Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:29 pm $600 a week isn’t much I guess, though it still was the highest weekly income ever received by...who knows how many millions of Mericans.

Recall, it was initially “here live on $1200 for the next who knows how long...”

Meanwhile, a small portion of 1 percenters earned like $650 billion in the same time.

Will some have a windfall. Probably. But those are probably the poorest and most susceptible of Americans. Those who have to have many roommates to pay rent, or eat the worst food, or have to work multiple jobs. Helping the least fortunate get through extraordinary times shouldn't be controversial. It should be what the federal government is meant to do.

Oh I don’t disagree.

But it’s the vilification of poor folks, combined with the mindset that money is more important than health, that...nm.

The income equality is a legitimate issue.
One of our biggest, if not overall biggest, problems in the US.
Much more legitimate than BLM imo though of course there is overlap.

Yup.

it could be argued BLM is more than anything else an economic issue.

The 1200 also covers a lot of underemployment. How many people kept their jobs but got fewer hours, lost a side hustle, lost tips, or had decreased commissions, etc. Those types of losses are not covered by unemployment.

Yeah.

I wonder how those (often young single mothers) in the workforce who primarily worked for tips are doing...leawood can you confirm?

Right if you're going to be mad at the CARES act, start with the $500 billion that went to large corporations....$200 billion more than was spent individual payouts and $240 billion more than went to unemployment.

Yea im not saying thats right either

The flipside of that is that if you loae those corporations you lose a shitload of jobs. Like it or not.

Temporarily.

But when Kmart went under, Target and walmart filled in. Sears failed but I can still get craftsman products at Lowe's.

Plus good companies should be adaptable. Clothing companies should make masks, distilleries should make hand sanitizer.

And, those corporations would get more money if more people had more money to spend. We could've given everyone $3200 dollars and then the corporations would've earned their share of the stimulus based on merits via a free market, rather than who had the best and fastest legal teams to fill out paperwork.

We're very quick to judge people for a lack of savings or debt, but when banks and businesses live paycheck to paycheck we talk about how they're too big to fail.

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:55 pm The flipside of that is that if you loae those corporations you lose a shitload of jobs. Like it or not.

There’s also to say something about large healthy corporations not being able leverage themselves to make short term means. Lot of humans are living off credit card debt and borrowing money to make ends meet. Corporations can issue corporate bonds or other financing. Those who can’t are just getting bail outs for being over-leveraged or putting its profits over those s-load of jobs you mentioned.

yeah corporations create jobs. corporations create wealth too.

and while the jobs come and go at the bottom, the wealth keeps going to the very tippity top.

make it less about the shareholders and more about the stakeholders.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:52 pm yeah corporations create jobs. corporations create wealth too.

and while the jobs come and go at the bottom, the wealth keeps going to the very tippity top.

make it less about the shareholders and more about the stakeholders.

Shareholders are stakeholers fwiw. Stakeholders arent always shareholders though, so there is that...

I agree with the itent of your statement though, at least in theory. Employers should share the profits more...but i am not sure we need the government to dictate to who and how much or attempt to do it thru taxes.

You could always create a company to compete with a company you hate and steal their employees by offering more fair incentive packages. That is what america is all about. Or employees of those companies you mention could demand a more fair cut or they could strike or go somewhere else. Yes, easier said than done, but i dont agree the government should be involved in trying to accomplish the issue you are talking about. Mainly because i dont think they are capable of doing it.

NiceDC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:30 pm Those who can’t are just getting bail outs for being over-leveraged or putting its profits over those s-load of jobs you mentioned.

Very true

Herman Cain, who downplayed COVID and went to Trump's Tulsa rally, just died from COVID likely from Trump's rally.

When keeping it real goes wrong.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 9:36 pm

NiceDC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:30 pm Those who can’t are just getting bail outs for being over-leveraged or putting its profits over those s-load of jobs you mentioned.

Very true

I know managers of several restaurants. One for a mom and pop, the rest for corporate places. The mom and pop is doing everything to survive and keep the employees working as much as possible.

The corporate places have reiterated to management staffs that they need to keep the labor matrix in line with pre-covid expectations, which means profit % expectations were not to go down, despite the circumstances. It’s crazy to me, but that’s business, right?

Gqcolorado wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:13 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 9:36 pm

NiceDC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:30 pm Those who can’t are just getting bail outs for being over-leveraged or putting its profits over those s-load of jobs you mentioned.

Very true

I know managers of several restaurants. One for a mom and pop, the rest for corporate places. The mom and pop is doing everything to survive and keep the employees working as much as possible.

The corporate places have reiterated to management staffs that they need to keep the labor matrix in line with pre-covid expectations, which means profit % expectations were not to go down, despite the circumstances. It’s crazy to me, but that’s business, right?

We need a paradigm shift wherein we stop thinking that way. Profits shouldn't always be the top priority, and in this case it seems incredibly short-sighted.

I have been heartened by the drive to support local restaurants. I feel badly for locally-owned franchise stores of national chains; those are local restaurants, but they sort of get left out.