DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on December 08, 2010, 04:49:23 PM
-
Cash for Croakers is just sooooo wonderful....
The new healthcare law is just so wonderful that the Obama administration's Department of Health and Human Services is handing out compliance waivers to the law left and right. In fact, the list has doubled in less than a month. And the list keeps growing, and growing, and growing...
Advantage Benefits Company, LLC
Altisource Portfolio Solutions
American Heritage Life Insurance Company
Americare Properties, Inc.
AMN Healthcare
APWU Health Plan Conversion Plan
ATCO Rubber Products, Inc
Baylor County Hospital District
Bricklayers Local 1 of MD, VA and DC
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Ogdensburg
First Acceptance Corporation
Fruhauf Uniform Direct Labor
Grower's Transport LLC
Hoosier Stamping and Manufacturing Corp.
Ingomar Packing Company, LLC
International Brotherhood of Trade Unions Health and Welfare Fund - Local 713
Local 1102 Amalgamated Welfare Fund
Local 1102 Health & Benefit Fund
Local 1102 Welfare Fund-- Lerner Employees
Local 338 Affiliated Benefit Funds
Mission Linen Supply
NFI Industries
See the complete list of all 200 waiver beneficiaries (so far) (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GuyBenson/2010/12/08/obamacare_waiver_list_swells)
-
It's stuff like this that will make him a one-termer. (Or Bush's third term depending on how you look at it.)
-
Couldn't agree with your premice, any more Brass
-
What I don't understand, sirs, is with all the crap he hasn't done and the way he's rolling over for the GOP constantly, he's still being called a socialist by the right. That health care bill was the biggest sack of nothing and now he's helping out 32,000 millionaires. He's worse than CLINTON!
-
What I don't understand, sirs, is with all the crap he hasn't done and the way he's rolling over for the GOP constantly, he's still being called a socialist by the right.
Because his track record and rhetoric, not to mention how he rammed Cash for Croakers thru, demonstrates exactly that. Swap Cash for Croakers with the tax cuts......Going back 1+year, there's no way in hell he bails on making sure "the rich" get their tax increase. But come Nov time, there's no way he gets Cash for Croakers passed, even with the ramming process. Yea, he didn't get everything he wanted, like the Public option, but he pretty much got the Healthcare industry nationalized. And as he's already said, the current program can be added onto, like Medicare, so that's still his socialist goal. But to get there, he had to get this passed 1st
That health care bill was the biggest sack of nothing and now he's helping out 32,000 millionaires. He's worse than CLINTON!
Agreed. Now in a tie with Carter. Remind me though.....when's the last time a poor person employed people, much less alot of people. And I'm referring to adults, not 3rd graders selling lemonaide on the local corner
-
Agreed. Now in a tie with Carter. Remind me though.....when's the last time a poor person employed people, much less alot of people. And I'm referring to adults, not 3rd graders selling lemonaide on the local corner
When the unemployment rate continues to go up after the millionaires get their tax cuts, where will you be?
And, as I understand it, employers prefer to "productivity" over higher employment numbers. What is the incentive to hire more people when they've got everything humming along just fine with who they already have?
-
Right behind any politician that has stamped his agenda of dismantling Obama's agenda which has wrought this country it's current economic & unemployment misery
And the incentive is that terribly ugly liberal word.....success. You're arguing some strange goal of maintaining a status quo. The more successful the employer --> the more money they take in --> the more employees they can hire --> the more money they can take in --> the more employees they can hire --> ........you get the picture.
And the more employees --> More Income Tax Revenue to the Fed, as they spend more on products, facilitating increased demand, facilitating increased employers. The more successful the employer --> the more money they take in --> the more employees they can hire --> the more money they can take in --> the more employees they can hire --> ........ and the cycle is theoretically perpetuated
-
Employees are an added cost to companies.
-
Offset by the increased revenues brought in by the increased production of x
-
Offset by the increased revenues brought in by the increased production of x
Depends on what the employees does.
-
Thus my reference to "success". The ones who are not successful, for whatever reason, flawed product, too much managerial overhead, bad employees, bad leadership, etc. will fail in perpetuating the above referenced cycle.
-
Thus my reference as to whether an employee was attached to a cost center or revenue center.
-
Thus my reference as to whether an employee was attached to a cost center or revenue center.
Doesn't matter; an employee attached to a cost center can save the company money, thereby increasing profits. IT is usually a cost center in most businesses, but I save the companies I work for much more than my pay.
-
Precisely
-
How much money does a janitor make for the company?
-
Doesn't that depend on what the demand is for Janitors?
-
Doesn't matter; an employee attached to a cost center can save the company money, thereby increasing profits. IT is usually a cost center in most businesses, but I save the companies I work for much more than my pay.
I'm sure you do. But it really depends on what your function is in the IT department.
-
Doesn't that depend on what the demand is for Janitors?
What does demand for janitors have to do with it.
Your widget company hires a janitor to clean the building at night.
How does that add tangible dollars to the bottom line?
-
Doesn't that depend on what the demand is for Janitors?
What does demand for janitors have to do with it.
Sorry...I thought you were referring to a company that sends hires out Janitors
Your widget company hires a janitor to clean the building at night.
How does that add tangible dollars to the bottom line?
Makes for a cleaner enviroment, happier, and more productive employees --> improved product/improved revenues to the widget company
-
Makes for a cleaner enviroment, happier, and more productive employees --> improved product/improved revenues to the widget company
So what you are really saying is the janitor frees up revenue producers so that they can produce revenue, because i doubt the building would stay dirty without the additional costs of a janitor.
-
No, what I'm saying is the hiring of Janitors by companies makes for a cleaner enviroment, and subsequent happier, and more productive employees --> improved product/improved bottom line for said company
-
So who would you hire first, a janitor or a salesman?
Me, i'd hire a salesman. I know how to empty my own trashcan. I would probably hire a receptionist before i hired a janitor.
-
pretty much janitors tend to be contract workers to cut cost on benefits and the duties of a janitor is fairly time consuming but normally doable in a required shift.
meaning it`ll be fairly difficult(not impposible) for the remaining staff to absorb. I`m pretty sure a widget employee will not be happy to have a job if he has to clean toilets, dispose compost recycling or haul 40 lbs. of paper for recycling to the garage.
today restaurants have laid off busboys and got waitresses to cover that job and now incur a rapid loss of silverware since waitresses are too much of a rush to bother sorting them.not sure if this problem has been solved by now
but don`t get me wrong the 1st to be hired will be the revenue generator. I`m just stating thier will be a need for a janitor for any business with growth.
-
So who would you hire first, a janitor or a salesman?
Salesman as needed, then janitor as needed. It's apparent the salemsan can better focus his time and energy on sales, vs taking out the trash, cleaning rest rooms, and cleaning all the floors. Tends to take away from his productivity as a salesman. Same goes for the receptionist
-
Janitors are a luxury and not mission critical. They may add intangible dollars to the bottom line, but only indirectly and only to the extent that they free up revenue producers. A good receptionist has a much clearer impact on the bottom line.
-
Never said they were. I merely said, as seems to be clearly (dare I say) obvious, that the salesman time and energy is better suited when he's focused on sales, and not on Janitorial work. Tends to take AWAY from the bottom line
-
Never said they were.
Glad we can agree that janitors add to the cost to doing business.
-
it pretty much depends at what stage a business is at.
staff of five probly not needed, but 15 will most likely need it.
-
Companies with less than 20 employees usually hire cleaning services.
Which makes the janitor a revenue producer, just for someone else.
-
Companies with less than 20 employees usually hire cleaning services.
Which makes the janitor a revenue producer, just for someone else.
Janitors prevent loss, or don't depending on whos time they are saving.
It can be a judgement call, the Mayor can continue to think as he mops his own floor , so little is gained in hireing a janitor for the Mayor, but the clerk who renews licences is busy all day and has a reduction of productivuty when he has to stop and clean up.
-
It can be a judgement call, the Mayor can continue to think as he mops his own floor , so little is gained in hireing a janitor for the Mayor, but the clerk who renews licences is busy all day and has a reduction of productivuty when he has to stop and clean up.
Of course the assumption is that productivity is indeed increased when the mundane tasks are offloaded to other less revenue enhancing staff, and i'm not sure that is always the case.
-
How To Get Paid To Do Nothing
Susan Adams, 12.08.10, 6:00 PM ET
Some years ago I had a colleague I'll call June. It seemed that every time I went to the ladies' room, June was there, applying mascara, combing her long, dark tresses and chatting. She also spent lots of time out on the sidewalk smoking, and in the cafeteria. Exceedingly friendly and warm, she knew everyone and devoted much of her day to catching up on their personal news. What she didn't spend much time on was work. A guy who sat in the cubicle next to hers once told me that he estimated she put in just two hours a day of what could be described as productive labor.
Eric Abrahamson, a professor at Columbia Business School who specializes in leadership and organizational problem solving, calls people like June "Michelangelos of work avoidance." Abrahamson studies workplace fads and time management and has looked closely at the ways some employees manage to get paid to do nothing. He doesn't advocate their practices, but he says that understanding them can help managers address office inequities and make their teams more productive.
In Pictures: How To Get Paid To Do Nothing
Work-avoidance Michelangelos know how to stay idle while suffering no consequences or, in some cases, even getting promoted. June lasted in her job for more than a decade before finally being laid off, and when her termination came it had little to do with her lack of productivity. The office was automating her job.
One of her skills was spending little time at her desk or anywhere near the department where she supposedly worked, so that her bosses didn't even think about her much. Out of sight, out of mind, you might say. "If people don't think of you, they can't give you work," Abrahamson says. Other ways to accomplish that: Arrive at different, unpredictable times of day. Work from home. Set up your schedule so that you frequently change locations.
Another tactic: Don't empty your voicemail box. That way when people call they'll get the impression you're working so hard you don't even have time to delete messages. This has the added advantage of making it impossible for bosses or colleagues to leave you verbal instructions about work assignments.
If your boss does manage to track you down and try to give you some work, you can strategically deploy a kind of good-natured cluelessness. "The principal here is that you try to give work to a person and come to the conclusion that they can't even understand the instructions," Abrahamson explains. In such a case most bosses will figure it's easier to do the work themselves.
If you perform a specialized function within your office, you can distort the time it takes to get it done. Among June's supposed jobs was keeping time sheets for her department's staff. No one else knew the system she'd set up or how long keeping the data took. Thus she could make a task that took minutes appear to consume hours of toil. People with computer expertise who work among Luddites can easily exploit this tactic.
Then there's what Abrahamson calls the anticipatory screw-up. Make it clear to your boss, in the most pleasant way possible, that you will fail at the assignment she wants to give you. "You don't have to fail," advises Abrahamson. "You just have to be clear that you're going to fail." Most smart bosses will then give the job to someone else.
Appearing overworked can be a surefire way to avoid further assignments. If anyone asks you how you're doing, simply reply, "I am working so hard, I don't even have time to go to the bathroom." (For June, this line would obviously not apply.) Another good one: "I'm so busy I think I'm coming down with something."
You can also form an alliance with a colleague to mutually stage the appearance of overwork. Ask me whether Fred can take on a new assignment, and I'd say, "Fred is so busy, he hasn't been sleeping." Likewise, if the boss suggested he'd like me to do a project, Fred could say, "Susan can't possibly take on any more; she's spent every weekend in the office for the last two months."
A time-tested tactic for work avoidance: Take credit for the work of others. Especially popular in academia and in political circles and among senior executives, the idea is to grab the glory for a project that you merely supervised or got started rather than spent hours executing.
Finally, there is the burgeoning field of cyberloafing. This takes many forms. You can program your e-mail to send messages in the wee hours while you're asleep, to give the appearance that you're toiling away at 2 a.m. Or you can program your computer screen, on which you're playing your 17th game of solitaire, to display an Excel spreadsheet at the press of a key if you see the boss approaching. "It's a whole new loafing medium," Abrahamson says. "Cyberloafing is the work avoidance of the future."
http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/08/get-paid-to-do-nothing-leadership-careers-advice_print.html (http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/08/get-paid-to-do-nothing-leadership-careers-advice_print.html)
-
Never said they were.
Glad we can agree that janitors add to the cost to doing business.
You're not going to try pulling that misrepresentation crap again are you. The cost is offset by the increased productivity and product of that business, that janitors allow for, as my actual respresentation made clear. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in business ::)
-
>>Right behind any politician that has stamped his agenda of dismantling Obama's agenda which has wrought this country it's current economic & unemployment misery<<
While I can certainly understand not knowing much about the history of this country say, during the early part of the 19th century, getting it so wrong about such recent history, though, just boggles the mind.
In case you don't remember the current economic meltdown, world wide meltdown in fact, showed it's ugly head while Bush was still in office. And further, any beliefs that anyone else would have turned it around by now, and that we'd purring along in an economy fueled by any sort of significant job growth, is living a fantasy.
bsb
-
>>Right behind any politician that has stamped his agenda of dismantling Obama's agenda which has wrought this country it's current economic & unemployment misery<<
In case you don't remember the current economic meltdown, world wide meltdown in fact, showed it's ugly head while Bush was still in office.
Yea, ....................and? Timing not your strong suit? The tax cuts went into effect, and by nearly every account referenced, helped steer us out of would could have been a complete economic meltdown, when 911 hit the WTC. Unemployment remained at record lows...jobs were plentiful. It wasn't until the Housing bubble burst, just like the dot-com bursted Clinton's economy, that the economy started to tank. Had nothing to do with the tax cuts, and very much to do with the egregious mismanagement of Freddy & Fannie. And Bush IS at fault for pushing home ownership, and not directing the GOP to better reign in Fannie & Freddie. But when the Dems took over, Fannie & Freddie went unchecked. And when Obama opened the spending spickets, you get what we have now
-
The cost is offset by the increased productivity and product of that business, that janitors allow for, as my actual respresentation made clear. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in business Roll Eyes
You assume that there is a corresponding increase in productivity amongst the revenue generating portion of the staff. And that is not a given. You also stated that given the choice you would hire a revenue generator before you hired a janitor. To say that i misrepresented your position is just nuts. :o
-
What are you talking about sirs? I didn't say anything about tax cuts involving the economic meltdown. That was another thread.
The current meltdown arrived full blown, although it had been brewing for years, in the fall of '08. Remember? The banking crisis, financial crisis, etc., etc? TARP, remember? Remember Bush signing TARP into law in Oct of '08? Huh?
That's what the current economic uncertainty is all about. That's why we're in the boat we're in. And it isn't over by a long shot.
bsb
-
What are you talking about sirs? I didn't say anything about tax cuts involving the economic meltdown. That was another thread.
The current meltdown arrived full blown, although it had been brewing for years, in the fall of '08. Remember? The banking crisis, financial crisis, etc., etc? TARP, remember? Remember Bush signing TARP into law in Oct of '08? Huh?
Yea, and the Phillies won the World Series while Bush was in office in '08. Obviously then, he led to the demise of the Pittsburg Pirates. Are you purposely not paying attention? Seems to be going on alot around here when folks are trying to disagree with me. A) I did NOT give Bush a pass. I HAVE criticized him for signing TARP and signing on to the increased spending. B) The economy tanked when the Housing bubble blew, and that can be traced directly to Fannie & Freddie, and the DC push to get banks to take on home loans to folks who had no business owning a home in the 1st place. This can ALSO be attributed to Bush
The policies, and worse, the completely irresponsible spending of Washington, spearheaded by the Democrats, took an exponential turn for the worse when Obama took over. THERE's your perpetuating uncertainty at the heart of the current economic abyss we're in
The cost is offset by the increased productivity and product of that business, that janitors allow for, as my actual respresentation made clear. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in business Roll Eyes
You assume that there is a corresponding increase in productivity amongst the revenue generating portion of the staff. And that is not a given. You also stated that given the choice you would hire a revenue generator before you hired a janitor. To say that i misrepresented your position is just nuts. :o
No, the nuts part is to imply that the janitor is simply an "extra cost", that could apparently be absorbed by the salesman taking out his own trash. Can't explain it any more on how it helps the bottom line of the company by hiring the janitor. And that is what the issue has been all about
-
A janitor is an extra cost, almost a luxury for a small business. Not sure why that is too difficult a concept for you to grasp.
Compared to other strategic staff additions a janitor's direct contributions to the bottom line would be dwarfed.
-
Your bubble problem is that the janitor is not hired just to be hired. A business that doesn't make a profit fails. If a janitor causes a business to lose money because of "their cost", they won't be much of a success, will they. Apparently, to business wanting to succeed, they actually hire janitors, so their salesman can focus on sales vs time taken away in cleaning bathrooms, thus improving the company's bottom line
Not sure why that concept is so hard to grasp
-
Again, a janitor is not a necessary component to a business's profitability.
Have you ever run a business?
-
AND I NEVER SAID THEY WERE "NECESSARY". Again, someone who can't seem to pay attention, when I clearly said that earlier. Business apparently have a need for improving their bottom line, and the hiring of said janitors apparently helps that bottom line. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in business
oy
-
Offset by the increased revenues brought in by the increased production of x
Hiring a new accountant doesn't make the cheese product shredders run any faster.
-
If it helps their bottom line, it doesn't matter how fast the shredders are going
-
If it helps their bottom line, it doesn't matter how fast the shredders are going
Look, dude, an accoutant is an added cost to a company that makes shredded cheese. Ok? You can ramble on about offsets and bottom lines, but an accountant's salary, unless his added duties included "dropping blocks of cheese product into the shredder, is never going to be offset by an increase in cheese sold because an accountant can make people buy more cheese.
Not you can make the case that he may improve the bottom line by exploiting loopholes and finding unnecessary workers and firing them but the amount of product sold (whether less or more) can never be attributable to his being hired.
That's all I'm saying.
-
Accountants and janitors and other support staff add to the cost of goods sold.
The two easiest ways to raise profits is by raising prices or lowering costs. And raising prices is problematic unless your competition raises their prices at the same time.
-
We've already addressed the "added cost" arguement. It's offset by the increased revenues/bottom line by what the "added cost" brought to the company. If it didn't they wouldn't have them in the 1st place
And the "added cost" is an employee who pays taxes. I thought socialists loved taxes.
-
It's offset by the increased revenues/bottom line by what the "added cost" brought to the company.
That is based on an assumption you haven't proven, at least for janitors.
-
The proof is in that they're hired in the 1st place
-
At some point a janitor becomes essential. If you are selling shredded cheese, not having a janitor might result in rodents getting into the product. It is amazing how just a couple of rat turds can affect the consumer's opinion of a cheese or other food product.
-
The proof is in that they're hired in the 1st place
Actually their hiring is not proof at all that they will add to the bottom line. What it proves is that the company at that point in time was profitable enough to absorb the costs of hiring the janitor.
-
In other words your non proven position is.......they took "a hit" to their bottom line? And why would they do that?
-
The same reason some companies send out for Pizza on casual fridays.
It's a perk. But it doesn't necessarily add to the bottom line.
Meanwhile shall i just assume you have no proof that hiring janitors adds to the profit margin of a company?
-
Casual Fridays is "a luxury". Keeping the "house cleaned" is not, especially when it can impact the productivity of those that have the greatest impact on the "bottom line"
And to answer your question, I'll just point you to the non-proven assumption you've made
-
Keeping the "house cleaned" is not, especially when it can impact the productivity of those that have the greatest impact on the "bottom line"
Perhaps you can show where i said that the office should be dirty. Otherwise we can just assume you are misrepresenting my position.
-
What the hell do you think Janitors do?? ::)
-
I see. So, Sirs, the worldwide economic meltdown that occurred in the fall of 2008, the meltdown that has Greece, Ireland, Spain, the UK, etc., etc., either bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy, isn't part of our present economic uncertainty? Instead, it's the overspending on the part of the democrats that has caused it?
In a word, wow.
bsb
-
What the hell do you think Janitors do?? ::)
They clean. But they by no means have a monopoly on the ability to clean. And again, where did I say the offices should be dirty?
-
What the hell do you think Janitors do?? ::)
They clean. But they by no means have a monopoly on the ability to clean.
Never said they did, merely that from a bottom line standpoint, they apparently help that business in attaining a better bottom line, than without them. Otherwise businesses wouldn't use them
So, Sirs, the worldwide economic meltdown that occurred in the fall of 2008, the meltdown that has Greece, Ireland, Spain, the UK, etc., etc., either bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy, isn't part of our present economic uncertainty? Instead, it's the overspending on the part of the democrats that has caused it?
In a word, wow.
In 2 words, not quite. Then again not surprising as you tried to lay it all on Bush's lap, merely because it happened in 2008, even though he had been President since 2001
-
Never said they did, merely that from a bottom line standpoint, they apparently help that business in attaining a better bottom line, than without them. Otherwise businesses wouldn't use them
Many profitable businesses don't. And yet they manage to show a return on investment as well as keep the offices clean. The absence of a staff janitor does not equal a dirty office. Not sure why you think it does.
-
Never said they did, merely that from a bottom line standpoint, they apparently help that business in attaining a better bottom line, than without them. Otherwise businesses wouldn't use them
Many profitable businesses don't.
There ya go. See, I never said they were required. Merely that for some businesses, it helps their bottom line. Not sure why you think it doesn't
-
Merely that for some businesses, it helps their bottom line
And you have a source for that claim?
-
Same as yours
-
Right off the top of my head i can name two law firms, a printing company, a marketing company and a small government that don't have on staff janitors.
And you have ....
-
And I can name a few hundred that do
-
And I can name a few hundred that do
Good. And you can also show how the employment of these janitors improved the productivity and profitability of the revenue producing segment of the staff.
Because that was the challenge. Which you apparently can't meet.
-
Just the same as you are in demonstrating how those other janitors are not hired based solely that they take away from their bottom line
and ditto on the can't meet challenge
-
I think the subject of janitors might be approached wrong. that part of the labor is usually part of a building maintenance and has nothing to do with productivity. it`s not like if a door handle breaks you need the cheese maker to replace it that handle. I doubt you want the guy who cleans toilet to also make cheese also.
technically janitors jobs can be done by staff, but at a certain point it simply not gonna happen in a large business.
-
upon further thought, a large business will have productivity problems because very few people would pick that business to work in if another does not require you to clean a bathroom.
-
Just the same as you are in demonstrating how those other janitors are not hired based solely that they take away from their bottom line
What is it you are saying. That sentence does not make sense.
Let's make it simple.
Show me how the cost of hiring a janitor is negated and surpassed by the increased productivity from the revenue creating side of the staff.
Show me a study that says so. That is the challenge because that was your claim.
-
You first show me that the decision, by one of those "off the top of your head places" to not hire any janitors was done so purely based on how it puts their bottom line into the red. Or I'll make it easier, they're not hired based solely that they take away from the company's bottom line. That WAS when this tangent started going down hill
-
Unless I'm wrong, which is entirely possible, neither one of us can show such a "study", since they are merely positions we're holding. Mine seems far more common sensical, since yours seems to be companies hire janitors simply to hire janitors. And because some don't, ipso facto, that supposedly proves your point. Hardly.
Point now is you can't prove that a janitor is not hired, based solely on their negation to the bottom line of that company. For some reason, that just makes sense to you. As is the salseman who should be taking out their own trash, to apparently help that company's bottom line
-
You first show me that the decision, by one of those "off the top of your head places" to not hire any janitors was done so purely based on how it puts their bottom line into the red.
Simple. The cost of the janitor as a full time employee at $15 per hour x 40 hours per week far outweighed the benefits gained by the 1 hour of lost productivity per week to revenue producers who kept their work area tidy. The average office or cubicle takes no more that 15 minutes a week to empty the trash, dust the fixtures and vacuum the floor. Do the math.
In many companies a new or low level employee might volunteer to clean the break room and bathrooms as a way to supplement their paychecks, as they got back on their feet. Happens all the time in small businesses.
Some businesses might outsource to a cleaning service. But even then the cost would be nowhere near the expense of a full-time janitor.
Now i have never claimed that hiring a janitor would put a firm in the red, that is a misrepresentation once again of my point. What i have said numerous times is that the benefits of hiring a janitor do not outweigh the costs of hiring that same janitor.
-
So, were both in agreement in that the Janitor hired doesn't ipso-fact cause the company to run in a negative direction. And that's been my point all along. In many, if not most, their cost is outweighed by the improved productivity of said company. (as you say, they "absorb it" because they're making a profit)
And I'd lay off the erroneous misrepresentaion claims, since you won't find one sentence where I accused you of claiming hiring a janitor causes a company to run in the red. That doesn't help in rebuilding your credibility. Just FYI
-
In many, if not most, their cost is outweighed by the improved productivity of said company.
And you still haven't shown me where that is so.
And I'd lay off the erroneous misrepresentaion claims, since you won't find one sentence where I accused you of claiming hiring a janitor causes a company to run in the red. That doesn't help in rebuilding your credibility. Just FYI
You did it right here.
You first show me that the decision, by one of those "off the top of your head places" to not hire any janitors was done so purely based on how it puts their bottom line into the red.
-
In many, if not most, their cost is outweighed by the improved productivity of said company.
And you still haven't shown me where that is so.
It's a common sense position, Bt, same as what you're trying. Otherwise they wouldn't hire janitors in the 1st place. A business is in it to be a success and make money. If they weren't making money, they'd not be hiring janitors
And I'd lay off the erroneous misrepresentaion claims, since you won't find one sentence where I accused you of claiming hiring a janitor causes a company to run in the red. That doesn't help in rebuilding your credibility. Just FYI
You did it right here.
You first show me that the decision, by one of those "off the top of your head places" to not hire any janitors was done so purely based on how it puts their bottom line into the red.
It was a question......not an accusation. You do know the difference. I even went on, IN FULL CONTEXT (yea, who's misrepresenting now?) Or I'll make it easier, they're not hired based solely that they take away from the company's bottom line.
-
Companies hire janitors when the people in charge of said companies believe that it is in the best interest of the company to hire janitors.
I fail to see what all the fuss is about. Does anyone care about the theoretical hiring of theoretical janitors at theoretical companies?
-
It was a question......not an accusation.
Why ask me to prove something I never claimed?
It's a commen sense position, Bt, same as what you're trying. Otherwise they wouldn't hire janitors in the 1st place. A business is in it to be a success and make money. If they weren't making money, they'd not be hiring janitors
Your claim was that the cost of hiring janitors was outweighed by the increased productivity of the revenue producers. And i asked for proof of that. You seem to be having problems delivering upon your claim.
-
>>Then again not surprising as you tried to lay it all on Bush's lap, merely because it happened in 2008, even though he had been President since 2001<<
I never said Bush had anything to do with it, sirs. What I've been saying is, neither does Obama.
bsb
-
>>Then again not surprising as you tried to lay it all on Bush's lap, merely because it happened in 2008, even though he had been President since 2001<<
I never said Bush had anything to do with it, sirs. What I've been saying is, neither does Obama.
Ignoring (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/speaking-of-politics-as-usual/msg114467/#msg114467) for the moment, the posts (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/liberal-left-is-mad-as-hell-at-obama-for-supporting-bush-tax-cuts/msg114436/#msg114436) you sure seem to be harping on Bush for, Obama and the Dems absolutely have had "something to do with it". Socialist Policies, Income Redistribution, Fannie/Freddie, and debt in particular
It was a question......not an accusation.
Why ask me to prove something I never claimed?
Your implication was that Janitors were mere "luxuries". That they weren't necessary for a company's bottom line, since folks could take out their own trash. I've never argued that they were necessary, merely that if they didn't help a company's bottom line, they wouldn't have been hired in the 1st place. The "question" was in referencing an opposite (obviously non-existant) "study" to your continuing erroneous implication that I think they are necessary
-
Your claim was that the cost of hiring janitors was outweighed by the increased productivity of the revenue producers. And you still haven't proven that.
-
One last time, common sense proves that, or Janitors would not be hired in the 1st place
-
One last time, common sense proves that, or Janitors would not be hired in the 1st place
So your proof is that it is obvious?
-
If you want to say that the hiring of Janitors is "obvious"....ummm, ok
-
That's what I thought. No answers and no proof.
-
The proof is that Janitors are hired, and the business doesn't fail
-
The proof is that Janitors are hired, and the business doesn't fail
That wasn't your claim.
-
It most certainly is. If the bottom line wasn't being meant, the business would fail. It doesn't get much more common sensical than that.
-
Your claim:
The cost is offset by the increased productivity and product of that business, that janitors allow for, as my actual respresentation made clear. (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/speaking-of-politics-as-usual/msg114456/#msg114456)
I am not arguing that janitors do not provide a service to the company, but i would like to see some numbers that back up the claim that their presence increases productivity and revenue.
-
that might not be possible. I mention it`s under a unrelated catagory like building maintenance.
such study may not be made.
unless it`s ABM, but that`s cheating since it`s that business best intererst for that research to have a positive result .
-
Why not just let people who think they need hjanitors hire them, and let people who don't can empty their own trash or let the salesmen do it?
This is an utterly pointless discussion.
-
that might not be possible. I mention it`s under a unrelated catagory like building maintenance.
such study may not be made.
unless it`s ABM, but that`s cheating since it`s that business best intererst for that research to have a positive result .
Probably a good reason that claims that can't be backed up, shouldn't be made.
-
I am not arguing that janitors do not provide a service to the company, but i would like to see some numbers that back up the claim that their presence increases productivity and revenue.
ONE LAST TIME, the "numbers" are the same ones you have yet to provide that demonstrate that hiring Janitors apparently decreases productivity and revenue. Just throwing out a hypothetical pay rate per hour doesn't cut it. The back-up is that they're hired and the compnay doesn't fail as a result. Been that way since the 1st page. So, why you keep asking for something that you yourself can't provide for your contrary position, is a bit mind boggling. Oh wait, I forgot, you're going to take that as some personal attack. My bad
-
ONE LAST TIME, the "numbers" are the same ones you have yet to provide that demonstrate that hiring Janitors apparently decreases productivity and revenue.
Another misrepresentation. I claimed that the cost of a janitor is not outweighed by increased productivity and thus increased revenue. You claimed the opposite.
I provided real life examples of my hypothesis, you have provided zilch.
-
My "real life" example is that Janitors are hired, and businesses manage not to fail
-
Nice deflection to go along with your misrepresentations.
Sad really.
-
You just can't help digging that pit. I'd ask where the so-called misrepresentation, this time's supposed to be, but knowing the end-around erroneous deduction we'd be privvy to, leads me to just say "we disagree". Yes, sad indeed
-
You just can't help digging that pit. I'd ask where the so-called misrepresentation, this time's supposed to be, but knowing the end-around erroneous deduction we'd be privvy to, leads me to just say "we disagree". Yes, sad indeed
Misrepresentation:
I never claimed that hiring a janitor would throw a business into the red, nor did i claim that hiring janitors decrease productivity though they certainly add cost to the operation.
Your claim was that they increased productivity and thus increased profits at such a rate as to negate their costs.
And your proof of this was that they were hired in the first place. Which isn't proof at all.
All their hiring proves is that the cost of a janitor was acceptable in light of the profitability of the other segments of the ledger. Not that their hiring increased productivity and or profitability.
-
I see. So, Sirs, the worldwide economic meltdown that occurred in the fall of 2008, the meltdown that has Greece, Ireland, Spain, the UK, etc., etc., either bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy, isn't part of our present economic uncertainty? Instead, it's the overspending on the part of the democrats that has caused it?
In a word, wow.
bsb
It is no mere coincidence that the Congress (power of purse) became Pelosi park at that time.
-
If a small business requires its employees to clean up after themselves the lost time at profit making activities might be a lessor cost than another minimum wage hire.
If a business were of sufficient size to adzorb the hiring of another employee and this employees work keeping the business site clean allows other employees to spend more time productively such that his wage is compensated , or more, then hireing a janitor becomes a wise division of labor and his work is a value that does show up on the bottom line.
This isn't merely a matter of scale either , it is a matter of compareing the value of work lost to the value of time saved and the balance point should be easy to find in a particular case even if more difficult to generalise.
Imagine that your lawyer is a very good one that is justified to charge $200 or more each hour he spends on your case even though he is a one man shop. Would you be pleased to learn that he spends an hour each day cleaning his office?
-
Imagine that your lawyer is a very good one that is justified to charge $200 or more each hour he spends on your case even though he is a one man shop. Would you be pleased to learn that he spends an hour each day cleaning his office?
As long as I am not being billed for that time, what he does on his own time is his business.
-
Imagine that your lawyer is a very good one that is justified to charge $200 or more each hour he spends on your case even though he is a one man shop. Would you be pleased to learn that he spends an hour each day cleaning his office?
As long as I am not being billed for that time, what he does on his own time is his business.
If you are being billed then.
-
actually you are whether its stated or not.
a lawyer has alot of non billable time and that naturally effects the cost of the billable time.
thier is alot of things a lawyer does that cannot be charged and some of it is very time consuming.
it`s a very dangerous game for the associate . I`ve seen quite afew do so much non-billable work they get fired and it`s totally not his or her fault.
some partners are chicken___t and don`t admit it`d thier fault for assigning those jobs.
-
If you are being billed then.
Then if the attorney is ethical he is thinking about my case while he cleans. Kind of like your mayor example. I normally enter into contracts that are quoted by the job and not the hour, so as long as the billing is within budget, i don't have a problem with them multitasking.
-
You just can't help digging that pit. I'd ask where the so-called misrepresentation, this time's supposed to be, but knowing the end-around erroneous deduction we'd be privvy to, leads me to just say "we disagree". Yes, sad indeed
Misrepresentation: I never claimed that hiring a janitor would throw a business into the red, nor did i claim that hiring janitors decrease productivity though they certainly add cost to the operation.
Nor did I claim you made such a claim. Questions around that "theme" is not an accusation, much less a misrepresentation
Your claim was that they increased productivity and thus increased profits at such a rate as to negate their costs.
Precisely, with the proof being they're being hired in the 1st place, and said company not failing
And your proof of this was that they were hired in the first place. Which isn't proof at all.
Your opinion is duely noted. We will simply have to disagree. I think we're done here
-
more deflection:
All their hiring proves is that the cost of a janitor was acceptable in light of the profitability of the other segments of the ledger. Not that their hiring increased productivity and or profitability.
-
Apparently Bt's not done. By all means, you have the floor