Top 8% Own 85%

[Brain357]

LOL...........

Let me explain something to you.... Business at the basic fundamental level is very very simple.... It's price of goods/service minus the cost of producing the goods/service.

Everything else... is basically all details. It's price minus cost equals profit. Zero profit, and you close. Small profit and you basically are waiting to close. Large profit and you expand and grow, and produce better goods/services.

Unions take over 50% of the business equation. And the other 50%? The price? The company has absolutely no control over the price. None whatsoever.

Controlling the cost is the biggest aspect of the business, and when Union take over that, and demand highers costs of production... that's why GM and Chrysler and Hostess, and un-countable others have all gone bankrupt.

GM and Chrysler went bankrupt because the management had them building cars nobody wanted. Hostess? Not exactly a healthy choice.

This is another one of those bonkers things people say, that doesn't fit with reality.

"cars nobody wanted"

Really? Nobody wanted them? Really? You can prove that?

So throughout the entire recession, from 2007 to 2010, GM had the largest chuck of US market share. More than any other manufacturer in the US.

In other words, they were selling more of the "cars nobody wanted" than any other car maker in the US, apparently to customers who didn't want them.

BS. No, the problem wasn't that people didn't want their cars. The problem was Unions.

BS. All their problems were management problems. Had nothing to do with unions. The downfall began in the 80's when the imported cars were fuel efficient and what customer wanted. The US companies continued to make big gas guzzlers. US cars haven't even had good styling until the last 5 years maybe.

Again, looking at the FACTS, now your opinion..... GM sold more cars, than any other car company in the country. This is a "Fact".

How is it a management problem, that you are selling more cars than any other company in the country? What 'management problem' is that?

Here's what the problem was. The cost of labor was too high, compared to the price the cars fetched. Toyota... can change their labor costs. Honda.... can change their labor costs. GM and Chrysler could not, because they were under Union contracts, enforced by the government.

That's the problem. You can't blame management, or that "no one wanted" when they were out selling everyone. It goes back to my simple explanation of business. Price of product minus cost of production. When Unions jack up the cost of production, eventually you end up in bankruptcy.

The problem is that US companies put money into their union workers instead of their product. This was explained to me by my mechanic when I last owned an American car.

So after I got rid of that piece of junk, I went to Toyota and never been happier. Never been towed, never been late for work, never been stranded anywhere, because Toyota put their money into quality than labor. That's why Toyota can give you a 100,000 mile 7 year warranty on their products and American companies can't.

If you go to an American dealership, and compare a 50,000 mile used car compared to the price of a new one, you'll find a huge gap. Do the same at Toyota, and you'll see how much value their used cars have kept.

The engineers aren't union.

 

[Brain357]

Sorry but it is immensely profitable to do business in the US. Lower tax rates? Most companies pay very little now. We have had strong economies with our current corporate tax rates. What industry will lower regulations help?

Every industry. If they pay very little now, how would a tax incentive help?

Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. I've worked with, and talked with CEOs of businesses for the last decade. Never met one, not one, that said they pay very little in tax.

IF that was true, then why the heck would anyone anywhere, be pushing to lower the tax? Let's make this personal for a second. I personally have pushed for lowering my tax rate. Why would I do this, if I was paying zero tax? If I looked at my pay stub, and it said "zero tax". on it, why would I ever complain about the tax rate? It's because 1/4 of my check in gone. That's why I complain. And companies are no different. I highly doubt I would ever hear of a business person complaining about the tax rate, if they never paid massive tax.

Moreover, when people actually survey these business people, they say taxes is a problem. Why would they say that, if you are right, and they never pay tax? (or pay very little now).

You say it is immensely profitable, but the fact jobs are leaving suggests you are wrong. My own company outsourced to China. Why? Because it was not profitable to do it in the US anymore. That's why they did it. I asked. The CEO told me. They laid it all out, and the deal was, it was not profitable to do the product in the US. So the product is built in China. There you go. No amount of tax incentive would make us build that product here. None.

So a tax incentive wouldn't work, but business people tell you taxes are a problem? Ummm....ok

You said that, not me. If they don't pay tax... which is what you said, not me. If they don't pay taxes, how is a tax incentive going to help? You made that claim, not me.

I said taxes are a problem, and tax incentives will only work, as long as they are in effect. When the incentive goes away, so does the benefit. You are only delaying the problem.

And that's only if there is a profitable option. If you have two profitable options, then the incentive works. But if it's not profitable to be in the US.... no amount of incentive is going to fix that.

You would change corporate taxes. They would pay a lot in taxes if they chose to not hire here and pay well. If they do those things they can pay 0.

I would eliminate corporate tax completely. Pay well? If they pay enough they don't make a profit, they won't pay tax either. What's the point of your tax incentive then?

"if you pay well, you can pay zero tax."

"we're paying enough we have no profit, and we pay zero tax".

Dumb.

You do realize that Apple Computer, now makes more money outside the US, than inside the US, right? They could simply leave the country completely, and not have to worry about your tax rates or incentives, and make more money than ever.

People will still buy their products here, even if Apple left the country. Guarantee.

Nah, they would be too expensive here due to taxes. Sure a company is going to leave the biggest economy in the world.

 

[Andylusion]

LOL...........

Let me explain something to you.... Business at the basic fundamental level is very very simple.... It's price of goods/service minus the cost of producing the goods/service.

Everything else... is basically all details. It's price minus cost equals profit. Zero profit, and you close. Small profit and you basically are waiting to close. Large profit and you expand and grow, and produce better goods/services.

Unions take over 50% of the business equation. And the other 50%? The price? The company has absolutely no control over the price. None whatsoever.

Controlling the cost is the biggest aspect of the business, and when Union take over that, and demand highers costs of production... that's why GM and Chrysler and Hostess, and un-countable others have all gone bankrupt.

GM and Chrysler went bankrupt because the management had them building cars nobody wanted. Hostess? Not exactly a healthy choice.

This is another one of those bonkers things people say, that doesn't fit with reality.

"cars nobody wanted"

Really? Nobody wanted them? Really? You can prove that?

So throughout the entire recession, from 2007 to 2010, GM had the largest chuck of US market share. More than any other manufacturer in the US.

In other words, they were selling more of the "cars nobody wanted" than any other car maker in the US, apparently to customers who didn't want them.

BS. No, the problem wasn't that people didn't want their cars. The problem was Unions.

BS. All their problems were management problems. Had nothing to do with unions. The downfall began in the 80's when the imported cars were fuel efficient and what customer wanted. The US companies continued to make big gas guzzlers. US cars haven't even had good styling until the last 5 years maybe.

Again, looking at the FACTS, now your opinion..... GM sold more cars, than any other car company in the country. This is a "Fact".

How is it a management problem, that you are selling more cars than any other company in the country? What 'management problem' is that?

Here's what the problem was. The cost of labor was too high, compared to the price the cars fetched. Toyota... can change their labor costs. Honda.... can change their labor costs. GM and Chrysler could not, because they were under Union contracts, enforced by the government.

That's the problem. You can't blame management, or that "no one wanted" when they were out selling everyone. It goes back to my simple explanation of business. Price of product minus cost of production. When Unions jack up the cost of production, eventually you end up in bankruptcy.

The problem is that US companies put money into their union workers instead of their product. This was explained to me by my mechanic when I last owned an American car.

So after I got rid of that piece of junk, I went to Toyota and never been happier. Never been towed, never been late for work, never been stranded anywhere, because Toyota put their money into quality than labor. That's why Toyota can give you a 100,000 mile 7 year warranty on their products and American companies can't.

If you go to an American dealership, and compare a 50,000 mile used car compared to the price of a new one, you'll find a huge gap. Do the same at Toyota, and you'll see how much value their used cars have kept.

YES!!!

I don't know why people don't grasp this.

You have two cars. Both cost $20,000.

If the cost of labor is $10,000 of the first car, then what can the company do? They can put more call stuff, higher quality stuff, into the car, and still make a profit.

IF the cost of labor is $18,000 of the second car..... what does the company have no choice but to do? They have to put cheaper lower quality stuff in the car.

Unions drive the company, in the long run, to make crappy products. Money doesn't grow on trees. If more money goes to Union benefits, then something has to be cut.

It ends up being the quality of the car.

 

[Andylusion]

GM and Chrysler went bankrupt because the management had them building cars nobody wanted. Hostess? Not exactly a healthy choice.

This is another one of those bonkers things people say, that doesn't fit with reality.

"cars nobody wanted"

Really? Nobody wanted them? Really? You can prove that?

So throughout the entire recession, from 2007 to 2010, GM had the largest chuck of US market share. More than any other manufacturer in the US.

In other words, they were selling more of the "cars nobody wanted" than any other car maker in the US, apparently to customers who didn't want them.

BS. No, the problem wasn't that people didn't want their cars. The problem was Unions.

BS. All their problems were management problems. Had nothing to do with unions. The downfall began in the 80's when the imported cars were fuel efficient and what customer wanted. The US companies continued to make big gas guzzlers. US cars haven't even had good styling until the last 5 years maybe.

Again, looking at the FACTS, now your opinion..... GM sold more cars, than any other car company in the country. This is a "Fact".

How is it a management problem, that you are selling more cars than any other company in the country? What 'management problem' is that?

Here's what the problem was. The cost of labor was too high, compared to the price the cars fetched. Toyota... can change their labor costs. Honda.... can change their labor costs. GM and Chrysler could not, because they were under Union contracts, enforced by the government.

That's the problem. You can't blame management, or that "no one wanted" when they were out selling everyone. It goes back to my simple explanation of business. Price of product minus cost of production. When Unions jack up the cost of production, eventually you end up in bankruptcy.

The problem is that US companies put money into their union workers instead of their product. This was explained to me by my mechanic when I last owned an American car.

So after I got rid of that piece of junk, I went to Toyota and never been happier. Never been towed, never been late for work, never been stranded anywhere, because Toyota put their money into quality than labor. That's why Toyota can give you a 100,000 mile 7 year warranty on their products and American companies can't.

If you go to an American dealership, and compare a 50,000 mile used car compared to the price of a new one, you'll find a huge gap. Do the same at Toyota, and you'll see how much value their used cars have kept.

The engineers aren't union.

That's irrelevant. Engineers are paid for out of profits. Profits is produced by the price minus cost of production. When you drive up labor costs, you have to lower the cost somewhere else, in order to have a profit.

 

[Brain357]

Sorry but it is immensely profitable to do business in the US. Lower tax rates? Most companies pay very little now. We have had strong economies with our current corporate tax rates. What industry will lower regulations help?

Every industry. If they pay very little now, how would a tax incentive help?

Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. I've worked with, and talked with CEOs of businesses for the last decade. Never met one, not one, that said they pay very little in tax.

IF that was true, then why the heck would anyone anywhere, be pushing to lower the tax? Let's make this personal for a second. I personally have pushed for lowering my tax rate. Why would I do this, if I was paying zero tax? If I looked at my pay stub, and it said "zero tax". on it, why would I ever complain about the tax rate? It's because 1/4 of my check in gone. That's why I complain. And companies are no different. I highly doubt I would ever hear of a business person complaining about the tax rate, if they never paid massive tax.

Moreover, when people actually survey these business people, they say taxes is a problem. Why would they say that, if you are right, and they never pay tax? (or pay very little now).

You say it is immensely profitable, but the fact jobs are leaving suggests you are wrong. My own company outsourced to China. Why? Because it was not profitable to do it in the US anymore. That's why they did it. I asked. The CEO told me. They laid it all out, and the deal was, it was not profitable to do the product in the US. So the product is built in China. There you go. No amount of tax incentive would make us build that product here. None.

So a tax incentive wouldn't work, but business people tell you taxes are a problem? Ummm....ok

You said that, not me. If they don't pay tax... which is what you said, not me. If they don't pay taxes, how is a tax incentive going to help? You made that claim, not me.

I said taxes are a problem, and tax incentives will only work, as long as they are in effect. When the incentive goes away, so does the benefit. You are only delaying the problem.

And that's only if there is a profitable option. If you have two profitable options, then the incentive works. But if it's not profitable to be in the US.... no amount of incentive is going to fix that.

You would change corporate taxes. They would pay a lot in taxes if they chose to not hire here and pay well. If they do those things they can pay 0.

I would eliminate corporate tax completely. Pay well? If they pay enough they don't make a profit, they won't pay tax either. What's the point of your tax incentive then?

"if you pay well, you can pay zero tax."

"we're paying enough we have no profit, and we pay zero tax".

Dumb.

You do realize that Apple Computer, now makes more money outside the US, than inside the US, right? They could simply leave the country completely, and not have to worry about your tax rates or incentives, and make more money than ever.

People will still buy their products here, even if Apple left the country. Guarantee.

You don't think walmart could pay workers better if they had 0 taxes to pay?

 

[Brain357]

This is another one of those bonkers things people say, that doesn't fit with reality.

"cars nobody wanted"

Really? Nobody wanted them? Really? You can prove that?

So throughout the entire recession, from 2007 to 2010, GM had the largest chuck of US market share. More than any other manufacturer in the US.

In other words, they were selling more of the "cars nobody wanted" than any other car maker in the US, apparently to customers who didn't want them.

BS. No, the problem wasn't that people didn't want their cars. The problem was Unions.

BS. All their problems were management problems. Had nothing to do with unions. The downfall began in the 80's when the imported cars were fuel efficient and what customer wanted. The US companies continued to make big gas guzzlers. US cars haven't even had good styling until the last 5 years maybe.

Again, looking at the FACTS, now your opinion..... GM sold more cars, than any other car company in the country. This is a "Fact".

How is it a management problem, that you are selling more cars than any other company in the country? What 'management problem' is that?

Here's what the problem was. The cost of labor was too high, compared to the price the cars fetched. Toyota... can change their labor costs. Honda.... can change their labor costs. GM and Chrysler could not, because they were under Union contracts, enforced by the government.

That's the problem. You can't blame management, or that "no one wanted" when they were out selling everyone. It goes back to my simple explanation of business. Price of product minus cost of production. When Unions jack up the cost of production, eventually you end up in bankruptcy.

The problem is that US companies put money into their union workers instead of their product. This was explained to me by my mechanic when I last owned an American car.

So after I got rid of that piece of junk, I went to Toyota and never been happier. Never been towed, never been late for work, never been stranded anywhere, because Toyota put their money into quality than labor. That's why Toyota can give you a 100,000 mile 7 year warranty on their products and American companies can't.

If you go to an American dealership, and compare a 50,000 mile used car compared to the price of a new one, you'll find a huge gap. Do the same at Toyota, and you'll see how much value their used cars have kept.

The engineers aren't union.

That's irrelevant. Engineers are paid for out of profits. Profits is produced by the price minus cost of production. When you drive up labor costs, you have to lower the cost somewhere else, in order to have a profit.

The people designing the cars that break are irrelevant? Really?

 

[Brain357]

Good civil discussion guys. Thanks. I'm out for today.

 

[Andylusion]

Every industry. If they pay very little now, how would a tax incentive help?

Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. I've worked with, and talked with CEOs of businesses for the last decade. Never met one, not one, that said they pay very little in tax.

IF that was true, then why the heck would anyone anywhere, be pushing to lower the tax? Let's make this personal for a second. I personally have pushed for lowering my tax rate. Why would I do this, if I was paying zero tax? If I looked at my pay stub, and it said "zero tax". on it, why would I ever complain about the tax rate? It's because 1/4 of my check in gone. That's why I complain. And companies are no different. I highly doubt I would ever hear of a business person complaining about the tax rate, if they never paid massive tax.

Moreover, when people actually survey these business people, they say taxes is a problem. Why would they say that, if you are right, and they never pay tax? (or pay very little now).

You say it is immensely profitable, but the fact jobs are leaving suggests you are wrong. My own company outsourced to China. Why? Because it was not profitable to do it in the US anymore. That's why they did it. I asked. The CEO told me. They laid it all out, and the deal was, it was not profitable to do the product in the US. So the product is built in China. There you go. No amount of tax incentive would make us build that product here. None.

So a tax incentive wouldn't work, but business people tell you taxes are a problem? Ummm....ok

You said that, not me. If they don't pay tax... which is what you said, not me. If they don't pay taxes, how is a tax incentive going to help? You made that claim, not me.

I said taxes are a problem, and tax incentives will only work, as long as they are in effect. When the incentive goes away, so does the benefit. You are only delaying the problem.

And that's only if there is a profitable option. If you have two profitable options, then the incentive works. But if it's not profitable to be in the US.... no amount of incentive is going to fix that.

You would change corporate taxes. They would pay a lot in taxes if they chose to not hire here and pay well. If they do those things they can pay 0.

I would eliminate corporate tax completely. Pay well? If they pay enough they don't make a profit, they won't pay tax either. What's the point of your tax incentive then?

"if you pay well, you can pay zero tax."

"we're paying enough we have no profit, and we pay zero tax".

Dumb.

You do realize that Apple Computer, now makes more money outside the US, than inside the US, right? They could simply leave the country completely, and not have to worry about your tax rates or incentives, and make more money than ever.

People will still buy their products here, even if Apple left the country. Guarantee.

Nah, they would be too expensive here due to taxes. Sure a company is going to leave the biggest economy in the world.

MARK MARTINEZ' BLOG: HERE'S A LIST OF AMERICAN COMPANIES WHO LEFT THE UNITED STATES TO AVOID PAYING TAXES

Happens all the time. Having their corporate leave the country, doesn't mean they stop selling here. Tim Hortons stores are still open. All the execs, and their corporate profits, are in Canada, with their 3,000 corporate well paying jobs. We lose... they win.

 

[Andylusion]

BS. All their problems were management problems. Had nothing to do with unions. The downfall began in the 80's when the imported cars were fuel efficient and what customer wanted. The US companies continued to make big gas guzzlers. US cars haven't even had good styling until the last 5 years maybe.

Again, looking at the FACTS, now your opinion..... GM sold more cars, than any other car company in the country. This is a "Fact".

How is it a management problem, that you are selling more cars than any other company in the country? What 'management problem' is that?

Here's what the problem was. The cost of labor was too high, compared to the price the cars fetched. Toyota... can change their labor costs. Honda.... can change their labor costs. GM and Chrysler could not, because they were under Union contracts, enforced by the government.

That's the problem. You can't blame management, or that "no one wanted" when they were out selling everyone. It goes back to my simple explanation of business. Price of product minus cost of production. When Unions jack up the cost of production, eventually you end up in bankruptcy.

The problem is that US companies put money into their union workers instead of their product. This was explained to me by my mechanic when I last owned an American car.

So after I got rid of that piece of junk, I went to Toyota and never been happier. Never been towed, never been late for work, never been stranded anywhere, because Toyota put their money into quality than labor. That's why Toyota can give you a 100,000 mile 7 year warranty on their products and American companies can't.

If you go to an American dealership, and compare a 50,000 mile used car compared to the price of a new one, you'll find a huge gap. Do the same at Toyota, and you'll see how much value their used cars have kept.

The engineers aren't union.

That's irrelevant. Engineers are paid for out of profits. Profits is produced by the price minus cost of production. When you drive up labor costs, you have to lower the cost somewhere else, in order to have a profit.

The people designing the cars that break are irrelevant? Really?

Yes, they are irrelevant.

You not getting this.

You can't put into a car, parts that are so expensive that the car no longer makes a profit. If the price of labor is higher.... the cost of the parts MUST be lower. Engineers can't make a part that costs 3¢ and lasts 200 years. If they engineer the part to last longer, is always costs more. But a Chevy Metro, doesn't magically become worth $30,000, because they have an alternator that will last 100 years.

So the cost of the car doesn't really change. A $20,000 sedan, will not bring a higher price, because they put in a better alternator.

Thus, as the price of labor costs go up.... because of Unions.... the cost of parts, has to go down. They have to cut cost, in order to make a profit. So they put into the car, the crappy alternator, that hopefully lasts until it's out of warranty.

 

[Andylusion]

Every industry. If they pay very little now, how would a tax incentive help?

Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. I've worked with, and talked with CEOs of businesses for the last decade. Never met one, not one, that said they pay very little in tax.

IF that was true, then why the heck would anyone anywhere, be pushing to lower the tax? Let's make this personal for a second. I personally have pushed for lowering my tax rate. Why would I do this, if I was paying zero tax? If I looked at my pay stub, and it said "zero tax". on it, why would I ever complain about the tax rate? It's because 1/4 of my check in gone. That's why I complain. And companies are no different. I highly doubt I would ever hear of a business person complaining about the tax rate, if they never paid massive tax.

Moreover, when people actually survey these business people, they say taxes is a problem. Why would they say that, if you are right, and they never pay tax? (or pay very little now).

You say it is immensely profitable, but the fact jobs are leaving suggests you are wrong. My own company outsourced to China. Why? Because it was not profitable to do it in the US anymore. That's why they did it. I asked. The CEO told me. They laid it all out, and the deal was, it was not profitable to do the product in the US. So the product is built in China. There you go. No amount of tax incentive would make us build that product here. None.

So a tax incentive wouldn't work, but business people tell you taxes are a problem? Ummm....ok

You said that, not me. If they don't pay tax... which is what you said, not me. If they don't pay taxes, how is a tax incentive going to help? You made that claim, not me.

I said taxes are a problem, and tax incentives will only work, as long as they are in effect. When the incentive goes away, so does the benefit. You are only delaying the problem.

And that's only if there is a profitable option. If you have two profitable options, then the incentive works. But if it's not profitable to be in the US.... no amount of incentive is going to fix that.

You would change corporate taxes. They would pay a lot in taxes if they chose to not hire here and pay well. If they do those things they can pay 0.

I would eliminate corporate tax completely. Pay well? If they pay enough they don't make a profit, they won't pay tax either. What's the point of your tax incentive then?

"if you pay well, you can pay zero tax."

"we're paying enough we have no profit, and we pay zero tax".

Dumb.

You do realize that Apple Computer, now makes more money outside the US, than inside the US, right? They could simply leave the country completely, and not have to worry about your tax rates or incentives, and make more money than ever.

People will still buy their products here, even if Apple left the country. Guarantee.

You don't think walmart could pay workers better if they had 0 taxes to pay?

But you just said they don't pay much tax anyway. So if zero, would only save them a few thousand, I doubt they could pay their workers even a penny more.

In reality, Walmart, and all companies do pay tons of taxes, and yes they WOULD pay their workers more, if they paid less tax.

Yeah I guarantee that.

Should they pay more? No. I don't think they should. But they would, if they could. Yes. They would.

Cut the taxes. Let the company have the money. It's not like government is doing a great job with it.

However, I think you over estimate how much money they could pay people more.

Last year Walmart paid about $7 Billion in taxes. $7 Billion divided by 2.1 million employees, is only $3,333. Or about $1.60 an hour.

Of course employees, couldn't get the entire $1.60 an hour, because employer side taxes would increase, and so would unemployment comp fees, and then health care, and vacation, and so on. That would cut about 1/4 of that, so everyone would get about $1.25 raise.

But cutting taxes would raise wages.

Additionally, cutting taxes would allow the company to keep more profits which would allow them to create more jobs, keep more stores open. It would save and create jobs.

So all positive things. But if you think cutting taxes would allow Walmart to raise everyone's pay significantly, no not really.

 

[Skull Pilot]

ANd FYI I don't really care if people who have been getting a free ride all these years have to pay their fair share

Hey dude. Low wage earners are as much paying their "fair share" as you or I.

What low wage earners do is utilize our tax system just like you and I do.

Do you give up your write offs for your business? Tax advantage of the mortgage interest deduction?

If you do use the tax code to your advantage, you are NO DIFFERENT than the low wage earner filing for the EITC.
You are not paying your Fair Share.

If you are not using the tax code to your advantage, that would make you stupid.

Low.wage earners are not stupid.

You think low wage earners have lobbyists for things like the EITC?. Republicans (Ford, Reagan) gave us the EITC. Nice eh?

Why you pick on low wage people all the time?

People who pay ZERO income tax when they have an income are getting a free ride

The point is the tax code needs to be changed.

And writing off business expenses is not a loophole.
I'm more than happy to see the mortgage interest deduction go away if it meant a low flat rate

And why would you think I care what idiot put the EITC welfare program on the books?

And I'm not picking on anyone if you people want to whine about "fair share" then you should define just what exactly a "fair share" of income is and everyone should pay it

 

[Skull Pilot]

People who live paycheck to paycheck live on their take home pay not their one refund check a year

And paycheck to paycheck just doesn't let them save much. So a couple thousand dollars all at once. It's a big deal and let's them make a major purchase without debt. Or pay a big bill that was a problem. Or pay security deposit and first month for better housing.

Saving 40 dollars a month just won't get them there.

No one plans their budget around their tax return

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tell me then what other businesses exist in your fictional town?

And FYI the Rich guy's cars use more gas than your POS honda

Companies Warn That Income Inequality Is Hurting Their Business


Share
Tweet

ECONOMY
Companies Warn That Income Inequality Is Hurting Their Business
BY ALAN PYKE OCT 15, 2014 12:04 PM

After decades as the dominant economic theory in American politics, trickle-down economics is starting to lose its grip on the debate. For evidence of that slippage, look no further than the business community’s own communications with investors.

Two thirds of the largest retail companies in the country say falling incomes for their customers threaten their business, according to an analysis of corporate filings by economists at the Center for American Progress (CAP). That is double the proportion that cited slack earnings for the masses among their business risks in 2006. And seven out of every eight major American retail companies “cite weak consumer spending as a risk factor to their stock price,” the authors write.

Think Progress?

Really?

Falling Apparel Sales Show Income Inequality Hurting Retailers - Market Mad House

Income inequality and its uglier twin, income insecurity, are having a very corrosive effect on the U.S. economy. The retail sales figures from June show that large numbers of Americans no longer have extra money for items like clothing.

Americans are increasingly spending less money on clothes and home furnishings, Business Insider reported. Apparel (clothing and shoe) sales fell by 1.5% in June 2015 alone. This trend is having a terrible effect on some retailers, particularly old-school department stores.

Total retail sales fell by .1%, while home and furniture purchases fell by 1.6%, USA Today reported. It looks as if rumors of an economic recovery are greatly exaggerated. Retailers are hurting, and more hurt can be expected.

Yes there are no other reasons that the economy is sluggish

I hate to tell you this but no one thing is responsible for the anemic recovery it's a lot more complicated than that

Oh really? Well it isn't high taxes cause those are very low. What would you suggest to fix it?

Yeah it has nothing to do with Obama's monetary policy or the fact that it's harder and more expensive for small business to start up under this presidents watch than ever before

It has nothing to do with the fact that businesses are hesitant to invest the cash they have on hand in their current businesses when it's less risky to borrow money at virtually no interest and then put it in the stock market. You can thank Obama for that too

It has nothing to do with the fact that Obamacare has made businesses more likely to hire part time help than full time

No none of those things play a part in the economy it's only the money rich guys make

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tell me then what other businesses exist in your fictional town?

And FYI the Rich guy's cars use more gas than your POS honda

Companies Warn That Income Inequality Is Hurting Their Business


Share
Tweet

ECONOMY
Companies Warn That Income Inequality Is Hurting Their Business
BY ALAN PYKE OCT 15, 2014 12:04 PM

After decades as the dominant economic theory in American politics, trickle-down economics is starting to lose its grip on the debate. For evidence of that slippage, look no further than the business community’s own communications with investors.

Two thirds of the largest retail companies in the country say falling incomes for their customers threaten their business, according to an analysis of corporate filings by economists at the Center for American Progress (CAP). That is double the proportion that cited slack earnings for the masses among their business risks in 2006. And seven out of every eight major American retail companies “cite weak consumer spending as a risk factor to their stock price,” the authors write.

Think Progress?

Really?

Falling Apparel Sales Show Income Inequality Hurting Retailers - Market Mad House

Income inequality and its uglier twin, income insecurity, are having a very corrosive effect on the U.S. economy. The retail sales figures from June show that large numbers of Americans no longer have extra money for items like clothing.

Americans are increasingly spending less money on clothes and home furnishings, Business Insider reported. Apparel (clothing and shoe) sales fell by 1.5% in June 2015 alone. This trend is having a terrible effect on some retailers, particularly old-school department stores.

Total retail sales fell by .1%, while home and furniture purchases fell by 1.6%, USA Today reported. It looks as if rumors of an economic recovery are greatly exaggerated. Retailers are hurting, and more hurt can be expected.

Okay, I'm Joe Shmoe, and I don't have enough money to buy clothing or furniture. There are 12 million millionaires in the US today. If we reduce that to 6 million, how does that change my purchasing power or how much I have to spend on furniture and clothing?

Has the bottom moved up while those millionaires have moved down? Did they increase wages to employees?

People are responsible for increasing their own wages
Anyone can start making more money tomorrow if they want to

 

[xband]

People who live paycheck to paycheck live on their take home pay not their one refund check a year

And paycheck to paycheck just doesn't let them save much. So a couple thousand dollars all at once. It's a big deal and let's them make a major purchase without debt. Or pay a big bill that was a problem. Or pay security deposit and first month for better housing.

Saving 40 dollars a month just won't get them there.

No one plans their budget around their tax return

People who live payday to payday or hand to mouth plan their budget on their tax return.

 

[Skull Pilot]

From 2009:

The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.

Why Rich Consumers Matter More

Seems to me that we owe a lot to those evil rich people for spending so much money and getting us out of the recession.

Imagine you own a restaurant in a town with one really rich guy and many poor. While that one guy is really rich he still only eats 3 times a day and everyone else can't afford to eat out. So your restaurant fails. Too much inequality slows an economy.

That's based on the failed liberal philosophy that because some people have too much money, that's the reason others have too little.

Our country and economy is not encapsulated. We do not live in a bubble. Money is just about endless in this country. Whether we have 20 million rich people or 2, it doesn't change your plight one bit. If you are poor, then you'll still be poor anyway.

How is that based on failed philosophy? If you don't have enough customers you go out of business. How is that wrong?

It's a failed philosophy because it doesn't matter how much money anybody else has. What they have has nothing to do with what you do or don't have.

If I go to work tomorrow and ask my boss for a raise, and he tells me that he'd love to give me one, but he can't because the rich people have all the money, then you might have a point. Or if I go to the bank for a car loan, and they tell me they can't spare the cash because the rich people have all the money, again, then you'd have a point.

But these things never happened to you or anybody else in this country. It doesn't matter how much money rich people have.

huh? How does that change that if you don't have enough customers you go out of business?

Tell me how many business in a 20 mile radius of you that were in business before the recession have gone out of business

I can tell you around me it was very few and they were struggling way before the crash

So there are plenty of customers to cater to

 

[Skull Pilot]

People who live paycheck to paycheck live on their take home pay not their one refund check a year

And paycheck to paycheck just doesn't let them save much. So a couple thousand dollars all at once. It's a big deal and let's them make a major purchase without debt. Or pay a big bill that was a problem. Or pay security deposit and first month for better housing.

Saving 40 dollars a month just won't get them there.

No one plans their budget around their tax return

People who live payday to payday or hand to mouth plan their budget on their tax return.

Most have no idea what they are going to get so how do they plan their budget around that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Okay, I'm Joe Shmoe, and I don't have enough money to buy clothing or furniture. There are 12 million millionaires in the US today. If we reduce that to 6 million, how does that change my purchasing power or how much I have to spend on furniture and clothing?

Has the bottom moved up while those millionaires have moved down? Did they increase wages to employees?

No, why should they?

Let me ask you: do you overpay your mechanic to fix your car? Do you overpay your plumber to fix the sewer line in your basement? Why would anybody pay more money for services than they need to?

Have you seen the debt? They need to.

Well then, follow your own advice. Next time you need your house painted and get three bids, make sure you hire the most expensive company. Or if you go out and get house insurance. Make sure you select the insurance company that has the highest premium.

Lead by example if you really think that employers should pay more money to employees than they are worth.

I think they should pay what they are worth, not collude to pay them less as in all the examples I provided.

That link you gave me was about companies agreeing not to poach high paid employees from each other not about colluding to lower wages for all their employees

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, why should they?

Let me ask you: do you overpay your mechanic to fix your car? Do you overpay your plumber to fix the sewer line in your basement? Why would anybody pay more money for services than they need to?

Have you seen the debt? They need to.

Well then, follow your own advice. Next time you need your house painted and get three bids, make sure you hire the most expensive company. Or if you go out and get house insurance. Make sure you select the insurance company that has the highest premium.

Lead by example if you really think that employers should pay more money to employees than they are worth.

I think they should pay what they are worth, not collude to pay them less as in all the examples I provided.

They don't collude anything.

If I own a business, why would I need to collude with anybody to pay lower wages to my workers? If I want to pay them X amount of dollars, that's all I'm going to pay them.

Employers pay more to good employees they think might leave. When businesses collude to not hire from each other that drives down wages. Being able to offer your services to the highest bidder is how workers make the most in capitalism. This is also why non competes are not capitalism.

That only happens with employees that have a needed skill.

Believe me no one is going to care if a stock boy or a burger bagger with no skills leaves because they are easily replaced
Thank Obama for that too because his policies are the ones that have exploded the availability of low skill low wage jobs because he has made it more difficult and expensive for business start ups

 

[Skull Pilot]

The answer is not that people need to work more:
From 1973 to 2014, net productivity rose 72.2 percent, while the hourly pay of typical workers essentially stagnated—increasing only 9.2 percent over 41 years (after adjusting for inflation). This means that although Americans are working more productively than ever, the fruits of their labors have primarily accrued to those at the top and to corporate profits, especially in recent years.

That is always the answer. No one who has ever accomplished anything in life has ever worked only 40 hours a week

Productivity has risen because technology has gotten better which has allowed low skill workers to produce more and be more easily replaced. It's not because workers got any better at what they do in fact the overall skill level needed to perform many jobs has decreased because of technology