I sometimes watch some HGTV during Food Network commercials. One of their most common themes, just behind interracial couples and fag ones, is everyone’s need for a home office, frequently two. It would make sense to me if they were running small businesses from home, but these mostly seem to be ordinary middle manager types, who already have an office somewhere but think they need another for all the work they take home. And they’re cheerful about it, happy to pay for a bedroom or two more than they need.

As I see it, if you maintain a second place of business at your own expense, you’re signing a chunk of your paycheck back over to your employer. Though I’m not current on this, I also believe that in that event it‘s not even deductible. That means you’re actually spending far more on your employer’s behalf than he would have to spend himself.

It seems to me that folks are getting Jewed (at least) three ways: by the boss, the real estate agent and the taxman. Am I missing something?

If a person works at a business and decides to take his or her work home then a small desk facing the wall with a laptop should completely suffice.

However with the popularity of computers more and more people are working at home. A lot of businesses allow their employees to work at home 90% of the time instead of reporting for work 9-5. I saw an ad that a person could access the office computer from home and do the work at home just as they would at the office.

This is actually a great idea in my opinion. A person can be at home with the children and not pay for daycare and babysitters; also the company can save on office space. Instead of a cubical they can just stick a bunch of computers together with minimal comfort since the person won’t be there all day.

Then of course if a person operates a private business such as a used car lot or the like a home office is really nice. I have 2 offices, 1 at home and another at the building. Dad has been thinking of building an office at the shop. This office is where I spend most of my home time since it has my books, computer and television, not to mention a nice little workbench.

However with the popularity of computers more and more people are working at home. A lot of businesses allow their employees to work at home 90% of the time instead of reporting for work 9-5. I saw an ad that a person could access the office computer from home and do the work at home just as they would at the office.

This is actually a great idea in my opinion. A person can be at home with the children and not pay for daycare and babysitters; also the company can save on office space. Instead of a cubical they can just stick a bunch of computers together with minimal comfort since the person won’t be there all day.

That has not been my experience, in general. It was the great promise of technology (symbolized by Apple's 1984 commercial) but it was a false promise, mostly. People I know still spend at least 9-5 in their official offices, for one thing due to control issues. What "personal productivity tools" have delivered is the abilty to do more work on what used to be their own time, and the ability naturally becomes a requirement. Working harder and harder, just to stay even.

Lot of people work from home, or might in the future. They can do their old corporate jobs as consultants or independent contractors, while they watch kids or do other stuff. The IRS was getting hot and bothered about the distinction between employees and independent contractors there for a while in the '90s. People may be making home offices for tax reasons, trying to write off certain expenses.

Yes, the working at home thing can be difficult. It either doesn't exactly work out as planned or it turns on you and the company figures out they can handle the position as a contractor and lose a lot of the problems and expense of keeping an employee on the payroll - not always an advantage to the person in the long run. And office in the home deductions are always a tad dangerous. They are a red flag for the IRS, very possibly triggering an audit and you better have all your ducks in a row on that deduction.

They can do their old corporate jobs as consultants or independent contractors, while they watch kids or do other stuff.

Are there EEOC implications?

Not sure what you mean.

Not sure what you mean.

The premise is that firms are replacing employees with independent contractors. We know their employment is monitored very carefully for evidence of statistical discrimination. But is there anything that stops them from engaging outside contractors who happen to be overwhelmingly white?

The premise is that firms are replacing employees with independent contractors. We know their employment is monitored very carefully for evidence of statistical discrimination. But is there anything that stops them from engaging outside contractors who happen to be overwhelmingly white?

If the company does business with the government, they may well track that activity on the basis of race. I don't know about companies that don't contract with the government.

There are, however, rather strict guidelines as to what types of jobs can be treated as a contractor. You cannot, for example, hire support staff like receptionists, secretaries, etc. as contractors. A contractor must be someone who is primarily self-directed in their work (hours, location, manner of work performance, etc.). Contractors are a generally a cheap alternative for employers. They don't pay employer taxes on them, they are not liable for unemployment or disability insurance for contractors, contractors do not receive benefits like medical insurance, holidays, vacation, etc. If a company hires under 50 employees, I believe, they are not subject to the same racial hiring requirements as larger companies (the reason the lawyers I worked for were always adamant about never going over 49 employees - didn't want the hassle of the government on their backs any more than necessary).

If the company does business with the government, they may well track that activity on the basis of race. I don't know about companies that don't contract with the government.

There are, however, rather strict guidelines as to what types of jobs can be treated as a contractor. You cannot, for example, hire support staff like receptionists, secretaries, etc. as contractors. A contractor must be someone who is primarily self-directed in their work (hours, location, manner of work performance, etc.). Contractors are a generally a cheap alternative for employers. They don't pay employer taxes on them, they are not liable for unemployment or disability insurance for contractors, contractors do not receive benefits like medical insurance, holidays, vacation, etc. If a company hires under 50 employees, I believe, they are not subject to the same racial hiring requirements as larger companies (the reason the lawyers I worked for were always adamant about never going over 49 employees - didn't want the hassle of the government on their backs any more than necessary).

Good info. My experience with companies I've worked for (not, in the main, gov't contractors) is that they sometimes talk about minority vendors (MBE), but never use them for anything important, and there's nowhere near the atmosphere of panic that surrounds minority hiring. Itz quite the spectacle: people who can make big-dollar business decisions while remaining cool as a cucumber, literally panicked over hiring token niggers. If you were ever inclined to believe the Franciscan lie that managerial elites have the real power in the US, witnessing that would be enough to set you straight.