Does the GOP wish Obama left the country the way Bush left it.

[Hutch Starskey]

True, and although below is not the perfect example, it should show some hint of "where" the money should come from...
(BTW, there is a bit of irony regarding where the article below generated....).

A recent article on Bloomberg.com last month illustrates the gap between high and low wage earners in the U.S. According to the article, in 2012, the average multiple of CEO compensation to that of rank-and-file workers was 204, up 20% since 2009. In other words, the average CEO made 204 times what the average worker earned in wages and benefits.

The most egregious example cited by Bloomberg.com was Ron Johnson, former CEO of J.C. Penney, which fired him April 8 after a 17-month stint during which he failed to turn around the company. Johnson, according to Bloomberg, received $53.3 million in compensation as reported in the company’s 2012 proxy — “1,795 times the average wage and benefits of a U.S. department store worker [$29,688] when he was hired.

So what are you implying here, that the CEO should give his money to the workers?

No, that business should invest more in it's employees rather than top execs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Are you talking dividend yields?

Are you aware that they are only one part of the total return?

It doesn't matter. Investors will put their money where they get the most back. If you want companies to overpay labor, then it's going to lessen that return.

You have to remember that when a company gives an employee a one dollar an hour raise, it's much more than 40 bucks a week. There are all kinds of associated costs with giving that employee a raise. The 40 bucks a week is just the starting point.

 

[kaz]

If every American's salary doubled today, Big Auto couldn't make trucks and cars fast enough. Extrapolate that throughout the economy.

So what's the benefit of hoarding by Big Business?

The benefit? Growth.

You see, it has little to do with how much a company has. It has to do more with growth of a company.

Let's say that you had a wealthy uncle that died and left you with 200K. You owe no bills. Your house is paid for, your cars are paid for, your kids college is paid for. So what do you do with that money? You invest it.

You don't want something too aggressive and risky, but you don't want anything too slow either. You are looking for a long term somewhat secure investment.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, there's just one more thing: Company A has a gross income of 1.5 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross income of 120 million dollars a year. Does that factor change your mind at all?

Of course it doesn't. You could care less how much money a company has, all you as an investor cares about is growth.

Companies heavily rely on investors to make their business run. They want to attract as many investors as possible in most cases.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Are you talking dividend yields?

Are you aware that they are only one part of the total return?

This is actually a pretty lucid post for you. Well done. No sarcasm intended, though I am mocking you for your usual fare

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, that business should invest more in it's employees rather than top execs.

They should? Why?

 

[Faun]

The best thing is that the economy would return to how it was was before Barney Queerboy, Tits Peloski, Dirty Harry and that jackass Obama took over Congress in 2007.

The economy was doing fine until the American people had a brain fart and elected Democrats.

Lets just hope they don't have another brain fart and elect this Crooked Hillary bitch in November. All we need is four more years of the disaster we got from Obama to seal the fate of this country to be a shithole.

Record foreclosures in 2006 is flush's idea of everything was just peachy before Democrats took over in 2007.

Record foreclosures were a result of Barney Frank and Co.

How did members of the minority party in Congress cause that while majority party Republicans were in charge?

 

[kaz]

It's like explaining economics to an eight year old, isn't it? You just can't dumb down the concepts enough

You have to laugh otherwise you'd cry. It's just like Faun bragging about our stock market. He (she) doesn't realize that the stock market is what it is due to the trillions of dollars the feds pumped into it. The market is not reflective of our economic success. Like the housing bubble, it's just an artificial bubble. All bubbles burst.

When the Roll of the Incurably Stupid is called.....

Winner x 3 SassyIrishLass gipper kaz​

I guess knowledge beyond yours needs to be ignored, we have to convince you that you're wrong meaning with only information you do know, not tell you things you don't know. But that doesn't leave us much ...

 

[Al Azar]

No, that business should invest more in it's employees rather than top execs.

They should? Why?

It's the economy, Stupid.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A simple question like yours merits a simple answer.......YES !!!

Just for fun, check out the economic disparities that led to the French Revolution.

I still don't understand why you would want a company to pay more money for work they can get cheaper. That's not how business works.

The top players make the top dollar. Always has and always will.

 

[nat4900]

No, that business should invest more in it's employees rather than top execs.

True.......A CEO should not be allowed by an equally corrupt Board to earn in a half-hour what an employee makes all year...No one expects a CEO to earn the same as the common worker, but to claim that a CEO "earned" almost 1800 times more is ludicrous.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's the economy, Stupid.

No, it's more like it's business...stupid.

 

[kaz]

Oh, and I don't give a crap whatever you label yourself.....you'd still be a right wing idiot

Last time you were lying that you didn't "give a fuck" what I am. Now you admit your homosexual fixation on what I am.

Note despite your queer obsession, you still can't name a single position I'm "conservative" that isn't libertarian.

It's hilarious your butt hurt compulsion to call me a Republican in every post. You're flaming again, Bruce

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, that business should invest more in it's employees rather than top execs.

They should? Why?

Because wages have been flat for decades. Giving a failed CEO fifty million on his way out isn't a sound investment in the future.
Paying employees more and enabling them to buy more from you certainly would be.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ray

You apparently have no idea what full employment means....

And you apparently don't understand the impact of the labor participate rate in relation to the so-called unemployment figures.

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go even if one job was not created. In other words, the unemployment numbers are phony.

Ridiculous.
The people not in the workforce are never counted in the unemployment formula.
People choose not to participate in employment for a variety of reasons. You have no evidence that the participation rate is down soley because people cannot find work. You're assuming you know something you couldn't possibly know.

Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.

Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

Many companies were afraid to invest thanks to Commie Care. There are so many if's, but's and maybe's in the bill that nobody knew what to expect from the federal government.

Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.

Another thing is all this talk from the left giving DumBama credit for any advances we made in our economy. They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).

Some households are saving hundreds of dollars a month in energy costs between gasoline and natural gas. This is a widespread savings that gave most everybody more residual income at the end of each month. People used that extra money to pay down other bills, invest, or otherwise spend in our economy.

Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009....

They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).


This is nonsense........Gas prices started falling at the end of 2014....

If every American's salary doubled today, Big Auto couldn't make trucks and cars fast enough. Extrapolate that throughout the economy.

So what's the benefit of hoarding by Big Business?

The benefit? Growth.

You see, it has little to do with how much a company has. It has to do more with growth of a company.

Let's say that you had a wealthy uncle that died and left you with 200K. You owe no bills. Your house is paid for, your cars are paid for, your kids college is paid for. So what do you do with that money? You invest it.

You don't want something too aggressive and risky, but you don't want anything too slow either. You are looking for a long term somewhat secure investment.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, there's just one more thing: Company A has a gross income of 1.5 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross income of 120 million dollars a year. Does that factor change your mind at all?

Of course it doesn't. You could care less how much money a company has, all you as an investor cares about is growth.

Companies heavily rely on investors to make their business run. They want to attract as many investors as possible in most cases.

Are you even reading my posts? These trillions of dollars are not invested. That's the problem. It's cash, earning little, serving no one.

Again, what is the benefit of this hoarding?

You really think out of the goodness of their hearts they will give every one a raise?

 

[kaz]

And again, I'm not a Republican, I'm a libertarian

Reconcile what you wrote above, with what you wrote on post #134 (Schizophrenia ???)
"Again I'm a Republican"

Damn, government education has fucked you over. You really couldn't read that, could you? If you go back and take out what you cut, it makes perfect sense. The second part I was mocking you. Unbelievable. You really want to highlight how flat out stupid you are, don't you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because wages have been flat for decades. Giving a failed CEO fifty million on his way out isn't a sound investment in the future.
Paying employees more and enabling them to buy more from you certainly would be.

In a perfect world, yes it would. But employees are not going to by buying much from their own company. They may spend it other places, but not likely at work.

So it doesn't benefit a company to overpay their workers. It would mean getting a less qualified CEO which means less income for the company on both ends. After all, if you don't want to pay that CEO 1800 times what your lower level employees are making, your competition will. That's why those CEO's make the kind of money they do.

 

[kaz]

Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.

Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

And companies are not investing domestically because they cite lack of demand. Why is there lack of demand? American workers can't afford much discretionary spending on what they're paid.

These same companies are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash. It's just sitting on the sidelines earning next to nothing. If they stopped hoarding that cash and gave their employees raises, several benefits would follow:

1) Americans could afford to buy American,

2) rising wages will stimulate inflation,

3) getting inflation back up to normal levels will make long-term debt more attractive, putting upward pressure on interest rates.

We'll get back to normal quicker if Big Business would just get off the dime. Government can't always solve all our economic problems. Sometimes the private sector has to step up to the plate and do the right thing, too.

Got it. The US economy is bad because companies pay market wages.

The Marxism is strong in this one

 

[Al Azar]

It's the economy, Stupid.

No, it's more like it's business...stupid.

Using that cash by putting it in workers' paychecks would spur growth. For the third time, what good is it doing being held as cash?

 

[nat4900]

Damn, government education has fucked you over. You really couldn't read that, could you? If you go back and take out what you cut, it makes perfect sense. The second part I was mocking you. Unbelievable. You really want to highlight how flat out stupid you are, don't you?

LAME....very,very lame.......Why not just admit that you really have no fucking idea of what the hell you are???
Now THAT would be an honest response......LOL

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ray

You apparently have no idea what full employment means....

And you apparently don't understand the impact of the labor participate rate in relation to the so-called unemployment figures.

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go even if one job was not created. In other words, the unemployment numbers are phony.

Ridiculous.
The people not in the workforce are never counted in the unemployment formula.
People choose not to participate in employment for a variety of reasons. You have no evidence that the participation rate is down soley because people cannot find work. You're assuming you know something you couldn't possibly know.

Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.

Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

Many companies were afraid to invest thanks to Commie Care. There are so many if's, but's and maybe's in the bill that nobody knew what to expect from the federal government.

Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.

Another thing is all this talk from the left giving DumBama credit for any advances we made in our economy. They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).

Some households are saving hundreds of dollars a month in energy costs between gasoline and natural gas. This is a widespread savings that gave most everybody more residual income at the end of each month. People used that extra money to pay down other bills, invest, or otherwise spend in our economy.

Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009....

They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).


This is nonsense........Gas prices started falling at the end of 2014....

If every American's salary doubled today, Big Auto couldn't make trucks and cars fast enough. Extrapolate that throughout the economy.

So what's the benefit of hoarding by Big Business?

The benefit? Growth.

You see, it has little to do with how much a company has. It has to do more with growth of a company.

Let's say that you had a wealthy uncle that died and left you with 200K. You owe no bills. Your house is paid for, your cars are paid for, your kids college is paid for. So what do you do with that money? You invest it.

You don't want something too aggressive and risky, but you don't want anything too slow either. You are looking for a long term somewhat secure investment.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, there's just one more thing: Company A has a gross income of 1.5 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross income of 120 million dollars a year. Does that factor change your mind at all?

Of course it doesn't. You could care less how much money a company has, all you as an investor cares about is growth.

Companies heavily rely on investors to make their business run. They want to attract as many investors as possible in most cases.

Are you even reading my posts? These trillions of dollars are not invested. That's the problem. It's cash, earning little, serving no one.

Again, what is the benefit of this hoarding?

You really think out of the goodness of their hearts they will give every one a raise?

Not at all. That's why MW needs to be more realistic with future increases indexed to inflation.
It's a shame that is the case. In the past employees were a valued partner in the enterprise. Now they're seen simply as a cost to be cut when they become too costly.

 

[Faun]

Oh, and I don't give a crap whatever you label yourself.....you'd still be a right wing idiot

Last time you were lying that you didn't "give a fuck" what I am. Now you admit your homosexual fixation on what I am.

Note despite your queer obsession, you still can't name a single position I'm "conservative" that isn't libertarian.

It's hilarious your butt hurt compulsion to call me a Republican in every post. You're flaming again, Bruce

Stop kazzing. He called you a rightwinger, not a Republican.