Keith,
That sounds like the network marketing that my wife is doing and that she loves. Not much money but lots of education, companionship, conferences and parties. Now she's learning HTML and capture pages and all of that stuff that I wanted her to do some time ago. Now she does it and gets a moderate return for doing so. I still don't understand where a real future and a serious society is developed. It seems, well, forgive me but, it seems more tribal than modern. REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:22 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Why I'm Not Hiring - Wall Street Journal; August 9, 2010 Arthur, And Sally's story in the WSJ is why, when I started my last business I decided to employ no-one. Within two years more than 20 people were working with me -- not for me. They were perfectly free to take jobs from me or not. If they wanted a holiday they took one -- and for as long as they wanted -- though they usually gave me notice far ahead so I could plan schedules. They could work from home if they wanted but, usually, they came to work for the companionship of their friends. They earned more than others who were employed. They paid tax, of course, but via their own accountants -- not via any sort of admin department I'd have to have paid for an d managed. The situation in this country (UK) is much the same as described in the WSJ article. I'm retired now but in my life in the course of various endeavours I've created something like 100 jobs for others -- unique jobs that didn't exist previously. If I were younger today and facing the sort of future my grandchildren now face -- possibly jobless, who knows? -- because of government ineptitude, collusion and profligacy, I wouldn't dream of starting a business for all the hassle it entails but would remain as a freelance. Keith . At 10:21 11/08/2010 -0400, you wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01CB393E.F072C4C0" Content-Language: en-us One reason why companies are slow to hire more full time employees. From Steve Kurtz. From: Steve Kurtz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:54 AM To: Arthur Cordell Subject: Why I'm Not Hiring - Wall Street Journal; August 9, 2010 Why I'm Not Hiring - Wall Street Journal; August 9, 2010 By Michael P. Fleischer With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be later-much later. Here's why. Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year-on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay. Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That's the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She's lucky she doesn't live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher. Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest-$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally. Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers' comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security. When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year. Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming-for my company, and even for Sally too. Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare. Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums-for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%. To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my company needs sustainably higher profits and sales-something unlikely in this "summer of recovery." We can't pass the additional costs onto our customers, because the market is too tight and we'd lose sales. Only governments can raise prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences. And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company's vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment. A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government's message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price. Todd Fry ProBenefits USA, LLC 800.585.5802 toll-free 816.741.9307 desk 816.741.9418 fax [email protected] www.probenefitsusa.com <http://www.probenefitsusa.com/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information, be protected by applicable laws and copyrights, or constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute, or use this e-mail or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this e-mail from your system. _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
