Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama's job aid plan - $10,000 to $13,000 in assistance for entrepreneurship

moneyland.time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 172 posts

Re: Obama's job aid plan - $10,000 to $13,000 in assistance for entrepreneurship

#51

Post by DiabloD3 »

known wrote: post #15

US need a win-win proposition with Chindia

I know this is getting downmodded, but hes somewhat right.

"Chindia" is draining our economy, by "draining our economy", I mean its destroying the people who actually do the work.

For every job that is sent overseas, not only does it result in someone, an actual real person, losing their job, but a form of slave labor in a foreign country "hires" the replacement.

If I was President, honestly, I would push for a 0.5% tariff on all goods and services from countries that are not considered first world countries.

I may be unable to improve the conditions of slave laborers in foreign countries (especially China and India due to massively corrupt governments that are doing everything possible to widen the gap between the poor and the rich instead of closing it), but I don't have to support doing business with those who make this possible.

0.5% would result in hundreds of millions of dollars in recaptured revenue, which could be instead spent on trying to preserve jobs in the US instead of exporting them, but it would also be low enough that the consumer would not bear the brunt of this.

Re: Obama's job aid plan - $10,000 to $13,000 in assistance for entrepreneurship

#52

Post by SoftwareMaven »

ctdonath wrote: post #47
philiphodgen wrote: post #32

1. I run a business. Therefore I make jobs. Or don't. 2. If I fire an employee, a portion of the cost of that person's unemployment claims is charged back to me. The employer. It isn't government largesse that funds unemployment claims. It's me. 3. Will this program be yet another potential cost to me? Hard to tell from the PR and press-gab. We'll have to see the law and how it is implemented. Devil in the details, e…

"2. If I fire an employee, a portion of the cost of that person's unemployment claims is charged back to me." Can you elaborate on this? It's something I've long heard and failed to grok. How can an employer, as normal business practice, have to still pay a fired employee any amount?

You have to pay for unemployment insurance. The more people who make claims against you, the higher your insurance gets. You probably aren't going to get charged 100% of the employee's unemployment, but you get charged a goodly chunk.

Re: Obama's job aid plan - $10,000 to $13,000 in assistance for entrepreneurship

#53

Post by muhfuhkuh »

nirvana wrote: post #46
yellowbkpk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outside of Silicon Valley (and a few other hot spots maybe) "voluntary transactions" aren't happening, so the government feels the need to step in.

I think it is a salient point that one of the reasons these "voluntary transactions" are not happening in the rest of the country is because the government has already stepped in. I would be an angel investor, if the SEC would let me. It is silly that I could blow $20k on a bad stock investment, but can't put it into a tiny startup. The regulatory burden and the prohibition on "non accredited investors" quells a lot…

"The regulatory burden and the prohibition on "non accredited investors" quells a lot of support the entreprenurial community could use."

So, "friends and family" start-up money is illegal? When did that happen?

Re: Obama's job aid plan - $10,000 to $13,000 in assistance for entrepreneurship

#54

Post by DanielBMarkham »

I like the spin on this. Sounds like something that could be very useful.

I must note, however, some phrases that set off my bullshit detector.

>SEA participants were 19 times more likely than eligible non-participants to be self-employed

Either I'm missing something or this says that people who are in a self-employed assistance plan are likely to be self-employed. Perhaps this is an editing error?

>In Oregon, nearly half of the successful SEA entrepreneurs have each created an average of 2.63 new jobs

Ok, but what kind of filter does "successful SEA entrepreneurs" imply? 1 in 100? 20%? Once again, the language is loose and circular.

Money is not an answer to everything. In fact, funding at high levels can be the worst thing ever to happen to a good team in a startup. At small levels, like this, it perhaps can make a big difference. Perhaps.

There is a great big giant humongous gap between something that sounds good in an editorial and something that actually does something useful. I'd want a lot more data on this before passing judgment one way or another.

Re: Obama's job aid plan - $10,000 to $13,000 in assistance for entrepreneurship

#55

Post by nirvana »

muhfuhkuh wrote: post #53
nirvana wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is a salient point that one of the reasons these "voluntary transactions" are not happening in the rest of the country is because the government has already stepped in. I would be an angel investor, if the SEC would let me. It is silly that I could blow $20k on a bad stock investment, but can't put it into a tiny startup. The regulatory burden and the prohibition on "non accredited investors" quells a lot…

"The regulatory burden and the prohibition on "non accredited investors" quells a lot of support the entreprenurial community could use." So, "friends and family" start-up money is illegal? When did that happen?

I didn't say they were illegal, I said there was a regulatory burden and prohibition:

"If, however, not all of the investors are accredited, founders will need to provide a lot more disclosure to the investors, including a full-blown private placement memorandum, risk factors and financial statements. Also, note that all non-accredited investors in a Rule 506 offering must be sophisticated, which means that the company must reasonably believe that non-accredited investors (either alone or together with their investment representatives) have sufficient financial and business knowledge to allow them to evaluate the risks and merits of an investment."

Its prohibited to take investments from non-accreddited investors in the straightforward manner you can from accredited investors, and if you do, you have a greater burden, and additional risk to bear.

Re: Obama's job aid plan - $10,000 to $13,000 in assistance for entrepreneurship

#56

Post by philiphodgen »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #52
ctdonath wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"2. If I fire an employee, a portion of the cost of that person's unemployment claims is charged back to me." Can you elaborate on this? It's something I've long heard and failed to grok. How can an employer, as normal business practice, have to still pay a fired employee any amount?

You have to pay for unemployment insurance. The more people who make claims against you, the higher your insurance gets. You probably aren't going to get charged 100% of the employee's unemployment, but you get charged a goodly chunk.

That's exactly right. For unemployment insurance you pay a percentage of your payroll to the government. The percentage depends upon the number of claims your ex-employees have put on the pool of money in the unemployment insurance scheme. More claims means a higher percentage.

That makes the cost of a replacement employee higher because you're paying for the cost of prior employees' unemployment claims when you are making unemployment contributions for the new employee.

Re: Obama's job aid plan - $10,000 to $13,000 in assistance for entrepreneurship

#57

Post by philiphodgen »

muhfuhkuh wrote: post #35
philiphodgen wrote: post #32

1. I run a business. Therefore I make jobs. Or don't. 2. If I fire an employee, a portion of the cost of that person's unemployment claims is charged back to me. The employer. It isn't government largesse that funds unemployment claims. It's me. 3. Will this program be yet another potential cost to me? Hard to tell from the PR and press-gab. We'll have to see the law and how it is implemented. Devil in the details, e…

"My payroll is suddenly $100K/year lighter than it was. Am I going to replace that guy with another full-timer? Fuck, no. Hello, independent contractors." From this country? That matters much more than whether they'd be contract or full-time.

Absolutely from the U. S. and A. All of them.

Re: Obama's job aid plan - $10,000 to $13,000 in assistance for entrepreneurship

#58

Post by gte910h »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #51
known wrote: post #15

US need a win-win proposition with Chindia

I know this is getting downmodded, but hes somewhat right. "Chindia" is draining our economy, by "draining our economy", I mean its destroying the people who actually do the work. For every job that is sent overseas, not only does it result in someone, an actual real person, losing their job, but a form of slave labor in a foreign country "hires" the replacement. If I was President, honestly, I would push for a 0.5%…

>If I was President, honestly, I would push for a 0.5% tariff on all goods and services from countries that are not considered first world countries.

An alternate statement of that idea (which I'm not sure I agree with either), is a tariff on goods and service in the amounts required to bring the hourly foreign labor costs up to the US federal minimum wage with no exemptions.

Re: Obama's job aid plan - $10,000 to $13,000 in assistance for entrepreneurship

#59

Post by qeorge »

ctdonath wrote: post #47
philiphodgen wrote: post #32

1. I run a business. Therefore I make jobs. Or don't. 2. If I fire an employee, a portion of the cost of that person's unemployment claims is charged back to me. The employer. It isn't government largesse that funds unemployment claims. It's me. 3. Will this program be yet another potential cost to me? Hard to tell from the PR and press-gab. We'll have to see the law and how it is implemented. Devil in the details, e…

"2. If I fire an employee, a portion of the cost of that person's unemployment claims is charged back to me." Can you elaborate on this? It's something I've long heard and failed to grok. How can an employer, as normal business practice, have to still pay a fired employee any amount?

It works like this:

Every year you have to pay a percentage of your total payroll as a tax, called Unemployment Insurance. If someone is fired or laid off, its from this pool their unemployment checks are drawn.

The percentage each company pay is based off a table. On this table there's 2 rates listed for each business size (its tiered, bigger businesses pay more). Rates last year for my company were around 1.7% and 3.2%, IIRC.

So, if you fired >=1 person in that year, you have to pay the higher rate. If you fired nobody, you pay the lower rate.

Note: if you fired 1 or 10 people it doesn't matter - you're paying the higher rate.

Re: Obama's job aid plan - $10,000 to $13,000 in assistance for entrepreneurship

#60

Post by [deleted] »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #52
ctdonath wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"2. If I fire an employee, a portion of the cost of that person's unemployment claims is charged back to me." Can you elaborate on this? It's something I've long heard and failed to grok. How can an employer, as normal business practice, have to still pay a fired employee any amount?

You have to pay for unemployment insurance. The more people who make claims against you, the higher your insurance gets. You probably aren't going to get charged 100% of the employee's unemployment, but you get charged a goodly chunk.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN