How Unequal Can America Get Before We Snap?

[Ken-1122]

The rich are definitely getting richer by taking advantage of the disparity of bargaining position of workers. It may be what they "agreed to", but when your choices are "agree to these unfair conditions" or "starve", people usually tend to choose the unfair conditions.

I think you are confusing “the rich” with management. Big difference you know! But with many jobs management does pay low wages and often with those jobs a person with no experience will get the job, allow the company to spend money and time training this person, then that person will quit the low wage job and get a higher paying job with his newly acquired experience. Nobody is forced to accept a low paying job, those type of jobs are usually starter jobs where an inexperienced person can use it as a stepping stone for something better; as it should be.

The free market is not a moral system. It is an amoral (i.e. having no moral discretion ) system. However, it's nature tends to reward the immoral.

I think our current free market system recognizes people are not going to be moral when it comes to work and pay, they will do what is to their advantage; which is to get as much pay for as little work as possible. So it attempts to use the drive and ability for success many have and allow them to be rewarded for those abilities while at the same time have them share a little with those who aren’t able to succeed that way


Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

In the exact same proportion as invested LABOR creates more wealth. Neither the investor nor the worker are in any way superior to the other. Both are absolutely necessary.

And as I noted before: if one replaces the workers with automation (which is, obviously, happening now) that will only create wealth for a period of time. At some point there will be no income for the majority of people to purchase the widgets being made by the robots.

At that point investment will CEASE to create wealth and will become as useless as a factory without workers.

The point I was making was that wealth does not attract wealth. It's not like a magnet where you can put money in a pile then money will come from various other places and attach to the money in the pile; thats ridicules. Wealth grows when you invest it. That means you have to take a chance of losing it all for the possibility of getting more. That was my point.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

It does if the management of the business that gets the investment then shifts the jobs overseas to a cheaper labor market. It does if the management increases the bottom line by putting more money into automation at the expense of the human labor. It does if the management decides to do what my employer is currently doing and shifting more lower-paying jobs to "contractor" positions staffed mostly by people who no longer have insurance coverage or any benefits and will work for less money.

Each of the examples you gave failed to demonstrate how the poor and middle class has anything TAKEN AWAY from them due to the existence of the business. True, they may not be helped, but when a business goes overseas, uses automation instead of people to build products, or use contractors, the poor and middle class will be in no worse position than they would be in if the business didn’t exist at all.

I recently watched a friend who was a technician in our group and who had been with the company more than 10 years get sent off during a "work force reduction" (the word we use for "layoffs" now). His position was immediately backfilled by a contractor who was shifted over from another lab in the company. Now clearly the work NEEDED to be done and we COULD have kept the guy who knew the most about the projects but cost more, OR we could ship him off and bring in someone cheaper. And while that cheaper person could have been doing work that was not needed, the company I worked for opted to get rid of the permanent employee.

Do you think the technician who dedicated over a decade of his life (and whose work on the projects I used him on was excellent and whom other chemists thought was great) "agreed" to be little more than chattel until someone cheaper can along?

So what’s your point? I mean; I’m sorry for your friend, but what happened to him is more of an exception rather than the rule. I can sit here and give an example where a worker got better than he bargained for; but it would be foolish for me to claim this is what happens all the time! Yeah; some workers get screwed, but then some workers get lucky. I think it sorta balances out.

That often seems to be exactly what is going on. CEO's ship jobs to China but themselves never move to China. They do so because China is cheap labor. Well, now China is getting a middle class so CEO's are shifting the labor to Indonesia where it's still dirt cheap. Human life is cheap in this global market.

It isn't the workers who are forcing this...it's the management who sees bottomline growth by cutting opex.

You are wrong. The rich ARE getting richer taking advantage of the poor. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY THEY ARE SHIFTING JOBS FROM CHINA TO INDONESIA! Cheaper labor, more poor people. Work for less.

Your beef seems to be with those who manage those companies. The super rich are not always the ones who run companies; they mostly just invest in them. And for those companies that do move overseas, they aren’t taking away from anybody except for the jobs they supplied. Don’t get me wrong; I dislike jobs going overseas as much as the next guy, but the people who lose their jobs that way are in the same position as they would be in if the company didn’t exist at all.

WRONG!

Just about 5 years ago the company I work for, a Fortune 50 monster company made us all take a 5% pay cut because times were hard.

You really need to get more experience in the work world.

C’mon! There have been cases when workers agreed to a pay cut during hard times, but that is extremely rare. Company profits go up and down all the time; often companies will spend years working in the red and though some workers may get laid off, those who remain are rarely asked to take a pay cut. The ones who feel the financial pinch are usually the stock holders by watching their share prices (along with their investment) go down

Interestingly management doesn't lose much when things go wrong. Various CEO's have driven companies into the ditch and walked away with a multimillion dollar golden handshake.

Get real. Read more of the news.

Pointing to extremely rare cases we both know is not the norm does not make your case. There are a hundred CEO’s and managers who have gotten fired for poor performance who didn’t get the multimillion dollar handshake for every one that did. Your argument failed.

Ken

 

[Viren]

No, invested wealth creates more wealth.

Ken

Not in many circumstances. For example, during the Great Depression millions of people lost their homes and big banks bought them for pennies on the dollar. That was a transfer of wealth not creation.

 

[Ken-1122]

Not in many circumstances. For example, during the Great Depression millions of people lost their homes and big banks bought them for pennies on the dollar. That was a transfer of wealth not creation.

When you invest you are taking a chance on losing your investment. Just curious; who did the big banks buy the homes from?

Ken

 

[whatbogsends]

I think you are confusing “the rich” with management. Big difference you know! But with many jobs management does pay low wages and often with those jobs a person with no experience will get the job, allow the company to spend money and time training this person, then that person will quit the low wage job and get a higher paying job with his newly acquired experience. Nobody is forced to accept a low paying job, those type of jobs are usually starter jobs where an inexperienced person can use it as a stepping stone for something better; as it should be.

I think our current free market system recognizes people are not going to be moral when it comes to work and pay, they will do what is to their advantage; which is to get as much pay for as little work as possible. So it attempts to use the drive and ability for success many have and allow them to be rewarded for those abilities while at the same time have them share a little with those who aren’t able to succeed that way

Ken

Nobody is forced to accept a low paying job unless they want to eat. There are more people looking for works than jobs, and there are more low paying jobs than high paying jobs. People have the option to work a low paying job, or remain unemployed, and won't be able to afford to eat.

"Are there no soup prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

You have not remotely addressed the reality that those who own the capital reap the majority of the productivity created by the worker. You justify this as acceptable on the false pretense of "worker choice", when that choice is limited. The game is rigged to favor the ownership of capital over ability to produce in earnings.

C’mon! There have been cases when workers agreed to a pay cut during hard times, but that is extremely rare. Company profits go up and down all the time; often companies will spend years working in the red and though some workers may get laid off, those who remain are rarely asked to take a pay cut. The ones who feel the financial pinch are usually the stock holders by watching their share prices (along with their investment) go down

While this wasn't a response to my post, i wanted to respond.

The one's who "feel the pinch" are those who are laid off, losing their income in a market in which the only jobs available pay significantly less than the jobs they had.

Then there's this gem: "workers agreed to a pay cut"?

You are somewhat correct, in that it is generally rare that workers are asked to take a pay cut. Usually, they are simply laid off. In that case, the choice is made for them.

However, when presented with a pay-cut, unless that worker belongs to a union, they don't have the opportunity to disagree. It's take the pay cut, or lose your job.

"As layoffs become the energy industry’s main response to low oil prices, a handful of producers are aiming to trim personnel costs without pink slips by spreading the pain among their employees.

Companies including Occidental Petroleum Corp. and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.are employing hiring freezes, caps on bonuses, and even across-the-board wage cuts to preserve jobs. They and others that already have reduced payrolls—including many drilling and well servicing firms—are reluctant to slash further, say energy-industry experts.

In part, they’re trying to avoid the type of skilled worker shortages that followed mass job cuts in prior downturns. But it’s also because their businesses can’t succeed without sufficient staff, especially if the downturn in oil prices reverses course.

“There’s no more fat to be cut,” said Deborah Byers, a partner at consultants Ernst & Young in charge of its U.S. oil and gas practice."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cutting-staff-pay-to-keep-workers-1444690841


"In Hewlett-Packard's latest round of layoffs, some employees have been given a layoff ultimatum: Take a new job at another company where HP has a contract-work agreement, or be fired with no layoff package severance.

On the one hand, a job offer is better than no job at all.
...
HP employees were told they'd have 48 hours to look over the job offer and accept or decline.

One told us, "The Ciber offer is ridiculous. The pay is about one-half of what I make."

Another told us that the offer was roughly $30,000 below market rate for similar jobs. This person told us the "offer is non-negotiable, at least it was for me."
...
They can turn the job down but HP will still cut them and they will not be eligible for the standard layoff package, one week of pay for every year of service, multiple sources have told us.

They will be given two weeks severance, one person said."

http://www.businessinsider.com/hp-workers-unhappy-with-layoff-ultimatum-2015-9

"Detroit area Fiat Chrysler workers reacted with anger over the growing revelations that the new contract being pushed by the United Auto Workers union contains a series of new wage tiers that will facilitate the auto industry’s drive to establish a permanently lower pay scale.

The UAW has accepted the expanded use of temp workers, who will be hired at $15.78 an hour, and lower maximum wages for Mopar parts workers ($25) and axle operation workers ($19.86). In addition it will take second-tier workers, dubbed by the UAW as “in-progression” workers, eight years to reach “traditional wages.” However, for second tier worker with four years seniority or less these promises are meaningless since they can be nullified for “economic reasons” after the expiration of the four-year contract in 2019."

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/10/15/ausm-o15-2.html

 

[amanuensis63]

Each of the examples you gave failed to demonstrate how the poor and middle class has anything TAKEN AWAY from them due to the existence of the business.

Really? because I see JOBS and LIVELIHOODS and INCOME taken away from the poor and middle class.

So what’s your point? I mean; I’m sorry for your friend, but what happened to him is more of an exception rather than the rule

Not really. You see the number of technicians who are full employees of the company has been dwindling since I started here and now they are moving more and more over to contrators.

In fact the use of contractors for lower level positions is quite a business in and of itself. There are entire companies dedicated to providing contract labor.

Your beef seems to be with those who manage those companies.

The upper levels, the ones who are taking home the lions share of income from the company. Yes. Isn't that what we are talking about in terms of income inequality? Those who have MUCH MORE and those who have MUCH LESS and how the game is rigged against the latter?

C’mon! There have been cases when workers agreed to a pay cut during hard times, but that is extremely rare.

Like I said, I work for a company that likely YOU BUY STUFF FROM. I'm willing to bet you have at least one of our pieces of equipment. We are gigantic. Fortune 50. So it's not like we were struggling to keep the lights on. And a few years back I lived in Atlanta and watched as Delta airlines asked their pilots to take a pay cut. This isn't that rare.

Company profits go up and down all the time; often companies will spend years working in the red and though some workers may get laid off, those who remain are rarely asked to take a pay cut. The ones who feel the financial pinch are usually the stock holders by watching their share prices (along with their investment) go down

-sigh- It's almost like you haven't read anything I've typed. Shareholders in the US are driving the corporations to go for shot term returns. The ONLY people who are asked to invest for the long haul are those of us suckers who are foisted off onto 401k's for our retirement. We watch as the mutual funds we invest in go down and fees eat our retirement alive and we are told "don't worry, wait a decade and it'll all work out!" Meanwhile I work on projects that get slashed because the company can't make a giant profit in 5 weeks. I've seen companies release a product that they invested years into making and then pull it in less than 6 months because the returns weren't there.

Pointing to extremely rare cases we both know is not the norm does not make your case.

So far I seem to be the only one who has a nodding familiarity with how corporate America operates. You didn't know other CEO's sat corporate boards, you seemed to think compensation committees were some sort of freely open election, and you are busy now special pleading for every single excess raised (and I can keep raising them as long as you like...at some point these "excesses" cease to be rare.)

Like I said, spend some time working in corporate America. Tell me what it's like getting your doctorate and then working for a corporation that allows you an average annual pay increase that is half of cost of living increases and tell me how many decades YOU'D be ok with that.

 

[amanuensis63]

The point I was making was that wealth does not attract wealth. It's not like a magnet where you can put money in a pile then money will come from various other places and attach to the money in the pile; thats ridicules.

Are you telling us you don't understand compound interest and how that works?

But on a larger scale, wealth DOES attract wealth. Study after study shows that people who are born to the wealthy have a much higher chance of going on to be successful and wealthy themselves. The advantages wealth provides are innumerable and start at the cradle.

Wealth grows when you invest it. That means you have to take a chance of losing it all for the possibility of getting more. That was my point.

But the ONLY way wealth grows from an investment is if someone is willing to do the work. The investor clicks a few buttons on the computer and sits and waits. Meanwhile me and my fellow workers at the mega corporation dutifully do our jobs and make the widgets and generate return on the investors' investment.

Without me the investor is just clicking buttons on a machine and throwing money away. WITH me they stand a chance to getting a return on their investment.

We are equally important.

 

[Viren]

When you invest you are taking a chance on losing your investment. Just curious; who did the big banks buy the homes from?
Ken

Probably home owners who lost their jobs. My point is much of the financial investments are transfers of wealth. There are people that made billions off of shorting the housing market in 2007. They actually made money when wealth was destroyed.

 

[amanuensis63]

Probably home owners who lost their jobs. My point is much of the financial investments are transfers of wealth. There are people that made billions off of shorting the housing market in 2007. They actually made money when wealth was destroyed.

Yup. They bundled high risk mortgages like a wad of toxic waste in other investments then went out and bought insurance against people defaulting. Basically they bet that people would default and it paid off big.

If that doesn't sound like the game is rigged for the wealthy then I can't think of something that would.

 

[Ken-1122]

Nobody is forced to accept a low paying job unless they want to eat. There are more people looking for works than jobs, and there are more low paying jobs than high paying jobs. People have the option to work a low paying job, or remain unemployed, and won't be able to afford to eat.

"Are there no soup prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

Most low paying jobs will pay enough for a single person to get a small apt, a bus ticket, and enough to eat; as long as they live in a cheap neighborhood, and stay away from the big expensive cities. The problem is when someone has no skills, can only get a low wage "starter job" then they proceed to start a family when they cannot afford one.

You have not remotely addressed the reality that those who own the capital reap the majority of the productivity created by the worker.

Yes I did. Those who are responsible for creating wealth are the ones who are in a position to reap the majority of the benefits of this created wealth. I've said this over and over.

While this wasn't a response to my post, i wanted to respond.

The one's who "feel the pinch" are those who are laid off, losing their income in a market in which the only jobs available pay significantly less than the jobs they had.

layoffs happen when things are really bad. When things start to go bad, the shareholders are the first to feel the pinch. It is much more common for a shareholder to lose money on his investment than it is for an employee to get laid off when things get a little slow. the shareholder is taking more of the risk.

ken

 

[amanuensis63]

Those who are responsible for creating wealth are the ones who are in a position to reap the majority of the benefits of this created wealth. I've said this over and over.

That is EVERYONE from the line worker on up to the CEO.

But that isn't what has been happening the last 30+ years. Over the last 3 decades the middle level average income has stagnated while corporate profits grow and grow and grow. The top people in those organizations see pay increases amounting to many times the amount anyone in the middle or lower ends sees (I've posted the graph a couple times now).

The ONLY way this would be even marginally fair is if the people at the top have become a race of superbeings capable of doing hundreds of people's jobs simlutaneously.

That isn't what is happening. The game is rigged. Wealth attracts wealth and power attracts power.

layoffs happen when things are really bad.

I'm sorry, Ken, but you seem to have very little real world experience in the workplace. Layoffs happen not only when things get really bad...but also when the quarterly numbers don't come in and the management can't figure out how to grow profits...so they cut opex which means lay people off.

It really does sound like you have some idealized and non-real view of the workworld here in the US. I work for an international company. They have an EASY time laying off Americans but it's harder when the need to lay off Europeans because they have to work through "works councils" that protect jobs from just this type of random wheel of desperation.

 

[Aldebaran]

That is EVERYONE from the line worker on up to the CEO.

But that isn't what has been happening the last 30+ years. Over the last 3 decades the middle level average income has stagnated while corporate profits grow and grow and grow. The top people in those organizations see pay increases amounting to many times the amount anyone in the middle or lower ends sees (I've posted the graph a couple times now).

The ONLY way this would be even marginally fair is if the people at the top have become a race of superbeings capable of doing hundreds of people's jobs simlutaneously.

That isn't what is happening. The game is rigged. Wealth attracts wealth and power attracts power.

It may not sound "fair", but really, does it affect the average Joe? If I'm working at a job and accepting the pay I agreed to for the agreed-upon job, then how is it affecting me what some CEO is making?

 

[Fantine]

I just hope they will turn to the ballot box instead of open revolts. All we need to do is throw the bums out--235 in the House and about 54 or so in the Senate.

And we need to elect a Democrat in 2016--because we can't afford any more bums on the Supreme Court.

 

[amanuensis63]

It may not sound "fair", but really, does it affect the average Joe? If I'm working at a job and accepting the pay I agreed to for the agreed-upon job, then how is it affecting me what some CEO is making?

Yeah, it does. If over the last 30 years your salary has effectively stagnated while the folks at the top earn on average 300X what you make and they get massive pay increases year over year....guess where that money's coming form?

The only people who have seen increases in average salary over the last 30 years have been the upper echelons. NOW either you believe that a CEO actually does 300X the amount of work you do or you have to assume that the game is rigged against you.

As I stated earlier I once read an SEC filing from a major corporation that outlined executive compensation. Their new CEO was being paid millions in base salary and mulitmillions more in stock etc. In his contract the company had to help him pay his mortgage because he'd moved from the midwest to the West Coast. In addition many CEO's get lavish perks like thousands and thousands of dollars worth of personal use of the corporate jets to fly them and their families all over.

I've worked for a corporation now for about 10 years and in those 10 years my salary has averaged a 2% increase year over year. Half of cost of living increases. And I have a PhD and work in a relatively rare area of expertise. I've been given numerous high rankings in my research group annually.

So, yeah, my pay is impacted by how much the corporation has to pay out the millionaires at the top. ESPECIALLY when they have to help some of them pay their mortgages.

 

[Ken-1122]

Really? because I see JOBS and LIVELIHOODS and INCOME taken away from the poor and middle class.

Is some rich guy coming by taking the jobs away? No; the same company who gave them the job takes it away. As I said before, they are in the same position they would be if the company didn’t exist.

Not really. You see the number of technicians who are full employees of the company has been dwindling since I started here and now they are moving more and more over to contrators.

In fact the use of contractors for lower level positions is quite a business in and of itself. There are entire companies dedicated to providing contract labor.

Are you specifically talking about technician jobs? Or are you talking about all the jobs that exist? Because with most jobs, it is unusual for someone to be hired to only turn around and train somebody else to do their job for less pay.

The upper levels, the ones who are taking home the lions share of income from the company. Yes. Isn't that what we are talking about in terms of income inequality? Those who have MUCH MORE and those who have MUCH LESS and how the game is rigged against the latter?

Are you suggesting the low pay of the line worker is directly connected to the high pay of upper management?

-sigh- It's almost like you haven't read anything I've typed. Shareholders in the US are driving the corporations to go for shot term returns. The ONLY people who are asked to invest for the long haul are those of us suckers who are foisted off onto 401k's for our retirement.

What are you basing this off of? Most of the companies I know of plan for the long term because they plan to be around for a while.

So far I seem to be the only one who has a nodding familiarity with how corporate America operates. You didn't know other CEO's sat corporate boards,

Do you have anything other than your word to back up your claim that CEO’s sit on the board of companies they compete against?

you seemed to think compensation committees were some sort of freely open election, and you are busy now special pleading for every single excess raised (and I can keep raising them as long as you like...at some point these "excesses" cease to be rare.)

So are you saying most of the CEO’s who drive their companies into the ground walk away with multimillion dollar handshakes? If this is what you are saying, first describe what you mean by “multimillion dollar handshake,” then tell me what you are basing this off of.


Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Are you telling us you don't understand compound interest and how that works?

That's different. There is a lot more going on behind the scene with compound interest, than just attracting wealth.

But on a larger scale, wealth DOES attract wealth. Study after study shows that people who are born to the wealthy have a much higher chance of going on to be successful and wealthy themselves. The advantages wealth provides are innumerable and start at the cradle.

that's different too. People born to wealth are raised in an environment of wealth and they have more opportunity to learn to invest and make money. Now if that is how you define "wealth attracting wealth", then I agree with you. But I don't define it that way.

But the ONLY way wealth grows from an investment is if someone is willing to do the work. The investor clicks a few buttons on the computer and sits and waits. Meanwhile me and my fellow workers at the mega corporation dutifully do our jobs and make the widgets and generate return on the investors' investment.

Without me the investor is just clicking buttons on a machine and throwing money away. WITH me they stand a chance to getting a return on their investment.

We are equally important.

As I said before, all factors are important, but the investor is taking more of a chance of losing his money than the worker.


Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Probably home owners who lost their jobs.

During the Depression, when people lost their jobs, many lost their homes to the banks when they forclosed. The bank was left holding the balance of what was owed on the house. that’s different than the bank buying a house for pennies on the dollar.

My point is much of the financial investments are transfers of wealth. There are people that made billions off of shorting the housing market in 2007. They actually made money when wealth was destroyed.

True! People make and lose money all the time. When times are good, there are still those who are doing bad as a result, and when times are bad, there are those who are doing good as a result.

Ken

 

[amanuensis63]

Is some rich guy coming by taking the jobs away?

Literally YES, that happens. That's when a CEO ships jobs overseas because the workers are cheaper there.

Are you specifically talking about technician jobs? Or are you talking about all the jobs that exist?

You say "technician" as if you think it is a lower level job. Funny. The people I've seen booted out for cheaper are all people with college degrees in an area not many people go into (chemistry).

But, here's the creepy thing, I just heard that the company might be able to contract in people at my level, PhD chemist. They don't want to right now, but there are companies out there who will contract in PhD level chemists for you.

Oh yeah, and China is now starting up contract R&D labs! Cheaper labor.

Are you suggesting the low pay of the line worker is directly connected to the high pay of upper management?

Yes. A company has only so much revenue and if as the company grows and prospers the upper management are the only ones to see gains and the lower level folks see NO GAINS then it is directly related.

What are you basing this off of? Most of the companies I know of plan for the long term because they plan to be around for a while.

I base it off a couple decades of working in industry. I work for companies that also interact with foreign companies. It is a known fact that American corporations tend to be shorter term on their investments. They invest in a technology or a program in hopes of getting a quick turn. European companies are more willing to let an investment grow to see if the market picks it up.

As examples: the company I worked for started a project which they funded for years for development and then put out in the open market. They didn't get their returns over the course of about 2 years so they finally got out of the market. The same company released a product onto the market and literally pulled it 6 weeks after it was released.

The company wants to stick around for a long time, but that doesn't mean they plan their investment in programs long term. That is why they obsess on NPV and NPVi.

Do you have anything other than your word to back up your claim that CEO’s sit on the board of companies they compete against?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate

(Honestly, Ken, no offense but you clearly know next to nothing about this topic. You should really learn this stuff. I'm not a business person, but even I know this stuff. I take it you don't work for a corporation and you don't have any investments).

So are you saying most of the CEO’s who drive their companies into the ground walk away with multimillion dollar handshakes? If this is what you are saying, first describe what you mean by “multimillion dollar handshake,” then tell me what you are basing this off of.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/golden-handshake.html

Ken, I don't mean to be rude, primarily because I don't particularly like business topics, I'm a research scientist...it's not my thing. But I've spent a couple decades in the trenches. I've taken the time to learn about this stuff largely through watching it unfold around me and realizing it wasn't just the company I worked for at the time that was doing this stuff. I do think you should educated yourself at least on the basics of how corporate governance works and the excesses they treat themselves to.

 

[whatbogsends]

Literally YES, that happens. That's when a CEO ships jobs overseas because the workers are cheaper there.

You say "technician" as if you think it is a lower level job. Funny. The people I've seen booted out for cheaper are all people with college degrees in an area not many people go into (chemistry).

But, here's the creepy thing, I just heard that the company might be able to contract in people at my level, PhD chemist. They don't want to right now, but there are companies out there who will contract in PhD level chemists for you.

Oh yeah, and China is now starting up contract R&D labs! Cheaper labor.

Yes. A company has only so much revenue and if as the company grows and prospers the upper management are the only ones to see gains and the lower level folks see NO GAINS then it is directly related.

I base it off a couple decades of working in industry. I work for companies that also interact with foreign companies. It is a known fact that American corporations tend to be shorter term on their investments. They invest in a technology or a program in hopes of getting a quick turn. European companies are more willing to let an investment grow to see if the market picks it up.

As examples: the company I worked for started a project which they funded for years for development and then put out in the open market. They didn't get their returns over the course of about 2 years so they finally got out of the market. The same company released a product onto the market and literally pulled it 6 weeks after it was released.

The company wants to stick around for a long time, but that doesn't mean they plan their investment in programs long term. That is why they obsess on NPV and NPVi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate

(Honestly, Ken, no offense but you clearly know next to nothing about this topic. You should really learn this stuff. I'm not a business person, but even I know this stuff. I take it you don't work for a corporation and you don't have any investments).

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/golden-handshake.html

Ken, I don't mean to be rude, primarily because I don't particularly like business topics, I'm a research scientist...it's not my thing. But I've spent a couple decades in the trenches. I've taken the time to learn about this stuff largely through watching it unfold around me and realizing it wasn't just the company I worked for at the time that was doing this stuff. I do think you should educated yourself at least on the basics of how corporate governance works and the excesses they treat themselves to.

Amanuensis, i've seen these stories unfold around me at my job as well (over 15 years with company), as well as companies my friends and relatives have been in. One can perform above expectations, year on end, but ultimately, the company decides to "restructure", hiring foreign sub-contractors at reduced costs, laying off good workers because they can get cheaper labor elsewhere.

Moreover, i've seen CEOs come and go, some with the company performing poorly during their tenure, others getting fired for ethics violations with a multi-million dollar parachute cushioning their exit.

Like politicians pay lip service to their constituents, but then put into place policies which benefit the big monied interests, corporations pay lip service to their employees, but enact policies which treat them as disposable parts.