Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Can Capitalism survive?

The textbook definition of an economic system is that it is designed to equitably distribute scarce resources. The problem we see unfolding is that resources are becoming less scarce as automation and more efficient distribution systems lower the cost of producing resources to almost zero. In November, McDonald's purchased a company which had developed an Artificial Intelligence program and is now installing same in all their drive through windows. These will take orders and are another example of reducing the cost of SERVICES to zero.  

 

Checkout clerks are becoming a thing of the past with the introduction of self checkout stands.  On the horizon is technology using RFID tags to determine the cost of an entire cart of products as the shopper crosses the store's threshold on the way out. 

 

I submit that when the Paris Hilton's of the world control the means of production and the top 1% control 80% of the wealth, we are not living under a system designed for equitable distribution of scarce resources. 

Regular Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

... reducing the cost of SERVICES to zero.  ...

 

Exaggerate much?  Since the cost of energy will always be positive, the cost of services will never be zero.  Even slaves require food for energy.

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
215 Views
6
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

... reducing the cost of SERVICES to zero.  ...

 

Exaggerate much?  Since the cost of energy will always be positive, the cost of services will never be zero.  Even slaves require food for energy.

 


THIS is the argment you think will be an effective rebuttal?

Regular Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

... reducing the cost of SERVICES to zero.  ...

 

Exaggerate much?  Since the cost of energy will always be positive, the cost of services will never be zero.  Even slaves require food for energy.

 


THIS is the argment you think will be an effective rebuttal?


Absolutely.

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
248 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

... reducing the cost of SERVICES to zero.  ...

 

Exaggerate much?  Since the cost of energy will always be positive, the cost of services will never be zero.  Even slaves require food for energy.

 


How could this topic remind anyone of slaves?


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Regular Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

... reducing the cost of SERVICES to zero.  ...

 

Exaggerate much?  Since the cost of energy will always be positive, the cost of services will never be zero.  Even slaves require food for energy.

 


How could this topic remind anyone of slaves?


Because I am not someone who is as knowledgeable as an encyclopedia and just as wise.

 

 

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
238 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

... reducing the cost of SERVICES to zero.  ...

 

Exaggerate much?  Since the cost of energy will always be positive, the cost of services will never be zero.  Even slaves require food for energy.

 


How could this topic remind anyone of slaves?


Because I am not someone who is as knowledgeable as an encyclopedia and just as wise.

 

 

 


Obviously

Regular Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

... reducing the cost of SERVICES to zero.  ...

 

Exaggerate much?  Since the cost of energy will always be positive, the cost of services will never be zero.  Even slaves require food for energy.

 


How could this topic remind anyone of slaves?


Because I am not someone who is as knowledgeable as an encyclopedia and just as wise.

 

 

 


Obviously


Yes, because the IQ of an encyclopedia is zero.  Duh?

 

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
270 Views
0
Report
Social Butterfly

Not all shares are voting shares. Before a company's IPO the split between voting and non-voting shares is decided by the owner/s. They usually keep control. If a partner with voting shares wants to sell those shares the sale often has to be approved by the board of directors. This is in the company's charter.

 

If you have non-voting shares you may, in effect, still vote by selling your shares. If enough people do this and the price drops there may be a change at the top. 

 

Salaries, bonuses and the infamous golden parachutes are decided by those with voting shares.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Butterfly

In the 1950s, CEOs made 20 to 40 times the salary of an average worker, Now they make 361-400 times the salary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@LouLit01 wrote:

In the 1950s, CEOs made 20 to 40 times the salary of an average worker, Now they make 361-400 times the salary.


I share the thought that CEOs made 20-40 times what their average employee made and I agree that it should exist today but there's only one problem.  The CEO's salary is determined by the compensation committee who typically is on the board of directors.  The stockholders vote on that salary (in fact all the VPs salaries) based on the number of shares of stock you own BUT that vote is NOT binding!  You know why?  Because the law says it's not binding.  You know who makes the laws?????

 

This is easy to fix but it won't get fixed since many that make the laws are even on those boards.

0 Kudos
325 Views
8
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Until the mid 1960's CEOs (they called them "Company President" back then) ONLY made 10 - 20 times what the average worker made, but the reason they now make 230 to 500 times what their workers make has nothing to do with laws governing how the compensation for senior management is calculated - THAT has not changed.

 

The ONLY thing that changed whas the TAX CODE. From 1936 until 1965, the workers were given 96% of their productivity increases back as pay and benefit INCREASES and the management and stockholdres were amply compensated from the remaining 4%.

 

Then LBJ cut the TMR from 91% to 70% and the bosses began keeping much more than 4% and the workers began receiving much less than 96% of the additional profit THEY had created for the enterprise. Then Reagan cut the TMR from 70% down to 28% and workers real compensation stagnated while the bosses increased their own pay by astronimical amounts.

 

Why did this happen? BECAUSE OF THE TAXCODE! The BOD did not suddenly become rapacious - they were ALWAYS rapacious. But beginning with LBJ's attempt to buy support for the worthless war he lied us into (remember C Turner Joy and Maddox being "attacked" in the Gulf of Tonkin???), tax law allowed the boss to KEEP a sizable amount of whatever raise he gave himself (remember, the BODs are made of of CEOs from other companies and their family members, so there's no real "honest brokers" in the room when they pass out the goodies, and even if there were any voices of reason can simply be ignored)

 

What to rev our economy back to the 4-7% annual growth we enjoyed up to 1970?

 

REPEAL THE REAGAN TAX SCAM!

 

Consumpeion drives 60% of GDP and since Reagan, 70% of the increase from last year has gone to sterile investments like existing stocks bonds and realestate simply because the top 10% satisfies all their needs with about 30% of their income so virtually NONE of their payraises create higher consumption.

 

Its got NOTHING to do with globalization nor does automation play a part - those are excuses GOPerLords tell their minions who never bother to ask HOW either of those factors actually plays in the distribution of profits.

0 Kudos
373 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@LouLit01 wrote:

In the 1950s, CEOs made 20 to 40 times the salary of an average worker, Now they make 361-400 times the salary.


I share the thought that CEOs made 20-40 times what their average employee made and I agree that it should exist today but there's only one problem.  The CEO's salary is determined by the compensation committee who typically is on the board of directors.  The stockholders vote on that salary (in fact all the VPs salaries) based on the number of shares of stock you own BUT that vote is NOT binding!  You know why?  Because the law says it's not binding.  You know who makes the laws?????

 

This is easy to fix but it won't get fixed since many that make the laws are even on those boards.


Oh, but it is "easy to fix",  just go back to the pre-Reagan tax brackets.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@LouLit01 wrote:

In the 1950s, CEOs made 20 to 40 times the salary of an average worker, Now they make 361-400 times the salary.


I share the thought that CEOs made 20-40 times what their average employee made and I agree that it should exist today but there's only one problem.  The CEO's salary is determined by the compensation committee who typically is on the board of directors.  The stockholders vote on that salary (in fact all the VPs salaries) based on the number of shares of stock you own BUT that vote is NOT binding!  You know why?  Because the law says it's not binding.  You know who makes the laws?????

 

This is easy to fix but it won't get fixed since many that make the laws are even on those boards.


There is no law that sets CEO's salaries, never has been.

 

Many boards of directors consist of executives of other companies. To use a current popular phrase - there is a lot of 'quid pro quo' between these companies. 'You raise my pay and I will raise yours.'

Honored Social Butterfly


@Snoopy48 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@LouLit01 wrote:

In the 1950s, CEOs made 20 to 40 times the salary of an average worker, Now they make 361-400 times the salary.


I share the thought that CEOs made 20-40 times what their average employee made and I agree that it should exist today but there's only one problem.  The CEO's salary is determined by the compensation committee who typically is on the board of directors.  The stockholders vote on that salary (in fact all the VPs salaries) based on the number of shares of stock you own BUT that vote is NOT binding!  You know why?  Because the law says it's not binding.  You know who makes the laws?????

 

This is easy to fix but it won't get fixed since many that make the laws are even on those boards.


There is no law that sets CEO's salaries, never has been.

 

Many boards of directors consist of executives of other companies. To use a current popular phrase - there is a lot of 'quid pro quo' between these companies. 'You raise my pay and I will raise yours.'


I didn't say there was a law that sets CEO salaries - read more careful next time!

 

I did say there was NO LAW that said you must follow the stockholders vote on executive compensations.

 

It pays to reread before responding!

Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

I didn't say there was a law that sets CEO salaries - read more careful next time!

 

I did say there was NO LAW that said you must follow the stockholders vote on executive compensations.

 

It pays to reread before responding!


Yep, the board does not have to pay attention to the will of the stockholders just like Trump got elected without having a majority of the votes. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

I didn't say there was a law that sets CEO salaries - read more careful next time!

 

I did say there was NO LAW that said you must follow the stockholders vote on executive compensations.

 

It pays to reread before responding!


Yep, the board does not have to pay attention to the will of the stockholders just like Trump got elected without having a majority of the votes. 


You along with most liberals don't like the existing Constitution so why not seek a change legally.

0 Kudos
277 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:


Yep, the board does not have to pay attention to the will of the stockholders just like Trump got elected without having a majority of the votes. 


Depends  on who owns the controlling number of shares because that determines who's vote holds the most weight.

Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Snoopy48 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@LouLit01 wrote:

In the 1950s, CEOs made 20 to 40 times the salary of an average worker, Now they make 361-400 times the salary.


I share the thought that CEOs made 20-40 times what their average employee made and I agree that it should exist today but there's only one problem.  The CEO's salary is determined by the compensation committee who typically is on the board of directors.  The stockholders vote on that salary (in fact all the VPs salaries) based on the number of shares of stock you own BUT that vote is NOT binding!  You know why?  Because the law says it's not binding.  You know who makes the laws?????

 

This is easy to fix but it won't get fixed since many that make the laws are even on those boards.


There is no law that sets CEO's salaries, never has been.

 

Many boards of directors consist of executives of other companies. To use a current popular phrase - there is a lot of 'quid pro quo' between these companies. 'You raise my pay and I will raise yours.'


I didn't say there was a law that sets CEO salaries - read more careful next time!

 

I did say there was NO LAW that said you must follow the stockholders vote on executive compensations.

 

It pays to reread before responding!


It pays to know what a law is before complaining about a law.

Honored Social Butterfly

Unbridled Capitalism ends with Serfdom.  Bridled Capitalism built the largest economy in the world and the largest middle class in the world. Then came the 1970's, then Reagan and more tax cuts with less regulations. We have spiraled downward from there with more of the same.

 

We will never change this with all of the old White Conservatives in power in Washington. Vote out all Republicans and vote Progressives into the Democratic Party.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

Unbridled Capitalism ends with Serfdom.  Bridled Capitalism built the largest economy in the world and the largest middle class in the world. Then came the 1970's, then Reagan and more tax cuts with less regulations. We have spiraled downward from there with more of the same.

 

We will never change this with all of the old White Conservatives in power in Washington. Vote out all Republicans and vote Progressives into the Democratic Party.


I firmly believe that we really have to take a very hard look at who do we put the entire blame for any of this.

Sorry, but it is not really accurate to put the entire blame on the Republican Party. All parties has had the opportunity to change what was wrong and they have not. Accepting responsibility and not becoming partisan is what will eventually make this country great.

no name
0 Kudos
355 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

Unbridled Capitalism ends with Serfdom.  Bridled Capitalism built the largest economy in the world and the largest middle class in the world. Then came the 1970's, then Reagan and more tax cuts with less regulations. We have spiraled downward from there with more of the same.

 

We will never change this with all of the old White Conservatives in power in Washington. Vote out all Republicans and vote Progressives into the Democratic Party.


I firmly believe that we really have to take a very hard look at who do we put the entire blame for any of this.

Sorry, but it is not really accurate to put the entire blame on the Republican Party. All parties has had the opportunity to change what was wrong and they have not. Accepting responsibility and not becoming partisan is what will eventually make this country great.


The Republican Party has held an over-all majority in Congress for 22 of the last 26 years, so yes, the Republican party holds the most blame.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
333 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

@Roxanna35 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

Unbridled Capitalism ends with Serfdom.  Bridled Capitalism built the largest economy in the world and the largest middle class in the world. Then came the 1970's, then Reagan and more tax cuts with less regulations. We have spiraled downward from there with more of the same.

 

We will never change this with all of the old White Conservatives in power in Washington. Vote out all Republicans and vote Progressives into the Democratic Party.


I firmly believe that we really have to take a very hard look at who do we put the entire blame for any of this.

Sorry, but it is not really accurate to put the entire blame on the Republican Party. All parties has had the opportunity to change what was wrong and they have not. Accepting responsibility and not becoming partisan is what will eventually make this country great.


The Republican Party has held an over-all majority in Congress for 22 of the last 26 years, so yes, the Republican party holds the most blame.


In that case, we really should place the blame on the voters, they are the ones that have been electing them.

no name
0 Kudos
308 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Many good points here. There seems to be a consistent factor: has the RW lost any concept of the what is good for society and our citizens? Where has the concept of sharing went? If employers are making money off of their workers productivity, then why do they have a problem with sharing the wealth. 
That is also known as greed!

0 Kudos
385 Views
6
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@williamb39198 wrote:

Many good points here. There seems to be a consistent factor: has the RW lost any concept of the what is good for society and our citizens? Where has the concept of sharing went? If employers are making money off of their workers productivity, then why do they have a problem with sharing the wealth. 
That is also known as greed!


I really don't think that anyone has an obligation to "share" their wealth. There must be solid rules in place to keep the party with the advantage from using it to the detriment of the weaker party. 

Honored Social Butterfly

Whether it's termed as sharing or benefits, if you have made money off of someone else's hard labor and efforts, it's appropriate for profits to be shared. 
It's why we took on the robber barons, broke up corporations, and labor unions were established. Otherwise we have runaway corporate greed...wealth acquisition does not come with a moral code!...or compassion. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@williamb39198 wrote:

Whether it's termed as sharing or benefits, if you have made money off of someone else's hard labor and efforts, it's appropriate for profits to be shared. 


You sound like you think that employees are the only ones that put in labor, time and effort.  Better look again to those who start and nurture a business, sometimes working 24/7 in the beginning.  Putting in their own money to get it off the ground - sometimes the money comes from their own pocket, sometimes a loan or they mortgage something that is personally theirs as the collateral.

 

If employees want to share in the profits, they have to share in the risk. 

 

I know a a man that had a very successful tool and die company.  He employed about 15 people, a few more counting office and sales staff.  Some of these employees had been with him for many years.

 

He decided to retire and before placing the business in the marketplace, he gave the employees the option of buying it.  He volunteered to stick around until they were trained in all the various facets of the business as a consultant.

 

 A few of them thought about it and he gave this group a more detailed look at the business - how it worked outside of just their specific job - the books showing accounts payable and receivables, the payroll, other benefits he was offering to employees.  He showed them his customer list, how the sales force added to this list.  He showed them a list of all the equipment and included the age of the more expensive ones.  He showed them the business tax return for several years.   

 

He told them if they were truly interested that they needed to talk together about how they could secure the funds needed and of course, he told them they should have a CPA look over everything, an appraiser to determine the worth of the equipment, building, etc.  and a lawyer to council them on making an offer, how their partnership would work and other legal matters.  And of course, a banker who could help them determine what they would need to do if they need a loan.

 

Nope, too much time, work and money - he finally sold his business to someone else - to a corporation with a conglomerate of like-businesses.  

 

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

@williamb39198 wrote:

Whether it's termed as sharing or benefits, if you have made money off of someone else's hard labor and efforts, it's appropriate for profits to be shared. 


You sound like you think that employees are the only ones that put in labor, time and effort.  Better look again to those who start and nurture a business, sometimes working 24/7 in the beginning.  Putting in their own money to get it off the ground - sometimes the money comes from their own pocket, sometimes a loan or they mortgage something that is personally theirs as the collateral.

 

If employees want to share in the profits, they have to share in the risk. 

 

I know a a man that had a very successful tool and die company.  He employed about 15 people, a few more counting office and sales staff.  Some of these employees had been with him for many years.

 

He decided to retire and before placing the business in the marketplace, he gave the employees the option of buying it.  He volunteered to stick around until they were trained in all the various facets of the business as a consultant.

 

 A few of them thought about it and he gave this group a more detailed look at the business - how it worked outside of just their specific job - the books showing accounts payable and receivables, the payroll, other benefits he was offering to employees.  He showed them his customer list, how the sales force added to this list.  He showed them a list of all the equipment and included the age of the more expensive ones.  He showed them the business tax return for several years.   

 

He told them if they were truly interested that they needed to talk together about how they could secure the funds needed and of course, he told them they should have a CPA look over everything, an appraiser to determine the worth of the equipment, building, etc.  and a lawyer to council them on making an offer, how their partnership would work and other legal matters.  And of course, a banker who could help them determine what they would need to do if they need a loan.

 

Nope, too much time, work and money - he finally sold his business to someone else - to a corporation with a conglomerate of like-businesses.  

 

 

 


I am not sure which of my comments you translated that said anyone was working harder than anyone else. I am certain Paris Hilton is working just as hard for the returns she is getting on her investments as anyone else. What I said was that the only people who are going to be able to earn a decent living are going to be the ones who own the means of production. I also said that the cost of that production was approaching zero. That means we are no longer talking about allocating SCARCE resources and only 1% of or population will control the means to create those resources so Capitalism, especially American style Capitalism,  will no longer work. 

0 Kudos
316 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

@williamb39198 wrote:

Whether it's termed as sharing or benefits, if you have made money off of someone else's hard labor and efforts, it's appropriate for profits to be shared. 


You sound like you think that employees are the only ones that put in labor, time and effort.  Better look again to those who start and nurture a business, sometimes working 24/7 in the beginning.  Putting in their own money to get it off the ground - sometimes the money comes from their own pocket, sometimes a loan or they mortgage something that is personally theirs as the collateral.

 

If employees want to share in the profits, they have to share in the risk. 

 

I know a a man that had a very successful tool and die company.  He employed about 15 people, a few more counting office and sales staff.  Some of these employees had been with him for many years.

 

He decided to retire and before placing the business in the marketplace, he gave the employees the option of buying it.  He volunteered to stick around until they were trained in all the various facets of the business as a consultant.

 

 A few of them thought about it and he gave this group a more detailed look at the business - how it worked outside of just their specific job - the books showing accounts payable and receivables, the payroll, other benefits he was offering to employees.  He showed them his customer list, how the sales force added to this list.  He showed them a list of all the equipment and included the age of the more expensive ones.  He showed them the business tax return for several years.   

 

He told them if they were truly interested that they needed to talk together about how they could secure the funds needed and of course, he told them they should have a CPA look over everything, an appraiser to determine the worth of the equipment, building, etc.  and a lawyer to council them on making an offer, how their partnership would work and other legal matters.  And of course, a banker who could help them determine what they would need to do if they need a loan.

 

Nope, too much time, work and money - he finally sold his business to someone else - to a corporation with a conglomerate of like-businesses.  

 

 

 


I don't think anyone is saying employees should make as much as owners. But sharing profits is a good business model.

 

Had this guy paid them, over the course of their careers there, enough to have had an opportunity to acquire wealth? Did they get paid sick leave? Had he provided health insurance and retirement plans to them to help protect what wealth they were acquiring?  

 

It's a much different thing to take on the risk of a new business when you are 25 or so, with few financial responbililties of your own, than to do it when you are older with kids, possibly have health issues, are perhaps supporting aging parents, or have other personal financial and time obligations.  

There is no shame at all in these employees choosing not to buy the company. They are not less worthy than the owner. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@ManicProgressive wrote:

@GailL1 wrote:

@williamb39198 wrote:

Whether it's termed as sharing or benefits, if you have made money off of someone else's hard labor and efforts, it's appropriate for profits to be shared. 


You sound like you think that employees are the only ones that put in labor, time and effort.  Better look again to those who start and nurture a business, sometimes working 24/7 in the beginning.  Putting in their own money to get it off the ground - sometimes the money comes from their own pocket, sometimes a loan or they mortgage something that is personally theirs as the collateral.

 

If employees want to share in the profits, they have to share in the risk. 

 

I know a a man that had a very successful tool and die company.  He employed about 15 people, a few more counting office and sales staff.  Some of these employees had been with him for many years.

 

He decided to retire and before placing the business in the marketplace, he gave the employees the option of buying it.  He volunteered to stick around until they were trained in all the various facets of the business as a consultant.

 

 A few of them thought about it and he gave this group a more detailed look at the business - how it worked outside of just their specific job - the books showing accounts payable and receivables, the payroll, other benefits he was offering to employees.  He showed them his customer list, how the sales force added to this list.  He showed them a list of all the equipment and included the age of the more expensive ones.  He showed them the business tax return for several years.   

 

He told them if they were truly interested that they needed to talk together about how they could secure the funds needed and of course, he told them they should have a CPA look over everything, an appraiser to determine the worth of the equipment, building, etc.  and a lawyer to council them on making an offer, how their partnership would work and other legal matters.  And of course, a banker who could help them determine what they would need to do if they need a loan.

 

Nope, too much time, work and money - he finally sold his business to someone else - to a corporation with a conglomerate of like-businesses.  

 

 

 


I don't think anyone is saying employees should make as much as owners. But sharing profits is a good business model.

 

Had this guy paid them, over the course of their careers there, enough to have had an opportunity to acquire wealth? Did they get paid sick leave? Had he provided health insurance and retirement plans to them to help protect what wealth they were acquiring?  

 

It's a much different thing to take on the risk of a new business when you are 25 or so, with few financial responbililties of your own, than to do it when you are older with kids, possibly have health issues, are perhaps supporting aging parents, or have other personal financial and time obligations.  

There is no shame at all in these employees choosing not to buy the company. They are not less worthy than the owner. 


I do not know all the employee benefits that this employer gave but I do know he was a good guy and many of these employees had been there for years and years, thus I would assume they were happy with their job.  Those that were interested were about 40 - 50, so not young chickens but not over the hill yet either.  He just thought that since they knew a good bit about their jobs and the other things were already in place, like the sales and office staff, he would offer them this opportunity to cross over from employee to employer.

 

There are plenty of people who do this type of cross-over later in life with perhaps starting a new chapter in their life.  Those who are the owners of such businesses have many of the same resposibilities in their personal life as you described - WE just work them in or work through them as any other people do.

 

I am not degrading these employees for saying "no, thanks" because I believe after they had a full vision of the workings of the company, they began to understand that it may require a lot more learning, stamina and more hours than they were willing to give for whatever bounty - this time of their own making. 

 

A QUESTION:  Would employees rather have benefits like what you named -some retirement benefit saving, health insurance, etc., etc., etc. or would they rather get paid a better wage and secure these things for themselves???  Remember employers are already matching contributions in Social Security and Medicare for their employees, as well as paying Unemployment Insurance as well as Workman's Comp. 

When you put the control of these optional things in the hands of the employers, they can be modified, changed or eliminated by the employer.  Why not take control of these things on an individualized basis.

 

 

0 Kudos
198 Views
0
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png