What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Patman said:
I think the restriction should be on the employee. Fact of the matter is that, while unprovable, one can imply that they were operating at the behest of a group that they regulate during their federal employ. That would mean that they were not acting in the interest of the employer but rather, wholly, themselves.
Click to expand...

Many employment contracts in the private sector include "non-compete" agreements in which an employee of a company agrees not to go to work for a competitor for x years after leaving the company. A similar type of contractual restriction for federal regulators and the companies they regulate would be consistent with this practice. Just about any one who leaves federal employment at a high enough level is nearly certain to be hired by a lobbying firm or similar entity.

However, it doesn't stop the traffic from moving in the opposite direction: look at how many Treasury Secretaries were Wall St. bankers, for example (Paulsen from Goldman Sachs, Lew from Citibank, it's truly bi-partisan).
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FreshFish said:
However, it doesn't stop the traffic from moving in the opposite direction: look at how many Treasury Secretaries were Wall St. bankers, for example (Paulsen from Goldman Sachs, Lew from Citibank, it's truly bi-partisan).
Click to expand...

It is truly bi-partisan. A cynic might think that elections and such are cute, but when it comes down to the actual nuts and bolts of running the machine (the people who run the Fed and Treasury, the actual regulatory enforcement on lenders and insurers, the zeal -- or lack of it -- with which DOJ pursues financial crime) the fix has always been in.

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” -- Frank Zappa
Click to expand...
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FreshFish said:
Many employment contracts in the private sector include "non-compete" agreements in which an employee of a company agrees not to go to work for a competitor for x years after leaving the company.
Click to expand...

Most of which are either so poorly written that they're unenforceable, or the former employer decides legal action is not worth the cost of pursuing.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Most of which are either so poorly written that they're unenforceable, or the former employer decides legal action is not worth the cost of pursuing.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought it was just the opposite -- the prospective new employer wouldn't touch a guy with an NC/NDA because why invite the potential problem?
 
Kepler said:
Really? I thought it was just the opposite -- the prospective new employer wouldn't touch a guy with an NC/NDA because why invite the potential problem?
Click to expand...

Depends, but courts generally view non-compete clauses with skepticism because they don't like taking away people's ability to work. And companies don't want to be known for going after former employees, because it'll scare off potential new employees.

The more specific the limiting conditions and the shorter the duration, the more likely it is to be upheld.

You can't force a doctor to not practice medicine for a year. But you can maybe restrict them from not joining a sports therapy clinic within 20 miles of their former business for 6 months or something like that.
 
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Patman said:
I think the restriction should be on the employee. Fact of the matter is that, while unprovable, one can imply that they were operating at the behest of a group that they regulate during their federal employ. That would mean that they were not acting in the interest of the employer but rather, wholly, themselves.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I couldn't remember her name, but Google knew exactly who I meant from "woman indicted Boeing."
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Kepler said:
Really? I thought it was just the opposite -- the prospective new employer wouldn't touch a guy with an NC/NDA because why invite the potential problem?
Click to expand...

I have an ND/NCA with my current employer. It says that if I choose to resign, I can't work in IT anywhere in the United States for one year :rolleyes: - not even close to reasonable with respect to time, scope of industry, or geography. It's basically just a tactic to try and scare off other potential employers, but when the time comes, there won't be much standing in another company's way. They'll just have their legal team review it, and laugh it off.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Most of which are either so poorly written that they're unenforceable, or the former employer decides legal action is not worth the cost of pursuing.
Click to expand...

Fade is right. When I left my old company, I had a noncompete clause. My current company said they would fight it and had a couple of contingencies in place.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/b...73522000&smtyp=aut&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id

Gotta love the selfishness of the Baby Boomers.
The age group whose real income has grown the most over the last quarter-century covers those age 65 to 74. The median income of that group used to be lower than that of younger families. Now it is higher. People past the traditional retirement age of 65 are much more likely to be working now than they used to be, but higher pension income may also be a factor.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/534/a-not-so-simple-majority

If you have an hour to kill, this will likely infuriate you. The wife and I listened to this as we drove home from Duluth last night.

Long story short, ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jews move en masse to a suburb of NYC that was primarily minority, take over the school board using some questionable voting tactics, go into closed session meetings, cut funding to the public schools, funnel money and property to private Yeshivas, and call anyone who doesn't agree an anti-Semite.

I can't believe the states and feds haven't gotten involved to a greater extent, or that there haven't been civil rights lawsuits filed by individual parents.
 
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

unofan said:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/534/a-not-so-simple-majority

If you have an hour to kill, this will likely infuriate you. The wife and I listened to this as we drove home from Duluth last night.

Long story short, ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jews move en masse to a suburb of NYC that was primarily minority, take over the school board using some questionable voting tactics, go into closed session meetings, cut funding to the public schools, funnel money and property to private Yeshivas, and call anyone who doesn't agree an anti-Semite.

I can't believe the states and feds haven't gotten involved to a greater extent, or that there haven't been civil rights lawsuits filed by individual parents.
Click to expand...

I was guessing Suffern, NY, but I was off by a town. When I lived in Northern NJ (mid/late 70's) my Dad told me do not drive in certain sections of Rockland County on Saturday as my car would get stoned for violating the Sabbath.

If the voters are all Hasidic, then there is no problem, is there?
 
joecct said:
I was guessing Suffern, NY, but I was off by a town. When I lived in Northern NJ (mid/late 70's) my Dad told me do not drive in certain sections of Rockland County on Saturday as my car would get stoned for violating the Sabbath.

If the voters are all Hasidic, then there is no problem, is there?
Click to expand...

Sure there is when the majority tramples on the rights of the minority. And given that the board is playing the anti-Semite card, I don't get why the parents haven't played the race card back at them.

I also now understand why many school districts (apparently not this one, though) require board members to have children in the school district as a condition to run.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

joecct said:
I was guessing Suffern, NY, but I was off by a town. When I lived in Northern NJ (mid/late 70's) my Dad told me do not drive in certain sections of Rockland County on Saturday as my car would get stoned for violating the Sabbath.

If the voters are all Hasidic, then there is no problem, is there?
Click to expand...

In the case he's talking about, these guys just use the legal system as a con. Typically they're grifting off the federal government, but when they move into a town they're just flat out stealing from the prior residents. They are real scumbags who are also deeply implicated in child and spousal abuse. The mainstream Orthodox community is horrified by them.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Anyone see where Sears is about the die. Amazing that a company that used to be so important in the retail world was put to sleep
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

walrus said:
Anyone see where Sears is about the die. Amazing that a company that used to be so important in the retail world was put to sleep
Click to expand...

IIRC, Eddie Lampert's long-term plan with Sears all along was to starve the retail company so that he could then unlock the real estate value in all the stores that they owned. When he bought Sears, it was worth more if you closed all the stores and sold them off than if you tried to keep operating them. They have (or had at least, I haven't followed the company in years now) LOTS of prime real estate since they owned their stores. Commercial real estate is on the rebound now.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

walrus said:
Anyone see where Sears is about the die. Amazing that a company that used to be so important in the retail world was put to sleep
Click to expand...

The 21st century has been a slew of terrible management decisions for Sears - the bumbled Lands' End online tailoring experiment, the Kmart merger, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top