$15 an Hour to Flip Burgers?

Off Topic
101

[quote]waldo21212 wrote:

[quote]Jlabs wrote:
In my personal opinion everyone’s salary should be reflective of the effort, brain power, and manpower that their task’s require. This way those who perform better get paid more and those who work hard get rewarded. I think this should be applied to sports,offices and trades, I see too many slackers or cheaters in this world making easy money while those who bust their ass every day get a fraction of that. Should be effort, merit, intelligence.=Different pay scales.[/quote]

But doesn’t the most intelligent person find the most efficient way to do things? Most intelligent and efficient worker doesn’t mean hardest worker.[/quote]

working smart > working hard

102

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Pension debts are not hidden in the balance sheet.

Here is GM. Notes to the Financial Statments #18 starting on page 123. I’d show you Chryslers which I personally audited, but they aren’t a public company. But I’ll tell you, those numbers are far from hidden. It’s quite a complicated process and technically the amounts can change materially on a daily basis.

Besides, going forward, Pension plans within the corporate world will be no issue. Nearly all companies have moved away from DEFINED BENEFIT plans to DEFINED CONTRIBUTION plans. The latter has no little to no risk on the company and moves the risk to the contributor or employee.

http://www.gm.com/content/dam/gmcom/COMPANY/Investors/Stockholder_Information/PDFs/2012_GM_Annual_Report.pdf

Here is Hillsborough County in Florida pension plan, which my girlfriend audits. I promise you it’s there. It starts at Note 8

http://www.myflorida.com/audgen/pages/county_efile%20rpts/2011%20hillsborough%20county.pdf

Each of these companies are audited to standards associated with those entities.

The only entity that does not present pension plans on their financials is the Federal Government for Social Security. I may be corrected here on that though b/c Federal Government is not my expertise.[/quote]

Just a statement. The Pension liabilities are there if you dig through the notes. They do not show up on the Balance Sheet as a liability. I am a Finance Guy, not an Accountant, I like to see stuff on the Financial Statements. If companies had to put the Pension obligations on the balance sheet companies would be valued differently.

I am with you every Public and Private company are going to a defined contribution plan and not defined benefit plan. Only the Government has not learned that defined benefit plans are not sustainable.
[/quote]

Nonsense. Nearly all items in the NOTES tie to the face of the balance sheet. The notes just give you more detail.

On page 72 in the Consolidated Balance Sheet under non-current liabilities in MILLIONS:

Postretirement benefits other than pensions . . . 7,309
Pensions . … . . . 27,420

EDIT: And if you do not have the ability to read the Notes and value a company on your own, you have no business investing on your own.

EDIT2: And the “you” was the ambiguous you ;)[/quote]

Those are their non-current liabilities? Is it a Present Value of money, or what they actually paid out during that time period. This is where my accounting starts to fade.

I look at the financials first to get an idea if I want to dig deeper into the company before I purchase. Sniff test if you will. Then I dive into the notes.

I also wonder what this line looked like before the bankruptcy.

103

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Pension debts are not hidden in the balance sheet.

Here is GM. Notes to the Financial Statments #18 starting on page 123. I’d show you Chryslers which I personally audited, but they aren’t a public company. But I’ll tell you, those numbers are far from hidden. It’s quite a complicated process and technically the amounts can change materially on a daily basis.

Besides, going forward, Pension plans within the corporate world will be no issue. Nearly all companies have moved away from DEFINED BENEFIT plans to DEFINED CONTRIBUTION plans. The latter has no little to no risk on the company and moves the risk to the contributor or employee.

http://www.gm.com/content/dam/gmcom/COMPANY/Investors/Stockholder_Information/PDFs/2012_GM_Annual_Report.pdf

Here is Hillsborough County in Florida pension plan, which my girlfriend audits. I promise you it’s there. It starts at Note 8

http://www.myflorida.com/audgen/pages/county_efile%20rpts/2011%20hillsborough%20county.pdf

Each of these companies are audited to standards associated with those entities.

The only entity that does not present pension plans on their financials is the Federal Government for Social Security. I may be corrected here on that though b/c Federal Government is not my expertise.[/quote]

Just a statement. The Pension liabilities are there if you dig through the notes. They do not show up on the Balance Sheet as a liability. I am a Finance Guy, not an Accountant, I like to see stuff on the Financial Statements. If companies had to put the Pension obligations on the balance sheet companies would be valued differently.

I am with you every Public and Private company are going to a defined contribution plan and not defined benefit plan. Only the Government has not learned that defined benefit plans are not sustainable.
[/quote]

Nonsense. Nearly all items in the NOTES tie to the face of the balance sheet. The notes just give you more detail.

On page 72 in the Consolidated Balance Sheet under non-current liabilities in MILLIONS:

Postretirement benefits other than pensions . . . 7,309
Pensions . … . . . 27,420

EDIT: And if you do not have the ability to read the Notes and value a company on your own, you have no business investing on your own.

EDIT2: And the “you” was the ambiguous you ;)[/quote]

Those are their non-current liabilities? Is it a Present Value of money, or what they actually paid out during that time period. This is where my accounting starts to fade.

I look at the financials first to get an idea if I want to dig deeper into the company before I purchase. Sniff test if you will. Then I dive into the notes.

I also wonder what this line looked like before the bankruptcy.
[/quote]

“Accumulated plan benefits are to be presented as the present value of future benefits attributable”

104

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Pension debts are not hidden in the balance sheet.

Here is GM. Notes to the Financial Statments #18 starting on page 123. I’d show you Chryslers which I personally audited, but they aren’t a public company. But I’ll tell you, those numbers are far from hidden. It’s quite a complicated process and technically the amounts can change materially on a daily basis.

Besides, going forward, Pension plans within the corporate world will be no issue. Nearly all companies have moved away from DEFINED BENEFIT plans to DEFINED CONTRIBUTION plans. The latter has no little to no risk on the company and moves the risk to the contributor or employee.

http://www.gm.com/content/dam/gmcom/COMPANY/Investors/Stockholder_Information/PDFs/2012_GM_Annual_Report.pdf

Here is Hillsborough County in Florida pension plan, which my girlfriend audits. I promise you it’s there. It starts at Note 8

http://www.myflorida.com/audgen/pages/county_efile%20rpts/2011%20hillsborough%20county.pdf

Each of these companies are audited to standards associated with those entities.

The only entity that does not present pension plans on their financials is the Federal Government for Social Security. I may be corrected here on that though b/c Federal Government is not my expertise.[/quote]

Just a statement. The Pension liabilities are there if you dig through the notes. They do not show up on the Balance Sheet as a liability. I am a Finance Guy, not an Accountant, I like to see stuff on the Financial Statements. If companies had to put the Pension obligations on the balance sheet companies would be valued differently.

I am with you every Public and Private company are going to a defined contribution plan and not defined benefit plan. Only the Government has not learned that defined benefit plans are not sustainable.
[/quote]

Nonsense. Nearly all items in the NOTES tie to the face of the balance sheet. The notes just give you more detail.

On page 72 in the Consolidated Balance Sheet under non-current liabilities in MILLIONS:

Postretirement benefits other than pensions . . . 7,309
Pensions . … . . . 27,420

EDIT: And if you do not have the ability to read the Notes and value a company on your own, you have no business investing on your own.

EDIT2: And the “you” was the ambiguous you ;)[/quote]

Those are their non-current liabilities? Is it a Present Value of money, or what they actually paid out during that time period. This is where my accounting starts to fade.

I look at the financials first to get an idea if I want to dig deeper into the company before I purchase. Sniff test if you will. Then I dive into the notes.

I also wonder what this line looked like before the bankruptcy.
[/quote]

A liability is a future expense, so it wouldn’t be what they paid out. That would be in the income statement and since it would be a material expense, you would see it.

And yes, the liability is based on the Present Value of the future liability. The present value calculation of those liabilities are crazy.

GM’s pension liability didn’t just “go away.” As a result of the bankruptcy, “New GM” bought all of the assets and took on the necessary liabilities (inlcuding pensions) of the “Old GM.” The pension liabilities were actually fully funded (the pension liability funded status was $104B in 2007, 120% of the present value of future expenditures), but due to the volatility of the stock market and GMs dying business, they could not maintain cash flow if they had to keep funding the pension every time the stock market went down. So a lot of the pension for hourly workers was moved to an independent organization (VEBA) to handle through agreements with the Union. GM maintained salary worker pensions, but ultimately, defined benefit pensions went away in 2001, before all of this happened so once that liability goes away, this no longer becomes a concern.

105

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I think they should get $45 hour.

Or at least I do when discussing the issue with anyone who believes companies should be forced to pay the $15.[/quote]

The sad thing is all these employees with jobs who make minimum wage end up on government welfare programs, so it ends up coming out of the taxpayer’s pocket.

When corporate management deliberately sets schedules to keep employee’s hours under whatever minimum is required so that they do not need to provide them benefits, a living wage, and health care, all these people end up on the government dole and corporate profits are maximized.

They should call it what is it, and that is corporate welfare, maximizing corporate profits at the expense of the taxpayer.

If you’re looking for a line to draw, put it a public/private. As soon as a company reaches the point where the owners/founders start selling their shares to the public, put the onus on the company to support their employees and keep them off welfare. If you don’t want to do it, keep your company private and do whatever you want. The taxpayer shouldn’t be footing the operating costs of your business.

[/quote]

Idk if 15 is reasonable, but I do think people have the right to live without extreme poverty. I also realize this could hurt the economy, but once again if we as tax payers have to pay out benefits and cover Mcd cheap wages that can also hurt the economy. The min wage should be raised to cover inflation at the very least. This is ironic coming from a relatively conservative person like me but I also have seen what living in poverty is like.

106

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

lol, no. Please show where law dictates dividends.

[/quote]

http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2013/12/15/unleash-the-lawyers-mounting-costs-of-nsa-scandal-to-bleed-u.html

…This is an example of what happens when public corporations don’t act in the interest of their share holders. Maybe the law doesn’t dictate dividends, but it sure doesn’t protect corporations from lawsuits on behalf of their shareholders, especially desperate ones like those investing in the “Louisiana Sheriffsâ?? Pension & Relief Fund”

107

[quote]Intangible wrote:

Idk if 15 is reasonable, but I do think people have the right to live without extreme poverty. [/quote]

LOL. GTFO with this. We are talking about America here.

When American living standards, even on min wage, are equal or below those of some African Nations, North Korea, China & the poor in India, then and only then will this statement not be ridiculous.

We have some of the highest living standards in the world, and there are quite a few people making min wage with smart phones, cars, AC units, heat, electricity, HDTV’s, an Xbox, etc…

Extreme poverty my ass.

108

[quote]theuofh wrote:

…This is an example of what happens when public corporations don’t act in the interest of their share holders. Maybe the law doesn’t dictate dividends, but it sure doesn’t protect corporations from lawsuits on behalf of their shareholders, especially desperate ones like those investing in the “Louisiana Sheriffsâ?? Pension & Relief Fund”[/quote]

How did IBM not act in the best interest of their shareholders?

109

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

lol, no. Please show where law dictates dividends.

[/quote]

http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2013/12/15/unleash-the-lawyers-mounting-costs-of-nsa-scandal-to-bleed-u.html

…This is an example of what happens when public corporations don’t act in the interest of their share holders. Maybe the law doesn’t dictate dividends, but it sure doesn’t protect corporations from lawsuits on behalf of their shareholders, especially desperate ones like those investing in the “Louisiana Sheriffsâ?? Pension & Relief Fund”[/quote]

This is arguably the best class action lawsuit to hit the books in a long, long time. This is the owners of IBM holding the mega corp responsible for poor judgment and behavior.

The best part is, the alleged behavior of IBM is harming the public, and more of these type suits might just prevent cronyism.

The article you linked makes me very happy. This is what is supposed to happen when the public company acts like an ass. This right here is an anarchist dream, lol.

110

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Intangible wrote:

Idk if 15 is reasonable, but I do think people have the right to live without extreme poverty. [/quote]

LOL. GTFO with this. We are talking about America here.

When American living standards, even on min wage, are equal or below those of some African Nations, North Korea, China & the poor in India, then and only then will this statement not be ridiculous.

We have some of the highest living standards in the world, and there are quite a few people making min wage with smart phones, cars, AC units, heat, electricity, HDTV’s, an Xbox, etc…

Extreme poverty my ass. [/quote]

A few years ago I helped deliver Christmas gifts to “needy” families in the community (In MD mind you). Seemed kinda of weird placing gifts under the tree sitting right next to the big screen TV…

111

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

…This is an example of what happens when public corporations don’t act in the interest of their share holders. Maybe the law doesn’t dictate dividends, but it sure doesn’t protect corporations from lawsuits on behalf of their shareholders, especially desperate ones like those investing in the “Louisiana SheriffsÃ?¢?? Pension & Relief Fund”[/quote]

How did IBM not act in the best interest of their shareholders?
[/quote]

I’m going with “cronies up with the government, which hurt sales figures.”

Even if it is a frivolous charge, the shareholders are taking the company to task, which is good. Keep the company in check.

112

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m going with “cronies up with the government, which hurt sales figures.”

Even if it is a frivolous charge, the shareholders are taking the company to task, which is good. Keep the company in check. [/quote]

They would simply have to show that their sales to the US outweigh their sales to China. Not difficult to do since China only accounts for %5 of their revenue.

There is no law against making bad decisions, nor should there be.

Lastly, the directors and officers are covered by D&O insurance. Even if they were personally sued (or personally found liable), the company would pay for their defense plus any fines. In other words, it would come out of the pockets of the shareholders.

113

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

There is no law against making bad decisions, nor should there be. [/quote]

Agreed. However, at least the shareholders have recourse in such a case.

[quote]Lastly, the directors and officers are covered by D&O insurance. Even if they were personally sued (or personally found liable), the company would pay for their defense plus any fines. In other words, it would come out of the pockets of the shareholders.
[/quote]

The whole kit and kahbootal would really. The premiums for insurance is pre-distribution expense etc. ALl the legal fees will reduce the bottom line.

The shareholders may be cutting of their nose to spite their face here, sure, but they might be policing the company they own at the same time.

114

Remember what brought on the ATM.

115

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Remember what brought on the ATM.[/quote]

How horrible! God forbid we have more electrical engineers and computer scientists making $60-100k per year. How will the uneducated find employment for themselves?

116

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Remember what brought on the ATM.[/quote]

How horrible! God forbid we have more electrical engineers and computer scientists making $60-100k per year. How will the uneducated find employment for themselves?[/quote]

Don’t get me wrong…I’m all for it.

“The world needs ditch diggers too”…(quote from dad after first semester of college’s bad grades, powerful motivator).

117

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Intangible wrote:

Idk if 15 is reasonable, but I do think people have the right to live without extreme poverty. [/quote]

LOL. GTFO with this. We are talking about America here.

When American living standards, even on min wage, are equal or below those of some African Nations, North Korea, China & the poor in India, then and only then will this statement not be ridiculous.

We have some of the highest living standards in the world, and there are quite a few people making min wage with smart phones, cars, AC units, heat, electricity, HDTV’s, an Xbox, etc…

Extreme poverty my ass. [/quote]

I guess you never had to go hungry, or worry about paying rent. That’s got to be nice.

118

[quote]Intangible wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Intangible wrote:

Idk if 15 is reasonable, but I do think people have the right to live without extreme poverty. [/quote]

LOL. GTFO with this. We are talking about America here.

When American living standards, even on min wage, are equal or below those of some African Nations, North Korea, China & the poor in India, then and only then will this statement not be ridiculous.

We have some of the highest living standards in the world, and there are quite a few people making min wage with smart phones, cars, AC units, heat, electricity, HDTV’s, an Xbox, etc…

Extreme poverty my ass. [/quote]

I guess you never had to go hungry, or worry about paying rent. That’s got to be nice.[/quote]
hahahahaahhahahaahaha

119

[quote]Intangible wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Intangible wrote:

Idk if 15 is reasonable, but I do think people have the right to live without extreme poverty. [/quote]

LOL. GTFO with this. We are talking about America here.

When American living standards, even on min wage, are equal or below those of some African Nations, North Korea, China & the poor in India, then and only then will this statement not be ridiculous.

We have some of the highest living standards in the world, and there are quite a few people making min wage with smart phones, cars, AC units, heat, electricity, HDTV’s, an Xbox, etc…

Extreme poverty my ass. [/quote]

I guess you never had to go hungry, or worry about paying rent. That’s got to be nice.[/quote]

Even the homeless in America are over weight…

120

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Intangible wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Intangible wrote:

Idk if 15 is reasonable, but I do think people have the right to live without extreme poverty. [/quote]

LOL. GTFO with this. We are talking about America here.

When American living standards, even on min wage, are equal or below those of some African Nations, North Korea, China & the poor in India, then and only then will this statement not be ridiculous.

We have some of the highest living standards in the world, and there are quite a few people making min wage with smart phones, cars, AC units, heat, electricity, HDTV’s, an Xbox, etc…

Extreme poverty my ass. [/quote]

I guess you never had to go hungry, or worry about paying rent. That’s got to be nice.[/quote]

Even the homeless in America are over weight…[/quote]

America… The only country in the world where the biggest health problem affecting our poor is obesity.