll play out your concerns about unintended consequences tomorrow.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14395
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 667 times

Previous

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests