|
therobit posted:In some cases being required to comply with regulations that are designed for much larger businesses IS to much of a burden for small businesses. This is particularly true for financial reporting requirements and USDA sanitation standards, which are designed for huge corporations.Some small businesses are lovely and some are great, it really depends on who is running them.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
Did you all see this posted in the Trump thread https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3821460&pagenumber=1102&perpage=40#post473927886
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Did you all see this posted in the Trump thread It's this tweet https://twitter.com/dougbrown8/status/880842900577206272 and it's a thing they said they'd do a month ago, after they stabbed a bunch of people on a MAX train.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:A glass manufacturing plant in Portland recently installed an air filtration system so that it was no longer pumping out hazardous chemicals to the residential neighborhood surrounding it, at a reported cost of more than $1 million. Sometimes regulations are objectively good, regardless of the size of the company, and sometimes when a company that believes that the regulatory burden is too great, they should be forced to close. Yes, sometimes that is true, and other times it isn't. If they were actually the type of small producer that legislators were thinking of wjen they designed the law, it probably would not habe been much of a problem. But the definition of small businesses is really slippery and often abused by medium to large businesses to get around regulations. Having a functional government helps to weed that out but lol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
It feels like these last few years have had Washington State politics drift left while Oregon politics have drifted right. Its really weird. And standard disclaimer: I don't live in Oregon, I don't know what is really going on down there. Edit: At least in Washington Republicans are avoiding the Trump-style wave and and mostly focusing on taxes Taxes TAXES!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:It feels like these last few years have had Washington State politics drift left while Oregon politics have drifted right. Its really weird.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:It feels like these last few years have had Washington State politics drift left while Oregon politics have drifted right. Its really weird. On social issues we have mostly moved left, but I don't see much progress on economic issues. The democratic party here runs the state but manages to do such a lovely job of it that the republicans get a lot of people agreeing with their talking points. They are also deathly afraid of tax increases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
So how are the Secretaries of State in OR and WA responding to that crazy request all voting records including names and social security numbers? I haven't seen any response yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:So how are the Secretaries of State in OR and WA responding to that crazy request all voting records including names and social security numbers? I haven't seen any response yet. I would be really surprised if they do. Edit: Even the Secretary of state for Kansas, who heads the commission, is not going to fully comply with the request. What a dweeb. Double edit: http://www.wweek.com/news/state/2017/06/30/dennis-richardson-responds-to-feds-you-get-the-same-oregon-voter-data-everybody-else-gets/ therobit fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Jul 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:So how are the Secretaries of State in OR and WA responding to that crazy request all voting records including names and social security numbers? I haven't seen any response yet. Inslee gave the middle finger and piggybacked the quote from the guy from MS who told Trump to jump into the Gulf. Didn't matter much, cause the SoS is a Republican, so... http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/jun/30/trump-commission-can-only-have-public-info-on-wash/ quote:Secretary of State Kim Wyman said Friday the state will send the commission names, addresses and dates of birth of registered voters. I didn't realize that DoB was freely given out. Huh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
Pander posted:I didn't realize that DoB was freely given out. Huh. I am doing some door knocking with Affordable Seattle/Socialist Alternative, and we have voter info that includes name, address, and has the age/gender printed on the form. I wouldn't be surprised if our printouts just have it converted to age to make it easier to read. It comes on a scantron type form and we have a questionnaire built in to evaluate how much they support the affordable housing campaign and candidates. It is all generated with public information.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Pander posted:
Well that makes it about as smart as mothers name for the banks to insist as being a good ID measure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Peter DeFazio, a long-standing and highly popular Democrat representative in Oregon, voted in favor of "Kate's Law". I used to have to work with DeFazio off and on for a number of years and this doesn't really surprise me. That dude is loving crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
Prokhor Zakharov posted:I used to have to work with DeFazio off and on for a number of years and this doesn't really surprise me. That dude is loving crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
DevNull posted:That study was sponsored by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_and_John_Arnold_Foundation I think what you mean is a lot of the responses to it have been bullshit. I don't know what problems exist with the data, but I've seen three major criticisms of the report which are all bogus: 1) The study only looks a single site locations. True, but misleading. Single site locations doesn't mean small business, it means business that report as one facility (to the state) which happens to be most of them. Yes there are big businesses (Microsoft, probably Amazon, so on) which are highly centralized but exist across multiple sites and don't report as a single site location from each facility but for the purposes of the study the major players we care about do report as single site locations. Such as almost every major franchise company, like McDonalds, Burger King, etc... I honestly don't know about Walmart or your grocery stores which may be significant, but the most common argument I see is that fast food restaurants are not covered by this data and that idea is bullshit. 2) The study contradicts the existing body of work. Total bullshit. There is no existing body of work. Everything to date fits in one of two categories: a) Complete theory. b) Targeted to a very specific geographic location and industry. As in a single restaurant, block, and in one case I know of a single mall. There is, quite literally, no other comparable existing body of work. At least that I'm aware of and that anyone posting rebuttals can actually link to that aren't just pure theory. 3) The Seattle "control group" isn't realistic. Welcome to reality, don't let the door hit you on the way out. This is a problem any feasibility or practical study has and no one has a solution to it. The key response here is if you're going to challenge a study on this point you have to provide an alternative method with an argument as to why. I don't expect anyone has done that because it takes time to build that kind of response and I don't know what raw data is available to do that in this case, but just saying that an artificial large economic system built to be a control for a study was flawed is about as useful as calling water wet and school yard fights of "nu uh". It's the go to response for people who want to shoot down a study or argument but can't figure out how. nessin fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jul 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
nessin posted:I think what you mean is a lot of the responses to it have been bullshit. I don't know what problems exist with the data, but I've seen three major criticisms of the report which are all bogus: who cares?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
nessin posted:I think what you mean is a lot of the responses to it have been bullshit. I don't know what problems exist with the data, but I've seen three major criticisms of the report which are all bogus:
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:The study was explicitly limited to remove franchise businesses such as McDonald's or Burger King, for what should be obvious reasons. If the reasons are not immediately apparent to you, then you should be asking for a study that includes all businesses which must follow the $15 minimum wage law. Again, as I pointed out, the study says they worked off single site business data from the state. Franchises that are owned locally, and not directly by the franchise corporate HQ, will almost always report as a single site business. McDonalds and Burger King definitely fit into that category. Now there may be some individual locations that were left out because a single owner may own multiple stores and I don't know enough about the legalities of business ownership in WA to say how those would be reported, so some may have been left out for that reason. Regardless of the reasoning for why they excluded multi-site locations it is a straight up falsehood, assuming the creators of the report aren't lying, to say that the report excludes fast food/franchise companies like McDonalds. nessin fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Jul 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
nessin posted:Again, as I pointed out, the study says they worked off single site business data from the state. Franchises that are owned locally, and not directly by the franchise corporate HQ, will almost always report as a single site business. McDonalds and Burger King definitely fit into that category. Now there may be some individual locations that were left out because a single owner may own multiple stores and I don't know enough about the legalities of business ownership in WA to say how those would be reported, so some may have been left out for that reason. Regardless of the reasoning for why they excluded multi-site locations it is a straight up falsehood, assuming the creators of the report aren't lying, to say that the report excludes fast food/franchise companies like McDonalds. Considering McDonald's itself says the average franchisee owns 5 units I think you're grasping at straws here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
nessin posted:now there may be some individual locations that were left out because a single owner may own multiple stores and I don't know enough about the legalities of business ownership in WA to say how those would be reported, so some may have been left out for that reason. So you don't know and didn't check to see if you are right or wrong about how the sampling impacted the study results but you're going to bat for it anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
nessin posted:Again, as I pointed out, the study says they worked off single site business data from the state. Franchises that are owned locally, and not directly by the franchise corporate HQ, will almost always report as a single site business. McDonalds and Burger King definitely fit into that category. Now there may be some individual locations that were left out because a single owner may own multiple stores and I don't know enough about the legalities of business ownership in WA to say how those would be reported, so some may have been left out for that reason. Regardless of the reasoning for why they excluded multi-site locations it is a straight up falsehood, assuming the creators of the report aren't lying, to say that the report excludes fast food/franchise companies like McDonalds. the actual study, which you can read, for free, on the internet, right here posted:The data identify business entities as [Unemployment Insurance] account holders. Firms with multiple locations have the option of establishing a separate account for each location, or a common account. Geographic identification in the data is at the account level. As such, we can uniquely identify business location only for single-site firms and those multi-site firms opting for separate accounts by location. We therefore exclude multi-site single-account businesses from the analysis, referring henceforth to the remaining firms as “single-site” businesses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
maybe.. maybe its him with the biases instead of the 15 dollar supporters????????? whoa
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Teabag Dome Scandal posted:maybe.. maybe its him with the biases instead of the 15 dollar supporters?????????
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
ATP_Power posted:So you don't know and didn't check to see if you are right or wrong about how the sampling impacted the study results but you're going to bat for it anyways. If the raw data that shows that is available somewhere I haven't found it. The draft report doesn't got to that level on the UW site. Teabag Dome Scandal posted:maybe.. maybe its him with the biases instead of the 15 dollar supporters????????? I already acknowledged I don't know what other problems may exist with the data, I'm just responding to the common issues brought up against it. And you're right, I may have some biases but the point is so do the people bringing up these same arguments. Woah indeed. anthonypants posted:Can you explain what this means That when you submit your employee records to the state you can choose to do so for each site owned by the company individually or as a collective whole (probably some level in between as well I'd imagine). Edit: In retrospect you may be trying to point out the study tells us what the law is directly. In that case, you're quote only talks about company ownership. What if it's owned by an individual and not a parent company? Does the franchise license changes things legally? Lots of factors there. Although from that perspective the quote helps my argument more than hurts it, because it says there could be businesses which report individually even when they could do it collectively. ElCondemn posted:Considering McDonald's itself says the average franchisee owns 5 units I think you're grasping at straws here. Ah yes, technically incorrect but close enough to debunk a study. Unfortunately I can't really refute this point because a lot of people in the scientific community are happy to accept it as well. Led to some good times in the past, like the recent period where Europe and the US spent over a decade collectively deciding we didn't need to drug test women. In any case wouldn't it be so much better if the argument against the study was actually correct instead of just a one liner that is only true if the representative sample of businesses isn't actually there? Or maybe had some proof that the latter was the case? nessin fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jul 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
"Oh, so everyone you don't like is suddenly a corporate shill!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
nessin posted:If the raw data that shows that is available somewhere I haven't found it. The draft report doesn't got to that level on the UW site. The data they use is all referenced in the study, this particular study is a meta-analysis so you're not going to get any data that wasn't generated from analysis of other studies and data. nessin posted:That when you submit your employee records to the state you can choose to do so for each site owned by the company individually or as a collective whole (probably some level in between as well I'd imagine). Spoken like someone who's never run a business before. Maybe you should read up on how this actually works before you go making assumptions about how this works? nessin posted:Ah yes, technically incorrect but close enough to debunk a study. Unfortunately I can't really refute this point because a lot of people in the scientific community are happy to accept it as well. Led to some good times in the past, like the recent period where Europe and the US spent over a decade collectively deciding we didn't need to drug test women. You're making the claim that they didn't exclude franchises based on the criteria laid out in the study, but McDonalds refutes that themselves saying that the average franchisee owns 5 franchises... not sure what your issue with my statement is? I'm not sure what drug testing women has to do with anything? nessin posted:I'm just responding to the common issues brought up against it. anthonypants posted:"I'm just asking questions!!!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:I'm just asking questions!!!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
next is going to be some whining about not tolerating dissenting opinions
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
$15/hour minimum wage is good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Providing massive amounts of low-income housing would be better, but $15/hour minimum wage is better than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:
You're assuming there are no franchise restaurants reporting as a single site, which isn't necessarily true because there could be an owner who only owns one facility or reports individually instead of collectively. In either of those cases that data would be in the study and thus the study is including them. Which means you're okay just assuming that it's good enough to say the study excludes franchises because the expectation is that there aren't enough representatives from the franchise industry to make the case, even if franchises are not specifically excluded. Edit: quote:Spoken like someone who's never run a business before. Maybe you should read up on how this actually works before you go making assumptions about how this works? A fair point, although I was interpreting the quote and not trying to state how to run a business. Was my interpretation incorrect or is the study text too reductive? nessin fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Jul 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
nessin posted:You're assuming there are no franchise restaurants reporting as a single site, which isn't necessarily true because there could be an owner who only owns one facility or reports individually instead of collectively. In either of those cases that data would be in the study and thus the study is including them. Which means you're okay just assuming that it's good enough to say the study excludes franchises because the expectation is that there aren't enough representatives from the franchise industry to make the case, even if franchises are not specifically excluded. Firstly that isn't how you file taxes for a business. You don't just choose to file things how you feel like, it's important how you file since it will affect your taxes depending on where you conduct business. So unless you're saying franchise owners are committing tax fraud at such a rate that it's skewing the results of the study I'm not sure what your point is. Secondly, the study itself is purposefully excluding restaurants and such like McDonald's. They make the claim that if they include larger companies the net effect nears 0, what they are studying is the impact of minimum wage increases in very specific cases. Specifically non-franchise single location businesses, these are the criteria of their study, they aren't trying to talk about every employer in the city.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
gently caress i've stumbled into the mcdonalds thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Firstly that isn't how you file taxes for a business. You don't just choose to file things how you feel like, it's important how you file since it will affect your taxes depending on where you conduct business. So unless you're saying franchise owners are committing tax fraud at such a rate that it's skewing the results of the study I'm not sure what your point is. You may not have seen it because I edited it in, but to your point about my response I was quoted the text from the study, not the law, and thus I interpreted that text. You seem to be saying here that the study text is wrong. Which is fine, I'll accept that, but that doesn't seem to be a common thread in response to the study. Furthermore they say their data comes straight from Washington's Employment Security Department which includes the capability of splitting up records as stated in the text, so whether it's legal or not apparently WA lets them do it that way. Second, I'm not going to quote the big block of text to avoid bloating the forum but if you look the first five paragraphs of section 4, starting on page 12 of the link below, there is no statement of leaving out franchise data and your explanation of the net effect is one single sentence in a paragraph talking about how multi-site firms may adjust to the effect and how the employment results "may therefore be biased towards zero." That's it. http://papers.nber.org/tmp/1717-w23532.pdf Furthermore I will quote this one section (page 14, middle paragraph, last line): quote:As shown in Table 2, in Washington State as a whole, single-site businesses comprise 89% of firms and According to them their dataset includes more than half of the total workforce. If the other 38% excluded from the study is doing so much better off as to offset the overall results of the study does that actually invalidate the study? Unless the case can be made that Seattle has a significant difference in distribution of businesses than the average of the state. nessin fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jul 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:A glass manufacturing plant in Portland recently installed an air filtration system so that it was no longer pumping out hazardous chemicals to the residential neighborhood surrounding it, at a reported cost of more than $1 million. Sometimes regulations are objectively good, regardless of the size of the company, and sometimes when a company that believes that the regulatory burden is too great, they should be forced to close. Glass, to my knowledge, is not chemically nasty. (Although you could conceivably use etchants/acids for cleaning it afterwards as well as other chemicals for adding colors...) Peachfart posted:Providing massive amounts of low-income housing would be better, but $15/hour minimum wage is better than nothing. With regards to housing, where would they build it? (I am suprised Seattle, Portland, and SF) had not built floating communities similar to the Netherlands. (Not floating houses, or house boats, but apartment complexes 2-4 stories high.) Lots of people love to talk about high rises but those are expensive. Where is the money going to come from to build those? (Since WA does not have state income tax.) Hell if they really wanted to they could house their homless population... Its not like temporary housing is not a regularly done 'thing' in the U.S. (Man camps, FEMA trailers, etc) I am starting to think it might be better in the long run to move to Spokane. (Land and houses are cheap, for those that can afford to move.) Since this is the PNW thread, has that issue with permit exempt wells been solved for Washington state? Or are they still on a hiatus for drilling and permitting new wells? Senor P. fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jul 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
I understand the appeal of constructing low-incoming housing but I feel the need to emphasize that there must be great precautionary measures taken to ensure that communities aren't simply ghettoizing those put out by climbing costs of living. I haven't seen any conclusive studies done on the pros/cons of subsidized housing programs vs. "new" construction (e.g. developing in previously vacant areas as opposed to demo and rebuild) but I get very nervous when hearing about proposals that would relocate the working poor to remote areas of a city. lovely aspects of Portland's housing crisis seem to stem from a lack of infrastructure that supports sustainable development. When you've got premiere apartments/condos being built with little or no attention paid to traffic, parking congestion, or impact on communities I can't begin to imagine what the planning process/execution would look like for projects with a fraction of the budget. Add this to the fact that it seems Portland's municipal government are welcoming deep pocket out-of-state developers with open arms to swoop up on any available property and I find it increasingly hard to believe there will be any progress anywhere near the city center.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
nessin posted:You may not have seen it because I edited it in, but to your point about my response I was quoted the text from the study, not the law, and thus I interpreted that text. You seem to be saying here that the study text is wrong. Which is fine, I'll accept that, but that doesn't seem to be a common thread in response to the study. Furthermore they say their data comes straight from Washington's Employment Security Department which includes the capability of splitting up records as stated in the text, so whether it's legal or not apparently WA lets them do it that way. I don't know where to look it up by my assumption was that the employment security department data must come from BLS filing data. nessin posted:Second, I'm not going to quote the big block of text to avoid bloating the forum but if you look the first five paragraphs of section 4, starting on page 12 of the link below, there is no statement of leaving out franchise data and your explanation of the net effect is one single sentence in a paragraph talking about how multi-site firms may adjust to the effect and how the employment results "may therefore be biased towards zero." That's it. Considering that whole paragraph and section is about their data selection criteria I think it's a little more than one little line and "that's it". I made the leap to include franchises because that is the type of business that they are excluding, they don't have to call out every type of business, they made it clear what types of businesses are being excluded in their selection criteria and that one line is their justification... nessin posted:http://papers.nber.org/tmp/1717-w23532.pdf I didn't make the claim that the remaining 38% they excluded offsets the study, they said the reason to exclude these businesses is because it biases the result compared to the specific types of businesses they are studying. I'm not going to sit here and analyze this whole paper with you since I'm not qualified to make decisions based on it. I just disagree with your initial argument calling criticism of this study bullshit. I think the study has merit, and they've done some good research, but pretending like it's proof that $15/h min wage is bad is far from the truth. People in this thread have already responded about how less work hours and more pay is still more beneficial than slightly higher total pay but more work hours. The study itself says: quote:Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:I kind of wonder just what type of filtration equipment they had to install. Institute state income tax for income over 50k/year, lower sales tax, use the rest to tear down a bunch of single family homes that are really close to downtown and build low income apartments. Also, do it to Queen Anne first and really piss off the NIMBYs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Institute state income tax for income over 50k/year, lower sales tax, use the rest to tear down a bunch of single family homes that are really close to downtown and build low income apartments. Well...... to start with how about Seattle and surrounding area doubles or triples the tax paid on property owned by non-U.S. citizens? Baby steps.... I think a 1-2% tax would be more popular if people could specify what they want their monies to be used for... (Infrastructure? Health care? Birth control? Etc...etc....etc...) Senor P. fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jul 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
Senor P. posted:I kind of wonder just what type of filtration equipment they had to install. There are possibly going to be heavy metals involved in the adding colors. Other processes will use lead too. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jul 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 23:04
|
|