VABills Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Scenario: Joe is a C student graduates from high school and a friend offers him a job 30 years ago as a janitor in his upstart computer company. Starting was back then really good at $5/hr. So Joe 30 years ago was making over 10K per year with 2 week vacation, medical, dental, and education reimbursement. Joe does a good job through the years, sweeping, vacuuming, cleaning windows, emptying trash cans, etc… He gets decent reviews and a 25 to 50 cent raise every year. In fact he has been asked several times to take advantage of his education benefit to go to school and do something more advanced in the company. But Joe is too busy, watching football, baseball, playing with the kids etc… In fact Joe likes football so much he saves a little bit and get HDTV satellite and a wide screen plasma. Decent little house, etc… Joe knows his company doesn’t offer a pension, but will match 1 for 1 up to 5 percent into his 401K. Joe lives paycheck to paycheck, so he decides he doesn’t have anything he can live without and forgoes his retirement savings. Well here it is 2004, Joe’s increases have him making 20/hr and that’s over 40K per year. His company is considering going public and starts the process by doing an audit on the books. The venture banker says they need to cut some costs, maybe 100K per year. They work and work and get it down to about 85K per year. Well the auditor asks why they are paying a janitor that much as a top notch one can be hired for 20K and that’s a good salary at 10/hr, much more than minimum wage. The company agrees and gives Joe the choice to stay at the 20K per year or they must part ways. Joe says no way I have worked here my whole life, but I am not talking a pay cut. So Joe is given his walking papers and given 30 weeks severance, one for each year of service. Joe goes bitching to the Presidential candidate that he was let go after 30 years of service. The presidential candidate agrees it is terrible and promises to raise taxes on the rich and middle class to ensure people like Joe are taken care of. So my questions, mostly from the lefties, I am looking for answers. Here is a guy 48 years old, who has not done things to better himself. He has been offered opportunities to go to school, and work elsewhere in the company. He was even offered to be retained but a more normal salary for someone in his position. Why should the government take care of him? How would you expect the government to take care of him, other then normal unemployment? Why does he deserve anything other then what he got? How is this Bush's fault, as Kerry implied? I am curious because this is basically the guy Kerry was talking to in his little question and answer thingy in North Carolina Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Scenario: Joe is a C student graduates from high school and a friend offers him a job 30 years ago as a janitor in his upstart computer company. Starting was back then really good at $5/hr. So Joe 30 years ago was making over 10K per year with 2 week vacation, medical, dental, and education reimbursement. Joe does a good job through the years, sweeping, vacuuming, cleaning windows, emptying trash cans, etc… He gets decent reviews and a 25 to 50 cent raise every year. In fact he has been asked several times to take advantage of his education benefit to go to school and do something more advanced in the company. But Joe is too busy, watching football, baseball, playing with the kids etc… In fact Joe likes football so much he saves a little bit and get HDTV satellite and a wide screen plasma. Decent little house, etc… Joe knows his company doesn’t offer a pension, but will match 1 for 1 up to 5 percent into his 401K. Joe lives paycheck to paycheck, so he decides he doesn’t have anything he can live without and forgoes his retirement savings. Well here it is 2004, Joe’s increases have him making 20/hr and that’s over 40K per year. His company is considering going public and starts the process by doing an audit on the books. The venture banker says they need to cut some costs, maybe 100K per year. They work and work and get it down to about 85K per year. Well the auditor asks why they are paying a janitor that much as a top notch one can be hired for 20K and that’s a good salary at 10/hr, much more than minimum wage. The company agrees and gives Joe the choice to stay at the 20K per year or they must part ways. Joe says no way I have worked here my whole life, but I am not talking a pay cut. So Joe is given his walking papers and given 30 weeks severance, one for each year of service. Joe goes bitching to the Presidential candidate that he was let go after 30 years of service. The presidential candidate agrees it is terrible and promises to raise taxes on the rich and middle class to ensure people like Joe are taken care of. So my questions, mostly from the lefties, I am looking for answers. Here is a guy 48 years old, who has not done things to better himself. He has been offered opportunities to go to school, and work elsewhere in the company. He was even offered to be retained but a more normal salary for someone in his position. Why should the government take care of him? How would you expect the government to take care of him, other then normal unemployment? Why does he deserve anything other then what he got? How is this Bush's fault, as Kerry implied? I am curious because this is basically the guy Kerry was talking to in his little question and answer thingy in North Carolina Saturday. 8859[/snapback] Well you got the answers I thought you would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 They're at kerry.com trying to find something original to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 They're at kerry.com trying to find something original to say. 8997[/snapback] I thought that they were fumbling through the DNC newsletters to find out what they should say next, but your scenario is just as plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 crickets... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCow Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 You guys have way too much time on your hands. Do you really expect anyone to read let alone answer it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Hmmm, me thinks I see a new tactic forming here..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Do you really expect anyone to read let alone answer it? 9056[/snapback] Too many words? Sorry, VA must have forgotten his audience. Soundbites man, soundbites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 You guys have way too much time on your hands. Do you really expect anyone to read let alone answer it? 9056[/snapback] Feel free to comeback with another snappy "level of discourse" comment. You are such an example of what you supposedly hate that the word hypocrite isn't even close to appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Why should the government take care of him? How would you expect the government to take care of him, other then normal unemployment? Why does he deserve anything other then what he got? How is this Bush's fault, as Kerry implied? I am curious because this is basically the guy Kerry was talking to in his little question and answer thingy in North Carolina Saturday. Speaking from my moderate viewpoint, umm, I wouldn't. Kerry may SAY it's Bush's fault, but in that case as you stated, no. It's the same as Bush when he said America is safer now... it's just political garbage. You have to sift through it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Any company that raised a janitor's salary twice the going rate is run by incompetents. It's Bush's fault because it's probably Haliburton & is passing on the bill to us via the Iraq billings. Just because you think George W. Bush is an incompetent idealogue, it doesn't make you a lefty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaker Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I am curious because this is basically the guy Kerry was talking to in his little question and answer thingy in North Carolina Saturday. 8859[/snapback] "Basically?" What do you mean "basically"?? Is the story of "Joe the Janitor" true or not? Why don't you tell us EXACTLY what the situation was, if there really was one, and EXACTLY what Kerry said about it, and then maybe we can talk meaningfully about it. Maybe give us a URL to look at, if this incident really occurred? But if you just made up this story, please stop wasting our time. Don't give us some pseudo-fictitious scenario, claim that you, of all people, know what Kerry would say about it, and then ask lefties to defend what YOU THINK Kerry would say. That's garbage. Stick to facts, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 28, 2004 Author Share Posted August 28, 2004 "Basically?" What do you mean "basically"?? Is the story of "Joe the Janitor" true or not? Why don't you tell us EXACTLY what the situation was, if there really was one, and EXACTLY what Kerry said about it, and then maybe we can talk meaningfully about it. Maybe give us a URL to look at, if this incident really occurred? But if you just made up this story, please stop wasting our time. Don't give us some pseudo-fictitious scenario, claim that you, of all people, know what Kerry would say about it, and then ask lefties to defend what YOU THINK Kerry would say. That's garbage. Stick to facts, please. 9682[/snapback] Answer the question. Is that too difficult. Why should the government help this guy? It was on a question and answer on WTOP that Kerry was having. Obviously I don't have the stupid transcript but I picked up as much as I could while listening to the radio while driving. Now answer the question, why should the government help this guy? Why is this Bush's fault? Why should I be taxed more to allow people like this to even collect welfare, once their unemployment runs out? BTW, glad to see your take your loser's tactic. When all else fails, get spiteful. And above all else don't answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 I answered the question, but yet no response. Are you specifically LOOKING for a way to embarrass those who aren't conservative, or are you actually looking for a meaningful discussion? I'm confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Why should the government take care of him? Because he is an American. A short-sighted American none the least, he is still a hardworking, dedicated employee. With all his short-comings, Joe, still needs the chance to correct the error of his saving ways. He has been a "player" in an increasingly greater service economy. He supported the "love of his family" even know his financial interests were short-sighted. How would you expect the government to take care of him, other then normal unemployment? I think this question should be: How would you expect his employer to take care of him, other then normal unemployment or miniscule cost saving measures? Cost saving measures. What were the differences now and the past between the top tier employees and lower tier employees? Is the question really "cost saving" or is that the "official line"? The government response could be to see if everything is on the "up and up"... Not just and attempt to drive labor costs down, so other cost could be raised. Why does he deserve anything other then what he got? Because he was a loyal, honorable, hard-working employee. Sure you can bring in the cheaper labor, what will the turn-over rate be? Will the job get done as well with the cheaper labor? Will they have the same belonging that Joe had? Is 100,000 K going to make a difference, or will the decay of morale win out? How is this Bush's fault, as Kerry implied? Because Bush is a cold, uncaring, bastage that would rather see "Joe" fall off the face of the planet because of his mistakes. It goes back to Bush's own insecurity. He knows he effed up in the past just like Joe did, yet he was continuely bailed out by his contacts. By bailing Joe out, he "waters down" his own accomplishments. So in other words, Bush's insecurity makes him feel superior over Joe... Let the bastard suffer! IMO, I think this insecurity is reoccuring thoughout his policy. Is this the "bleeding heart" response you want? I have only touched on a few. Hope I am not confusing you AD and Gavin!?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Why should the government take care of him? Because he is an American. A short-sighted American none the least, he is still a hardworking, dedicated employee. With all his short-comings, Joe, still needs the chance to correct the error of his saving ways. He has been a "player" in an increasingly greater service economy. He supported the "love of his family" even know his financial interests were short-sighted. How would you expect the government to take care of him, other then normal unemployment? I think this question should be: How would you expect his employer to take care of him, other then normal unemployment or miniscule cost saving measures? Cost saving measures. What were the differences now and the past between the top tier employees and lower tier employees? Is the question really "cost saving" or is that the "official line"? The government response could be to see if everything is on the "up and up"... Not just and attempt to drive labor costs down, so other cost could be raised. Why does he deserve anything other then what he got? Because he was a loyal, honorable, hard-working employee. Sure you can bring in the cheaper labor, what will the turn-over rate be? Will the job get done as well with the cheaper labor? Will they have the same belonging that Joe had? Is 100,000 K going to make a difference, or will the decay of morale win out? How is this Bush's fault, as Kerry implied? Because Bush is a cold, uncaring, bastage that would rather see "Joe" fall off the face of the planet because of his mistakes. It goes back to Bush's own insecurity. He knows he effed up in the past just like Joe did, yet he was continuely bailed out by his contacts. By bailing Joe out, he "waters down" his own accomplishments. So in other words, Bush's insecurity makes him feel superior over Joe... Let the bastard suffer! IMO, I think this insecurity is reoccuring thoughout his policy. Is this the "bleeding heart" response you want? I have only touched on a few. Hope I am not confusing you AD and Gavin!?? 9945[/snapback] THERE! THAT is what does not make me a liberal, and maybe most of you will never understand that. NOBODY is 'OWED' anything if you don't work for it. The guy had his chances to set himself up and provide some kind of security for himself, and yet he chose NOT TO. No furthering education, no retirement savings, no interest in bettering himself. THAT is the prime example of someone who chose to get by on a job without looking to the future, and it bit him in the ass. That job didn't go overseas, it stayed right here... How do you think this country has survived for 228 years? Certainly not by letting everyone suck at its teats just because they don't have the ambition to do anything besides hang on at a company for over 30 years, doing nothing to work up the ladder in the company. I certainly don't want to pay for that person because they were lazy. Not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 They needed to cut 85k? Joe makes 40k? Does Joe get health benefits? Were did the other 45k come from? Did anybody in the company get raises? So... They want to cut Joe's 40k and hire somebody half as much. His (Joe's) severence was 23k for 30 weeks he didn't work. Do they stop cleaning for 30 weeks? Joe walks. The company hires somebody at 20k. Will this person get health benefits? Now the company shells out 43k the first year Joe is gone. This means it takes the second year for the company to realize its savings. Does this all seem like "chump change" in the grand scheme? Is it like "throwing" the baby out with the bath water? Can one support a family on 20k a year? Let alone purchase the company's computer products? Or is does this company only cater to the major players? What I am getting at is all these actions seem counter productive for what the negative impact will be on Joe, his family, the government and the economy? All for what? No savings the first year for the company, in fact 3k more in expenses. Where did that money come from and was it passed down to the customer the first year? Will the customer see a decrease in prices the second year? Joe is taking a step backward. Who's moving forward? The guy making 20k, that can't support a family and might (most likely) have no health benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 They needed to cut 85k? Joe makes 40k? Does Joe get health benefits? Were did the other 45k come from? Did anybody in the company get raises? So... They want to cut Joe's 40k and hire somebody half as much. His (Joe's) severence was 23k for 30 weeks he didn't work. Do they stop cleaning for 30 weeks? Joe walks. The company hires somebody at 20k. Will this person get health benefits? Now the company shells out 43k the first year Joe is gone. This means it takes the second year for the company to realize its savings. Does this all seem like "chump change" in the grand scheme? Is it like "throwing" the baby out with the bath water? Can one support a family on 20k a year? Let alone purchase the company's computer products? Or is does this company only cater to the major players? What I am getting at is all these actions seem counter productive for what the negative impact will be on Joe, his family, the government and the economy? All for what? No savings the first year for the company, in fact 3k more in expenses. Where did that money come from and was it passed down to the customer the first year? Will the customer see a decrease in prices the second year? Joe is taking a step backward. Who's moving forward? The guy making 20k, that can't support a family and might (most likely) have no health benefits? 9951[/snapback] Companies don't care... their job is to watch the bottom line, and if he doesn't provide a service for a reasonable cost, then he's out. The guy making 20k is probably already drawing government food stamps, or he has a second job, and so either way he's providing somehow. These jobs aren't here for just anyone; they are for the people who either are incapable of finding a better job, OR they don't WANT to. I myself passed the minimum wage job category LONG ago, and I'm well on my way to earning a teaching certification. No one gave me this opportunity... I had to TAKE the opportunity. (BTW, fellow PPPers, THIS is how civilized people debate... not through insults or :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: or labels, but actual point and counter-point.) If only the other subjects were this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 THERE! THAT is what does not make me a liberal, and maybe most of you will never understand that. NOBODY is 'OWED' anything if you don't work for it. The guy had his chances to set himself up and provide some kind of security for himself, and yet he chose NOT TO. No furthering education, no retirement savings, no interest in bettering himself. THAT is the prime example of someone who chose to get by on a job without looking to the future, and it bit him in the ass. That job didn't go overseas, it stayed right here... How do you think this country has survived for 228 years? Certainly not by letting everyone suck at its teats just because they don't have the ambition to do anything besides hang on at a company for over 30 years, doing nothing to work up the ladder in the company. I certainly don't want to pay for that person because they were lazy. Not me. 9950[/snapback] Was he lazy or just short-sighted? Nowhere does it appear that he was lazy. I admit he made mistakes. We all pay in the long run for a company's choice like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Companies don't care... their job is to watch the bottom line, and if he doesn't provide a service for a reasonable cost, then he's out. The guy making 20k is probably already drawing government food stamps, or he has a second job, and so either way he's providing somehow. These jobs aren't here for just anyone; they are for the people who either are incapable of finding a better job, OR they don't WANT to. I myself passed the minimum wage job category LONG ago, and I'm well on my way to earning a teaching certification. No one gave me this opportunity... I had to TAKE the opportunity. 9953[/snapback] That is where the problem is. The company is watching the bottom line. Grant you, that is good for them. Is it good for all? No. By your own ommission, the guy at 20k is drawing foodstamps. Now the burden shifts towards the government. What would you rather have Joe at 40k and self-sufficient (even know he will have to work till he is dead), or, the guy at 20k drawing stamps? Isn't the new guy "subsidizing" the company's bottom line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts