Those unions watching out for their workers...

[variant]

I was commenting on your chart. But, the latest quarter is showing lower profit, lower revenue, and downward forecasts in upcoming quarters.

Yeah, everyone is afraid to hire with Obama as President, so productivity soars and profits with it.

Your right.

We can only get to your type of reasoning by cherry picking the data.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

I was commenting on your chart. But, the latest quarter is showing lower profit, lower revenue, and downward forecasts in upcoming quarters.

The "latest quarter"? That's not an indicator. That's a quarter.

Yeah, everyone is afraid to hire with Obama as President, so productivity soars and profits with it.

So why were corporate profits going up so quickly during his first term? Were they unaware Obama was in office for 4 straight years?

The corporations should be glad it isn't REAGAN....OR NIXON! Or Bush I or Bush II or even EISENHOWER!

I can see why they fear Obama so very, very much!

EEEEEEEE!

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Well, at least you got around to admitting I was right.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

The "latest quarter"? That's not an indicator. That's a quarter.



So why were corporate profits going up so quickly during his first term? Were they unaware Obama was in office for 4 straight years?

The corporations should be glad it isn't REAGAN....OR NIXON! Or Bush I or Bush II or even EISENHOWER!

I can see why they fear Obama so very, very much!

EEEEEEEE!

Bush put Obama in position where there was nowhere to go but up. I'm amazed at how much better Bush did compared to Clinton per your data. Both Bush Sr and Bush Jr. Wow.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Let's see how Obama did on GDP.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Let's see how Obama did on GDP.

So we are moving to GDP away from Corporate profits now?

OK.

But here's the more disturbing question:

How do Corporate Profits go up while GDP remains relatively flat to down?

I'm actually quite curious about this. Because it seems that if we are going to stop discussing CORPORATE PROFITS so we can find just something that has gotten worse under Obama, then maybe we need to remember that the corporations don't necessarily seem to be seeing the same reality as the rest of us do.

And also remember, some corporations put as much of their cash overseas so as to avoid any US tax implications.

I'm curious how this all works to help us feel better about the corporations.

I bet it's the UNIONS isn't it? Grrr Unions. And Obama! He's FORCING these corporations, who even though making money at unprecedented rates, he's forcing them to keep that money hidden away!

Grrrr Obama!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Bush put Obama in position where there was nowhere to go but up.

You mean the implosion of the US housing bubble that sparked the global financial crisis, right?
Well, one thing's for certain: when things hit rock bottom, there's nowhere left to go but up.

 

[USincognito]

So, how are you gonna stop businesses from moving to places where they don't have to deal with unions as Boeing did. They closed up shops in Washington and moved south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Whine all you want about how unfair it is, but unless you are going to pass laws forbidding companies from moving your are gonna have to get over it.

If you are OK with that, then 'fair' would dictate that employees can't leave the state either.

I'm sure the "makers" will continue to live lifestyles of the rich and famous behind gated community walls while we "takers*" are all out of work after they outsource every single job they can. And some of you guys say the liberals are trying to destroy America...


*I guess wanting a paycheck for my work makes me a taker.

 

[USincognito]

Education does not provide jobs.

Unions do not provide jobs either.

Companies do, based on their NEED for employees. No need, no job.

And companies have need when people have money to spend on their products. When American wages are driven low enough they can't afford to buy extra things and our consumer based economy lags or collapses.

 

[USincognito]

China isn't booming because they have more educated workers. They are booming because labor costs are much less than the US. Any idea how much labor goes into a new Iphone?

$8

Are you suggesting we emulate China?

 

[USincognito]

Companies need educated workers.

Only if there is work for them to do.

There's plenty of work for people with educations. Unfortunately the majority of those jobs are in trades and employers are having a hard time finding educated employees.
Skilled trades shortage stalling future growth

I don't care how much someone else makes. I am glad they are making money. Everyone hopes to do that.

If my employers are keeping an inordinate amount of the money made via the sweat of my brow - and wanting me to accept the crumbs - I'm going to care how much they're making.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

If my employers are keeping an inordinate amount of the money made via the sweat of my brow - and wanting me to accept the crumbs - I'm going to care how much they're making.

This is the core of the discussion!!! Excellent point!

That's what we are seeing in industry: an abrogation of the American ideal of "fairness".

Let's take the example of the CEO of Caterpillar. At a time when Cat was making big profits and paying their CEO $17 million after a nearly 60% pay raise for him the company decides that the workers should have a multi-year pay freeze.

This is simply sick.

This isn't America. This is pre-Revolution France.

America is a country dedicated to a sense of fairness and upward mobility.

My dad wouldn't recognize this America. My dad was pulled out of school in the 8th grade during the height of the Depression. He was dirt poor and they worked a farm to make a living. After the War he got into a company at the bottom and worked his way up to middle management.

Now granted my dad had more native intelligence than most people, but still his ascent wouldn't happen today. Because he only got a GED (I think) and not an MBA or college degree today would keep him out of the door altogether.

Not to mention it would keep him out of any supervisory positions.

Today we no longer live in anything even marginally like a meritocracy and when people of lower means do anything to gain even a modicum of power to balance out the excesses of those at the top they are pushed back hard and forced to watch the top gorge themselves.

60% pay increase. $17 million. Record profits of $4.9 billion.

6 year pay freeze.

Welcome to the REAL America.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

....

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Are you suggesting we emulate China?

Isn't that exactly what Corporate directors believe? The folks responsible for figuring out how to reign in opex for a company see "human resources" (a biological liability) as being one of the bigger costs.

Since human life is less valuable in places like China it's an easy answer!

The very minute I see a CEO of a US-based "multinational corporation" (a code word here in the US for a company that is trying to detangle itself from the country that allowed it to even exist in the first place) move to China him or herself along with the jobs because it's so much better than America, then I'll believe it has something to do with America's problems.

But they won't do that. They like living in America for now. Of course as the economy collapses and more and more poor people abound it requires greater levels of security against those people, and this is good because some CEO's have the company pay for their HOME SECURITY!

Yup. Look at some SEC filings and you can see the goodies corporations give their CEOs. Some corporations even provide financial planning for the CEO.

I'm surprised they don't contractually offer them a bottom-wiping service after they defecate.

Now there's a job a CEO can't offshore!

(But by that same token, there may be "under the counter illegal immigrants" one can pay to do that. It's so hard to know what to do when people love America as much as Corporate Boards of Directors do.)

 

[MachZer0]

The Hostess liquidation offers us a great opportunity to see liberal ideology work. One of our liberal friends or a consortium thereof should buy of the hostess brands and facilities, pay themselves what they believe is proper for management and owners, pay the workers "the value of their work" and show us how successful their ideology can be. But we won't be holding our collective breaths

 

[TeddyReceptus]

The Hostess liquidation offers us a great opportunity to see liberal ideology work. One of our liberal friends or a consortium thereof should buy of the hostess brands and facilities, pay themselves what they believe is proper for management and owners, pay the workers "the value of their work" and show us how successful their ideology can be. But we won't be holding our collective breaths

Again, let history be your guide.

Up until the 1980's CEO pay wasn't grotesquely outpacing worker pay.

In 1960 the average CEO earned 40 times what the average worker earned (SOURCE)

During the postwar boom, pay for U.S. CEOs remained fairly steady in real dollars until the 1970s. But under new tax policies, the 1980s saw the rise of stock options. Intended to tie executive pay to performance, they offered the potential for huge riches with little downside, encouraging risk-taking. In 1991, CEOs earned 140 times the average worker's pay. A 1993 attempt to cap compensation merely shifted more pay into options. By 2007 the median S&P 500 CEO earned in three hours what a minimum-wage worker pulled down in a year. And Great Recession or no, 2009 looks like more of the same. (SOURCE)

One doesn't have to be "liberal" to see that something is askew here. And one doesn't need to be a "liberal" to run a company without piling money at the top.

(I honestly am fascinated at how our Conservative friends on these boards can justify this level of greed and excess. The mindset is absolutely fascinating! It's almost like there aren't any "blue collar Conservatives" on this board! Huh!)

During the postwar boom, pay for U.S. CEOs remained fairly steady in real dollars until the 1970s. But under new tax policies, the 1980s saw the rise of stock options. Intended to tie executive pay to performance, they offered the potential for huge riches with little downside, encouraging risk-taking. In 1991, CEOs earned 140 times the average worker's pay. A 1993 attempt to cap compensation merely shifted more pay into options. By 2007 the median S&P 500 CEO earned in three hours what a minimum-wage worker pulled down in a year. And Great Recession or no, 2009 looks like more of the same.

Read more: Brief History: Executive Pay - TIME

During the postwar boom, pay for U.S. CEOs remained fairly steady in real dollars until the 1970s. But under new tax policies, the 1980s saw the rise of stock options. Intended to tie executive pay to performance, they offered the potential for huge riches with little downside, encouraging risk-taking. In 1991, CEOs earned 140 times the average worker's pay. A 1993 attempt to cap compensation merely shifted more pay into options. By 2007 the median S&P 500 CEO earned in three hours what a minimum-wage worker pulled down in a year. And Great Recession or no, 2009 looks like more of the same.

Read more: Brief History: Executive Pay - TIME
​

 

[Thekla]

The Hostess liquidation offers us a great opportunity to see liberal ideology work. One of our liberal friends or a consortium thereof should buy of the hostess brands and facilities, pay themselves what they believe is proper for management and owners, pay the workers "the value of their work" and show us how successful their ideology can be. But we won't be holding our collective breaths

I don't think corporate mismanagement is exclusive to liberals (though in this case the PE involved was headed by a Dem.).

Hostess has been going downhill for years.

 

[MachZer0]

Again, let history be your guide.

Up until the 1980's CEO pay wasn't grotesquely outpacing worker pay.

In 1960 the average CEO earned 40 times what the average worker earned (SOURCE)



One doesn't have to be "liberal" to see that something is askew here. And one doesn't need to be a "liberal" to run a company without piling money at the top.

(I honestly am fascinated at how our Conservative friends on these boards can justify this level of greed and excess. The mindset is absolutely fascinating! It's almost like there aren't any "blue collar Conservatives" on this board! Huh!)

During the postwar boom, pay for U.S. CEOs remained fairly steady in real dollars until the 1970s. But under new tax policies, the 1980s saw the rise of stock options. Intended to tie executive pay to performance, they offered the potential for huge riches with little downside, encouraging risk-taking. In 1991, CEOs earned 140 times the average worker's pay. A 1993 attempt to cap compensation merely shifted more pay into options. By 2007 the median S&P 500 CEO earned in three hours what a minimum-wage worker pulled down in a year. And Great Recession or no, 2009 looks like more of the same.

Read more: Brief History: Executive Pay - TIME

During the postwar boom, pay for U.S. CEOs remained fairly steady in real dollars until the 1970s. But under new tax policies, the 1980s saw the rise of stock options. Intended to tie executive pay to performance, they offered the potential for huge riches with little downside, encouraging risk-taking. In 1991, CEOs earned 140 times the average worker's pay. A 1993 attempt to cap compensation merely shifted more pay into options. By 2007 the median S&P 500 CEO earned in three hours what a minimum-wage worker pulled down in a year. And Great Recession or no, 2009 looks like more of the same.

Read more: Brief History: Executive Pay - TIME
​

What I'm doing is offering a challenge to our liberal friends to prove that their ideology can work. I'm not expecting any takers though, for the obvious reasons

 

[TeddyReceptus]

What I'm doing is offering a challenge to our liberal friends to prove that their ideology can work. I'm not expecting any takers though, for the obvious reasons

And I'm telling you it was already shown to work in the middle of the 20th century. Liberal or not!

Greed knows no party.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That's what we are seeing in industry: an abrogation of the American ideal of "fairness".

Let's take the example of the CEO of Caterpillar. At a time when Cat was making big profits and paying their CEO $17 million after a nearly 60% pay raise for him the company decides that the workers should have a multi-year pay freeze.

This is simply sick.

This isn't America. This is pre-Revolution France.

America is a country dedicated to a sense of fairness and upward mobility.
.

It's amazing seeing how the revolution occurred when the lower - class weren't being treated fairly while it was deemed "fair" for the oligarchs and others on the very top to hoard so much and say it was meant to be that way.....and that's something folks need to be aware of as being inherently unstable.