Recored Corporate Profits! Where Are The Jobs?
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
As Warren Buffer stated, “There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.”
Generally, the 'rich' advocate for their best interests. What I don't understand is how those who have little economic in common with the rich argue for the rich's best interests. FDR was labeled a traitor to his class, because of his policies. It's not me with the black and white thinking, I don't set policy!
And winning big. And when you have people who aren't even in that class standing up and fighting for them at their own expense, it's easy to see why.
Sometimes, smart people overlook the things that are simple and basic.
Acme Widgets is a widget maker.
Acme Widgets had 10 employees that made 100/week.
Demand for widget has recently dropped to 50/week due to a breakdown in the economy.
Mr A Widgets has responded by cutting staff.
Acme Widgets currently has 5 employees that only make 50 widgets a week.
New orders come in.
Now there is an increased consumer demand for 55 widgets a weeks.
Should Acme Widgets pursue the satisfaction of the new consumer demand?
If so, how should Acme Widgets meet the demand?
Hire a 6th employee which would result in extra cost/lower profits?
or
Increase the workload of the current workforce at cost/increased profit?
This simple scenario is being played out in every industry. Every worker has seen an increase in their workload/job responsibility. Workers don't complain as much as they would have in the past because they are glad/shook to still have a job.
Corporations are getting greater productivity without any or little added cost which results in higher profits.
Why would corporation want to do anything to alter this trend?
Corporations won't hire additional employees until there is enough profitability.
Acme Widgets is a widget maker.
Acme Widgets had 10 employees that made 100/week.
Demand for widget has recently dropped to 50/week due to a breakdown in the economy.
Mr A Widgets has responded by cutting staff.
Acme Widgets currently has 5 employees that only make 50 widgets a week.
New orders come in.
Now there is an increased consumer demand for 55 widgets a weeks.
Should Acme Widgets pursue the satisfaction of the new consumer demand?
If so, how should Acme Widgets meet the demand?
Hire a 6th employee which would result in extra cost/lower profits?
or
Increase the workload of the current workforce at cost/increased profit?
This simple scenario is being played out in every industry. Every worker has seen an increase in their workload/job responsibility. Workers don't complain as much as they would have in the past because they are glad/shook to still have a job.
Corporations are getting greater productivity without any or little added cost which results in higher profits.
Why would corporation want to do anything to alter this trend?
Corporations won't hire additional employees until there is enough profitability.
End of Thread!! Finally
It amazes me that some people think wealth falls out of the air.
Which is another factor not taken into account. The threat of out sourcing and due to the high unemployment levels, workers know that their are 5 more out their that will take the job for less, compounds the situation. A stark example of how capitalism is parasitics.
Since demand can only be spurred by those with the money to spend, it is less likely that significant numbers of customers would be created in the short term, since without jobs, few will have the extra money.
So, extending tax cuts to those that acquire their income from capital gains, does little to increase job growth. They already have increased expendable funds garnered over the last the years from the current tax cuts and would, most likely continue to save or invest the additional money rather than put it in to circulation.
What sustained the employment growth in the past was the fact that labor pool was somewhat finite. American workers could expect a decent wage when recessions recovered. Now the the completion of workers in other markets willing to work for wages below the American standard, their is, as you so eloquently stated above no incentive for the employer to increase the labor pool, at least in the US market.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EHSnXFEzE4E?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EHSnXFEzE4E?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
http://mercatus.org/
Reality Isn't Negotiable: The Government Can't Raise More than 19% in Taxes for Long
Veronique de Rugy | Nov 29, 2010
This chart by Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy shows the historical path of federal taxation as a percentage of GDP using the earliest records available from the Office of Management and Budget and top marginal tax rate data from the Tax Policy Center. From 1930 to 2010, tax revenue collection in the United States has never topped 20.9%, averaging 16.5% of GDP over these 80 years. This comes despite the drastic historical fluctuation in the rate of taxes on the wealthiest Americans. As we move toward debt reduction, it is critical to keep the long-term path of the United States in mind.
In recent years, spending, not revenues, has deviated from its historical path; spending must be addressed to rectify the budget.
Veronique de Rugy explains why we can’t tax our way out of the debt on Bloomberg TV. Republican hands are bloody as well.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uJheKXv2Qro?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uJheKXv2Qro?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Reality Isn't Negotiable: The Government Can't Raise More than 19% in Taxes for Long
Veronique de Rugy | Nov 29, 2010
This chart by Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy shows the historical path of federal taxation as a percentage of GDP using the earliest records available from the Office of Management and Budget and top marginal tax rate data from the Tax Policy Center. From 1930 to 2010, tax revenue collection in the United States has never topped 20.9%, averaging 16.5% of GDP over these 80 years. This comes despite the drastic historical fluctuation in the rate of taxes on the wealthiest Americans. As we move toward debt reduction, it is critical to keep the long-term path of the United States in mind.
In recent years, spending, not revenues, has deviated from its historical path; spending must be addressed to rectify the budget.
Veronique de Rugy explains why we can’t tax our way out of the debt on Bloomberg TV. Republican hands are bloody as well.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uJheKXv2Qro?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uJheKXv2Qro?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
^^^^^
http://mercatus.org/
Reality Isn't Negotiable: The Government Can't Raise More than 19% in Taxes for Long
Veronique de Rugy | Nov 29, 2010
This chart by Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy shows the historical path of federal taxation as a percentage of GDP using the earliest records available from the Office of Management and Budget and top marginal tax rate data from the Tax Policy Center. From 1930 to 2010, tax revenue collection in the United States has never topped 20.9%, averaging 16.5% of GDP over these 80 years. This comes despite the drastic historical fluctuation in the rate of taxes on the wealthiest Americans. As we move toward debt reduction, it is critical to keep the long-term path of the United States in mind.
In recent years, spending, not revenues, has deviated from its historical path; spending must be addressed to rectify the budget.
Veronique de Rugy explains why we can’t tax our way out of the debt on Bloomberg TV. Republican hands are bloody as well.
<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/uJheKXv2Qro?fs=1&hl=en_US allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
Gunner, let me ask again, Record Corporate Profits! Where Are The Jobs?
Last edited:
Where are the jobs?
source: Huffington Post
Big Oil Companies Post Huge Profits On High Gas Prices
WASHINGTON -- The sputtering economy, high unemployment rate and punishing gas prices are taking a huge toll on average Americans, but at least somebody is doing well: The Big Five oil companies this week announced they had made a whopping $36 billion in profits in the second quarter of 2011.
According to second-quarter earnings reports, ExxonMobil alone made $10.7 billion in the most recent three months. That's a 41 percent increase over the same period last year and a 161 percent increase over 2009.
Shell nearly doubled its profits year over year, taking in $8.7 billion in the second quarter. Chevron's profits were $7.7 billion, up 43 percent. BP earned $5.6 billion, a far cry from its $17.2 billion loss a year ago. Only Conoco Philips, with $3.4 billion in earnings, posted smaller profits than a year ago, dropping 18 percent due to the jettisoning of some Russian assets.
A good chunk of these profits is coming right out the pockets of the American public, thanks in part to astronomical gas prices and to $4 billion to $8 billion a year in deficit-increasing tax subsidies that oil companies continues to get, long after the incentives those subsidies were designed to create ceased to make economic sense.
Rather than invest their profits in such things as product development, new facilities, hot talent or research -- things that could create jobs, improve consumer offerings and accelerate alternative energy production -- three of the five big oil companies are spending large amounts of that money buying back shares of their own stock.
Exxon spent $5.5 billion -- or more than half of its total profits -- to buy back its own stock in the second quarter; Chevron spent $1 billion, or 13 percent of its profits; and Conoco spent $3.1 billion -- or 91 percent of its profits. The numbers were similar last quarter.
"What this means is these companies see their profits as a way of managing their stock price, rather than investing money in the future of their own companies and the future of the economy," said William Lazonick, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.
Executives say stock buybacks reflect confidence in the future of their companies, sending a signal they think their stock is undervalued. Indeed, buybacks are almost guaranteed to send stock prices up by boosting earnings per outstanding share and increasing the demand.
But buybacks are also a self-serving way for management to spend the company's earnings, Lazonick said. Top executives reap benefits from the exercise of stock options -- and if stock prices don't go up, those options are worthless.
"Buybacks and stock options are the yin and yang of corporate executives," Lazonick said. "They spend the company's money to buy back stock and send up stock prices -- and they're one of the biggest beneficiaries of it. But everyone else loses."
The companies are only halfway through what could be a record year for oil profits. At this rate ExxonMobil, for example, will clear almost $43 billion in profits in 2011, just shy of its 2008 record of $45 billion -- the last time there was a huge spike in oil prices.
Democrats have tried, with only limited success, to make political hay of the fact that oil companies are doing so well, while consumers are doing poorly and policymakers are feverishly looking for ways to cut the deficit.
"America is swimming in debt, and oil companies are swimming in profits, yet Republicans continue to defend giving these companies special tax breaks that could help reduce the deficit if they were repealed," said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in a statement Thursday. "Instead of asking seniors for a cut in Medicare or Social Security, it's time for the oil companies to do their part and contribute to solving our debt crisis."
But one reason Markey and others have made so little headway is that the oil and gas industry is enormously powerful on Capitol Hill, spending over $1 billion in lobbying since 1998, according to opensecrets.org.
And the Big Five oil companies have already spent $75 million in lobbying just through first half of this year. That seems like a lot, until one considers that it amounts to about one-tenth of 1 percent of their profits.
As profits go up, employment goes down.
source: Huffington Post
Big Oil Companies Post Huge Profits On High Gas Prices
WASHINGTON -- The sputtering economy, high unemployment rate and punishing gas prices are taking a huge toll on average Americans, but at least somebody is doing well: The Big Five oil companies this week announced they had made a whopping $36 billion in profits in the second quarter of 2011.
According to second-quarter earnings reports, ExxonMobil alone made $10.7 billion in the most recent three months. That's a 41 percent increase over the same period last year and a 161 percent increase over 2009.
Shell nearly doubled its profits year over year, taking in $8.7 billion in the second quarter. Chevron's profits were $7.7 billion, up 43 percent. BP earned $5.6 billion, a far cry from its $17.2 billion loss a year ago. Only Conoco Philips, with $3.4 billion in earnings, posted smaller profits than a year ago, dropping 18 percent due to the jettisoning of some Russian assets.
A good chunk of these profits is coming right out the pockets of the American public, thanks in part to astronomical gas prices and to $4 billion to $8 billion a year in deficit-increasing tax subsidies that oil companies continues to get, long after the incentives those subsidies were designed to create ceased to make economic sense.
Rather than invest their profits in such things as product development, new facilities, hot talent or research -- things that could create jobs, improve consumer offerings and accelerate alternative energy production -- three of the five big oil companies are spending large amounts of that money buying back shares of their own stock.
Exxon spent $5.5 billion -- or more than half of its total profits -- to buy back its own stock in the second quarter; Chevron spent $1 billion, or 13 percent of its profits; and Conoco spent $3.1 billion -- or 91 percent of its profits. The numbers were similar last quarter.
"What this means is these companies see their profits as a way of managing their stock price, rather than investing money in the future of their own companies and the future of the economy," said William Lazonick, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.
Executives say stock buybacks reflect confidence in the future of their companies, sending a signal they think their stock is undervalued. Indeed, buybacks are almost guaranteed to send stock prices up by boosting earnings per outstanding share and increasing the demand.
But buybacks are also a self-serving way for management to spend the company's earnings, Lazonick said. Top executives reap benefits from the exercise of stock options -- and if stock prices don't go up, those options are worthless.
"Buybacks and stock options are the yin and yang of corporate executives," Lazonick said. "They spend the company's money to buy back stock and send up stock prices -- and they're one of the biggest beneficiaries of it. But everyone else loses."
The companies are only halfway through what could be a record year for oil profits. At this rate ExxonMobil, for example, will clear almost $43 billion in profits in 2011, just shy of its 2008 record of $45 billion -- the last time there was a huge spike in oil prices.
Democrats have tried, with only limited success, to make political hay of the fact that oil companies are doing so well, while consumers are doing poorly and policymakers are feverishly looking for ways to cut the deficit.
"America is swimming in debt, and oil companies are swimming in profits, yet Republicans continue to defend giving these companies special tax breaks that could help reduce the deficit if they were repealed," said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in a statement Thursday. "Instead of asking seniors for a cut in Medicare or Social Security, it's time for the oil companies to do their part and contribute to solving our debt crisis."
But one reason Markey and others have made so little headway is that the oil and gas industry is enormously powerful on Capitol Hill, spending over $1 billion in lobbying since 1998, according to opensecrets.org.
And the Big Five oil companies have already spent $75 million in lobbying just through first half of this year. That seems like a lot, until one considers that it amounts to about one-tenth of 1 percent of their profits.
As profits go up, employment goes down.
^^^^
The rich will get richer because they have no incentives to create jobs. Also, they know that the tornado known as tax hikes could/will hit them in the near future.
However, to my understanding, liberals/progressives/wtf you wanna call yourself, do not have an understanding of math. In fact, lack of math + extraordinary emotional unbalance = the liberal mindset. Sadly, there's too many people that believes in the way you do...
So much for the trickle down theory!
It's sad that someone twice my age, still don't understand how economics work...
With tax cuts during GW's reign, where are the jobs? Clinton had lower unemployment with higher taxes. Explain expert.
Similar threads
