Forum Post: Educating the 99% on What Corporate Profit Means
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 25, 2011, 12:10 p.m. EST by classynancy
(-73)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I see a lot of stupid people here thinking that Walmart's $15 B of annual profit is way to big and they should take that and pay their employees' health insurances (and maybe buy them each a car). You need to get an education on how corporations are FORCED (through your valued regulation) to make financial reports. a few important points for you all to understand: FIRST, profit is not cash that's in the bank, it's a periodic statement of earnings based on sales and expenses recognized in that same period. Where this is important is because significant investments (like new stores and other long-term improvements) do not show up as an expense the minute you pay for them, they are spread-out over many many years, which means that typically only 1/7 to 1/30th of Walmart's investments are recognized on the income statement that reports it's "profit". SECOND: Walmart had $400 B + of sales last year, so $15B of profit is actually very very little % of it's overall sales (3.9% to be exact). Think about it this way, Walmart is a corporation that is publicly held. It is owned by Billions of people who daily decide whether to invest their money in Walmart or a savings account. Some months, it probably looks better for them to move the company to the savings account. THIRD: Just because Walmart is so big, their tiny profit seems so big, but it really isn't. It's naive of people to not educate themselves before getting up in arms over what is really tiny profit. FOURTH: Let's look at your silly proposals to pay health insurance for all of Walmart's employees. The company employs 2.1 Million people (or approx 2.1 M more jobs than the occupy protesters are occupying themselves). The average cost of health insurance is about $5,000 per year (just for the individual, we're not even talking about their families). This expense would then reduce Walmart's profit by $10.5 B. This one gesture alone would leave the company with a profit of close to 1% of sales. What do you think would happen then? You got it, people would not want to buy or hold the company's stock, which would result in the company eventually dieing since it's ability to secure cash for improving stores will be eliminated. Oh yeah, then those 2.1 M people will be out of a job altogether. I'm beginning to wonder if the OWS people care if anyone has a job....
Unfortunately for many of you OWS air heads, the minor complexities of the way our financial systems work is too great for you to mentally overcome. Hopefully this simple explanation might help you understand better.... but I doubt it.....
At least get your facts correct, not that it would make your "argument" any more accurate or believable.
Walmart "is owned by Billions of people who daily decide whether to invest their money in Walmart"_.
FACT: 48% of Walmart's 3.5b shares are held by insiders and 5% owners, and the majority of the rest is held by 1382 institutions.
"The company employs 2.1 Million people"
FACT: There are 1.2 million "associates" (full or part time employees). The annual "associate" turnover rate is 44%.
Wal-Mart effect n. The economic and social effects attributable to the Wal-Mart retail chain including low wages, poor working conditions, violations of child-labor laws, inadequate health care, use of illegal workers, predatory pricing and local effects such as traffic congestion, environment problems, public safety, absentee landlordism, bad public relations, forcing smaller competitors out of business, pricing structures that force vendors to shift manufacturing jobs to China and other nations, product selection that promotes a particular ideology, etc.
Great factual post. Thank you.
all on a voluntary basis. What are these "public structures" forcing jobs to China
Tax legislation that rewards foreign investment over domestic. Globalization and so-called "free trade" (NAFTA, etc.), all lobbied for by corporate interests and enacted by corporate politicians to increase corporate profits.
what does that have to do with the voluntary arrangement between you & your employer?
Voluntary? Well there is nothing voluntary about it. If I choose to not participate in the monetary system of debt slavery and l go live on a remote piece of land no one else is using, some asshole (private or public) will say he owns it even though he may have never seen the land or set foot on it. I will be arrested for trespassing. If I buy a home or piece of land I will be told by some public asshole that I must pay a fee yearly or have my land taken away meaning the public asshole actually owns my house and I have to pay to stay in it. So, even if I want to live like Tarzan I have to find green dollars every year, or men will come with guns and make me homeless. Now I have to work for someone else to come up with this paper money or be homeless. Does it make a difference that there is no auction and you must go around looking for a master to sell yourself to, instead of a master looking for a place to buy you?
It's called a society governed by laws. You can always move to another country if you know of one more suited to your liking. You don't have to work for someone else. Who told you that? Plenty of people start their own business. Where do you think all these businesses come from ?
You think owning a business means you are free? Where do you get the money to start the business? The government borrows it from a bank. The bank prints it out of thin air. Principle is borrowed into existence at interest. The only way the governments can pay the interest is to borrow more money into existence. It is the biggest con in history. Holding money is holding government bank debt.
Define freedom yarichin.
The ability to live on a piece of land, breath the air, and drink clean water without permission from anyone. To choose to participate or not participate in any political or monetary system without fear of being arrested. Air land water and food should never be taxed or owned. It creates a form of serfdom if a person is taxed for being alive.
So you are anti tax then glad to hear it. although property ownership is important. look around the neighborhood, which areas are better maintained a neighborhood with mostly rental housing? or the neighborhood where people own their homes? Communal property only leads to people exploiting the resource before the other guy beats them to it.
We have been brainwashed into believing in land ownership. The rentals look worse because the people living in them have no incentive to improve them. The owners will try to get by with minimal maintenance because they do not live there. We need to think of the land as something to be managed not owned. If you go back in time far enough, every piece of land was unowned. Someone claimed ownership and sold the land or passed it to their children. They paid nothing for it. Why should we or anyone else? The land is eternal, it owns us. Land will continue to exist with or without us. We cannot live without land, that makes access to land at no charge a basic human right.
Go for it. You will receive slightly less space than you have now in your high rise apartment. How in the name of common sense do you propose to level out cities like LA, NYC, Chicago and have your utopia. The people now live "on top of each other". Exactly how much livable land do you think America has??
Do you expect to take the land that a Kansan farmer has to work now just to feed 28 Americans and somehow divide it up among 28 people or perhaps more like 250,000 people and expect to survive??
Real question in my mind, exactly who has been brainwashed by whom.
The natives lived here for 12,000 years without individual land ownership. It took Europeans less than 400 years to overpopulate and destroy it. Yet we cling to land ownership and accept taxation of land as a give in. The fact that the land is taxed causes more exploitation of the land then is needed. Land becomes less productive we need more right? Go take it from more natives, we can't, there is no more expansion possible, the system will implode. Our economic system is not sustainable it relies on violent expansion to fuel it. There are no people or lands left to conquer.
Exactly why the system functioned well for 12,000 years. There was simply an abundance of land and for the most part, you did not have to worry about limited land areas.
If you have a plan for going back in time with the same land mass and our population of millions in the USA alone, I would like to hear that plan. And please, explain also why you think that this would have NOT happened sooner or later if the Europeans had NOT arrived. Are you aware of any areas of this continent that were getting too crowded for some tribes before big C got here. I do not think that it was all the utopia you think it was.
You might note, that all was not a big peace party before the Europeans arrived on the continent. Study a little history and you will find that some Native American Tribes DID NOT have land that they could claim as their own and thus resorted to becoming raiders of those that did.
My plan is irrelevant. We have overpopulated our selves to the point of no turning back. We will starve on a global scale. Governments both righteous and oppressive will fall due to food shortages. We cannot avoid it we jumped out of the plane with no parachute years ago. Some will survive of course. They will be the few who still know how to find food locally. Tribesmen in Africa, Country Boys in America, Aboriginals in Australia. These are the people without money,and a so called "good education." They will live. City dwellers will die after cannibalizing for a few years. A thug may kill a redneck and take his food, but will not obtain the knowledge of how to obtain food in the future. All cities will be abandoned for lack of resources.
bingo ! you just made my case for me "rental look worse because the people living in them have no incentive to improve them." Now imagine a whole country lie that & you've got the former Soviet union. "We need to think of the land as something to be managed not owned" So you are trying to change the way people think to respond to different incentives. Good luck. Basic human right - so propose an amendment to the constitution.
It is not the responsibility of the people living in them to improve rental property. Responsibility to maintain the property as they found it - NOT improve it.
That is why a savy owner, keeps the place improved, so that he has a reason for tenants to seek out his product.
I don't even expect a tenant to water and mow the lawn of a rental house under my control - not if I want grass there when they move out.
Exactly. So if the whole society is a rental - you can see what it would look like. Just look at the former USSR. Ever see the inside of that place. Or closer to home - imagine if all housing were like housing projects in the inner city. That is what you are in effect advocating.
NOT ME. You must be confusing my posts with someone else. If I had by way, everyone that wants to, would own their own land. Maybe not a totally far fetched idea, but the land to people ratio doesn't match up too well in todays' terms.
Just one question. Would you volunteer for an experiment where you were given one acre of land (not talking about unproductive land here), all the water and food you could dig for or raise with two stipulations:
You see, setting your foot outside the confines would be interpreted as taking advantage of those who do elect to pay taxes etc and we just could not have that unequal access to the fruits of all. Likewise for anyone coming to visit who might use a road, plane or other means to get there.
Just asking, and I do have land and a little fense.
I am not claiming that there need be no taxes or the ability to share resources. Only that SOME things should not be taxed ever. Land, water, food, and air are not privileges they are prerequisites of survival. You want a road? Tax the cars and the gas. You want to share water and sewer pipes? Okay, charge a small municipal tax to maintain the pipes but do not charge for water. Anyone who chooses not to pay maintenance can have the option of drilling a well or moving out of the city and not sharing pipes. For people to have choices of where to live however our current system of land ownership and taxation needs to go. Register for free to become the manager of a piece of land. Just like at any other job if you leave you don't get to manage anymore. If you make the land dirty or pollute it in anyway your management can be canceled this system is what the Hawaiians used before whites showed up. The Native Americans had a similar system using totems to mark land that was in use, and identifying the tribe that was using it. Individuals did not own it the community did.
This system is still in use with the largest Native American tribe in the nation - you do know how it is working out don't you??
Have not heard about it still being used, send me some info or a site please.
The entire Navajo Reservation, with a few exceptions, it community owned land, first the Tribe, next the local Chapter, and next the designated user, with neither the Chapter or the individual owning the land. This land is marked by traditional usage for grazing and living purposes. The individual tribal member DOES NOT own the land - it simply is NOT deeded to them by the Tribe.
The local chapter resolves disputes regarding, individual claims to the right to use a certain area - based on traditional usage, etc.
The Tribal goverment retains control of the land as a Tribe and can continue the existing usage based system or can, and does, withdraw some lands for use by a chapter as they determine appropriate (ie, retail services, medical services, churches, etc.)
Some of the greatest drawbacks to this system is:
The individual faces monumental challenges if they want to obtain land for purposes other than grazing within their families' assigned area, ie: a business etc. This has resulted in an almost total failure to develop local businesses and a local economy based on land ownership, transfer, and use.
This has, then produced an unemployment rate of about 50%.
The resultant fact is that this them becomes one of the greatest areas of proverty (as the government and others would describe it) in the USA.
And the saddest yet - if a parent is utilizing their land to the maximum and their children want to remain on that land, they simply can no longer make a living in doing so as the number of family members increase with each generation. They cannot buy the land adjacent to their assigned land or anywhere else within their traditional homeland, thus they are forced to relocate off reservation to make a living.
Land ownership, with the right of sale, transfer, use etc. has always been the backbone of this country. You start fiddlin' with that fact and you have more questions to answer than you can imagine.
Overpopulation is a problem in all current economies. As to the unemployment issue, that to me simply means they are not working away from the land that keeps them alive. Money in our current system is not money it is debt. If the tribe agrees as a group that a farm is more important than a football field, the individual may disagree and rally support for a football field. Minds can be changed when government is local. Our government and money and land ownership by taxation is too centralized.
We have run out of threads yarichin. In reply to your post of 12 hours ago, how much more decentralized can you get land ownership that we have now. It is now at the county level - you go to the courthouse in your county and the records are all there to support that ownership for a very long way back.
We do not have to ask, the state or the federal level for permission to sell or transfer our land. That same entity determines your taxation also.
And to apply your reasoning to unemployment, America should have -0- % unemployment today. We are mobile and vacant jobs exist today, we only have unemployment because people do not choose to more to the job. Is that correct??
[Removed]
Did you never read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle? Modern day Walmart, right?
No, I haven't. But it looks appropriate to the movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle
please - your comparing working in a slaughter house 100 years ago to Walmart hahaha! - please - don't be so dramatic.
Stop being so dramatic. If you think working at Walmart is the same as a slaughter house you are smoking crack. That was a novel anyway - Just like A Christmas Carol, or The Grapes of Wrath. Leftist dramatics. Interesting, the polish family depicted in The Jungle seemed pretty pathetic. I know a lot of immigrant families who are pretty resourceful and have huge networks when they arrive here. The Jungle therefore seems to me the exception rather than the rule.
Check your facts: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:WMT
2.1 m employees worldwide.
Those 'institutions' that you are referring to are pension funds (which have LOTS of pension beneficiaries) and mutual funds (which again have LOTS of share owners)
Maybe there are only "Millions" of owners, I guess you really showed me....
Note to Nuke - I think that the 1.2M figure refers to the employees within the United States. World wide, there are a lot more than that for sure.
But what the hey! when you are arguing your point, facts really don't have to be specific or even correct.
Any progress on the ench's yet. And you didn't answer my question:
Red, Green or Christmas.
I'm not 100% sure what you're question is, but I'm DEFINITELY not Red.... Christmas sounds like a good answer!
Haven't done the enchiladas, but turkey chowder is on the way!
MMMMM You thinking about opening a coffee shop?? I will be your first customer and will spread the word like wildfire for you.
RED is dried chili.-reconstituted to a sauce GREEN is roasted green chili usually made into a sauce, but great peeled and eaten on a hamburger etc. (my favorite) and CHRISTMAS is both sauces over those enchiladas.
Ahhh I see, well I'm not sure my Turkey Ench's have either for a sauce, it's mainly a green chill blended with sour cream and cheese. It ends up looking pale white... but VERY good.
Also makes a great dip for chips.
Signing off for the night. Sleep well.
Unfortunately for many of you OWS air heads, the minor complexities of the way our financial systems work is too great for you to mentally overcome.
Bandying about insults and stereotypes is not a coherent or rational argument. Many people don't understand the complexities of the economic system (your post is actually an excellent example itself), if you ask the average voter what an externality is, or even something basic like what a commodity is, they will either not have a clue or believe they know but be unable to give a correct definition. This doesn't mean they don't know when the economy isn't working for them anymore.
Moreover there is no paucity of economic understanding among OWS supporters. Just this past week, 170 economists have signed a statement in support of OWS, among them several heavyweights in the field:
http://econ4.org/statement-on-ows
Basically put, your statement demonstrates not only ignorance of OWS but a gross ignorance of economics as well (you know what profit is, wow, that's like a grade 2 student who has just grasped multiplication and now thinks he knows more on the subject than JH Conway). Which is quite ironic and amusing.
It's no great feat to get 170 Marxist "economists" to support OWS. The USSR had plenty of genius economists on their side too.
Can you show they were all "Marxists" or did you just pull that out of your butt? Or is anything that isn't radical libertarian wingnuttery "Marxist" now?
Can you name me the 170 economists you referenced so I can look them up? I know they are Marxists because if they support the redistribution of wealth, If they support OWS - then they are Marxists. Not that complicated. The problem with a progressive tax system is - where does it end?
Ah, everyone who supports a progressive tax system is Marxist then. Do you know who first proposed a progressive tax system?
Adam Smith:
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
So I guess either Adam Smith is a Marxist, or you're a fruitcake.
As far as who the economists were, you can read the list for yourself:
http://econ4.org/statement-on-ows
There's probably a Marxist or two in there, but to label them all Marxists when you don't even know who signed just shows how your thought processes work. Conclusions first, facts later.
progressive taxes are ok. It's a matter of how much is enough. I think the top rate or 36% for people earning 347K or more is enough while the bottom 50% pay 3% etc. It's a slippery slope. Why do you want to give the govt that wastes your money even more? or is it just a matter of punishing the rich as the feds wont even see any additional revenue from the tax hike.
A minute ago, progressive taxes were Marxist. Then you find out Adam Smith was the first to propose them and now they are "ok". That too demonstrates how your thought processes work.
How much is enough. Adam Smith said that in reference to caring for the poor. Today, we have the richest poor people in the world. Yet that is not enough for the Marxist. Did Smith advocate total equality & absolute redistribution? I think not. Yet that is what OWS is advocating. Caring for the poor is one thing. Entitlement for the 99% is another.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/nyt-older-suburban-and-struggling-near-poor-startl/
http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
The patient doesn't really have to know the size of the crystals in his joints caused by gout to know that he can't walk anymore. Is he being unreasonable wanting the doctor to fix it, rather than trying to explain the size of the crystals?
When manufacturing drops from 70% of US GDP to 17% there are causes.
There may be policies that could have made the change greater or less. The guy without a job would like to hear about the ones who could make it less. The fund manager would like to hear how it could be greater. The economist would like to spend hours listening to both and then go out to dinner.
Some people consider "airheads" an insult to be bandied about. And what are we here for, but your amusement?
Intellectual elitism is as unattractive any other kind.
I'm not trying to be intellectually "elite". I was taught to try to be civil and to seek the rational truth. I don't give a damn if that makes you feel small or not, it's not my intent to do that and it isn't my problem either.
I don't give a damn if you don't give a damn or what you don't give a damn about. And I didn't imply that I feel small. Just thought it was a bit condescending and hypocritical to stereotype generalize and call names and and then deplore it.
I learned my econ from Greenspan, whom, although knowing all of the definitions, was totally surprised by the financial meltdown that he contributed to so generously, for one so proudly selfish.
Had to laugh at his well deserved come-uppance. IMHO
Any charge of "elitism" carries with it the implicit notion that you feel patronized. If someone is condescending to you or patronizing you, you feel small. This is just common sense. If you want to call common sense "intellectual elitism" feel free. I can't help it if you don't have any, and I can't fix it for you. I'm sorry if common sense is frustrating for you, but I'm not going to stop just because it hurts your feelings.
Any charge of "elitism" may come with a recognition of the tactics used by elitists and in no way affects one's assessment of self worth. It's a clinical assessment.
One can recognize a bully without being bullied.
I was talking to you, not someone else, so if you're calling me a bully you can only be referring to yourself as the victim. Again common sense seems very elusive for you. And no, common sense is not a sort of "bullying". Being wrong in terms of basic common sense and having it pointed out doesn't mean you're being "victimized". Some ideas are just logically wrong and irrational. They're not entitled to equal validity. I'm not a bully if you say 2+2=5 and I insist that you're simply wrong.
Reference:"Unfortunately for many of you OWS air heads, the minor complexities of the way our financial systems work is too great for you to mentally overcome."
Maybe if you repeat it enough it'll come true, or how about you clap and say "I believe!" three times, that could work.
The patient who expects the doctor to fix his problem without paying him for his work is being unreasonable.
Seems reasonable.
My point is that the intellects that chose to highlight WMT's $14 B in profits as the rallying point to go out and occupy their front doors is a sham. I gave a 2nd grade explanation because I'm talking to 1st graders in the desperate hope they would learn something. Anytime you want to have a more in-depth discussion of economics let me know and I'll bring an i-pod for you to use as a reference...
170 economists agree with your movement...great... didn't Obama mention that 500 economists agreed with his bailout package? It doesn't take much to find a few hundred sheep to agree with any policy....Go ahead and jump onto the ship as it's sinking, the more the merrier...
It doesn't take much? That's not true, that's just a rationalization. You know as well as I do that every major bank, brokerage firm, and multinational corporation has economists in their employ. They have a fiduciary duty to their employer, same as a lawyer has towards his clients.
OWS on the other hand doesn't have a staff of economists to sign statements in its support. Any economists who do sign a statement in support of OWS obviously agrees out of sheer principle, because there is no fiduciary duty involved.
Platitudes about sheep and sinking ships notwithstanding!
Any economists who do sign a statement in support of OWS obviously agrees out of sheer principle,
Or they have an agenda like everybody else lol!
How many economists do you think there are in the world? Do the math... I doubt a single one of them were Friedman economists. They were probably predominantly from Yale, Harvard, and Berkley. These places spawn their own like bunnies. Your reference to 170 economists is about as myopic as the $14 B reference at the call to demonstrate at WMT announcement.
Friedman's theories are not well-regarded these days. It's Friedman's theory of "helicopter money" that's behind the bailouts, for instance. As a results-based school, its track record is very poor (relative to, say, Keynes).
I'm sorry, but Edgewater, I'm totally sympathetic with OWS. However, you seem very angry, and as I follow the chain of logic, classynancy makes a more coherent argument. Don't you have better links to prove your argument. I could really use the help as I debate with my relatives over the holiday (read stress-o-day) season? I really need the help!!!
How do we get these people to understand us so we build consensus? IAWU
I don't feel angry, maybe I need some effective communication classes or something. I'm not sure I detect any "anger" in the post I made, can you point it out:
Friedman's theories are not well-regarded these days. It's Friedman's theory of "helicopter money" that's behind the bailouts, for instance. As a results-based school, its track record is very poor (relative to, say, Keynes).
"Better" links? Neither I nor nancy have posted any links so I guess that wouldn't be too hard! Well, its hard to go wrong with primary sources, so I'll use those. Friedman proposed "helicopter drops" of money from the government into the economy in a paper titled The Role of Monetary Policy. Full text here:
http://stevereads.com/papers_to_read/friedman_the_role_of_monetary_policy.pdf
Ben Bernanke, well-known as an adherent of Friedman's theories, acquired the nickname "Helicopter Ben" for endorsing helicopter drops in a 2002 speech, for which I cannot find the text, but you can read about the episode here:
http://www.thestockenthusiast.com/opinion/how-bernanke-got-the-nickname-helicopter-ben-why-it-matters-right-now/
As far as your relatives. I can hardly help you to "convert" any of them to your point of view in a post, I don't really know what to tell you, and if you think nancy's argument is more plausible, far be it from me to help you stick with something you find less plausible. I express what I know and think for myself and my only ideological loyalty is to truth. I don't care to make my arguments more convincing/appealing, I care to make them as truthful as I can, and if I find them not truthful or indefensible, I abandon them. I suggest you do the same.
Look, I'm sooo tired of this subject, but economists are not entirely in one camp or another necessarily. Look, Bernanke was just as much a moron as Geithener. But in the end the idea of flooding the economy with money was once suggested by Friedman as a plausible way of stimulating an economy but is a solid pillar within the Keynsian principles. You can't shed that no matter how hard you try. See the links below if you still don't believe, but I doubt they will convince you. The fact that most of these guys come from Ivy league schools makes people think they are smarter than anyone else but it's completely wrong. The bottom line, Geitherner has recently gotten religion but only after years of pushing HARD for more and more debt spending. Look at our deficit this year, it's 50% of our tax revenues! The time to blame Bush is up, it's time for this administration to stop blaming others and get things corrected. I'm all for some increased taxes but the mis-appropriate of tax revenues also has to get fixed and nobody wants to deal with that side. Not sure how this relates to Walmart but what the heck....
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/10/05/how-keynesian-economic-theory-contributed-financial-crisis
http://www.chloregy.com/home/business/187243-right-sees-2010-midterm-as-referendum-on-keynesian-economics
http://geofftalk.com/?p=339
Well, Keynes never advocated showering banks with money from the Fed as Friedman did, it is not a "central pillar" of Keynesian economics at all. Keynes did propose various forms of government spending to stimulate the economy but they were completely different. The government was to invest in household budgets to encourage consumer spending and stimulate job creation, as well as developing human capital (ie education etc) to create high-skill, high-productivity workforce that would encourage technological development and advanced industries, not throw money at failed banks as Friedman proposed.
The time to blame Bush is up, it's time for this administration to stop blaming others and get things corrected.
I don't know where you are getting the idea that I support Obama or why you're attributing that to me, seems like you just pulled it out of thin air. I don't support any Republicrat of the last 30 years, they are all neoliberal cronies. (possibly might want to look up the definition of neoliberalism, the Orwellian manipulation of language that's gone on lately might cause some confusion here)
Thanks Edge, you are too good to chat with. I didn't mean to imply your approval of the current administration, that part was a soliloquy. Take care.
You're producing Heartland as a supposedly credible source and challenging me on a TED lecture?
I told you that I like TED, a lot, I just spend my time checking the facts and mentioned how many of those lecturers are not as well vetted as some others. Anyone who provides a presentation without references like he did is asking for critical thinkers to question more deeply. I could care less about heartland, I could provide dozens of other references if I took the time, sorry it offended you...
Keynesian economics requires direct job creation by Government stimulus funded by deficit spending=Keynesian 101.
The fact that Friedman suggested it should tell you its not Keynesian. And please check your spell check,it doesnt know how to spell Keynesian.
Edgewater,
Thank you much for your reply. I find you both to be very intelligent comenters. I do so appreciate the time both of you are taking to educating all of us. Your passion is obvious. Thanks for your links and I will view them tout suite.
LOL, it's the Keynesians that have gotten us into this bailout mess and debt debacle, that's why Obama is surrounded by them. Friedman's believe in lowering marginal taxes to promote overall economic growth, which is what Regan followed in the early 80s and resulted in a significant economic turn-around from the Carter years. Check your facts before you add a PHD in economics after your signature.
Friedman is the problem. Neoliberalism and its associated raging inequality are at the root of so many of our ills, including the financial crisis.
Some reading for you:
First, prepared by a "stupid" OWSer: http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
A talk by Richard Wilkinson at this year's TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
Dean Baker on inequality and the crisis: http://www.thenation.com/article/36891/right-prescription-ailing-economy
And don't even get me started on Pinochet, Thatcher, Yeltsin and the Chicago Boys.
We wouldn't be in a debt debacle if Keynes had been followed instead of ideological "starving the beast" and alternately "deficits don't matter". Countercyclical policy means operating at a surplus in boom years and paying down the debt. It's been deficits during booms (tax cuts and military spending) since Reagan (Clinton being a minor exception, but still pretty neoliberal overall)... That we've reached the limits of utility on deficit spending is the responsibility of Friedman/Reagan/Bush, not Keynes. This has effectively hamstrung the policies that could have actually pulled us out of this. Best option now is inflation.
And, what Edgewaters said above. I really can't improve on that much. 100% correct.
Milton Friedman rocks !
Hey, what's up with the video of the guy who just put on his shirt from a folded JC Penney box? Is this the expert we should be believing in?
I guess it's up to you whether you judge books by their covers. It's content/function over form for me.
Well I guess he had an English accent which helped you believe him based on your television infomercial upbringing, but I saw little if any references and he waved his arms at the end about true scientific support for his results. I'm a big supporter of TED but they have an equal number of quacks versus superstars and this seems to fall squarely in the quack column. I'm not saying that his feedback is crap, but he needs to establish himself with scientific analysis and publications that have been reviewed by independent peers. I guess I'm just a bit skeptical of what I see and don't take it for face value until I do more research.
Interesting. You know me so well.
http://www.ted.com/speakers/richard_wilkinson.html (with link to a good Q&A - which does include some linked references)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_G._Wilkinson
I know this may seem amazing, but if you spend you whole life with the conviction and purpose of finding social inequality, and do as much research as you can on the subject, you just might be able to put a presentation and paper together which supports your long-standing beliefs. Amazing.... file that under 'duh'. Look for someone who has an independent streak of sometime not agreeing with you then you will find some real research...
You are hilarious. You use the word independent, and repeat the talking points of of CATO and the Heritage Foundation. Maybe you should ask the Koch bros. to send you a check.
He made his case.
...so did Fleischmann with Cold Fusion and Einstein with the Static Universe, both of those gentlemen had a lot longer resumes than this fellow...buyer beware....
No. The bailouts were championed by Ben Bernanke, aka "Helicopter Ben" after Friedman's helicopter money theory. Keynes had nothing to do with it. Just search helicopter money. It was Friedman's answer to a liquidity crisis. Shower the banks with government money. Obviously you're not too familiar with Friedman, probably get your readings of him in selective quotes from radical libertarian blogs. Helicopter money is all Friedman.
Yes, when Reagan came in the Friedmanite fetish of deregulation and privatization proceeded apace and has ever since. In the last 30 years since, the economy has just gone from bad to worse by every measure. Keynes' theories, meanwhile, presided over the massive economic boom of the 50s through to the 70s, when the middle class exploded rather than shrank and the US economy was literally swamped with new wealth.
As results go, Friedman's theories have been a disaster.
Funny thing neoliberal Demand siders used Keynesian models to figure revenue flow from the Reagan tax cuts.
wow ! anyway the 80's thru the 90's were fantastic economic times what are you talking about? the 60's - JFK cut taxes - the 70's were a disaster. Hello! What are you smoking?
No, the 80s and 90s were not "fantastic economic times" at all. There were at least 3 recessions during the period. Yes, there were bubbles (like the dotcom bubble) that temporarily boosted the economy but they all collapsed. This was also the era of "downsizing", and the irrevocable loss of US manufacturing. US industry was destroyed during this period, and instead of producing tangible goods, the economy started generating fake wealth by blowing bubble after bubble. No surprise this is also when foreign trade went into deficit. There was nothing to export ...
The 70s were not a disaster until the supply shock of the Oil Crisis hit. That was an external cause, it had nothing to do with domestic economic policy at all. And it was much easier to get ahead in the 1970s even so. It was easier to get a job, easier to afford tuition, easier to raise a family, easier to balance a family budget or buy a home. Sure. It was harder to buy a fancy television and whatnot. But which is more important? You think trading more college degrees and higher home ownership for more big screen televisions is a good deal? What are you smoking?
The massive economic booms of the 50s through 70s was fueled by the rest of the world recovering from a global war and the US being the only economic powerhouse remaining until the late 70s. It's a bit simplistic to attribute that success to the Keynes's.
Here's a good clip about your Keynes' bailout results...
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/bruce-krasting/2011/07/11/geithner-on-tv-keynesian-economics-has-failed
Geithner is an anti-Keynesian deficit/inflation hawk, what else is he going to say?
Nice rationalization. But results are results, and Friedman's are miserable. You can make all the excuses you want but that's not what a results-based approach is about. It's about results, not rationalizations and excuses.
And repeating that the bailouts are a result of Keynes doesn't change the facts, that they are not based on Keynes, but on Friedman's theory of helicopter money. And they were championed by Bernanke who came to be known as "Helicopter Ben" because of it. That's reality. Deal with it.
BTW, Freidmam's theories were responsible for the only peacetime expansion in our history since the 60's (when I mentioned already that we grew on the backs of the re-building Japanese and Europeans)
You are drinking your own Kool-aid, hope it tastes good. If the prodigal son of Keynes disputing his theories then you might want to take pause. Oh, and when does Obama and Geithner finally get credit in your eyes for the catastrafuck that we're in? Do they get complete amnesty under the 'we hate Bush" flag forever?
Oh you've gone all rabid and off-topic, see I've hit the short circuit. Well ... nice talking to you. Have a good Thanksgiving.
Surely, we're better than this.
Thanks, same to you my friend!
You are apparently very confused about what is, and has , for a few decades, been taught in ivy league economics departments. The "school" of economics That has been favored is far more similar to "classical", Laissez Faire than Keynesian , and therefore very much more in line with Friedman. One of the most influential of these is Gregory Mankiw, who pretends to adopt Keynesian ideas, but seriously distorts them. http://radioboston.wbur.org/2011/11/02/mankiw
Since you brought the subject up, nancy, I have not seen anything on the news that even shows that the buses got to Renton,(sp) Washington WalMart. Have you see or heard anything?? I hope they are safe, wherever they are.
Me too, I suspect it was a dozen or so people caravaning in their Prius's.
I do hope everyone at OWS and elsewhere stays safe no matter what they beliefs, life is so fragile and precious that we often forget how special it is to be here and enjoy the freedom of living.
Our WalMart was chaos yesterday. I could only estimate, but I would say 20,000 customers that day.
Went out today and everything was back to normal. What a relief. And I very much enjoyed the time out there. Someone must have been working frantically last night to get the place tidied up, restocked (except for Soft Scrub) and ready for me today.
AAAAH it is a great world to be living in.
From what I'm seeing on the news it was the best lack Friday (Thursday) ever. I don't think that 50% of the stores opened Thursday trying to increase safety, rather they were trying to get a jump on each other. Either way, they sure did get a great result considering the general uncertainty in the economy. The proof will be in the end result for the whole season, but this sure doesn't look like people are leaving their wallets at home.
Everyone (most) enjoy a good bargain. I love shopping for a good bargain. I have a small business, where I have to go out and shop for the best wholesale bargains possible.
There is no greater satisfaction than being able to purchase the remaining warehouse stock of a manufactures' discontinued item and putting it on my floor for 1/2 what the nicest furniture store is selling the same item for. I smile all the way to the bank and so do my customers.
It is easy to villify business in general and specifically big business but somehow I do not feel that most of that is justified. Our society is simply too mobile and educated to fall for the game of some businesses. However, lack of business knowledge on thepart of the consumer plays into the hand of the shady business operator.
If you have no idea what the wholesale-retail price relationship in a business is - you are a prime sucker to be taken for a ride. If you do not know that a $1,000 couch at a furniture store, wholesaled for $300-$500, and that it will be worth a maximum of $250.00 when you get it home (it is now used) you play right into their game.
And we are protesting WalMart - get real
Same here. I shop at Walmart and Costco (a much more aggressive company with their suppliers by the way), as much as I can. Whenever we can buy something for my business at a lower cost then we are able to be more competitive since our costs are lower. Walmart doesn't just have cheap stuff either. While some people chose or have to buy the cheaper stuff at Target and Walmart, many people buy more expensive solutions that offer higher quality.
I feel compelled to correct your statements in a few areas.
First, your comment about a company's investments not showing up on the books is a bit naive. The tax code has large incentives allowing first-year write-offs of many capital investments, and the rest typically show up on the various depreciation schedules depending on the type of asset purchased and its service life. A large company typically has a near continuous stream of investments and overlapping depreciation on its books. It is very common to see the total investment/depreciation to remain fairly constant, and it is "refreshed" on an annual basis when new investments are made.
Second, the number of retail jobs in the economy is driven by the demand for consumer goods. If Wall-mart were to close tomorrow, the consumers they serve would go elsewhere and those retailers would have to hire roughly the same number of people to service their increased customer base (probaly more because few are as 'efficient' as Wall-mart).
Third, once issued, a company receives no particular benefit from trading of its stock in the secondary markets. The CEOs care because they are often awarded a block of shares as incentives, but the movement of the stock as no other impact on the company's revenue.
Though you have made several less than complete statements, you are right in your implication that the real problem is that these companies work on such fine margins that they have to out-source our jobs and treat their labor poorly. This is because We the People have for too long followed the corporate script that the lowest sticker price is best. It is not. Buyers need to consider the full SOCIAL cost of their purchasing decisions. See http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-power-of-the-people/
I compiled shopping guidelines we developed under a forum post here and hosted them at http://bit.ly/DoYourBit where they are widely accessible and can be shared via social networks. These guidelines are meant to show people how to exercise their economic power by 'voting' for the companies that are responsible citizens.
Do you disagree with the right of the 99% to CHOOSE where they shop ?
Thanks for the reply, well said. I would agree with most of your points, although companies do leverage their stock price to raise capital very often for future investments (when the stock is down, they need to dilute stock more to raise the same amount of capital).
I agree quite loudly with your right to put your dollars where your mouth is. Shop where you like and let your social conscience dictate your buying habits. You are always free to pay more if you choose.
Happy holidays!
Thanks ! I'm with family for Thanksgiving, and that always makes me happy ! I hope you have been able to do the same !
Absolutely did, thanks. I also got my gas guzzling Chevy Suburban fixed to boot, just in time for winter :)
I for one have told my extended family that I would be perfectly happy if they all pooled their money and bought me a Tesla Model S . I even told them it would count as my Christmas AND birthday present ;o) They still don't seem to be coming on board ;o) See the Tesla link at http://bit.ly/DoYourBit . It's a real beauty, all electric, 300 mile range, seats 5 adults and 2 toddlers, and is 100% American made !
I've seen those, made in Portland, Or I believe! Super cool cars. It would be tough for me to get the fam to buy me a $100 K+ car as well. Oh well, maybe a model or go-kart....
They're "only" $50,000 or so ... similar to a BMW 5 series. I think Tesla is in California, and the factory for the S is the old GM/Toyota joint verture plant down near LA somewhere.
I've got a Chevy Prism / Toyota Corolla!, came from that plant in CA.
Only $50K, that's not much more than a Chevy Volt, with a LOT more style and personality!!! I'm all for electric cars, but they need to meet what society wants, not just what people think are necessary to save the environment.
300 mile range and lot's of space... that's getting close, don;t you think ?
Absolutely, I laugh when I hear the specs on the Volt, 35 mile range, give me a break....Just look at how quickly companies developed electric cars. Imagine if instead Oil just vanished over a few years instead of getting lower in price. Soon cool electric car companies like Tesla would be selling millions instead of thousands and would have the economies of scale to sell at more competitive prices that are much closer to existing gasoline vehicles.
Yep. I still don't understand how Tesla can do what they're doing and not the big car companies. I suspect it has to do with profit margin... Tesla is likely making less per car than Detroit, Japan, South Korea, etc are willing to accept. That's the only explanation I can come up with why a small car company can deliver so much more capability at such a low price !
It's all about volume. Companies like Motorola won't get into a market unless it's worth $1 B. The electric car market is simply too small to enter. Once the market is established and verified, bigger companies will have the resources and brand recognition to leverage 'second-mover' advantage and enter the market with a superior product at a better price point. There will always be a niche market for Tesla IMHO as they have entered and stayed at the fringes with high performance electric vehicles.
That makes sense... thanks ! Good night Nancy !
Have you ever worked at Wal Mart? I would suggest you try it. They manage to pay their lowest level of management 30,000 dollars per year. The average employee makes 8.81 per hour. When they finally offered benefits to their employees I believe the deductibles were somewhere in the range of 500 dollars per year. If you can afford that on 8.81 per hour then more power to you. When we would bring up concerns to management about such things they would say: "if you don't like your job then quit." But the thing that they and people who defend them don't realize is that they employees are the company, even at Wal Mart. The shelves don't stock themselves. But people who are opposed to occupy seem only to be able to shout that people should be getting jobs at Wal Mart or McDonalds. Work at these places as an adult with responsibilities, and then you can point to Occupy and tell them they need to get jobs.
Since when did you come to the realization that a company you work for was responsible for not only paying you a wage for an honest hour's of work, but they were also responsible for your health (and that of your family?) Check your history, health insurance is relatively recent phenomenon that came out of company's trying to develop new benefits for workers that it wanted to attract/retain back in the post Great Depression era. What's next once you get your health insurance that covers any possible illness you may ever get, perhaps they should buy every worker a car and a home to live in, and fix those cars and homes when they need some repairs!
I've had many of the scummiest jobs around, but I dedicated myself to living with less and educating myself so that I could get ahead. I worked hard, very hard and still do. That's the only reason why my life is a little better than the average person. That's what this country is about. It's fine with me if other people are not as dedicated to getting ahead, just don't expect me to not fight for what I have tirelessly worked decades to earn. In a society there needs to be leaders, engineers, waiters, and garbage collectors. Not everyone earns the same to do this. It's a fact of life. Otherwise sign me up to get paid collecting garbage but being paid the same as the president of Walmart.
Then you and I are very similar. I worked some of the most demeaning jobs there are, but I too feel I persevered to be where I am. I don't understand where we differ on these issues. The disparity between workers and CEO's wages are the highest they have ever been in our country. Why should some have everything while the rest have none? I'm not saying the president of Wal Mart should be making 8.81 per hour but neither should the employees. A perfect example is a professional sports team. The owners make billions and the players make millions. Now, I understand that Wal Mart employs more people than a professional sports franchise, but why the overwhelming disparity? I think you've made up your mind that the occupiers are just a bunch of spoiled twenty year olds who don't want to work, but I think that most of them are people who want nothing more than to work but they either can't find work or are just completely outraged by the disparity in wealth.
The disparity between CEO and worker pay will always increase. Money begets money which is why the rich get richer and the poor don't get richer as quickly. Look at all of the income re-distribution policies this country has had for decades, none if it has stopped that. Part of the reason is that the rich are rich because they work tirelessly, invested money and time in education, and are able to multiply their efforts through re-investment.
To be sure, people who work at the lowest levels in our society need to be able to have a sustainable life, and that should come from those who have so much. the challenge is to find the right balance that continues to provide incentive for those who will make our country great. Imagine what Steve Jobs would have done if the country had told him that the best he could have done for himself is that he might make 50% more than a dishwasher at a restaurant...The incentives need to be there, at every level along the way, which is why when cumulated they result in a CEO of GE making 100x+ of a worker. My personal belief is that our country's biggest problem is that our quality of life is much much better than just about every other country. What we are seeing now internally is that the quality of life disparity that exists between the US and developing countries is being imported itself. Nobody cared 30 years ago when we were buying Chinese made toys when the workers were off-shore and out of sight, but 20 years of flat income growth for the poor because of global wage competition has show us first-hand the global inequality that existed 30 years ago and still exists today.
I don't honestly care about the OWS people in the parks. The Wall street park is less than the size of my yard, compare that to the population of NY. I don't believe that they don't want to work, but I also think they have grown up in a world that taught them that everyone gets a medal if they play and their teachers brainwashed them over 15 years of liberal education to think that business were bad.
Exactly, the incentives need to be there. The incentives to work also need to be there. With no working class there is no wealthy class. Through the years they've managed to outsource thousands of decent paying factory jobs in our country. You're saying that the wealth gap exists naturally, but I'm saying that when it became apparent that wealth could be made at the expense of people's jobs it was done without batting a proverbial eye. And I'm not saying that the money people make should not belong to them, but with any system balance is required. When the jobs are sacrificed for the sake of wealth the balance is disrupted. America is now entirely dependent on consumption because we produce very little. If everyone is working at Wal Mart for 8.81 per hour then there is no consumption. And I was taught that if I got good grades I would go to college and get a good job. The job I have now is a good job, and I didn't need to waste 20,000 dollars on college to get it. My company hires workers on a consistent basis, and they are one of the most profitable companies in the U.S.A. Our CEO makes millions, our share holders are happy and the workers can make 60.000 starting out. It seems this is more the exception now than the norm.
Well said. Perhaps it might be interesting to consider this under the heading of 'everything is relative'. For example, in your company I would suspect that you don't have any general laborers at $60K per year.So in your 'world' people are paid a living wage. Your company probably outsources those functions to other companies or is a service business, but either way that is one way to draw a line around it. Another line to draw would be around New Your City or Manhattan, there is certainly very little if any manufacturing within that circle but nobody seems to be too concerned about it.
Another view of this is to stop thinking of our country and start thinking of the whole world. In that case, no manufacturing has been lost, it has simply moved to lower cost locations (not too different then after the industrial revolution when textile labor jobs moved from New England to the South, then later to Mexico, then later to China).
I agree with your point on incentives going both ways. It's never 100% one way or another. In my company we could outsource a large number of jobs to companies off-shore, but we want to do much of it here is the US and pay $10-13 per hour. It's not great but it's better than not having the jobs at all; and if we paid a lot more than that we would not be competitive. It's a difficult line to balance and we live in a global economy whether we like it or not.
10 to 13 per hour is better than 8. Our company is actually a rail transportation company, so the outsourcing is more difficult, but yes the laborers even make close to 60,000 starting out. Not quite. I'd say 18 or 19 per hour. Whatever that equates to. But you are also correct in that they hire general contractors to do some of the work that our laborers are not skilled in. For example, we are in the process of widening tunnels that are 100 years old. No employee or craft that we possess is really capable of such work, so contractors were hired. But for the most part everything else is done from within. I think we've gotten away from the original argument, unfortunate effect of intelligent discourse I guess, but it is exactly this kind of discourse that solves problems. It's good to know that there are thinkers on both sides of the spectrum. I think that people just want the chance to make a decent living, and it has seemed recently that those chances are dwindling.
That's more like $40K per year, but still academic. You're quite right about people wanting to make a decent living, but I wonder how we would think of things if we stopped looking at this like our country versus the whole world. Our quality of life and standard of living is so much higher than most any other country, what we consider 'decent living' is quite subjective when you compare what people experience in Mexico or China. I'm an engineer by education, over the past 20+ years the ability to outsource engineering to India or SE Asia has grown at an incredible rate. It's not just assembling products, it's everything. McDonalds piloted a program several years ago where you spoke to an order taker in India when you drove up to a drive-through order taking station in the US... But, what do we think the factory worker, engineer, or call center receptionist in India has for a right to work? Should we not be forced to find a way to be competitive with them from a wage and productivity stand-point just because they are on the other side of a country border instead of a state border? It's a scary thought but I'm afraid that for quite some time our country's quality of living will slowly decline or stay flat as the rest of the world catches up to us.
Thanks for the discussion by the way, I don't think very many people here say that or probably feel that.
That is no longer true that we have the highest standard of living. There are other countries that are doing very well and it exceeds our standard of living.
I'd like to see your references, not denying anything but just curious.
If it's true, I think those countries will be in for an even worse adjustment over the next few decades that we are in for.
Russia is a good example
Hmm.... Is that the reference? Perhaps you believe their quality of life is better when measured against a social metric, I was referring to a different measure. Besides, I would suspect that Russia is not at the top of the social standard of living scale either.
Never worked at WalMart. WalMart didn't even exist when I needed an entry level job with very limited career potential. The filling station managed to pay 65 cents an hour with no health insurance, but they did let me work 100 hours per week. Supprisingly, that, along with working during the school year, paid for my college education so that I never had the opportunity to work at WalMart.
If you are old enough to have worked for 65 cents an hour and had a mother who stayed home & raised you, you are really a bit old and out of touch to be making pronouncements about what 8.81 cent workers in today's environment should or should not complain about.
Today, the working class grow up without mothers in the home 24 hours a day because the cost of living is so high that at least 2 paychecks are needed to just pay for the necessities of life.
Your age prejudices do NOT really impress me NOR do your evaluations of my intelligence.
Since that day, I have worked, supervised, and employed others every day, been a part of society and grown up enough to stand right beside YOU so far as being IN TOUCH is concerned.
A simple ratio calculation would show you that you cannot get beyond your status quo without outside intervention.
$.65:$5,000::$8.81:$67,692
The way I interpret this ratio is as follows:
My entry level job at $.65 did NOT lead to my first job out of college at $5,000 per year. Likewise, your $8.81 entry level job is NOT going to lead you to that $67,692 job unless you intervene with an investment in education, working two or more jobs, start your own business,etc.
It just isn't going to happen.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I mean I understand what you wrote, but I'm not sure of your point.
My point is this. WalMart doesn't exactly represent the best entry level job openings in the country unless you are planning a career with WalMart. Thus a turnover rate of about 44%. But this is a headache that they create and fight every day based on their business plan. Check the auto department and note the age of the employees and their longevity with the company. Now that is a headache for any company.
I know several friends from my area that took that entry level position and a foothold to a career and within a few years have their own store to manage and have their sights set on even more responsibility within the company.
For the entry level employee, this may be the best option that they have at the time but for a very limited amount of time. That greeter at the front door (note the age) is probably not working to pay off their college loans, make their overextended mortgage payments and feed their kids.
IN SUMMARY - There may be a very good reason that those jobs exist in our society today and it may be a lot more valuable than you can even put a value on. I grew up with no TV, no Video games, etc BUT I did grow up with Mom and Dad at home when I got out of school and a job waiting for me every day of the week all year. That job consisted of things to do around the farm, for other farmers, at the corner filling station, etc. And we won't even discuss that big issue of minimum wage.
We cannot simply condemn the existence of these types of job as valueless to society. I see a very valuable asset there, one which is capable of keeping eligible workers out of the gangs, away from the TV and while learning and adding something to society at the same time.
In my personal opinion, any job out there that offers a young person any type of gainful employment which, even for a few hours, takes them out of any empty home, away from TV etc is one of the most valuable resosurces we have today.
If you want to take away about 1,000,000 jobs from these young people go ahead, the consequences are not going to be what you want.
My company does the same thing. We hire entry level workers for entry level pay. I tell them all the time that my sincere hope is that they find the initiative and time to dedicate themselves to bettering their job opportunities by taking vocational tech classes, learning to drive a big rig, or something to get them to a better earning potential. These jobs are valuable to society.
I said nothing about taking them away. The companies are the only ones who can do that, and they do a fine job of it. You said you worked 100 hours a week at a filling station? Try going to Wal Mart or McDonalds and working 40. They will laugh at you. My store manager at Wal Mart told one of my fellow co-workers and friends that they would rather have three or four slackers as opposed to one hard worker that would earn a higher raise each year. We all learn lessons from working those jobs, but the message has become distorted. It's no longer about working hard it's about profit. Sure people want to see the fruits of their labor pay off, but how can you support a family on that kind of income. Yes, when I worked at Wal Mart I was a student, but a lot of my co-workers were people trying to support a family. And yes, you can advance at Wal Mart to management and beyond, but try doing it in the town in which you live. You have to be prepared to move to move up. I learned that lesson first hand.
Why DO you expect to support a family on that kind of income. If that is the only option you have, THEN you have a problem, but only then.
You cannot expect any company to pay you more JUST BECAUSE you have a family, have a disability, are a gambling addict, or any of a zillion other reasons.
Your first hand lesson probably ignored the fact that others in your town also wanted to move up at the same time you did. WalMart is not required to create management jobs just because you don't want to move. The person that got the local management job simply beat you to the punch - so you are faced with a decision, move up or move out. It is really your decision at that point.
And, yes, if you waited to learn that lesson first hand until you got to the decision point, you were too late.
Well said. This country was founded on the principle that we are all offered "Life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness", not life liberty and COMPLETE happiness. You need to go out and find your happiness. Hack it out of the woods if you need to. It just won't be dropped in your lap in the town you grew up in.....
I am in the process of reading a book by Ethan Willis, entitled "Prosper, Create the Life you Really Want" It is well worth the time of anyone wanting a different point of view.
Then what's the point? What's the point of trying to get a job and work your way up? Not everyone can be managers. If we are all just lazy or beaten to the punch then why try? You have it in your head that I just want to cry about how unfair life is, but the point is that things are constantly changing. I have worked hard and make a decent living, and I still believe in what occupy is fighting for. The people you mentioned who beat me to the punch are getting laid off. Look at the occupiers. They aren't just a bunch of twenty somethings looking for handouts like you think they are. They are people who had good corporate jobs as well. We all see the corruption and the disparity. It is time to argue with the old "life is not fair" adage. I'm not saying that I believe a doctor should make the same as a Wal Mart employee, but I am saying that the Wal Mart employee should reap some of the reward of their labor too. Without the worker there is no company. If it weren't for people fighting for change there would be no America as we know it.
Your reward for your labor is a fair wage based on fair market value, you have no further right unless you bring more to the table.
Also the way technology and automation are going, pretty soon the workers we are talking about will be obsolete, so educate yourself now and plan for the future. The problem is not the company, it is the direction that technology is directing them in.
For one thing, there is NOT a point. Trying to get a job where you can work your way up is your choice. BUT, you have to apply a little wisdom to what you choose. If you are a teacher and want to be school superintendent and both your principal and the superintendent are in their 20-30's and don't want to move out of town, to an even better job, you might find it a real challenge to make your dream come true if you also are unwilling to move.
In any job, you run the risk of getting laid off for any number of reasons. I wouldn't go to work for a company making the old tube type TV's, I wouldn't recommend going to work for KMart and expecting to move up very far before they go under, I wouldn't try to sell refrigerators to a homeless person unless I was the best salesman around and didn't take returns.
Without THE worker there is a company. Without A worker there is no company.
BUT, I believe that simply fighting for change is futile. It has to be change for a purpose and no matter what or how successful OWS or any other group is, that in no way guarantees any change in your situation.
I cannot properly address your concern regarding your statement about reaping some of the rewards of their labor. Some do it by stealing from WalMart (check out the amount sometime), some expect a free coke now and then, some expect a promotion or pay raise, some purchase stock in the company and thus share, some might consider their paycheck enough sharing. Exactly how do YOU interpret what you posted??
In summary, I believe that the greater part of what we are and who we are has a lot more to do with individual choice than anything else.
You may also note that I am quite a few years your senior, live in the great open spaces of the SouthWest, don't want a mansion, and live a comfortable happy life. I would refer you to a book entitled "Prosper-Create the Life You Really Want" by Ethan Willis. This book is a re-discovery of things known in the past and lost by our busy lifestyle. You may actually find that you are far richer than you ever imagined.
The bottom line is take corruption out of washington, and quit buying child labor products which Walmart stands behind.
You have my full support for both of those. Now explain your plan of attack. You going to hit both at once or can you determine that one is more important, single it out and attack one at a time.
Can we maybe put WalMart on hold for a few months, drop the idea of planting veggies in the Park, quit crying over the loss of our plastic tents and get something done.
No plant the gardens, and I am not qualified to tell you which one to hit first. I would think corruption in Washington for that would eliminate a very high high percentage of our problems for then things would start falling in place, I also think all military mgf. should be bought out with a check from our government and be turned over to the red cross or someone trust worthy and turn it into a non profit factories. No more stock holders.
I fully agree with your first priority. I very much expect that if that problem was corrected, a lot of the other ones would go away too.
The military thing I am thinking about - but I do agree that that whole areas needs more brains along with the brawn.
Walmart is owned by one family who, being so much smarter than everyone else, is worth 20 billion a piece. Nobody needs to be worth that much; the money just sits there while other not-so-fortunately blessed people are starving. Big business found out one day that they can get away with ten times as much as it thought it could because the people didn't stand up for their rights and their jobs. Jobs went overseas or were replaced by machinery and continue to be. People tried to vote fair and square politicians that were supposedly on their side, but now we see they are all owned by Wall Street and Corporate America. There is nothing we don't understand; we simply want to save the middle class by getting our jobs back and enforcing more regulation on businesses that are killing our jobs and our dreams for a better future. We are starting to stand up for our dreams, long overdue.
"Putting people out of jobs"
Look, Walmart customers go there to spend dollars that they are going to spend anyway, somewhere.
Walmart is not irreplaceable.
If 15 billion, or 5 billion is not "enough" for Walmart's shareholders (or the Walton family, who already are billionaires) - then fuck em.
They go out of business and some other store takes their place, hires some of their workers and happily takes those customer dollars.
Maybe the smaller stores that they drove out of the areas they invade would come back and hire some of those displaced workers (many of whom are temps anyway).
Walmart is the place to shop because $!5 B of profit after $400 B of sales is obviously too little % profit for those poor mom and pop stores... Don't hold your breath for them to go out of business anytime soon, although I'm confident that eventually some company will replace it, probably Amazon. Just like Western Union 100 years ago, there is always another company around the corner. But don't worry, there will always be some big company for you to personify whatever is wrong with your life...
You're so "classy" with your namecalling and straw man arguments.
Fuck off, "nancy", we'll boycott who we wish to boycott.
"Walmart is the place to shop because $!5 B of profit after $400 B of sales is obviously too little % profit for those poor mom and pop stores... "
WTF does that even mean?
Walmart is a pox on the communities they invade.
Long live the NYC council for being about the last municipality to not allow the tax evading, Asian-worker-exploiting, mom& pop store killing bastards in.
Just as you say "if Walmart workers don't like it, let them work somewhere else" - well, if the fat pig Waltons think 5 billion in profit isn't enough let them "GO GALT".
Fuck em. They aren't innovators and they don't provide unique, essential services that couldn't be provided by anyone else.
They are the pushcart vendors of previous generations.
I LOL'd really loud at the guy upthread who said Sam Walton was "a great man". He is little better than a pimp.
"WTF does that even mean?"
It's a long thread, but if you read it all you might figure that out, I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself. I didn't say WMT is the place to shop, I said the tiny profit % is not an intelligent reason to justify a demonstration or sit-in. There are certainly lots of other reasons, but it's lazy to just focus on a big number because it's a big number, that assumes the followers on this thread are ignorant sheep.
"Walmart is a pox on the communities they invade."
Walmart lowers prices for people who don't even shop at Walmart, just by the fact that they are in the local area, Walmart also support their communities MUCH more than the mom and pop's ever did but that's not convenient for you to be aware of.
"Fuck em. They aren't innovators and they don't provide unique, essential services that couldn't be provided by anyone else."
Walmart has been innovating since day 1, there are single-handedly responsible for reducing TONS of packaging in their efforts to reduce unnecessary product costs, they also reduce carbon emissions by millions of tons by more efficiently bringing product to end consumers through their innovative logistics systems.
I'll leave the name calling to you, you seem to be doing a good job.
Are they realy reducing carbon emisions by brining in products from China where there are no regulations or controlls I don't think so. I have seen the pictures of the smog and pollution. You seem to talk a lot but there is little substance in your comments. You just come off as a troll. Im not saying you are one but the shoe seems to fit.
Have you seen the smog in LA, SF, Seattle? What does that tell you? You can't make a judgement from what someone else spoon feeds you. Besides, I was comparing WMT versus mom and pops and other retailers in the US distributing the same goods. Do you think WMT was the first company to bring in toys and other product from China?
Do you really think that all Walmart sells is 100% products from China? If so you may want to re-calibrate that assumption.
Please enlighten me and provide a definition of "troll". Is that someone who disagrees with your point of view? I suppose it's much easier to come to consensus when you ignore facts and hang around other people who think the same way that you do, quite affirmative
But how high are the smog levels in LA compared to China. A tyipical half truth. A Troll is someone who posts half truth's
As an example FOX News calling Pepper Spray a food product.
Half truths as determined by your infinite wisdom I'm sure...I didn't suggest a truth about the smog in the US, only posed a thought for you to consider about our own smog. Big difference.
Have you ever traveled to China? Taiwan, Malaysia, or any of the SE Asia countries that you hate so much? You might gain a better understanding if you did.
" May 2011: Unhealthy air remains a threat to the lives and health of millions of people in the United States, despite great progress. Air pollution lingers as a widespread and dangerous reality even as some seek to weaken the Clean Air Act, the public health law that has driven the cuts in pollution since 1970. The State of the Air 2011 Report by the American Lung Association shows that air quality in many places in the US has improved but that over 154 million Americans, just over one half of the nation, still suffer pollution levels that are often dangerous to breathe.", http://www.citymayors.com/environment/polluted_uscities.html
I have no doubt that Hong Kong , Beijing , and many other Chinese cities are polluted, and probably worse that in the US, but what does that mean? This country polluted it's way through the industrial revolution and beyond, literally paid slave labor, killed hundred of thousands of native Americans to take their resources and land, used child labor in farms and factories, exploded nuclear weapons over Japan, watched over 3 Mile Island, etc, etc. Do you really think our S@!$ doesn't stink? Oh, but now that we know better and are playing a cleaner game then developing countries that are behind us in development need to follow the old rules instead of the new ones we've set , eh? I'm not saying that is a bad ideal, but let's not blow out of proportion every little report of pollution and child labor in China as if it's an affront to all of the ideals that this country built itself on from day one; because it is certainly not.
If what you say is true, knowing how much short-cuts the company makes and how many externalities they do not account for, they must either be incredibly incompetent or greedy managers, or capitalism is in more trouble than we even most of its harsh critics believe. In either case, time to wrap it up - this pig is done.
Hmmm......Not sure how to respond to this incredibly profound post....Guess I leave it where it is...
Nancy, sounds like OWS has gotten under your skin. Have you seen a doctor about this?
Not yet, too busy working hard to get ahead so that I can pay a ton more taxes to support the 99% banging drums and keeping me up all night....Perhaps I should see a doctor about insomnia first!
I have to say you do sound cranky.
I'm curious, do you do business with or have some form of investment in Walmart?
Not that I know of, but maybe one our my mutual funds does. I'm just fed up with people telling me for my whole life that someone else should be taken care of, while I bust my hump day in and out (night and day) to get and stay ahead. I've sacrificed time with my family to serve my country, gone to school part time while working full-time, moved across the country several times to have a job for my family...I'm thankful for what I have and what I've earned, and am happy to contribute to society in general to support those who are less-fortunate, but I am sick of seeing lazy people with no initiative complain about not 'getting theirs'. It's not why this country was founded, but we hear it too often.
sorry for sounding cranky, probably the late hour. Take care.
what insolence.
If profit were really sales minus expenses, corporate life would be very different. However, profit is an accounting outcome. So, if you get people to retire with a promise of health insurance for life, and then renege on it, you increase your profits by eliminating an accounting liability. Then, of course, you give bonuses to your executives.
While this example is not specifically a WalMart example, it was chosen as a fairly simple example. Using accounting, shortchanging and/or ripping off your employees can be "profit".
A small increase in an expense like health care can mean an immense amount to an employee, but it reduces the bottom line...which flows to the top.
When 10% of corporate profits in the U.S. go to the top few - very few - who manage corporations, both shareholders and employees are being shortchanged. That figure was 5% not so very long ago. Think about it.
Profit is Sales minus all expenses, sorry to break your bubble....but you are right that it is an accounting outcome, which was my point originally. It does not equal cash available to distribute to employees or anyone else.
And when corporations reduce payments of retire health insurance they are not increasing profits, because the payments are made from cash against outstanding liabilities on the balance sheet (not the income sheet). I don't have time to give an Accounting 101 but you can get one on the internet.
I'd like to hear about some specific examples of corporations reneging on life time health insurance instead of generalities. The only ones I am aware of is the government which has been arm twisted by the unions for decades to give 20 year pensions and health benefits, which we can see how that has worked-out. In the end the government is us and if workers negotiate a 'non-sustainable' retirement agreement then they will bear the consequences when the government can't pay the bill.
GM wasn't going to rip off it's employees, it was going to file bankruptcy BECAUSE it's employee pension plans were strangling the company and it was no longer competitive. Big difference...Now the union owns GM, now they have to eat their own crow....
10% of the corporate profits go to the top few? Where are you getting your facts? Are you referring to the few people who invest their hard-earned dollars to become shareholders of those corporations? If you're referring to the managers, they are not paid with profits, their salaries are paid as expenses before profits. that aside, I'd still like to see the data. If true and measured consistently I think it would be a good measure of how well salaries are distributed throughout an organization.
The Retirement Heist gives quite a list of examples. I knew something really strange was occurring when GE froze its pension plan which was so fully funded that it had not had to contribute to it in the last decade. The investments were sufficient. That fund could have produced retirement security for many thousands, for many years to come.
The 10% figure does not refer to shareholders, but to the top few (usually CEO plus 5 in the research) executives. The figure comes from the research of Dr. Lucian Bebchuk of Harvard. He compared the profits to executive salaries. While you are correct from an accounting perspective that those salaries are deducted before profits, the comparison is still valid.
It is another way of looking at the explosion of executive pay.
Amazon reference for The Retirement Heist: http://www.amazon.com/Retirement-Heist-Companies-Plunder-American/dp/1591843332/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322321076&sr=8-1
Dr. Bebchuk and his colleagues have produced a great deal of research, but he is best known for his book Pay Without Performance, and that is still a good place to start to understand these issues. http://www.amazon.com/Pay-without-Performance-Unfulfilled-Compensation/dp/0674022289/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322321187&sr=1-1
If pension funds are fully funded, allowed to mature, and invested well, they have the potential to serve their members pretty much forever. By mature, I mean a full generation so that money put in for the early members stays there and multiplies after their demise, serving others.
Thanks for the feedback/references, I'll look at them right away.
I was working at GE when they started phasing out their pension plan in the early 90s. I think they did it smartly, and they understood how the pension plans were not financially stable in the long-term. They simply 'encouraged' people to shift the pension contributions to 401K's and allowed people to grandfather the money they had secured in the pension, with a cut-off age. They understood early on that the skyrocketing medical healthcare costs would not be sustainable. The real problem is not the companies who have chosen to not offer pensions, it is technology and the ever-increasing ability for medical technology to offer innovative procedures to solve problems that previously could not be solved. the slippery slope is obvious and everyone begin to feel entitled to health care that none of us can collectively afford.
I will be interested to see if your perspective on GE shifts after reading the Retirement Heist. She has designed it for fairly easy reading. I can pretty much vouch for the accuracy of some portions, because I'm familiar with the underlying research, and that gives me confidence in the other sections.
A comment on health care that none of us can afford: one unnecessary, and high, health care cost is intensive, invasive health care of the terminally ill who would not want it if it had been discussed with them in advance. The health care bill tried to address this by requiring that physicians could be paid for discussing this issue and planning with their patients.
This was given the bizarre but effective label of "death panels" by opponents, and omitted. Since I don't want to spend my last days on a ventilator with my hands tied down, which is standard procedure and I observed with an elderly relative, I've had my attorney write up advanced directives for myself.
This is one skyrocketing cost that could be contained by education. It is sad that unnecessary costs like this jack up hospital rates and the cost of Medicare, when we have citizens who could work longer and be happier and healthier with better health care.
I will definitely look into those books.
I totally agree with your assessment on health care. Unfortunately technology continues to push the boundaries of the costs and ramifications related to keeping people alive. I was not very happy to hear the republican political machine glob onto that topic. Somehow we need to all come to the understanding that we need to follow the 80/20 rule instead of 'spend as much as you can to keep me alive another minute'. I'm sorry you had to see your relative suffer like that, but I have also seen people use every possible means to keep themselves alive (cancer treatment is a great example) fighting what is inevitably a losing battle. I'm sure there are lots of people that could read this and think me heartless, but when do we draw the line when we can expend more and more money on these chronic health issues and consequently we can't afford the most basic health care for others?
I think that we are becoming a two headed monster again. Welfare against Corporatism. In my humble opinion is the horrendous actions against the sole proprietor. I don't need to get rich. I don't have the tolerance of employing millions. What I need is to have a SMALL business that works and doesn't harm the poor.
True, it is not just the company but all the stakeholders in the company that enforce unethical business practices.
But I'll repeat what i wrote in another topic.
Contrary to popular belief, a business isn’t doing Good unless it produces so much that it begins to LOSE money. This is because money is a tool necessary only when scarcity exists.
Many businesses can produce more than we consume but it would be unprofitable for them to provide any necessity in abundance. And this problem is becoming increasingly common as agricultural, manufacturing, and service industries become automated.
Yet the traditional means of keeping business profitable is by intentionally limiting their productivity, punishing their employees/customers, and suppressing innovations (for needed goods/services). As a result they are lowering the quality of life for everyone. Some go so far as to create and perpetuate problems for profit.
So if it wasn’t clear the first time, a business isn’t sustainable ecologically nor is it ethical unless it begins to lose money as its productivity increases. So ‘job creation’ itself must be done with the intention of allowing money to become obsolete as we create abundance.
SHARE-holders in the company that enforce unethical business practices.
Shareholders have very little control over any corporation. They cannot nominate members of the board of directors, and cannot even register a vote against any board nominee. The law allows them only to vote "for" or to "withhold" which means abstain.
The corporation laws also limit the purpose of corporations to profit only, in most states, without regard to the environment or other stakeholders, like their employees. Some states are beginning to form alternatives to this, such as the "benefit corporation", which has wider legal purposes than the traditional incorporation laws.
Well said, even so they (shareholders) can always sell.
Some can. 401(k) shareholders can rarely divest of individual stocks, because their choices are funds, and to make it worse, they do not have access even to the limited voting rights of their shares.
I think of them as hogtied shareholders.
It is no accident that the explosion in executive pay has paralleled the rise of 401(k)'s.
whoops, true.
hogtied shareholders.
Examples of what I consider hogtied shareholders:
Anyone whose shares are in a mutual fund, 401(k), 403(b), etc., so that their voting rights are voted by someone else, for that person/entity's benefit.
The shareholders who can vote their shares cannot vote against a candidate for the board of directors. The law allows voting for and "withholding" (legalese for abstaining). Their is not an "against vote".
The shareholders who can vote their shares cannot get a candidate for board of directors on the ballot without huge expense. Except in rare cases, boards of directors nominate everyone who gets on the ballot. It is a very incestuous process.
Shareholders are not 'in' a company, and stakeholders are both within and external to a company....
NOT my experience at all genanmer. My experience is more like: a company produces an item, creates a demand for that item if none exists, and produces until the abundance has satisfied the demand created initially, and then eliminates entirely (tube type TV), or redefines the product,(Flat Screen) or reduces production to a sustainable level, to exactly meet demand (example Tide detergent)
Now when P&G decides that they want to produce an abundance of Tide what do they do. They simply create a different version of the same product (Tide with Bleach) create a demand and the cycle is going again.
If the demand does not exist or you cannot create the needed demand, you get "The New Coke"
Now to The Franklin Mint - They approach your model more closely. They limit productivity (in theory only), producing a product without innovation, maintaining "mint quality" and selling that product for a substantial profit. They do not produce until they start to lose money. When that minting is sold out, they just simply redefine the product (another different coin minted), create a demand and here we go again in the same cycle.
I think your references to keeping a business profitable by intentionally limiting productivity if just the opposite of what you see. I grew up on a family farm-a real business operation-and Dad was constantly on the lookout for what the next year required. We planted crops on a rotation basis, but we also planted crops according to where he determined the need would be (the created demand), what the antipated value of the commodity produced might be and what he would have to do in response to that demand in order to make a profit.
If he determined wrong, and abundance was created, prices dropped dramatically and we did not have a very Merry Christmas that year.
Could you please, relate your comments to some real-life experiences or references to companies that fit your model. Please just for clarification.
Yes, they try to advertise a 'new and improved' product without actually adding anything of significant value. That is the primary purpose of advertising. Create an artificial demand for a product. Otherwise, companies would simply provide all the necessary information a person truly needs about their product good or bad.
Unfortunately most of what we desire comes from advertising. So most of the crap bought today isn't needed at all. The extra hair dryer, extra t.v.'s, new versions of the same electronics, the new clothing style fad, jewelry, recreational vehicles, super-sized fast food, cosmetics, etc.
But in the end, these companies aren't truly providing a need. They are simply providing for an artificial want which often times can be met through cheaper, safer, higher quality means. e.g. bottled water vs filtered tap water
Was that Latin?
Look, the natural extension of your argument is to have just one business create all of country's needs for a particular item, how 'efficient' that would be! Look in the mirror and you'll find a socialist. It's a fine position to have, but look back in history and you will not find countries that successfully implemented that concept.
BTW, scarcity ALWAYS exists. We will always live in a world of unlimited wants and limited means. OF course that may not be the Utopian society that you envision... but that is not realistic sadly...
Socialism in the past maintained class divisions. It rationed resources to the benefit of the few and the detriment of the many. This is because people were forced/coerced to perform tasks they disliked. In otherwords those countries still used and required money because they had a scarcity.
We can see our nation as a business that holds monopolies on many things and allow corporations to ration products to the people..
On a sidenote, wants are not unlimited and the means are more often than not artificially limited because of technological suppression and the restriction of access to abundance. So all wants may not be met however all needs can be and many wants can be satiated.. In otherwords it's not utopian to believe we can do much better than we already are. The stipulation is the requirement.
Voluntary sustainable gift based economies are superior to current monetary economic systems but the social contract required for that to work requires a completely different value set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
Thanks for sharing your point of view. I can't say that I'll ever be convinced that people are without unlimited wants. Perhaps limited basic wants, but once fulfilled there are always other 'things' or even 'feelings' to desire/ It's a basic human tendency that is part of the baggage/burden that comes along with higher intelligence and self-awareness. We can pretend that people will have a basic level of happiness with basic needs met, but that would be overlooking the deeper issues.
I don't see your argument for technological suppression of abundance. If anything, technology has provided the ability to access existing abundance faster, with greater capability than ever before. That said, we simply do have limited resources. To say otherwise would be to suggest that perpetual motion is achievable. Isn't this the precept for sustainability in the first place, to use the limited resources that we have in the most responsible manner for us and our future generations?
There are cultures that aren't as influenced by advertising and affluence as our own. Buddhist cultures for example detach themselves from material wealth much more than our own. So it's more about figuring out what we truly want rather than relying on media/advertising agencies to tell us what that is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza
The technological suppression of abundance occurs when a company must make a profit. If a company can produce goods abundantly then they must artificially limit their productivity. In the case of technological innovations many high technology companies hold back ideas so they can implement them at the end of a business cycle.
In otherwords, companies don't immediately go all out with new technologies unless they know there is a market of people (install base) willing to pay for the technology consistently. e.g. superior alternative energy technologies would be unprofitable for many energy businesses.
Businesses release technology based on the market, not on what is most efficient. Money artificially limits resources by restricting access to use resources. Most jobs can be automated today however people need them in order to make money to access necessary goods/resources.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI
Very interesting. I certainly think that there is a road/path away from the desire for 'things', but also believe that as human beings we are always in search of non-physical wants. A great example of this is the happiness of married people who are very wealthy. With their basic needs fulfilled, people who no longer worry about food, shelter, etc begin to look at their emotional/spiritual fulfillment in increasingly more and more profound ways.
I think I understand your definition of technological suppression but would characterize it as a misnomer. By your definition, it is really profit suppression. The technology is what is being suppressed. I'm not sure if you have or do work for a company, but my company utilizes its technology to manufacture products as efficiently as possible. Do we make 10x more than we could, certainly not. But this is not because we want to increase profit, rather it is because it is a potential waste of resources as finished goods that do not have an immediate customer need could easily be wasted by (fire, change in customer demand/preferences, delays in discovering manufacturing problems, etc). Unless you propose that people are told what to buy no matter what their preferences, our approach is much more efficient overall to mass-producing product regardless of actual demand. There are lots of companies that develop technologies at various stages of the business (I think you mean product) cycle. Some companies are market leaders and have a high failure rate because they rely on early adopters to buy at high prices, other companies wait until technologies are accepted by a wider swath of people which makes the technology financially profitable for them to make at larger volumes. This is a good process. Consumers get a wide number of choices at various stages of innovation/cost and consumers select the ultimate winners. consumers decide what is superior and what is not superior, instead of bureaucrats or 'committees'.
I agree with you assertion about technology and jobs. It's happening right now whether we like it or not. An economist would say that the jobs replaced by automation will just move to something else that can't be fulfilled by machines (i.e. to work on some of the other unlimited wants), but just how long can that be sustained and at what levels could that go on for? IBM's big blue can beat anyone at Jeopardy, and how many 'average' humans will be asked to become scientists/philosophers ?
I'm not sure how to take your youtube video, it smacks of social engineering and planned development. I'm not sure it can co-exist with allowing individuals free-choice of what they want to do, consumer, etc. Labeling at communistic would not be too far a stretch and while that is not a swear word in my world, the underlying tenants do concern me, especially the eventual slippery slope that results. For example, why not optimize efficiency by limiting where people can travel, what they can buy, what activities they are allowed to do, etc. Free market societies rely on the concept that the market decides, but your video openly declares that model a failure.
Thanks again and have a great holiday.
Thanks for that detailed response and for having an open mind.
The problem with the monetary system (not sure if it was included in that particular video) is that money and more specifically the pricing system restricts access to resources. So even if companies attempt to put out the best products possible, they don't have access to the best technologies and best quality materials. So essentially even if companies don't use planned obsolescence to deliver products based on product cycles, there still exists inbuilt obsolescence. And when products are made less efficiently with less efficient technologies they end up being thrown away much more quickly. (lots of waste generated)
The free market itself wouldn't be so bad 'if' people actually had a value system emphasizing sustainability and cooperation. However, this goes against the very monetary-market system the free market relies on. (and a whole bunch of advertising) The result of creating a sustainable society is that products sold become increasingly more superficial and less necessary. The same can be said of jobs as automation increases. So abundance (in specific areas) would collapse much of the monetary-market system as money relies on scarcity to function.
And you are correct about people, they will definitely seek greater forms of fulfillment beyond materialism once their needs are met. I truly believe people know what's best for themselves 'if' they actually take time to reflect on what they want.
The resource based economy is not meant to replace personal choice. It encourages personal choice by releasing constraints on technology and resources. We mobilize for war without a second thought about resources, but never in history has a civilization mobilized for peace. Resources and technologies have never been implemented specifically with the intention of providing for everyone abundantly.
Rationing alone won't accomplish anything. We have many sources of energy in addition to what is shown in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnRyVK7HqJE
In every area we have alternative technologies which could revolutionize the way things are done: Vertical farming/permaculture for food, 3d printing/nanotechnology for manufacturing, automation for labor, geothermal/nano-solar roadways for energy, maglevs for transportation, etc.
So we have the technologies and the capabilities to provide abundance...
However, rationalizations and blame are thrown around that this group or that group won't allow it. People justify their own misery as if they are ashamed to admit a better way exists. So our society has never really tried to create sustainable abundance for everyone. Too many have been too cowardly to even try. And we are fast approaching a point where we will have to otherwise we may permanently lose our
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU&feature=watch-now-button&wide=1
I'm not sure what you solution is? Make sure that all companies have all technology? Limit the number of companies pursuing certain solutions? There is lots of waste but in the end it results in the best overall technology. If individual companies were left without competition to be more 'efficient' in the marketplace, there would be absolutely no incentive for them to innovate, or for that matter to produce good efficiently. This is the old Soviet model which was proven not to work.
Still not sure how you propose to allow free-choice by individuals either, especially those who don't subscribe to sustainability and cooperation. Will you not allow them to buy the things they want to buy?
I like your analogy to war and other great endeavors that we could subscribe to accomplish. It reminds me of the space race. How do we achieve more and eliminate conflict? The biggest problem I see with all of this is that EVERYONE, not just OWS, not just America, but the WORLD would need to be on-board with such a system. How would international trade happen between countries that are on completely different systems? This is the major reason why we have a global financial system based on the dollar (soon to be Yen). If we propose isolation, what are the ramifications? Ex #1, China has 98% of the worlds neodymium. If we no longer trade with them, how do we build the great majority of of our products?
I do worry about how soon the tipping point will be. I think that we can stave off this with social welfare to support the unemployed but that will only last so long, eventually there will be significant upheaval that will make the French revolution seem pedestrian by comparison.
Didn't the soviets remain competitive with the U.S. in the space race? So innovations obviously still existed. They however didn't focus on innovating consumer products the way our capitalist society does. (different value set although the soviets imposed much of theirs from the top-down)
Many people have an inner drive to innovate. Voluntary (autonomous) action shouldn't be dismissed as it is a primary motivator in innovation. (2nd to purpose) So it is possible to obtain innovation from the bottom up as seen by many open source movements. To maintain autonomy, mastery, and purpose organization must derive from the bottom-up as much as possible. This requires an educated population contributing to technical interdisciplinary teams.
As for individuals and sustainability cooperation. We need a majority at least attempting to live sustainably in a cooperative manner. The less greed/self centered individuals leading society, the better. Our capitalist way of life is supported by the slave labor and deaths of millions throughout the world. So I'm not worried about a small handful of people getting things they might enjoy. I am worried about huge nations throughout the world using up all the fossil fuels, groundwater, arable land, overfishing, clearcutting forests, and flinging pollution everywhere..
Here's a link to a video that explains many of the RBE ideas in detail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
and a FAQ answering many common questions http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/faq
So I'm not advocating a local solution because the financial mess we are in pales in comparison to the ecological mess we face if the system doesn't adjust. And yes, we live in a global economy. If the BIS ends up bailing out the world, we are #*(%ed to put it lightly. Much of our trade is imposed by the threat of our military bases, political, and economic influence. Without a strong US dollar all of that goes away and the true debts of imposed violence will reveal itself. Even if the U.S. independently corrects it's own fiat currency system we will face a lot of pressure globally to adopt the new reserve currency.
So the answer isn't straight forward. The solution requires a long-term global perspective. There's a huge paradigm shift in several areas that must occur if this world is to sustain 7+ billion people. It requires stronger communications amongst the people of different nations and not the representatives that misrepresent them..
The space race originated as a competition of cold warring nations. Today many of those nations involved share an international space station. That idea needs to be expanded globally.
You make some very good points and I'm still trying to find the time to watch that feature film. I will take some time to absorb this more, I think the world in is for some changes one way or another, at some point we will all need to determine how sustainability factors with human population and what controls to over-population may look like.
We have an abundance of wheat this year in Kansas. It is piled outside in great piles by the overflowing elevators.
What is your solution to this overabundance that our businesses have produced. Please be very specific.
There's a lot more information needed to make a suggestion.
e.g. Is the wheat genetically modified? (some modifications make food toxic but useful to other industries)
How is the wheat normally distributed? (which companies rely on this produce.)
Who needs and can properly prepare the wheat to be consumed?
What are the policies on storage and how long can wheat remain in storage?
How is the wheat normally transported? Are there forms of mass transportation available to maximize the amount of biomass transported per unit of fuel used?
And is this business the only source of income for those involved? Who are the stakeholders?
ClassyNancy though I do not agree with all/some the numbers and some of the facts(again the only one with post with a true indept "study" or knowledge though) on your post you are the ONLY person who understands or cares to see what these people call corporate greed is about...and if you look down the threadsyou can see how easliy they can be persuaded into something that has nothing to do with it...one major problem with this "movement" is NOBODY really has an idea of what it is for or about....they just,LIKE PUPPETS,wait like most of our governemt they complain about,follow what others say and than repeat without looking into ,studying,investigating what is said, and than forming their own opinion for or against from their own minds and hearts.
Your right, companies need to figure out how to cut management costs so that they can pay general employees better. If consumers don't have money to consume products and services, then we don't need employees. People aren't falling for the debt trap game anymore and spending their money before they earn it.
Wow! You make a compelling argument. Yet, still I am sympathetic to the workers who suffer so much. They make so many sacrifices, work their fingers to the bone and still reap so little money. Do you have so little heart?
Assuming anyone needs educated? What is everyone else; stupid minorities that you feel you have to 'educate'? You think our brains are scientifically proven to be smaller? How condescending is this, that you have to 'educate' people to be on your wavelength because its inconceivable that they might have opinions that differ? Are you going to educate our culturalism to agree with your idea of acceptable culture?
How can I not assume people need to be educated, look at the non-sense coming from your leaderless leaders...
I don't remember calling anyone a minority, is that your default reply when you can't respond with some intelligence?
I doubt from your response that I would ever change your mind, why don't you educate me since all you have given me is platitudes...
[Removed]
Great! Now you know why we need a nationalized, single-payer, health-care system. Now you know why the market is unable to provide for so many people, such that we need a far more progressive income tax rate. Everything you are talking about is why we need an overall restructuring of the economy, why OWS people are protesting "Wall Street" and not simply the government.
Sorry, but what you said only looks at minor details and not the bigger picture. By instituting a far more progressive income tax system and helping to redistribute wealth, then those that are paid a little like dirt may actually have more in hand to live comfortably.
Most of us are not financial or economic graduates. You can't expect all of us to consistently get things on par. But there a lot of progressive economists out there, like Joseph Stiglitz, who can help you out with these things far better than I or many of us can. Read a book, and learn something.
Another intelligent, progressive and compassionate economist, Paul Krugman who praised OWS with the comment of "positive contribution to society" Sharing part of the interview:
Here's an excerpt from Paul Krugman on Occupy Wall Street's "positive contribution" to society:
Paul Krugman: We are just three years after the greatest banking crisis since the 1930s. I think it was brought on by excesses on the part of the financial industry and the financial industry was bailed out at the public's expense and risk and yet we're still in an economic crisis. And somehow the discussion of who are these guys, why are we supporting them, why haven't they paid more for this, what are the reforms that's going to stop this from happening again, all that disappeared from the debate.
We have been arguing about who's going to cut Social Security and what about that budget deficit? And we lost the whole thread of the core issue in our society right now. And these protesters, who are a mix of all sorts of people, suddenly brought that back into the center of our national debate. And that's an enormously positive contribution.
Sadly I think I've read a few more books than you based on your post. Sprinkling "progressive" around like pixie dust won't make the bulls#!% you are typing smell any better. Look back on history, when did a successful country EVER have guaranteed 'get whatever we want' healthcare in place? Don't spit back at me one of those European countries that are busy trying to undue the financial meltdown that their socialistic governments have created either.
This is a zero sum game, take away from the rich for the poor through wealth re-distribution and you will disenchant those whom you desperately need to lead the country in the future through innovation and taking a chance by risking time and money. There is a a balance to be struck of course, everyone needs to succeed to some level; but those who take the risk should certainly see a sizable reward.
I believe the risk what I DO NOT believe in is the Corruption of Lobbyist & Corporations....
I agree that those who take the risk should certainly see a sizable reward, but I also believe that such risk ought to be shared by those involved. I strive for an economy in which such risk is shared and so that all involved see a sizable reward, not just the owners at the top. Ownership should be shared.
The ironic thing is that I am not entirely talking about government intrusion. There is no difference in the operation of a strip mall, for example, if it was to be owned by a landlord or collectively by all businesses involved. Something like a trust fund could be set up, for example, by all the businesses involved, such that one or two businesses could take from it in order to sustain their activities amidst economic downturns.
I have not seen anything really innovative being offered that has any substantial effects on the social product. Creating a new toy or a new video game is a horrible example of innovation. It is a personal endeavor aimed at catching eyes so that its owners can cash in on the end consumption.
Now if you're talking about technology, it must be understood that computers had their start in the military, e.g. the Univac. Aside from the military, a huge amount of innovation happens at the college level. Companies often look to college projects to draw on innovation.
Innovation that occurs at the market level is overwhelmingly geared to the maximization of profit. I can't tell you where a lot of that money goes, but so little of it seems to benefit the social product. I suspect it goes to propping up new properties and stuff like that, being recycled back into the economy, etc.
And don't get me started on charities. I think most of us know that many of the people who adore the 1% also learn to despise charities. Faux News consistently vilifies the Red Cross, for example. Or how they bash the Ben and Jerry Foundation, who have provided grants to a wide range of organizations trying to benefit the social product. The real problems are never addressed, such as that of hierarchical structures in which those at the top are in control of those below them and thus make the ultimate decisions.
Hmmm... I suspect the benefit of the 'social product' is defined by a few people like yourself with the wisdom to share so that everyone else will be better off, how very inclusive of you.
Your strip mall idea is great, and I know of no law or regulation that would stop that from happening right now... The reason that practice is not being done is that the businesses choose not to 'insure' themselves from economic downturns, which is entirely their choice (unless you feel they should be 'compelled' to do so...
It is great to share ownership. Some companies foolishly think that offering stock options to employees generates a feeling of ownership, but nothing beats having true 'skin in the game'. Don't come talking about ownership and sharing of rewards without talking about investing cold hard money and sharing in the 'failures'. Don't tell me that working for the company is the investment. The quid pro quo on the wage earned is the product that is immediately created. For every Wal-mart, Microsoft, or Apple there are hundreds of companies that went bust and lost billions for their founders, financiers, and investors. Real reward can ONLY come with risk.
Innovation in the market often does go to maximizing profits (through lower costs), but this is a short-term phenomenon. Economic theory (and realty) teaches us that in the long-term economic profit goes to zero as competition forces companies to lower the costs of goods and services. The result, innovation in the market results in lower costs for consumers. Your definition of whether those products benefit the 'social good' may not agree with the consumer's beliefs, but in the end they are better off for the lower costs.
I for one support the 1% ANDI fully support charities. Charitable giving and the role that charities provide in this country is a big difference between the US and European countries. In America, people have a choice of charities to support and typically give a much larger percentage of their money to them. In Europe, people are taxed much more and the government decides how the charitable money should be divided.
Yes, I can tell by your wanting to put your hands in others' pockets that you have no idea how economics works and what really would happen in today's global economy when you "redistribute" wealth away from those that have earned it.
A conscientious consumer is not likely to choose walmart these days. What would be the harm in something better taking it's place? Isn't that how business works? Should people continue to support a business if they feel that business is engaged in unsustainable and unfair practices? Together we have the power to invest billions in corporations who show compassion, fairness, and sustainability by purchasing their products. Are these not the things we want to see more of in our world?
Well said. People can/do vote with their dollars and investments. To embrace that mantra however also means acknowledging that when people do vote in a direction that is against your beliefs that you allow them to live their life they way they choose instead of trying to force them to adhere to your convictions.
Agreed, people should decide for themselves. However, I am not against investigating and sharing facts so that we can all make informed decisions.
Information is power, as long as people don't just read what they already believe but also genuinely try to understand all sides.
The said fact of life is that Walmart serves many different consumers and that many of them need to lowest possible prices regardless of where they are built. the real enemy for you is not Walmart but technology and globalization. Unfortunately there is no panacea that will bring back the 50's and 60s when the US was benefiting from the rest of the world being ravaged by the aftermath of WWII. Quality of life around the globe will need to balance out more than what it is before the 'average' US worker can expect much improvement. this is what automation, the internet, and other technologies have brought us. Just search 'automation robots' on Youtube to see where the american jobs have gone, with the rest of the manual labor jobs going offshore. You can try to make the excuse that other countries environmental regulations are not as strict as ours and that's why our manufacturing is non-competitive. That's a very small part of it. The simple fact is that even for our poorest of people, our quality of life is so much better than that of China, Malasia, Mexico, etc. That's why they are willing to take a lower wage than we are, and until that balances out more (taking into account the cost to ship products and materials from point A to point B), then this will keep happening. If you are going to propose being an isolationist country and not trade with other countries, that brings with it a whole hose of other issues....
I don't think Walmart is that much cheaper than the grocery store. But it is certainly up to each individual where they want to shop. By the way, Walmart stopped using the slogan "Always Low Prices" in 2007.
Also, I don't view technology and globalization as an enemy, rather I see them both as facts. There is technology and there is increased trade with other countries for a variety of reasons.
I can't say that I am upset about automation robots either. Nor would I propose that we become an isolationist country.
My proposal is for people to use their dollar to support the corporations and business that they feel represent the improvements they want to see in the world. For me, it is fair trade, sustainability, and compassion.
Your right, walmart is not cheaper. In fact, they only match other brick and mortar retailers prices, which means maybe people who are up in arms should protest Amazon and the online retailers who are undercutting Walmart. Technology is inevitable, but people should be aware of the inevitability, which is that repetitive low skilled work will continue to be replaced by computers and automation. Reality is that not everyone can be an engineer, professor, or highly educated business person; some people simply will not be able to keep up with the necessary shift in work. How do we take care of those people? This is the conundrum that technology and increasing efficiency creates.
That is why we shop Kroegers. Better product, competitive price with WalMart and everyone else in town.
I really don't want anyone to bring about a lot of force to change either one of those companies - they choose to be in business, let them duke it out - as a consumer, I only get better quality at a better price.
I don't know about better quality! I took my old dvd recorder to the shop and the owner told me this was a good make for it's time, but now everyone was coming down, not up, to Walmarts quality and I should not expect to be able to buy another one with that quality
Same goes for the Singer Sewing Machine, your older stereo with the bigger speaker boxes, the console stereo, that old 1980's TV and many other items.
We continually sacrifice quality for cheaper price. You do know why you can get 3,000 songs on a small chip now, right?? Sure could not do that with the all vinyl record - but we gave up a lot for that convenience.
And like everything else today - we want that thing called INSTANT gratification. We can't wait for it, so we protest at WalMart. We can't wait for it, so we demand a bailout of the student loan system. We just can't wait.....BUT, this is 2011 and the waiting period is down to a very short time now. Read the news today, there are workers on strike this very moment in China over wages, benefits etc. They want a better way of life, it is called the American Dream only in Chinese.
You will wake up some day very soon and realize that there were other people protesting in the world to and the result will be much higher prices in WalMart and everywhere else you turn. Only when these prices get to a certain point, will we decide that it might be cheaper to manufacture American so that we can buy American. We can boycott WalMart and every other retailed, it will not change a thing, this is happening today it has nothing to do with anything that we are protesting about here in America.
I saw packed places when I went out today, so I don't know what you mean by; " it will not change a thing, this is happening today "
What I meant was this:
The Chinese wages have been increasing for over a decade now. A Lot of companies are going to Malasia, Vietnam, and other lower cost countries. Even China outsources a significant amount of it's good and services to lower cost countries now.
Walmart has spent a ton of money expanding into China not because of the population but because their quality of life has progressed to the point where they have more free time and money. Their society is growing like crazy because they don't have a minimum wage and they focus on policies that keep costs competitive when compared to similarly developed countries.
Thanks again. We could all get a wake up call by checking to see where our SONY TV was manufactured.
I hate to break your bubble, but you may want to spend an afternoon really digging into Walmart. Are they the perfect company, no. But, when you are a $00 B company, you will not do everything correctly. Sure they unintentionally allow a few of their thousands of products to be built in unsafe or otherwise deplorable conditions, but the company spends millions of dollars trying to ensure that is not happening. When you are that large, you will have sporadic problems here and there from incompetent or unscrupulous employees, it doesn't mean the company in general supports those end results. What Walmart does stand for is taking costs/expenses out in every way possible. the Chairman of the board has lawn furniture and concrete floors in his office for gods sake. Their one core belief is finding a way to provide the absolute lowest prices for their customers. This is why their profit margin is 3.8%. The negative side effect as I mentioned above is that sometimes this results in finding those savings through improper channels. there are millions of people in this country and across the world who shop at Walmart because they need those low prices to buy the basic essentials to get by. Walmart may not be perfect for certain, but it would shortsighted to not look beyond the headlines that are created for you by people with an agenda. Dig deeper and you will find more compassion, fairness, and sustainability than you initially thought.
One example, Walmart's drive to reduce costs single-handedly eliminated millions of tons of unnecessary packaging. Soap used to be packaged in a bar within a carton, then within a second carton. Their drive to reduce unnecessary and costly packaging ALSO resulted in so many trees bot being cut down or landfill waste over that packaging removed.
Second Example: Walmart's focus to lower costs extended to it's truck fleet logistic system. They want to eliminate the extra cost of fuel to their stores through aerodynamic side skirts and more fuel efficient trucks.
In the end, being stingy and conservative is to be conscious of the environment in a great many cases. Just because the environment is not the reason for their work doesn't make it any less commendable.
And these are the things that we as consumers can affect. We all flock to protest a company like WalMart - when maybe a more effective approach would be to simply stay away from WalMart.
Crowds draw crowds you know. I worked in a filling station (that is an old term-I am old) and believe me, you could sit there for half an hour with no customers. Let one car pull in and two others followed it. WalMart in the State of Washington has be to very happy with the turnout at their store today.
And I can only dream, that some protester among the thousands there, slipped aside and bought a few bargains to take home for the holidays. WalMart sack completely hidden from view you know.
lol.. I imagine a great inner struggle..
I did not go to WalMart - just talked to an associate who worked last night. She said it was chaos all over inside the place - a real inner struggle. Just playing off you foil about "inner stuggle"
THANKS for the material - try to do the same sometime.
I am sure it was a mess.. and I did not go to walmart either! needed baby food, (used to hit the walmart) and went straight up to giant. I don't know whether this is going to do any good or not. But when I found out how horrible the conditions are at those Chinese walmart factories.. I couldn't face myself if I spent another dollar there.
What are you going to do when the baby food is made in China?? I hear they had a little trouble with that milk processing thing.
Is this a case of a company getting too big too fast and putting the smaller slower growing business out of business ? If this is the way America needs to grow, then maybe we should rethink the old slow to grow but evenly share the business and wealth days! Back then we all shared the wealth. When businesses started buying out it's competitors, this is where America started getting greedy ! Greed got us where we are today, so in essence, we did this to ourselves ! Don't buy from big corporations if this is not the way you want America to be, and if you do buy from big businesses, don't complain to them for being greedy!!!
BTW I agree with your 'vote with your wallet' standpoint. In America everyone should be able to do what they want to do as long as it doesn't harm others.
Oh really, so way back when individual grocery stores existed, you think that the owners shared the wealth evenly with all employees? You're looking back with rose colored glasses...those entrepreneurs kept as much money as they could, paid no health insurance, and only paid wages that matched what was necessary in the local area. If you really investigate the benefits/drawbacks of a big Walmart in a community you will find the argument against them no where near as strong as you believe.
I agree. It's like the "big capitalist" versus the "small capitalist" argument. A small business is no better than a big business if it strives for the same goals as large businesses do: a desire to get rich, a willingness to manipulate the workforce to get what you want, a willingness to initiate unequal divisions of labor, etc..
Today, though, there are more examples of far more reputable organizations who are using innovation to the advantage of workers, but they are still far and few in between. But they are growing in number, far more than in the last decade.
I'm talking about people complaining about one big corporation having all the business versus many smaller companies, as I perceive most of what I'm reading on these O.W.S. forums to be complaining about. As for the compensation; I don't think much has changed with the exception that you have less places to choose from to work if you don't like your compensations today versus yesteryear with more smaller businesses.
This is nothing new. Look at Rockefeller and the other tycoons of the past.
There is a difference between less choice and no choice. Thereare lotsof choices for those people who work at Walmat. There's Target, Sears, JC Penney, grocery only supermarket, Home Depot, Lowes, etc.... While the number of stores may be smaller, there are choices. People can also decide to work for themselves. start a business and take a chance like the millions of other entrepreneurs do every year. This is America, people are only limited by themselves.
If you have not read and studied the P&L statement of WalMart (WMT) for 2011, perhaps you should. It would support a lot of what classynancy is saying in the forum above and probably would support few if any of the other claims posted on this forum.
2011 WalMart Stores $ 421,849,000,000 ........ Total Sales Volume $ 315,287,000,000 ........ Direct costs to produce those sales. $ 106,562,000,000 ....... WMT gross profit for 2011 $ 98,013,000,000 ....... Associated and allowable business expense $ 1,034,000.000 ....... WMT Net Profit.
You should note:
Allowable expenses include the payment of $7,579,000,000 in Federal Income Tax (even though the general opinion is that large corporations DO NOT pay these taxes).
The Net Profit as noted is prior to payment of dividends to all shareholders, 3.5 billion of them at approximately $ .27 per share.
Take it from there and you will see that you just are not going to have much more than one penny per employee to do anything with such as provide all the things you are projecting on the posts herein.
Sorry for the bad news folks.
I agree - its important to educate Occupy protestors in economics. They don't understand much. They think profits are "evil" by itself. Some want to abolish private property, which would increase THEFT everywhere. But we can't just pretend these Occupy "economically uneducated" people don't matter. They matter. And its difficult to teach them when they are mad, and just screaming that "profits are evil", and capitalism is, in and of itself bad, which is not true.
We should teach them, and you are doing that. Whether they listen, I don't know.... some will, I guess. Others have blinders on.
The reasons Occupy is Good and exists is to STOP corporate theft backed by govt. Our US constitution is just fine, and so is capitalism. Its the voting that is fraud, its the judges and attorneys that are stealing and fraudulent, and the politicians. Get the bad leaders out, get the good people in, follow the US constitution and things will get back in balance.
Here here ....
finally walmart will let union inn
They worry about there shity reputation They would but 1000 attorny to shutdown OWS
[Removed]
Cut the insults and fix your goddamn formatting.
Sorry I missed the wiki on here that taught how to properly format my forum post, must be right below the one that teaches people about math and finance....
how do you explain the huge gap in wealth .. to us less unfortunate .. airheads?
Wealth vs income, 2 different things. Wealth is accumulated over long periods of time, sometimes across many generations. How would you feel if you spent your entire life saving as much money as you could to give to your kids and then when you dies someone told you to give it to everyone else in the US...honestly....Wealth disparity and income disparity are required to drive innovation and personal initiative. It's the monetary analogy of simple physics. Otherwise, what's the incentive to get off of your couch and contribute something important to society? This is what's happened to our welfare system and the 99 week unemployment extensions, there's no longer the incentive to get a job if the government just keeps paying you and you have adjusted to the new norm of not working....
Next time read the question !
The widening gap is directly attributed to high sales profit.
A simple profitCAP would close the gap. Than perhaps all grandparents will have something to share with their grandchildren. Not only the PIG filthy rich.
Next time read my answer. The wealth gap is there because there are people MUCH more driven than you to work hard, educate themselves, innovate, take risks, and follow-through with their internal aspirations and external stated goals. To put it clearly, they excel at just about everything better than you and they have as a result benefited greatly.
You are probably one of those people who think every kids deserves a medal even though their team finished dead last, or that nobody should be awarded a medal for finishing first in a race. The NBA superstar who is filthy rich is there because they (1) have immense natural abilities, (2) A wide range of people are willing to pay money to see they practice their skills, and (3) they have spent tens of thousands of hours tirelessly refining their skills.
If people are tired of being on the bottom of the wealth gap, they need to figure out what skills are in demand and go to school to learn those skills. Forget the Liberal Arts degrees that they wasted their time getting while drinking beer in college, which has only given them the skill of asking "Do you want fries with your burger?"
I can see nothing about Steve Jobs RIP, that led him to deserve any of his enormous wealth .. so what he sold computers .. he didnt invent the computer .. he just marketed the damn thing .. simple as that .. but everyone in the market industry holds him up like some kind of jewel in the crown .. and ohh how they want to be just like steve ... get a life .. you people in marketing have absolutely no class ... you may have money .. but you have no class , and certainly no grace .. wear your fancy suits , drive your fancy cars .. buy your friends .. you got nothing .. you are a hollow existence .. with nothing inside trying to fill the hole with money .. and false expectations.
Unfortunately, the structuring of most corporations are designed to reduce the incentives for jobs. The divisions of labor that most corporations employ are not designed for a decent job atmosphere, with the end result of many being not just boring and rote work but also of a negative atmosphere empowering workers to take orders and relinquish control of their lives to their managers.
Working in a corporation rarely provides anything important to society, other than a mechanism for people to spend on things they hardly even need and a means to increase economic initiatives for those at the top. Something important for society is helping to combat air and water pollution, helping to combat global warming, contributing efforts to health care, contributing efforts to fire fighting, etc.
It's not your employers responsibility to help you find personal satisfaction in your job, that can only come from you. People need to take the initiative to determine their own outcome, but too often there are more and more who prefer to blame anyone else than to look internally.
Unfortunately for your argument, most people do indeed want the things they work to acquire. You and I may not agree with their choices, and you may scoff at their choices as being manipulated by advertising; but a basic precept of this country is that people all have the free will to make their own choices in all matters of life. You for example probably wrote your posting on a laptop that was built in Taiwan in factories that had lower pollution standards with workers who had no health care. I'm sure you have justified that decision as the fact that you didn't have a choice, but you DID have a choice and you need to live up to that. I'm assuming that you worked for that laptop too....but you didn't NEED it did you?
Totally agree.
The problem with the welfare system, unemployment etc. today is that it promotes itself and thus become a way of life - it is addiction at its best.
What if that system simply ran for a set period of time on a sliding scale. EX: 6month 100%, 6months 75%, 6months 50% and 6months 25%. At some point an individual would be forced to rethink their stance about not HAVING to work and by the end of the 2 year period, there would be much fewer people without welfare and unemployment benefits. We have simply killed the incentive of many Americans and fed into the political system running rampant in DC. They are not the only crooks in this country.
A great starting point is to eliminate the minimum wage laws. It's counter productive to a free-market society. In my state the min wage is $8.50/hr +/-, we pay $12/hr for our entry level workers and still can't get responsible people. We are getting killed by Mexicans and Chinese who work for $1.50 per hour, AND they work MUCH harder when they are at work....
My experience here too. The Mexican workers especially are driving out the demand for local workers here because they are readily available, (check Home Depot), work harder and deserve their pay, support their families, and can express some appreciation for simply having a job.
I believe in a global economy and workforce. Mexicans or Chinese or whomever have just as much a right to a job as an American. Workers in America got VERY soft from the 50s through the 70s and have been paying for it ever since. Unfortunately they can't see the train at the entrance to the tunnel which is competition across our borders that is hungrier, more skilled, and willing to do it all for a lower quality of life than their American counterpart.
this is the great equalization of global wages that we are in, which is being fueled by technology such as the internet and shipping/logistics improvements.
Mornin' Nancy:
Very few people that I associate with have a good understanding of things within the areas of finance, economics, transportationn etc beyond their own personal affairs.
EXAMPLE - Several years ago, we were buying wood products from Taiwan which were oak (the problem was that it was Chinese oak, a very soft wood with similiar grain). Then one day we started getting oak furniture from Taiwan made with American Oak. This was interesting to me so, I started asking questions about how this was done. Now I pose the question to all readers on this forum who are experts in the global economy, economics and transportation, and those that did not visit WalMart yesterday - HOW WAS IT DONE?
Morning Ronji:
I'm not an expert on furniture or wood product in general, but I've got a pretty good idea. First per your question, the Chinese Oak doesn't sound very good because of its lower density/hardness. This has probably been a problem for more than a few people/companies.
One interesting part of global trade/transportation that many people may not be aware of is that a side effect to the trade deficit that we run with off-shore countries (China, Taiwan, Malaysia, etc.) is that we have a TON of container ships showing up on our shore full of products and and TON of container ships leaving our ports pretty much empty. The natural economic supply/demand result, the cost to ship goods and services to China is VERY, VERY low. A back of the envelope calculation is that while it may cost $4,000 to ship a container from China to the US, it only costs and $400 to ship a container full of whatever from the US back to China.
The result, it is quite cost competitive for the Chinese furniture makers to get Red Oak from the great Northwest (or wherever it grows best).
This same phenomenon is also the mechanism that is driving other exports to China, such as the controversial coal shipments that are being proposed, as well as the shipments of our old discarded computers/electronics for disassembly/recycling.
Did I win the prize?
The Chinese oak is real popular because it IS cheap, it is soft so it will take any stain (cherry etc) and it is practically knot free so is very usable for furniture. Just info from my business.
You are far ahead of any other posts - acutally the only one.
What they did was convert large ships to sawmills, load the American Oak as trees onto the ship on our West Coast and by the time it got to Taiwan it was sawn, cured fine oak lumber and the scrap was off loaded as particle board.
Things like this amaze me. The economy that we are a part of is almost beyond understanding. Yet, we all have our opinion of how it works and what is good and what is bad, unfortunately without having the background to know or even putting out the effort to find out. It is so easy to just jump on the "band wagon" and away we go.
Very interesting. Who works on the ship sawmill, are they Chinese or American workers? What do they do for the other half of the voyage traveling back to the US for 13-15 days?
I heard of a recent company that set-up a ship 50 miles off-shore California with India programmers where companies could 'off-shore' some development work but could also could take a helicopter to have meetings if they wanted...
I don't know the answer to your first question, but it probably inolves hauling something back to the USA. Dont know if they are set up handle containers or not. I'll check into it more.
I own Walmart stock and I have to say i have done very well.
WALL MARK worry about there shity reputation
[Deleted]
very classy nancy,wall mart would put 1000 attorneys to shutdown
OWS
I doubt Walmart would waste their money, they are busy building a supercenter right next door to you as I write this.
Please don't take my defense of Walmart as condemning or being against OWS. The input and ideas that are discussed are intriguing. We all need to be able to separate the two. I'm just not a fan of any person or group trying to manipulate data to rally people against an organization for the wrong reasons.
Please can hate Walmart for doing such a good job building a business that their customers love to frequent, but it's asinine to use a large profit number just because the company is so large to try to marshal negative feelings towards an entity.
in fact they are going to building next to me,and there is alot of mom/ pops they will be closed., so who much they paying you to set and type all daylong?minimum wages?
You should thank them for raising the value of your property then since more businesses will soon want to move in, maybe you can sell for a big profit and give the extra from Walmart moving-in to those poor mom and pops that expect to run a business without having to compete for customers.
You've found me out, I'm secretly working for Walmart. Give yourself a big pat of the back and a participation ribbon to match the one you earned the last time your soccer team finished in last place.
SO how much wallmart paying you Bitch minimum wage??? to set and type all day long
I feel so sad for you and your anger, hopefully someday you will grow up to become a better person for your own sake and society in general.
There's nothing I could say to convince you that I don't work at Walmart, you're to ignorant to open you mind that far.
you are very stupid i am sure some one paying you
[Deleted]
union?you must be crazy on the loss., i would not resond again to your comments because you working by the hrs But i will post very nice post wait and see i have other like twitter and face book have fun idiot
I own WMT in my 401K and it has been a great investment over the years. Sam Walton was an American genius.
And he shared that with you. That is what made him great.
$15,000,000,000 you're trying to tell us this is not a lot money? divided by 2,100,000 people...hold on let me find my calcumalator... equals $7,142.46.
And my point is...well i'm not trying to make point. I just thought it would be fun to pull numbers out of my ass like you are doing.
Consider it severance you idiot, cause that what it would be if you took away the company's ability to invest in itself.
You stay classy...nancy
I'm sorry that my post was so long and made your brain tired and that your calculator doesn't have a button to increase your IQ, but you need to educate yourself on the difference between $15 B of profit and $15 B of cash.
actually i think you are trying to distinguish gross and net. net profit is free and clear to manage how one sees fit. like turning it into cash if they so choose. although i don't agree with jimmy, it is important to understand that the reality of inequity is in everyone's face, even if they cannot articulate the point. trying to beat up on people that cannot keep up with you in order to support the very idea we are here to defeat will get you nowhere. yes, voting with your wallet will help, but it will not fix this.
Actually no, Gross profit is Sales minus direct costs (materials & direct labor). Net profit further subtracts other expenses, one of which is depreciation. Depreciation is the problem with interpreting net profit as cash. If you buy a $900 M facility to expand, it would be depreciated over 30 years which would mean that you spent $900 M is cash that period but only depreciated $30 M in 'expenses'. The resulting 'profit' would seem to indicate there was plenty of Cash to spread around even though it all went to invest in the future.
You stay classy...nancy
and my calculator does have that button...it is called the APPS (Games) key.
Lol, figures, it's a shame how many people enjoy the fruits of labor of other smart people without realizing what it takes to make that happen. We're raising a generation of lazy people that expect to get everything for no real effort. Perhaps if they were made in the US at unions facilities and everyone had to pay $2,000 for their ipods then they would appreciate it a bit more.
And I would steal--erm, I mean still--just casually stroll into whatever store and casually walk out with my brand new free ipod. I don't care how much your stupid material shit costs, if I want something bad enough...it's not very hard to obtain...
You are a true spokesperson for your cause....
And you are a stupid bitch...I can take advantage of your fucked up system just as easily--and in the same ways--as you and the rest of your 1% can, and most obviously do...
If you choose to go into a store and steal then our 'system' will eventually take care of you one way or the other....
I don't think our 'system' has any idea who or what they are up against...
You may not THINK, but believe me they KNOW.
That's like saying I am dealing drugs but the Regional Task Force doesn't know it. Just believe me, they DO KNOW. They know your name, your address, who your customers are and who your supplier is. You might want to get a different cell number - they know that too.
They may know what goes on the outside of this body, but believe me, they have no idea just how deep this inner-Qi truly flows.or how quickly and efficiently it can be tapped into.
And there are many many more like me, who pray that they will never be forced to use these powers...
@ronjj [below]: I know I am being watched...I have been being watched over and upon since day 1.
You're seeing a who team of psychologists, aren't' you....?
I think I know how deep (or shallow in this case) you inner Qi is. You might want to stick with externally focused activities like plucking your willy banjo whilst the mood suits you.
11-26-11 Anyone seen jimmy today. Even a whole team of psychologists couldn't take this long. SORRY -In this case, they could. Never mind.
And someone has all that information on you jimmy, even as you hide up there in Idaho. Maybe from a former classmate, your family, a visitor to this forum or your shrink. You are being watched
A whole team of psychologists? Don't even get me started started on psychologists and how worthless their practices really are. I wouldn't waste my time or money talking with those fools...just as I probably should not be wasting my time trying to reason with you blockheads-ronjj and classynancy.
So you want to play grammar Nazi do you? W-w-what in the fuck is 't'll'?
St-st-stupid bitch...
Hey jimmy. Glad to see that you are still among the living. I like the white jacket. Nancy and I are going to the coffee shop down by the big building with no signs out front - want to go along - I understand the coffee is free today and you get to stay as long as you want and maybe even longer.
"Probably" my foot, you already are!!! Where do we send the bill?
You're beginning to stutter ("started started") Jimmy, try to hang in there t'll the end or take one of those pills that makes those demons go away for a while...
"And my point is...well i'm not trying to make point."
I might be wrong, but not only did I not find a single attempt of you trying to reason, but you even admitted it yourself.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHlFRqtwKB4
Hey Nancy. A great post. Have a Marg. on me after work and some Mexican Food too.
Your dead on regarding our targets of protest and the dearth of understanding about how the real world works.
You are right about the investments not showing up as profits on the PL Statements until years later. Also note that for the sole proprietor of such a business, eventually that profit IS taxed to the max under the capital gains taxes which in the past have run about 25%. It is almost criminal for me to realize that I am taxed when I make a profit and taxed again when I want to reclaim that profit for myself.
It is my opinion that we have way too much government intrusion into business (and everything else) but to see the posted distortions and intrusions by the ignorant into those areas is even more devastating.
I agree. The governments few roles in business should be the breaking up of monopolies
Still didn't make my Turkey Ench's ... :(
I'm sick of these crybabies without the motivation to go out and work hard to get ahead. They are mostly gen Z'ers and former flower children who collectively believe that everyone should get a 'participation medal' for showing up.
You're spot-on with the double taxation, plus business people are left out of all of the tax deducaitons that their workers get. When you own a business, all of the "profit" is assigned to you for that year, regardless of whether the cash had to be invested in inventory, accounts receivable, or capital investments. So you end up being one of the 1% even though you live in a 3 Bd 2 Ba house on .1 acers. Then since your theoretical income is so high you can't claim all those sweet tax write-offs that the 99% can. THEN, if you work super hard and get a bit lucky, you might be able to sell your company and pay the capital gains tax on what you worked so hard to grow.
Nancy I fully believe that: The truth will make your free - only if you have the ability to know the truth.
I have three employees in my business (fullltime-part time). The one thing that I know is that none of them will end up paying a dime in Federal Income Tax this year and at least one of them will gross and net twice what I do.