Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:

TGD wrote:GE doesn't care about financial derivatives

stahrgazer wrote:Goldman Sachs lays off some people which is proof that GE does care about financial derivatives.

Wrong company dearie. Try again.

stahrgazer wrote:GE loses $200 million on mortgage-backed securities.

There you go! Nice work. Now you need to prove that $200 million is enough for GE to care about AND that GE cares more about it than other companies AND that GE's corporate officers' salaries are influenced by decisions related to mortgage-backed securities. I'm sure you can get your professor to help you.

stahrgazer wrote:In 2011, GE forces people to work 32 hours a week to pay them less and not give them supplemental pay when they are laid off. CEO makes $14 million in salary, stock awards, and deferred earnings in 2008.

Other than the fact that the dates are three years apart (and the major portion is from two years ago) and other than the fact that stock awards and deferred earnings probably make up 95% to 99% of that $14 million, it's disturbing. So what? What contributes to this and what do you think we should do about it? Two questions you have yet to answer.

stahrgazer wrote:GE paid 2.3% federal taxes on $81 billion of profit.

The same bogus fact that keeps being brought up again and again and again by ignorant media members. How much of those profits were earned in the United States? How much of those profits were earned overseas? How much tax did GE pay overseas? Is this "problem" of GE not paying enough US taxes indicative of GE doing something wrong; if the answer is yes, please explain exactly what GE is doing wrong and how you propose to fix it?

It's not a "bogus fact," it's a real fact.

It's a US company that got big enough to go "overseas" at all because of US Government contracts, so it's "wrong" morally/patriotically, even if it's currently "Legal." But man the stinkum that Obama wants to close those loopholes and go after taxes for US companies' foreign assets (like our nation used to do.)

Personally I'd like to see trade tariffs on imports reinstated to re-equalize the balance, making it more profitable to employ people here to make things to export than to do the reverse.

It'd sure help ensure that our nation's defenses can be done properly.

I've stated in threads I worked for Pratt & Whitney at one time. At the time, some of the parts we needed could no longer be obtained from U.S. manufacturers because all the manufacturing got moved overseas. How'd you like your next-generation Air Force jet to be "made in Japan," or "Made in China," or "Made in Pakistan," like so many other jobs/products did? Imagine it, Greek, having our nation's security dependent on Pakistanis keeping our products "secret" from possible terrorists within their border.

Or would you say that our government shouldn't allow that to happen? Shouldn't deal with companies who manufacture overseas just in case that means our defense products ALSO get made overseas?

If not our defense products, why any of the products that we could and used to make here?

Should the government do what it can to keep production lines open so our US defense products DO continue to be 100% national? Well, to do that, it means "manufacturing" has to be kept here. And to do that, the government has to step in. And if the government steps in on that (as I believe it should have all along) then these CEOs can't send our jobs "over there," to claim massive profits.

I'd like to see a system that bases a product on its cost to make, not on "whatever the fools will pay." We do it in times of emergency (price gouging after a hurricane, etc., is a felony offense) and if we stopped that, the companies wouldn't go make things overseas for peanuts, to sell it here at prices just as though they were made here (Nike vs. New Balance, for example) which means CEO salaries would naturally be less.


As to your complaint that in my examples the cause sometimes preceded the effect by three years, well, sometimes that happens in economics, dearie. The "housing crash" technically took place in 2008 but there are still a ton of houses upside-down, still banks paying off TARP, still folks who were laid off then that aren't back to work (so more houses being foreclosed on)... as I said, sometimes there is a time delay between cause and effect.

stahrgazer wrote:It's not a "bogus fact," it's a real fact.

It's a US company that got big enough to go "overseas" at all because of US Government contracts, so it's "wrong" morally/patriotically, even if it's currently "Legal." But man the stinkum that Obama wants to close those loopholes and go after taxes for US companies' foreign assets (like our nation used to do.)

Personally I'd like to see trade tariffs on imports reinstated to re-equalize the balance, making it more profitable to employ people here to make things to export than to do the reverse.

I'm not really sure what to make of this part. It's a bogus fact because it's used to justify discussions about General Electric not paying it's fair share (whatever that may be). If the people that like to use such statistics bothered to report the entirety of tax paid by General Electric, they might understand that GE is paying it's fair share (whatever that may be). If people that like to use such statistics had any sense, they would realize that their outrage is better served by being directed at Congress and the president, and not at the company itself. And patriotism? Do you pay more taxes than you are legally required to pay? Would you purchase stock in a company that pays more taxes than they are legally required to pay? Would you work for a company knowing that your salary would be lower if the company paid more taxes than it legally had to pay? If you answer yes to any of those questions, you're lying.

I don't disagree that there are things that can be done to the current tax code that would force companies to pay more in taxes. What I disagree with is the characterization that paying more taxes than is legally required has to do with morality. And I also disagree with your characterization of the president as someone who wants to close loopholes. He just recently signed an extension of various tax incentives for big business, while at the same time raising taxes on all individual Americans. So stop with that "Obama wants to close loopholes" nonsense. Obama doesn't want to close loopholes. And they aren't loopholes when they are purposefully placed in the tax code by Congress.

stahrgazer wrote:It'd sure help ensure that our nation's defenses can be done properly.

No kidding.

stahrgazer wrote:I'd like to see a system that bases a product on its cost to make, not on "whatever the fools will pay." We do it in times of emergency (price gouging after a hurricane, etc., is a felony offense) and if we stopped that, the companies wouldn't go make things overseas for peanuts, to sell it here at prices just as though they were made here (Nike vs. New Balance, for example) which means CEO salaries would naturally be less.

Do you have an i-phone or similar device? How much money did you pay for it?

I purchased an i-phone for $300. How much would the device have cost if Apple manufactured the device and all of its attendant parts in the United States? Would that have influenced my decision to purchase the i-phone?

It's great to want US companies to manufacture in the United States and it's great that we want people to have jobs. But all those people that now have jobs wouldn't be able to afford the product and you wouldn't either because the costs would be too high. And trust me, the CEO taking a $10 million cut in pay isn't going to make up for that cost.

The problem with jobs going overseas has to do directly with US taxation, US regulations, and US employment laws. I'm not saying we should or need to change any of that stuff, but if you're suggesting we do change these things, think about the relative cost to US consumers.

thegreekdog wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:It's not a "bogus fact," it's a real fact.

It's a US company that got big enough to go "overseas" at all because of US Government contracts, so it's "wrong" morally/patriotically, even if it's currently "Legal." But man the stinkum that Obama wants to close those loopholes and go after taxes for US companies' foreign assets (like our nation used to do.)

Personally I'd like to see trade tariffs on imports reinstated to re-equalize the balance, making it more profitable to employ people here to make things to export than to do the reverse.

I'm not really sure what to make of this part. It's a bogus fact because it's used to justify discussions about General Electric not paying it's fair share (whatever that may be). If the people that like to use such statistics bothered to report the entirety of tax paid by General Electric, they might understand that GE is paying it's fair share (whatever that may be). If people that like to use such statistics had any sense, they would realize that their outrage is better served by being directed at Congress and the president, and not at the company itself. And patriotism? Do you pay more taxes than you are legally required to pay? Would you purchase stock in a company that pays more taxes than they are legally required to pay? Would you work for a company knowing that your salary would be lower if the company paid more taxes than it legally had to pay? If you answer yes to any of those questions, you're lying.

I don't disagree that there are things that can be done to the current tax code that would force companies to pay more in taxes. What I disagree with is the characterization that paying more taxes than is legally required has to do with morality. And I also disagree with your characterization of the president as someone who wants to close loopholes. He just recently signed an extension of various tax incentives for big business, while at the same time raising taxes on all individual Americans. So stop with that "Obama wants to close loopholes" nonsense. Obama doesn't want to close loopholes. And they aren't loopholes when they are purposefully placed in the tax code by Congress.

stahrgazer wrote:It'd sure help ensure that our nation's defenses can be done properly.

No kidding.

stahrgazer wrote:I'd like to see a system that bases a product on its cost to make, not on "whatever the fools will pay." We do it in times of emergency (price gouging after a hurricane, etc., is a felony offense) and if we stopped that, the companies wouldn't go make things overseas for peanuts, to sell it here at prices just as though they were made here (Nike vs. New Balance, for example) which means CEO salaries would naturally be less.

Do you have an i-phone or similar device? How much money did you pay for it?

I purchased an i-phone for $300. How much would the device have cost if Apple manufactured the device and all of its attendant parts in the United States? Would that have influenced my decision to purchase the i-phone?

It's great to want US companies to manufacture in the United States and it's great that we want people to have jobs. But all those people that now have jobs wouldn't be able to afford the product and you wouldn't either because the costs would be too high. And trust me, the CEO taking a $10 million cut in pay isn't going to make up for that cost.

The problem with jobs going overseas has to do directly with US taxation, US regulations, and US employment laws. I'm not saying we should or need to change any of that stuff, but if you're suggesting we do change these things, think about the relative cost to US consumers.

No, I don't have an i-phone and wont because they're not manufactured in the US but they charge as though they are.

Review the costs in your stores of Nike and Reebok vs. New Balance. New Balance is made in the US.
Here's one at random.

Minimus 10 Trail
4.9 / 5
4.9 / 5
Open Ratings Snapshot
Read all reviews
Write a review
Women's Running
- Style# WT10BL
$79.99

Here's a Nike, not made in the US, cheapest one I saw:

NIKE FREE RUN+ 3
Women's Running Shoe
$100

Here's a Reebok, also not made in the US
ZigLite Electrify
(7)
$99.99 reg $69.99 sale
More Colors


$69.99 on sale or $99.99/100.00 for a non-US shoe vs. 79.99 for a US shoe that's frequently recommended by podiatrists (foot docs, who should know what's best for feet) over the non-US brands.

Tell me again that the cost of a product made in the US would be substantially higher.

p.s. it's still not a "bogus fact" that with all the money GE, a supposedly US company makes, it pays nil in taxes. And yes, I do blame Congress for being so bought-and-paid-for by corporations that they put those taxcodes in that favor foreign rather than domestic investment while eliminating the tariffs that would make up the difference to keep our country healthily employed.

Thank-You Stahr for the protip!
I did not know that New Balance was made in the US! I'm definitely going to take a look at their shoes when I get a new pair of runners for spring.

Some important items, like shoes for example, I would be perfectly ok with someone buying foreign-made goods, so long as it's an issue of quality. My own hiking boots are English-made, but they are absolutely top-tier. In a survival situation, that quality is important. But when folks are saving $.30 by buying Mexican Orange-Juice that always bothers me. There's nothing wrong with Mexican labor or juice, I'd just like to see you spend $.30 to keep your neighbors employed. You kinda lose your creditably to me when you complain about the economy or whatever and you're buying foriegn first.


EDIT: I take that back, my hiking boots are Italian. And yes, expensive.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Thank-You Stahr for the protip!
I did not know that New Balance was made in the US! I'm definitely going to take a look at their shoes when I get a new pair of runners for spring.

Some important items, like shoes for example, I would be perfectly ok with someone buying foreign-made goods, so long as it's an issue of quality. My own hiking boots are English-made, but they are absolutely top-tier. In a survival situation, that quality is important. But when folks are saving $.30 by buying Mexican Orange-Juice that always bothers me. There's nothing wrong with Mexican labor or juice, I'd just like to see you spend $.30 to keep your neighbors employed. You kinda lose your creditably to me when you complain about the economy or whatever and you're buying foriegn first.


EDIT: I take that back, my hiking boots are Italian. And yes, expensive.

Its worse than that, because often a big reason for companies going overseas is to avoid clean manufacturing and safe worker rules. So, its not just that we get poor quality, move money into the hands of a few wealthy people more and more at the expense of average folks, we also add to future generations problems in multitude.... and yet, folks are ignorant enough to claim its "progress".

stahrgazer wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:It's not a "bogus fact," it's a real fact.

It's a US company that got big enough to go "overseas" at all because of US Government contracts, so it's "wrong" morally/patriotically, even if it's currently "Legal." But man the stinkum that Obama wants to close those loopholes and go after taxes for US companies' foreign assets (like our nation used to do.)

Personally I'd like to see trade tariffs on imports reinstated to re-equalize the balance, making it more profitable to employ people here to make things to export than to do the reverse.

I'm not really sure what to make of this part. It's a bogus fact because it's used to justify discussions about General Electric not paying it's fair share (whatever that may be). If the people that like to use such statistics bothered to report the entirety of tax paid by General Electric, they might understand that GE is paying it's fair share (whatever that may be). If people that like to use such statistics had any sense, they would realize that their outrage is better served by being directed at Congress and the president, and not at the company itself. And patriotism? Do you pay more taxes than you are legally required to pay? Would you purchase stock in a company that pays more taxes than they are legally required to pay? Would you work for a company knowing that your salary would be lower if the company paid more taxes than it legally had to pay? If you answer yes to any of those questions, you're lying.

I don't disagree that there are things that can be done to the current tax code that would force companies to pay more in taxes. What I disagree with is the characterization that paying more taxes than is legally required has to do with morality. And I also disagree with your characterization of the president as someone who wants to close loopholes. He just recently signed an extension of various tax incentives for big business, while at the same time raising taxes on all individual Americans. So stop with that "Obama wants to close loopholes" nonsense. Obama doesn't want to close loopholes. And they aren't loopholes when they are purposefully placed in the tax code by Congress.

stahrgazer wrote:It'd sure help ensure that our nation's defenses can be done properly.

No kidding.

stahrgazer wrote:I'd like to see a system that bases a product on its cost to make, not on "whatever the fools will pay." We do it in times of emergency (price gouging after a hurricane, etc., is a felony offense) and if we stopped that, the companies wouldn't go make things overseas for peanuts, to sell it here at prices just as though they were made here (Nike vs. New Balance, for example) which means CEO salaries would naturally be less.

Do you have an i-phone or similar device? How much money did you pay for it?

I purchased an i-phone for $300. How much would the device have cost if Apple manufactured the device and all of its attendant parts in the United States? Would that have influenced my decision to purchase the i-phone?

It's great to want US companies to manufacture in the United States and it's great that we want people to have jobs. But all those people that now have jobs wouldn't be able to afford the product and you wouldn't either because the costs would be too high. And trust me, the CEO taking a $10 million cut in pay isn't going to make up for that cost.

The problem with jobs going overseas has to do directly with US taxation, US regulations, and US employment laws. I'm not saying we should or need to change any of that stuff, but if you're suggesting we do change these things, think about the relative cost to US consumers.

No, I don't have an i-phone and wont because they're not manufactured in the US but they charge as though they are.

Review the costs in your stores of Nike and Reebok vs. New Balance. New Balance is made in the US.
Here's one at random.

Minimus 10 Trail
4.9 / 5
4.9 / 5
Open Ratings Snapshot
Read all reviews
Write a review
Women's Running
- Style# WT10BL
$79.99

Here's a Nike, not made in the US, cheapest one I saw:

NIKE FREE RUN+ 3
Women's Running Shoe
$100

Here's a Reebok, also not made in the US
ZigLite Electrify
(7)
$99.99 reg $69.99 sale
More Colors


$69.99 on sale or $99.99/100.00 for a non-US shoe vs. 79.99 for a US shoe that's frequently recommended by podiatrists (foot docs, who should know what's best for feet) over the non-US brands.

Tell me again that the cost of a product made in the US would be substantially higher.

p.s. it's still not a "bogus fact" that with all the money GE, a supposedly US company makes, it pays nil in taxes. And yes, I do blame Congress for being so bought-and-paid-for by corporations that they put those taxcodes in that favor foreign rather than domestic investment while eliminating the tariffs that would make up the difference to keep our country healthily employed.

So I've used one example and you've used one example. Do they offset? I don't buy Nikes because they are too expensive, regardless of where the sneakers are manufactured. I have an old paid of And One sneakers (mostly for sentimental value and because I regularly play basketball). My dress shoes tend to be whatever is available because I wear size 14 shoes which is a difficult size to find dress shoes for.

Why do I use these examples? Because there are a number of reasons why people do and do not purchase products. One of those reasons is that they are or are not made in the United States. One of those reasons is that a product may be cheaper because it is manufactured overseas. And another reason is that the product has the brand name "Nike" on it and is therefore a status symbol.

So if Nike shoes (or iphones) were manufactured in the United States while carrying the same brand name, they would be more expensive, no? Matt Parker, Nike's chief executive, made $11 million in 2011 and $35 million in 2012. How much do you think he should be paid? If he is paid $2 million, which would be a decrease of $9 million in 2011 and $33 million in 2012, how many more American jobs would have been created? How much cheaper would the shoes be?

The point I'm trying to make is that the angst over corporate officer salaries is misplaced. It may anger you if Nike laid off 4,000 employees while Matt Parker made $35 million, but is the CEO's salary really the issue? Do you think those employees would have been retained? Do you think CEOs say "I'm going to lay off 4,000 employees so I can make $35 million?"

And, if you think that CEOs need to make less, what, again, is your solution? A law? A regulation? Do you want to convince more people to buy less from companies that "overpay" their corporate officers? Considering that OWS made the same points you were making, and yet purchased and used products from Nike and Apple, good luck with that.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Thank-You Stahr for the protip!
I did not know that New Balance was made in the US! I'm definitely going to take a look at their shoes when I get a new pair of runners for spring.

Some important items, like shoes for example, I would be perfectly ok with someone buying foreign-made goods, so long as it's an issue of quality. My own hiking boots are English-made, but they are absolutely top-tier. In a survival situation, that quality is important. But when folks are saving $.30 by buying Mexican Orange-Juice that always bothers me. There's nothing wrong with Mexican labor or juice, I'd just like to see you spend $.30 to keep your neighbors employed. You kinda lose your creditably to me when you complain about the economy or whatever and you're buying foriegn first.


EDIT: I take that back, my hiking boots are Italian. And yes, expensive.

Its worse than that, because often a big reason for companies going overseas is to avoid clean manufacturing and safe worker rules. So, its not just that we get poor quality, move money into the hands of a few wealthy people more and more at the expense of average folks, we also add to future generations problems in multitude.... and yet, folks are ignorant enough to claim its "progress".

Yeah, cuz f*ck the poor foreign nationals.

Actually, greekdog, you haven't used an example. You've pretended to use one.

You are assuming the cost of keeping manufacturing within the United States would make your gadget too expensive.

My example suggests that regardless the cost to produce, you're paying pretty much the same as if it was manufactured in the U.S., especially if it was manufactured in a U.S. that still had a lot of manufacturing.

Need another example? This or another thread I explained how our defense industry is having to pay crazily to get parts "made in the USA" because most of the manufacturing was moved offshore so the CEO could get a crazy raise and bonus while the American worker suffered loss of job and the American consumer is stuck paying whatever that company decides to charge (like Nike and Reebok do despite their manufacturing costs are far less than similar or better products made in the USA.)

stahrgazer wrote:Actually, greekdog, you haven't used an example. You've pretended to use one.

You are assuming the cost of keeping manufacturing within the United States would make your gadget too expensive.

My example suggests that regardless the cost to produce, you're paying pretty much the same as if it was manufactured in the U.S., especially if it was manufactured in a U.S. that still had a lot of manufacturing.

Need another example? This or another thread I explained how our defense industry is having to pay crazily to get parts "made in the USA" because most of the manufacturing was moved offshore so the CEO could get a crazy raise and bonus while the American worker suffered loss of job and the American consumer is stuck paying whatever that company decides to charge (like Nike and Reebok do despite their manufacturing costs are far less than similar or better products made in the USA.)

I never assume.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/31/smallbu ... /index.htm
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... brand.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/201 ... all-wrong/

Juan_Bottom wrote:Thank-You Stahr for the protip!
I did not know that New Balance was made in the US! I'm definitely going to take a look at their shoes when I get a new pair of runners for spring.

I am a huge New Balance supporter. Besides the fact that they consistently make wide sizes for people with fat feet, like myself, and the consistently high quality of the shoes, they also make a few shoes that do not use animal products, which really matters to me.

Carry on.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Thank-You Stahr for the protip!
I did not know that New Balance was made in the US! I'm definitely going to take a look at their shoes when I get a new pair of runners for spring.

Some important items, like shoes for example, I would be perfectly ok with someone buying foreign-made goods, so long as it's an issue of quality. My own hiking boots are English-made, but they are absolutely top-tier. In a survival situation, that quality is important. But when folks are saving $.30 by buying Mexican Orange-Juice that always bothers me. There's nothing wrong with Mexican labor or juice, I'd just like to see you spend $.30 to keep your neighbors employed. You kinda lose your creditably to me when you complain about the economy or whatever and you're buying foriegn first.


EDIT: I take that back, my hiking boots are Italian. And yes, expensive.

Its worse than that, because often a big reason for companies going overseas is to avoid clean manufacturing and safe worker rules. So, its not just that we get poor quality, move money into the hands of a few wealthy people more and more at the expense of average folks, we also add to future generations problems in multitude.... and yet, folks are ignorant enough to claim its "progress".

Yeah, cuz f*ck the poor foreign nationals.

Classic false argument.

Pretend this is about one group to be pitted against another. The truth is that damage in South America, Africa and Asia hurts us. IF the companies going overseas were truly paying their employees well AND doing what is right enivornmentally, then there would be no problem, we would all benefit, and it would be sustainable. Instead, they are taught to skim off whatever they can and be damned the consequences unless they are forced to acknowledge them... and a LOT of effort is spent in making sure they are not forced to acknowledge real problems, be it child slavery, dangerous or exploitive adult employee conditions, serious pollution or just plain poor product quality. Only the last has any real impact in market forces ... and that is usurped by an overall race to the bottom to beat costs of competitors.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Thank-You Stahr for the protip!
I did not know that New Balance was made in the US! I'm definitely going to take a look at their shoes when I get a new pair of runners for spring.

Some important items, like shoes for example, I would be perfectly ok with someone buying foreign-made goods, so long as it's an issue of quality. My own hiking boots are English-made, but they are absolutely top-tier. In a survival situation, that quality is important. But when folks are saving $.30 by buying Mexican Orange-Juice that always bothers me. There's nothing wrong with Mexican labor or juice, I'd just like to see you spend $.30 to keep your neighbors employed. You kinda lose your creditably to me when you complain about the economy or whatever and you're buying foriegn first.


EDIT: I take that back, my hiking boots are Italian. And yes, expensive.

Its worse than that, because often a big reason for companies going overseas is to avoid clean manufacturing and safe worker rules. So, its not just that we get poor quality, move money into the hands of a few wealthy people more and more at the expense of average folks, we also add to future generations problems in multitude.... and yet, folks are ignorant enough to claim its "progress".

Yeah, cuz f*ck the poor foreign nationals.

Classic false argument.

Pretend this is about one group to be pitted against another. The truth is that damage in South America, Africa and Asia hurts us. IF the companies going overseas were truly paying their employees well AND doing what is right enivornmentally, then there would be no problem, we would all benefit, and it would be sustainable. Instead, they are taught to skim off whatever they can and be damned the consequences unless they are forced to acknowledge them... and a LOT of effort is spent in making sure they are not forced to acknowledge real problems, be it child slavery, dangerous or exploitive adult employee conditions, serious pollution or just plain poor product quality. Only the last has any real impact in market forces ... and that is usurped by an overall race to the bottom to beat costs of competitors.

The point to which I responded is incorrect, but before I address this problem of yours, you'll have to answer the following:


If profit must be long-term, then does this mean that during the onset of the automobile, all horse-and-buggy producers should have had long-term profits?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184804&start=45#p4046898

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Thank-You Stahr for the protip!
I did not know that New Balance was made in the US! I'm definitely going to take a look at their shoes when I get a new pair of runners for spring.

Some important items, like shoes for example, I would be perfectly ok with someone buying foreign-made goods, so long as it's an issue of quality. My own hiking boots are English-made, but they are absolutely top-tier. In a survival situation, that quality is important. But when folks are saving $.30 by buying Mexican Orange-Juice that always bothers me. There's nothing wrong with Mexican labor or juice, I'd just like to see you spend $.30 to keep your neighbors employed. You kinda lose your creditably to me when you complain about the economy or whatever and you're buying foriegn first.


EDIT: I take that back, my hiking boots are Italian. And yes, expensive.

Its worse than that, because often a big reason for companies going overseas is to avoid clean manufacturing and safe worker rules. So, its not just that we get poor quality, move money into the hands of a few wealthy people more and more at the expense of average folks, we also add to future generations problems in multitude.... and yet, folks are ignorant enough to claim its "progress".

Yeah, cuz f*ck the poor foreign nationals.

Classic false argument.

Pretend this is about one group to be pitted against another. The truth is that damage in South America, Africa and Asia hurts us. IF the companies going overseas were truly paying their employees well AND doing what is right enivornmentally, then there would be no problem, we would all benefit, and it would be sustainable. Instead, they are taught to skim off whatever they can and be damned the consequences unless they are forced to acknowledge them... and a LOT of effort is spent in making sure they are not forced to acknowledge real problems, be it child slavery, dangerous or exploitive adult employee conditions, serious pollution or just plain poor product quality. Only the last has any real impact in market forces ... and that is usurped by an overall race to the bottom to beat costs of competitors.

The point to which I responded is incorrect, but before I address this problem of yours, you'll have to answer the following:


If profit must be long-term, then does this mean that during the onset of the automobile, all horse-and-buggy producers should have had long-term profits?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184804&start=45#p4046898

Nice try at pretending you are actually saying something intelligent.

We had a time when we could afford some pollution, damage. The automobile debatably came about then. The REAL question, however is whether if companies had had to pay future generations of the irretrevable removal of gas, oil, other minerals.. pay future generations for the loss of availability of those products AND for the damage caused by both their use and removal, if technology would have moved us in a better, more sustainable direction.. even if a tad slower.

Without king oil, a LOT of things would have changed. Maybe worse, maybe better. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that today, we no longer have that luxury and we know full well most of the damage caused and yet continue to pretend it isn't happening because it "costs too much" to account for the damage.

That isn't intelligence and its not even economics, its blind stupidity.

Ah, no direct answer, but no surprise at the tangent.

If you held your position consistently, then you'd realize the problems with it. But since you aver from self-reflection, while substituting toward tangents, then you'll continue spouting nonsense--e.g. pulling up tangents filled with excuses about god-knows-what in order to maintain a nonsensical position.

This is pretty much why I don't take you seriously. Good job at inadvertently providing examples of #1-3.

Look Player, here is the problem with your last post. We spent the last couple of pages discussing CEOs, corporate power, and employees (and unemployment). This is the topic of this thread. In your last post, when confronted with a challenging question you veered into some other territory that is not the subject of this thread. I know you think that pollution, oil, energy, and the like are related to CEO salaries and unemployment, but you were the one who limited the discussion to CEOs, corporate power and unemployment. Your comments should be reflective of that limitation.

You said, "CEO salaries lead to unemployment." Others have attempted to debunk this theory. Instead of defending it, you're referring to other, tangential issues. That's why it is sometimes frustrating to have these sorts of discussions with you. In order to follow your discussion progression, I would now need to argue about pollution. That doesn't really make sense.

thegreekdog wrote:Look Player, here is the problem with your last post. We spent the last couple of pages discussing CEOs, corporate power, and employees (and unemployment). This is the topic of this thread. In your last post, when confronted with a challenging question you veered into some other territory that is not the subject of this thread. I know you think that pollution, oil, energy, and the like are related to CEO salaries and unemployment, but you were the one who limited the discussion to CEOs, corporate power and unemployment. Your comments should be reflective of that limitation.

My answer was to BS's query. That was the answer.

thegreekdog wrote:You said, "CEO salaries lead to unemployment." Others have attempted to debunk this theory. Instead of defending it, you're referring to other, tangential issues. That's why it is sometimes frustrating to have these sorts of discussions with you. In order to follow your discussion progression, I would now need to argue about pollution. That doesn't really make sense.

No, actually, I have not truly said that CEO salaries lead to unemployment. That is how you have chosen to interpret what I have said, that is the argument BBS seems to think "liberals" all make. I have said that the mentality that says that these CEOs have to have their exhorbitant salaries or the companies won't do so well, and that its perfectly OK if those salaries bonuses and other moves come at the expense of low level employees (and note, I am particularly talking about the lowest level employees, not necessarily all the in-bestween levels, some of which could easily disappear) is wrong and why our system is continuing downhill.

Again, the CEO salary bit is brought up, but only as a symptom. Fixing the salaries won't change the system, because they, alone are not the problem. Add in ignorance of real world impacts, including impacts of pollution, worker conditions and the picture is even worse.

As an example, I just listened to an interviewer of temporary in home care providers. These workers tend to make minimal wages. One company intereviewed was paying its workers $9 an hour (quite high for that industry). He went on and on about how he could not pay more, how it would drive his company under, etc. The problem? He bills the families over $20 an hour. So, basically, what he was saying was that the person who was responsible for his company, the one doing the work that allowed him to have his job was worth less than 1/2 of what his company c harged. Now, I fully understand insurance and overhead costs. Still... I am willing to be he makes a great deal more than he was paying any one of the service workers. Yet... it was those workers who made his job, not him.

THAT is the kind of thinking that is driving this country into the pits. The fundaments of any company are not its CEO, its the workers. That doesn't mean that workers should make more than CEOs or any other stupid comment I know several of you want to make, but it does mean that if those employees are not getting enpough to live on, are not making a wage that allows them to eat, have clothes, rent or buy a reasonable house (note.. I am fine with having 2-3 kids in a bedroom and so forth, but the plumbing and lights must work and it must be reasonably heated, etc.), then the "profits" that company claims to be making are coming at the backs of taxpayers.. even t hat CEO salary is coming on the backs of taxpayers asked to support the company employees so that the executives can take their high salaries.

The problem is not the salaries themselves. Some CEOs no doubt truly are worth millions. BUT.. right now, that calculation is based on just about everything BUT producting things, doing services in a straight and honest way. If the calculations were honest, then the first people to be paid reasonably are the basic workers. Other salaries come off of what is left, not the other way around.

I turn the old joke around, about the old farmer and the government labor guy. The labor guy comes and says he is investigating complaints that some people are not being paid reasonable wages, have to work too long of hours, etc. Teh farmer looks at him and says "we have only one guy like that here!". Of course, it is the farmer. That is a pretty true tale. BUT..the missing part is that the farmer may not always get the best wages, but he is the one who owns the land. He takes it in the shorts when times are tough, but he makes the profits when times are better.. and, he has the investment in the land itself to fall back upon.

The person who is "owed" first is not the owner, not the stockholders, it is the workers..a nd I don't just mean that they should get whatever measly wage you can get someone to work for. That is not real value. Serfs and slaves each worked and worked hard. If wages dictated working standards and value, then neither of those systems would have persisted. Today, workers are not serfs, but they are taken advantage of in many, many ways..a nd CEOs are often way clueless about what it takes for their workers to just get by.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I have said that the mentality that says that these CEOs have to have their exhorbitant salaries or the companies won't do so well, and that its perfectly OK if those salaries bonuses and other moves come at the expense of low level employees (and note, I am particularly talking about the lowest level employees, not necessarily all the in-bestween levels, some of which could easily disappear) is wrong and why our system is continuing downhill.

I don't see a difference.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I have said that the mentality that says that these CEOs have to have their exhorbitant salaries or the companies won't do so well, and that its perfectly OK if those salaries bonuses and other moves come at the expense of low level employees (and note, I am particularly talking about the lowest level employees, not necessarily all the in-bestween levels, some of which could easily disappear) is wrong and why our system is continuing downhill.

I don't see a difference.

Well, then you need to think about it.

The problem is this idea that workers don't matter, products don't really matter.. its all about the people who run the company, not the inventors, the workers or even long term supplies. AND.. more and more of what folks use to judge a CEO are short term stock profits, rather than real profits.

The high CEO salaries comes about because the judgements used to determine worth are so very, very skewed. It is that judgement that is offbase.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I have said that the mentality that says that these CEOs have to have their exhorbitant salaries or the companies won't do so well, and that its perfectly OK if those salaries bonuses and other moves come at the expense of low level employees (and note, I am particularly talking about the lowest level employees, not necessarily all the in-bestween levels, some of which could easily disappear) is wrong and why our system is continuing downhill.

I don't see a difference.

Well, then you need to think about it.

The problem is this idea that workers don't matter, products don't really matter.. its all about the people who run the company, not the inventors, the workers or even long term supplies. AND.. more and more of what folks use to judge a CEO are short term stock profits, rather than real profits.

The high CEO salaries comes about because the judgements used to determine worth are so very, very skewed. It is that judgement that is offbase.

There is not an idea that "workers don't matter" and that "products don't matter." Ultimately products and services are purchased because they are worthwhile and workers are hired and paid accordingly because they are valuable. If they aren't valuable, they won't be purchased or paid. Companies cannot make money if they don't have good employees, good products, and good services, regardless of shareholder dividends. Think about the highest paid CEOs (if you even know who they are) or think about CEOs generally. Are their companies successful? If they are, is it because of the products and services sold and the efforts of the employees?

My company's yearly meeting:

Average hourly labor cost : $13.00/hour

Plant Profits: $30 Million (est)
Ended 401K program - replaced with new 50/50 retirement plan
Ended optional premium Insurance coverage plan - replaced with standard plan for all employees
Plant Budget: $905,000 budget savings
Savings includes a $175,000 EPA lawsuit settlement
Plant Manager Salary: $1.1 Million (est)

Is this organized greed? Or good management? Do the workers matter?
Also, the company I work for doesn't hire any Americans for upper management. Rude. I mean, dafuq?

Juan_Bottom wrote:My company's yearly meeting:

Average hourly labor cost : $13.00/hour

Plant Profits: $30 Million (est)
Ended 401K program - replaced with new 50/50 retirement plan
Ended optional premium Insurance coverage plan - replaced with standard plan for all employees
Plant Budget: $905,000 budget savings
Savings includes a $175,000 EPA lawsuit settlement
Plant Manager Salary: $1.1 Million (est)

Is this organized greed? Or good management? Do the workers matter?
Also, the company I work for doesn't hire any Americans for upper management. Rude. I mean, dafuq?

I have some follow-up questions.

(1) Are the hourly employees unionized?
(2) Does the company sell products/services that are successful?
(3) Are the employees educated or skilled in any way?

stahrgazer wrote:You are assuming the cost of keeping manufacturing within the United States would make your gadget too expensive.

The cost to produce a gadget in any given location is more than the cost of the worker who makes the gadget.

First, you need a building to make the gadget. In some cases you have to actually build that building (labor costs). Once you have built that building, you then have to contend with maintenance costs, regulation costs, property taxes, as well as materials and supply costs (including the cost for electricity). All of these add expense that must be passed down to the consumer.

These costs add up; companies actually move from some states to other states in part because of the cumulative effect of all these local factors within a given state.

thegreekdog wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:My company's yearly meeting:

Average hourly labor cost : $13.00/hour

Plant Profits: $30 Million (est)
Ended 401K program - replaced with new 50/50 retirement plan
Ended optional premium Insurance coverage plan - replaced with standard plan for all employees
Plant Budget: $905,000 budget savings
Savings includes a $175,000 EPA lawsuit settlement
Plant Manager Salary: $1.1 Million (est)

Is this organized greed? Or good management? Do the workers matter?
Also, the company I work for doesn't hire any Americans for upper management. Rude. I mean, dafuq?

I have some follow-up questions.

(1) Are the hourly employees unionized?
(2) Does the company sell products/services that are successful?
(3) Are the employees educated or skilled in any way?

No Unions at all, and the company won't/doesn't contract with unions.
The 3 sister-factory's are all in the United States, but all materials are imported from France. The product's packaging, and even the machines we use to produce, all come from France.
Yes, we literally import wrapping paper.

Extremely Successful. #2 in the market with overall worldwide-sales, with several products absolutely dominating their individual markets.

No skills or education required to start; everyone is hired in at the same rate irregardless. Nobody gets fired for anything either. Skilled positions open up at a rate of 60-1, or so I've been told. You have to be given a Tier designation in order to have a job with skill, but most of the Tiers are forced down people's throats. Usually you get twice the responsibility for $1 more an hour.
How the Tiers work
I'm designated tier 2 of 4, with 4 being the most skilled position. I am trained to do all of the work in my department except for tier 4 work, because I refuse the training. Tier pay works like this:

Temp Worker - $9 ($9.90 cap)
(Unskilled) Tier 1 - $10 hourly ($12 cap)
Tier 2 - $12 roughly ($15 cap)
Tier 3 - $15 roughly ($30 Cap)
Tier 4 - negotiated salary

If someone is out for the day, then someone else will be designated to do their job. If they are a Tier above you on the ladder, then you do their job for an extra $.25 an hour. Usually this work is designated to someone who is Tier 1 or 2. & That's why I've refused the training for Tier 4. So Tier pay isn't exactly connected to your actual skills, it's just about who you blow to get the Tier designation.

Benefits
No sick days
10 Days Vacation
No work on federal Holidays
Holiday/Sunday pay of Time + 1/2 if you are forced to work
No Christmas Bonus
Standard Insurance Plan
Random Scheduling
50/50 retirement plan

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:
The problem is this idea that workers don't matter, products don't really matter.. its all about the people who run the company, not the inventors, the workers or even long term supplies. AND.. more and more of what folks use to judge a CEO are short term stock profits, rather than real profits.

The high CEO salaries comes about because the judgements used to determine worth are so very, very skewed. It is that judgement that is offbase.

There is not an idea that "workers don't matter" and that "products don't matter."

Few will admit to that, but when you decide that its perfectly OK to pay someone only $7.50, though you know they cannot possibly rent an apartment or eat without subsidies for that.. it IS what you are saying. Worse, you are expecting the rest of society to pick up the tab.

thegreekdog wrote: Ultimately products and services are purchased because they are worthwhile and workers are hired and paid accordingly because they are valuable. If they aren't valuable, they won't be purchased or paid. Companies cannot make money if they don't have good employees, good products, and good services, regardless of shareholder dividends. Think about the highest paid CEOs (if you even know who they are) or think about CEOs generally. Are their companies successful? If they are, is it because of the products and services sold and the efforts of the employees?

This USED to be the case. Now the "product" most companies "sell" is stock profits and other kinds of "financial products". Ultimately, there are real products and services down there holding the system up, true.. but far, far, far too many people feel they have the right to siphon whatever they want off, leaving the actual workers with less than it takes them to live on. That is just not right.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Few will admit to that, but when you decide that its perfectly OK to pay someone only $7.50, though you know they cannot possibly rent an apartment or eat without subsidies for that.. it IS what you are saying. Worse, you are expecting the rest of society to pick up the tab.

I need to know how many people make $7.50 an hour. Further, I need to know, of those people, how many hours they work on a weekly basis at that particular job. I need to understand these things before I can get on a soapbox.

I have provided this data before and you've ignored. I've even provided data showing what the minimum amount a person living in Philadelphia must be paid to live (i.e. buy food, pay rent, pay for transportion, etc.). You've ignored that as well. I think that puts the onus on you at this point.

No politician who is in favor of raising the minimum wage is thinking about a single mother of four making minimum wage and working 60 hours a week. They are thinking of union agreements where salary increases tie to minimum wage. Why? Because the former people don't exist in any great numbers.

PLAYER57832 wrote:This USED to be the case. Now the "product" most companies "sell" is stock profits and other kinds of "financial products". Ultimately, there are real products and services down there holding the system up, true.. but far, far, far too many people feel they have the right to siphon whatever they want off, leaving the actual workers with less than it takes them to live on. That is just not right.

What in the hell are you talking about? For companies that buy and sell financial products, the employees are (a) not making minimum wage and (b) perfectly happy with their salaries.