Self-Serve Yogurt shops are expanding rapidly, but how could that be in a time of high unemployment.
Youth unemployment is tremendous. Unskilled teenager would flock to a food service job like yogurt shops.
The problem of course is the idiocy of big government cradle-to-grave policies.
The minimum wage has gone up substantially in the last decade.
Obamacare mandates additional costs that are poorly defined and add uncertainty to business.
If you can find a way not to hire flesh and blood human beings look at the benefits.
Lower worker's compensation insurance premiums.
Lower labor costs.
Lower disability insurance matching contributions.
Lower social security matching contributions.
Lower Medicare matching contributions.
Lower payroll taxes.
Lower unemployment taxes.

You want to create jobs then do away with the minimum wage, do away with Obamacare, cut Social Security so SSN taxes go down, reform medicare to drive down medicare taxes,

Now wonder we have high unemployment that has grown by millions since Obama was elected. Barack and the big government idiots who passed Obamacare have absolutely no concept of how jobs get created in the private sector and America is paying a horrible price for their ineptness right now.

2012 will change the influence of the big government fools as dramatically as 2010 did.
If you are a lazy, unambitious, and irresponsible individual counting on some big government program to sustain you then you should prepare yourself for a huge dose of reality (like the Greeks are getting right now) because America loves to help those who really need help, but you lazy, unambitious freeloaders are coming to the end of the ride because money doesn't grow on trees to pay for what you refuse to pay for yourself.
Duh!

Based upon your post, all I can **guess* is that Yogurtini....(give me a break! A yogurt shop? that is **soooooo** 1980's...) has unemployment problems. Maybe their Yogurt sucks. ever think of that?

Yogurt shops are expanding rapidly? Haaaaa ha ha ha h! WHERE???? I can't give you the name of ONE in my local region. Support your claim, or shut the fuck up.

With a name like Yogurtini it deserves to fail.

<The deafening noise of crickets overpowers Tett's response....and it's day time...and the crickets are silent....>

Funny think Invictus is Yogurtini is expanding rapidly.
It isn't in any danger of failing.
In fact its business model lends itself to easy and accurate projections because it isn't a labor intensive model.
As poorly conceived regulations, tax increases, and other measures put forth by big government idiots kill jobs you'll see more and more business models that eliminate labor costs and liabilities.

You post that Unemployment is caused by government, and then tell us that a Yogurt shop is expanding rapidly...thus producing jobs, because it has a good business model.

In other words, you are makingAnd the claim that it is BAD BUSINESS MODELS that are causing unemployment, NOT the government.

<sigh...> And instead of all of this rhetoric, anecdotal bullshit about a company nobody has heard of, give us something real.

Big Government advocates keep ranting that business makes so much money that they can afford to pay higher wages, higher taxes, and higher benefits.
Yet when the jobs begin to disappear all the Big Government advocates have are the same tired responses that failed in the past and are failing now-Government job programs/Stimulus/expanding government hiring/bailing out unions.

The unemployment rate just keeps going up and up and innovative entrepreneurs who are not willing to settle for crumbs from the table of big government find new ways to create wealth in the marketplace while avoiding the business destroying regulations, taxes, and edicts of big government.

It's almost as if the idiots in big government and their supporters really think they are more intelligent than people in the private sector business community.

What a fantasy.

Once again...you make my point: "innovative entrepreneurs who are not willing to settle for crumbs from the table of big government find new ways to create wealth in the marketplace while avoiding the business destroying regulations, taxes, and edicts of big government. "

So it is NOT government that is the problem, but bad business models. You gave an example (Yogurtini) and now make the philopshical case that it is simply a matter of the smart businessmen learning how to do business in whatever environment they find themselve...and that the smart businessmen will prosper no matter what. Yogurtini is expanding...thus creating jobs....thus defying you notion that government causes unemployment. You can't have it both ways.

Bernie Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot that created tens of thousands of jobs, said of businessmen he talked to,

"They (business men) are frightened to death — frightened that they will have the IRS or SEC on them. In my 50 years in business, I have never seen executives of major companies who were more intimidated by an administration."

Marcus said Obama talks about reducing regulation but his actions don't agree with his rthetoric.

"His speeches are wonderful. His output is absolutely, incredibly bad. As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones. With just Obamacare by itself, you have a 2,000 page bill that’s probably going end up being 150,000 pages of regulations."

More and more Americans every day are paying for the failure of Obamanomics every single day.
2012 is going to be a repeat of 2010 for big government advocates.
America is sick of big government fantasies.

Steven Winn, casino entrepreneur whose companies employ thousands recently bashed Obamanomics as well.

"It is preposterous that businesses are under attack in the United States of America. Anybody that makes over $250,000 in the form of a personal income tax return is now, by Washington definition, a rich person, when everybody who has got a college degree knows that the personal income tax rate in the United States of America is the business tax of America. I am disgusted and angry at the apparent ignorance of the administration and the Congress to recognize the fact that the individual tax rate in the United States of America is in fact a business tax of America. And if you keep banging on that, you will destroy the incentive for job formation in the United States of America. And that's simple truth."

Big governments regulations, mandates, and taxation are destroying job creation in the United States every single day and it is getting worse every single day.

And this has exactly *WHAT* to do with whether or not innovators can create jobs despite government regulations? Home Depot is another dinosaur that *used* to be an innovator...a big box store filled with isle after isle of team members that could answer my questions as good as or better than my small, local hardware store could. Now...I can't find what I need at Home Depot, and the employees are generally idiots who wouldn't know which end of a hammer to hold. Home Depot would hardly be my first choice as an example of a company designed to thrive in varied economies.

Yogutini, on the other hand, is appanrently a company run by an innovator that can thrive in spite of government regulation, thus proving that it takes intelligence and leadership to grow, not the proper government-designed business environoment.

I would think that a good Conservative like you would say that a company so locked up in it's own legalistic, bureaucratic ways - a company that is unable to bend and flew and grow in an ever-changing government environment (which, by design, the United States is...) is a company that should die. If a company can only thrive if the government is perfectly designed for their growth....then let them fail. THAT would be a conservative point of view.

Steven Winn....and how bad is Stevey hurting in this economy? Is Steve not making any money these days?

I hear this little innovative Yogurt shop is thriving....

Tettleton can't / won't respond to criticism of his arguments. Tettleton contradicts himself. Tettleton fails. Most likely, if he ran a business, he would now be filing chapter 11...

Big Government advocates have made an enemy out of job creators, and Steve Winn described it perfectly,

Those people out there hustling their businesses, and God forbid, showing that they made a million dollars as a partnership or as an individual. Yeah, they're the enemy now, they're the rich folks. Well, until we get over this, America is in for hard times. The people that are gonna suffer from what's going on are the working class of America. My 15 to 20,000 employees, they're the ones that are in trouble, and until my employees get the drift of what's being done to them, America is in trouble.

People get rewarded for creating jobs because Obama and the Big Government idiots are learning how hard it is to create self-sustaining jobs.
We should celebrate entrepreneurs who create jobs, not demonize them like Big Government idiots do.
We don't want to end up like Europe.

Except for Yogurtini, ***YOUR*** example, by the way, of a business that is prospering in this economy. Clearly Steve Winn is mis-informed, or narrow-minded. Clearly Steven winn has a business model that is inflexible, as **YOUR** example --- Yogurtini --- is thriving in this Big government economy.

Please tell me why Yogurtini is thriving, and why Big governmnet, anti-business does not apply to them?

"People get rewarded for creating jobs because Obama and the Big Government idiots are learning how hard it is to create self-sustaining jobs. "

Huh?? I thought big government was killing jobs? Now they are getting rewarded?

You lack consistency in your statements. Your argument does not even come close to being coherent.

To recap, OPENING STATEMENT BY TETT:
"Yogurtini and BTO Yogurt are two examples of the marketplace responding to idiotic government attempts...Self-Serve Yogurt shops are expanding rapidly..."

You then proceed to tell us how business can NOT grow because of government you. Do you read what you right? Can you admit, just for a moment, that you completely contradict yourself here?

In 2008, the city of Chicago put a tax on water bottled in plastic that amounted to $1.20 tax on a $4.00 per 24 bottle case regardless of the size of the bottle, small bottles taxed at the rate of big bottles
Mayor Dayley (Obama's current Chief of Staff and village idiot) expected the tax to generate over $10 million annually. The tax actually generated 1/3 of that amount.
Why?
People could buy water in the suburbs when they went shopping.
Bottled water sales outside Chicago grew at Chicago's expense.
With the loss of sales in Chicago went less money for jobs in delivery and sales.
In the suburbs money for delivery and sales jobs grew.
Just another example of how tax policy by big government village idiots costs jobs.

Writ large jobs leave America and go wherever they want.

krellin, I believe Tet has muted you as well, so join the club haha.

I'll try and wrap up Tettleton's argument for him, as well as add some comments of my own.

I believe what he's trying to say is more government regulation and laws, in the form of taxes on corporations, is causing business to grow at a slower rate than it otherwise would. His yogurt company - if you noticed - was self-serve instead of fully manned. Thus while the company was putting out the same amount of product, it was hiring less people than otherwise. His bottle tax was meant to show that higher taxes force consumers to buy elsewhere, and by this it could be inferred that people will buy big-ticket items from foreign producers rather than domestic ones, such as Caterpillar.

He is however, ignoring many things. First of all, we need to raise revenue to pay off our debt, and that will only come from increased taxes in addition to spending cuts. one or the other can't do it without hurting the economy. Secondly, the minimum wage rose so much because it was - and still is - well below the cost of living in the United States. Thirdly and finally, the comments by the Home Depot executive are completely misread, because now the laws that have always been in place are starting to be enforced, and hopefully corruption will be less rampant.

I agree though krellin, that those businesses need to adapt. I also think wonders could be done if the tax code was re-written, so companies such as GE don't go a year without paying taxes.

goldfinger....I am not opposed to the idea that government tax policy needs to be revised. But this fucking moron Tett says that Yogurttown is THRIVING....and then says businesses can't thrive due to government. This fool contradicted himself in his own fucking post!

If he has me muted, then he is even more of an ignoarant, stupid prick than I thought. "Muting" is the last resort of a stupid BITCH that can't support his own arguments.

Regarding debt...we do NOT need to "raise" revenue to pay off the debt. Well...maybe we do...but you "raise revenue" by GROWING THE TAX-BASE. YOu allow MOre businesses to be created, and create an environment where existing businesses can grow, and then you collect MORE revenue with....most likely...a lower tax rate.

This is a concept mot liberals reject...and which ALL historical data supports.

Someone tell that loser bitch Tett to fucking unmute me, man the fuck up, and respond to me. Fucking loser. I *generally* agree with him! I just want him to not be such a dumbass and actually SUPPORT his claims!!

I understand his contradictions. That's why I reposted what he said in a non-condtradictory form haha.

And nobody can be sure whom he muted or did not, but he has never addressed me, and has stopped addressing you. He look on the bright side, at least we can have a discussion without him butting in on us lol

Regarding debt, under normal circumstances I agree with you. However, desperate times call for desperate measures. The nation has to cinch their belts a hole tighter and deal with it for a few years. I may point to the Bush tax cuts in 2000. Its estimated that if they didn't happen, we wouldn't be in debt by now. But, as Tett's Chicago study shows, as well as other examples I'm aware of show that this is likely to be an overestimation of revenues, so I'm wary of that figure.

The concept you're referring to goes both ways, however. The evidence you're pointing to is the laffer curve.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=laffer+curve&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbnid=NW1NNapPzLAfpM:&imgrefurl=http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp&docid=y0l2t9ndI01GbM&w=250&h=202&ei=uOw1TpiJDcHngQfIhcndDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=446&vpy=136&dur=2783&hovh=161&hovw=200&tx=90&ty=99&page=1&tbnh=118&tbnw=146&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0&biw=1366&bih=545

Damn big URL. Anyways, if our tax rate is above the optimal point, then yes, you are true. However, if its below that point, a higher tax rate will increase revenues. We just have to find out - via experimentation - where that point is. That's the trouble with economics, its so hard to test theories. You can never perfectly reproduce results

Some interesting statistics that Big Government buffoons would be advised to learn.
From the SBA.gov website.
Small firms:
• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers ( scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

So as Mr. Winn said God forbid someone with an idea and ambition who was willing to take the risk to build a company that made a million dollars and created jobs should be the enemy that less motivated, ambitious, and less willing to take risks.

When America succeeded it celebrated such individuals. Obama and his mob attack such entrepreneurs today motivated by envy, jealousy, ignorance, and stupidity.

The recent polls are encouraging. American's are turning away from Big Government candidates and rhetoric that offers only crumbs and dependence.

The Big Government advocates are squirming over it, and frankly it's nice to see spineless worms squrim.

Goldfinger....in truth, I completely agree with everything Tett says. but...he is such a belligerent ASSHOLE that he becomes useless to his own cause. I point out that he *completely* contradicts himelf....and EVERYONE can see that I have legitimately used his OWN discussion points against him...and the juvenile prick is silent?

If he fucking believes what he says, then he would be man enough to fuckng answer his critics.

Feel free to tell the fucking whiny-ass baby as much. I ***agree** with him....but the flaws in his arguments are ***so*** glaring that I can not HELP but to mock him. He's a fucking dickhead.

Tett gives us a diatribr of bulshit...and STILL CAN NOT ANSWER WHY HIS OWN EXAMPLE (TOFUMAFIA or whatver) is growing and thrving despite the Big Government.

He is a fucking two-faced, hypocritical asshole.

And Tett is a FUCKING COWARD that refuses to address his critics. Proving to the world that he doesn't have enough faith, or doesn't have enough real data, to support his claims.

Stupid bitch.

I can't see 18 posts in this thread.
The mute button is a thing of beauty.

Super Liberal closes his hedge fund because of Dodd-Frank.
Kiss those jobs goodbye.

"There’s a two-word explanation for closing what was once one of the world’s biggest hedge funds and consistently one of the best-performing --- with returns of about 30 percent annually in its first 30 years: Dodd-Frank. The law requires hedge funds to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and provide information about customers, employees and assets. By returning outsiders’ money, Soros Fund Management escapes that rule and the loss of privacy that goes with it."

"Anybody that makes over $250,000 in the form of a personal income tax return is now, by Washington definition, a rich person, when everybody who has got a college degree knows that the personal income tax rate in the United States of America is the business tax of America."

Does nobody else find anything grossly wrong with this attitude? Anybody making over 250K IS rich, and why should the laborers be paying their bosses taxes?

If what I'm hearing you say is true, that the savings that corps make from a low tax burden is fully passed down to their employees (yeah, right), why not just take it off the top in the first place? Seems to me that those living paycheck-to-paycheck are the ones who are gonna spend any extra money they get from having low/no taxes and higher minimum wage... maybe can afford the occasional nice thing without using their c.c., or just to take the kids to the doctor?

I've read a lot of your posts, Tet... and kept quiet. But until you can tell me why it is right that so much wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of so few, or explain to me how the business models you propose would improve the standard of living for the disenfranchised, as well as convince me that a poor working class is in any way good for the economy, I can't really give you much credibility.

I'm not saying every liberal perspective is right, but there is enough food, water, living space, doctors, medicine, for EVERYBODY to have these things at a reasonable level, and it seems to me that the liberal agenda is doing a great deal more to bring these things to those that need them than conservatives would ever consider.

Tett can't see 18 posts....someone tell him that he is a coward ass bitch. An *I* generally AGREE with the bitch. fucking loser. To terrified of truth. Ir any of you had ANY balls, you would relay my message to this /BITCH.

Yellowjacket, I've never dealt with you before, but it is easy to call you young or ignorant or unintelligent or unambitious or lazy or all of those rolled into one.

You post like it is a crime for an individual to make a quarter of a million dollars in a year and not feel obligated to give enormous help to other individuals he has never met because so fool like yourself decides that they can define "morality" "wealth" and a host of other concepts for the world at large.

What a miserable world we would live in if everyone was too stupid, too lazy, too unambitious, or too ignorant to not make a quarter of a million dollars.

Also you infantile rantings about "concentrations of wealth and power."
My God how do you childish imps get through life with such insane ideas?
There must be shadows chasing you everywhere you go?

"The rich are evil and want to feed on my children's flesh."
"I just ran up against a conspiracy of the powerful who held me down."

Good God. you poor helpless wretch.
It would just suck shit to be you. How do you keep from eating a gun believing such trash?

Oh, and I forgot how you ended you post in the same "the world is overpopulated" trash that began with Malthus back in the 18th century when there weren't even 1 billion people on the planet and people are still ranting the sky is falling we are overpopulated bullshit today.

The liberal agenda kills people, stifles progress, and basically brings misery everywhere it goes because the liberal agenda thinks that a handful of self-proclaimed "experts" are smarter than the collected wisdom of the people.

It's a basic chasm that small-brained fools can't get over.

All I can say it is absolutely fucking fabulous to be on the other side of the chasm where you celebrate your neighbors success and want to find out how they did it and how you could emulate it instead of sitting around bitter, envious, jealous, and just plain fucking miserable.

God perish the thought to live a life with the "liberal perspective" you described Yellowjacket.

Annnnnddd....Tettllton the Bitch can STILL not answer how HIS OWN EXAMPLE defies the Big Government model.

Tettleton is a fuckng ass bitch liar. He is too fuicking afraid to answer his own questions. Tettleton is the WORST kind of fool

What kind of idiot thinks that raising the minimum wage doesn't reduce the number of jobs and force the workers who remain afterward to work harder, or to have workers replaced by machines.

People who have never ever in their lives created a job and signed paychecks that's who.

Absolutely amazing how much ignorance pervades the world.

TC, I thought you didn't mind businesses growing. Yet you bash a yogurt store for adapting to economic conditions.

So you think that it's better to hire people at a low wage rather than utilize an efficient machine? That's like saying "I'm going to hire 100 people to move these rocks for $700, 'cause minimum wage is $7/hour, instead of renting a bulldozer for $100." If something is cost-effective and humane, let it happen. Now THAT is progress.

Note: May God help me for posting this.
You present the claim (and I believe you) that small businesses represent 99.7% of all employer firms, employ half of all private sector employees, and pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll. They also made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.

This means that big businesses, which represent only 0.3% of all employer firms, employ half of all private sector employees and pay 56 % of total US private payroll. This same 0.3% of employers make up 2.5% of all exporters and produce 69% of all exports.

This means that the average big business is approximately 200 times as large as the average small business. If you actually compare the median big business with the median small business, the numbers might come out differently. A big business is 2 orders of magnitude larger than a small business. It's on an entirely different scale. And big business could not care less about what happens to small businesses. Just look at the Industrial Revolution and the Gilded Age.

Yet somehow, they have convinced small businesses, as well as others, that less government protection will be good for small businesses. Comment?

Also, please explain how disclosure to the SEC forces an incredibly successful hedge fund to close.

P.S. I noticed somewhere in your posts that you seem to advance the claim that the current Administration's policies have made it more profitable to use machines than people. That's just technology, not politics. As technology advances, it becomes possible to use machines instead of people for more and more jobs. Whether that is desirable is a matter of debate; the Luddites said "NO''.
PPS. Yes, it is very easy to call someone "young or ignorant or unintelligent or unambitious or lazy or all of those rolled into one. " That doesn't mean that doing so helps advance your arguments.
PPPS. For Pete's sake, unmute krellin, will ya? Once you move past the profanity, it's good advice.

The above is all adressed to Tettleton. Just to make it clear

No Moshe, I copied and pasted information directly from the Small Business administration.gov.

I guess you can't read or were to lazy to read.

I guess it would be easier for you to attribute that information to me.

So I cut and pasted from my post above the stats you have a problem with from the small business administration of the United States.

From the SBA.gov website.
Small firms:
• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers ( scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

Ray, you seem to have huge problems with reading comprehension.

You say "I'm bashing a business for adapting to changing conditions."

Thanks for the chuckle.

I'm bashing the government for creating an environment that makes it profitable for a business to replace human workers with machines during a time of high unemployment when people need jobs.

So get rid of the minimum wage and watch people get jobs tomorrow instead of machines.

People can easily compete with machines as long as idiots in big government don't price them out of the equation.

Tet: if your logic leads you to the personal conclusions you've made about me (lazy, stupid, bitter, miserable, envious, ignorant, unambitious, helpless) from my post alone, without knowing anything about me, then that speaks a whole lot more about your perspective than anything I could say.

I also notice that the more you are unable to counterpoint, the more abusive you get. I love a little debate, and some friendly banter to go with it, but clearly that is not your goal here.

And yes, it IS a crime that ppl make $250k + a year when there are those working 50-60 hour workweeks and cant afford rent and health insurance for their kids. Especially when those employers' success is almost universally built on the backs of the very same people.

Also, I don't see whats infantile about stating facts. The majority of the wealth is concentrated in a small minority of the populace (say 90% belonging to 10%? I don't know the numbers exactly). I'm not saying that the bright, ambitious, and hardworking don't deserve to be rewarded for their efforts, but this skew is unacceptable with the standard of living the working poor tolerate.

I don't believe in conspiracies. The obvious truth is far more cruel and insidious; that the wealthy ad powerful don't give a good damn about the people who support their empires.

I ask you again:

Do you agree that every human worker deserves a reasonable standard of living, able to afford a home of their own, healthcare, an education for their children, and some reasonable extras?

If yes, then how do the models you propose get us closer to this aim?

If no, then we have nothing more to say to each other. You are the "evil that eats my childrens flesh," as you so eloquently put it.

And, TC, I copied and pasted from you. I attributed the data to you because you are the one who shared it with this forum. If you were insulted by the incorrect citation, I apologize.
The SBA's information directly implies the stats I gave about big business. I am assuming that all businesses can be divided into two categories: small and big. This is a slight simplification, but not an unreasonable one. Given this assumption, one can simply subtract the small business percentage from 1 to arrive at the relevant percentage for large business.
I'm not disputing the facts with you, but their interpretation. Please answer me, instead of calling me "lazy" and .

<Ignore the last "and">

So if you have a problem Mosh, your problem is with the SBA.
I could see why you would rather argue with an individual like me instead of the SBA.
Arguing with the stats of the SBA simply makes a person look foolish.

The telling part of the SBA statistics is how much the American economy depends on small business, and Steve Winn is exactly correct in calling a tax on incomes over $250,000 a business tax because those are the people that own the small businesses that create so many jobs that drive the American economy.

It isn't complicated.
The only thing that is complicated is the empty web of rhetoric woven by those who want government to attempt to redistribute wealth through taxation of small business owners.
The rhetoric those individuals weave to disavow responsibility for the resulting job loss is also complicated.
What's simple is a tax plan that allows the most money to find its way to business investment will be the tax plan that creates the most jobs.