Fenixgoon
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2003
- 31,560
- 9,929
- 136
correlation != causation.
i'm not saying unions don't provide benefits. i'm saying many of those statements are probably not SOLELY due to right to work vs. not.
correlation != causation.
i'm not saying unions don't provide benefits. i'm saying many of those statements are probably not SOLELY due to right to work vs. not.
My only "claim" that would need proof I guess would be the one about the top 4 execs taking the $0.01 pay for the first bankruptcy? Google it yourself, toolIt's not hard to find.
You said it do the work to back it up....
I love the false attributions towards me & the assertion that the govt is too large as if that were fact rather than just your jaundiced & well indoctrinated opinion.
I condemn religious zealots of all stripes- Muslims, Christians, Jews and the rest. Only the rule of secular law prevents the lot of them from going nuts, whether that's Jihadis, Christian dominionists & reconstructionists, whatever equally rabid Jewish groups call themselves & all the rest of the world's religious nutbars- Hindu, Shamanists, Animists, whatever.
You do realize that they're all very "Conservative", don't you? That they all believe "God's Law", their version of it, supercedes all human laws entirely? That they want to make things the way that they were at some point in their idealized past?
Maybe that applies to "Smaller Government!" reactionaries, too, huh?
drinkmorejava
Diamond Member
- Jun 24, 2004
- 3,567
- 7
- 81
You say what I said is false, but don't point to anything. Your article talks about companies using Delaware, but I've already been saying companies will incorporate where it's most beneficial for them.
I'm trying to figure out why you think you're owed something. Sure, the law may say their tax rate should be x amount, but what is your basis for claiming the country has some inalienable right to take it. I'd argue, no country has anymore of a right to tax their citizens and corporations than those citizens and corporations have to go somewhere else. You're free to say no one can sell anything or operate in your country unless they're incorporated there, but you might just end up SOL.
I'm a little confused by your extraterritoriality statement. Are you saying modern corporations get away with breaking the laws in the countries they operate in?
You are correct he can't "FORCE" businesses into hiring but he can provide a carrot and friendly environment via government that does not continually antagonize, blame or attack successful businesses and every other economic action taken by private individuals in this nation. Which Obama has not even cared about doing because of his own political leanings.
Higher profits does not mean that every business is also solely spending lavishly on their top
leadership. It could also mean that they are storing away those profits for a rainy day or for when economic growth in this country finally returns in a real and substantial way so that they can actually go out and higher and expanded when the time arises for them to do so in the future. In other words those profits are going to many causes within these private businesses outside of just rewarding the top brass.
However lets take your point class warfare point and look at it even closer. Do you really believe that successful businesses who have CEO's which have lead them to success even during these economic hard times should not reward these individuals? I find this point to be really flawed because the times in which you need great leadership in a privately run business is not during the boom times but during the periods of economic stagnation and decline like what we have been experiencing under Obama.
Because if a business does not reward its leadership for doing a excellent job at maintaining profits and growth during the hard times that CEO will find someone else who will value their leadership and that business will have to relay on lesser leadership or hope that their is someone around willing to work for less but that can provide the same level of success as top tier and top paid level CEO's.
If's funny how you don't consider that if you tax them at a higher rate that they'll be even less incline to expand and grow in the US. Or that they'll have even less incentives to grow their businesses in the US compared to other nations outside of the US who would be more receptive to offering lower tax rates and be able to provide a equally skillful work force in this global economy.
My objection is that modern corporations employ legal fictions to claim that they've moved somewhere else when they haven't, and that they use those legal fictions to cheat various govts out of revenues.
As a Colorado resident, if I tried to say that I was a resident of Texas because I employed a mail drop service there, avoid paying personal income tax to Colorado, that'd be disallowed, because I don't really live in Texas. OTOH, if I'm a corporation with a mail drop in Bermuda, that's perfectly OK. And, of course, given that Bermuda makes zero demands on my corporation for revenue, they have zero accounting requirements, meaning whatever I tell the US govt about my Bermudian operation can't be questioned, because I do business in the US through a series of shell companies in other tax havens, as well, exploiting banking secrecy all along the way. Heck, I can even run my US operations at a loss with transfer pricing favorable to my Bermudian operation, use that to offset profits in other US operations. That's just the tip of the iceberg, anyway.
Superficially, it's perfectly legal, because the truth is obscured, deliberately so.
I'm trying to figure out why you think uber wealthy individuals are owed that. Because they're already Rich?
Their corporations exploit US markets & enjoy the protection of the US govt in a variety of ways, particularly in shielding them from the vicissitudes of foreign govts. That's really what our massive military does, protect offshore corporate interests. In return for that & more, our govt has the right to demand that they be good citizens, and in an egalitarian democracy, the representatives of the people define that, not the representatives of the corporations. If doing business in this country was a bad deal, they'd be gone already, in fact, not just on paper.
The simple fact stated in the topic, record corporate profits, shows just how good it is for business in this country, and reinforces the idea that they can do a little more to maintain the govt that serves their interests as well as it does.
Just in general, there is nothing better than this whole DERP DERP - CORPORATIONS MADE MORE PROFITS THIS YEAR THAN LAST!
DAMN THOSE EVIL RIDICULOUS CORPORATIONS. WE MUST PUT A STOP TO THEM!!!
Did you ever think...
That every year...
There are more corporations...
And more consumers buying...
Than...
Last Year?
Crazy, I know!
DAMN THOSE EVIL RIDICULOUS CORPORATIONS. WE MUST PUT A STOP TO THEM!!!
Did you ever think...
That every year...
There are more corporations...
And more consumers buying...
Than...
Last Year?
Crazy, I know!
OverVolt
Lifer
- Aug 31, 2002
- 14,278
- 89
- 91
Supply/Demand of workers.
Work the remaining workers harder, doing the work of 1.2 or 1.3 workers in aggregate. Working them to the bone.
...Profit!!!
This can't last forever, we know this. Unhappy workers burn out. Eventually this economy will burnout everyone when the "oh yea we can just hire someone to replace you in .002 seconds!" doesn't apply.
It will apply, you CAN be replaced, but the person replacing you is equally burned out, if this goes on long enough.
Work the remaining workers harder, doing the work of 1.2 or 1.3 workers in aggregate. Working them to the bone.
...Profit!!!
This can't last forever, we know this. Unhappy workers burn out. Eventually this economy will burnout everyone when the "oh yea we can just hire someone to replace you in .002 seconds!" doesn't apply.
It will apply, you CAN be replaced, but the person replacing you is equally burned out, if this goes on long enough.
Straight to denial & false attribution, which is all too common when Righties need to move past their usual smug canned chatter into actual thought, real argument.
I certainly haven't offered that corporations are evil. They are a necessary part of any modern economy, but that doesn't mean they are beyond the laws of the places they do business, free of obligations to anybody other than their own management & BoD. That doesn't mean that some tax avoidance strategies aren't fraudulent at their core, either.
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 21,318
- 4,432
- 136
That above is just the latest episode.
These are the REAL REASONS.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2...use-people-no-longer-find-twinkies-appealing/
Factors Responsible for Declining Financial Performance
The Debtors believe that three main factors are responsible for their recent economic troubles: (a) high legacy costs; (b) inflexible labor work rules and structures; and (c) unsustainable debt levels that prohibit the Debtors from adapting their business to current competitive conditions thereby increasing profitability. As a consequence, the Debtors do not have a competitive cost structure and cannot achieve viability on a long-term sustainable basis in their industry.
Crippling Legacy Costs. As stated above, the Debtors participate in 40 Multiemployer Plans. The Multiemployer Plans are structured to place the financial burdens of all of the retirees under the plans upon the remaining companies in the plans that have active union employees. Over the last several decades, the number of companies supporting the Multiemployer Plans has shrunk significantly as a result of the voluntary and involuntary withdrawal of many employers and the fact that virtually no new employers join multiemployer plans today. This significantly increases the burden on the companies, such as the Debtors, that remain. The Debtors’ annual cash pension contributions associated with the Multiemployer Plans is approximately $103 million. Additionally, the Debtors have annual retiree medical obligations of approximately $1.4 million.
Inflexible and Uncompetitive Collective Bargaining Agreements. As stated above, the Debtors are party to 372 separate collective bargaining agreements (collectively, the “CBAs”
. The CBAs collectively mandate maintenance of 80 different health and welfare benefit plans, the sheer number of which impose excessive administrative and cost burdens on the Debtors. The CBAs mandate increases in wages and medical and other benefits for the fiscal year ending June 2, 2012 that total an additional $31 million. In addition, the CBAs contain a variety of different work rules that hamstring operations and make the CBAs uncompetitive as well as extremely difficult to administer. For example, the Debtors often provide both bread and cake products to an individual customer location. The existing work rules require that, on many routes, separate trucks must deliver the bread and cake products to that single customer location. The work rules also require that, in some bakeries and distribution centers, a separate individual must be used to load the trucks (the Debtors’ competitors have drivers who load their own trucks) and separate people must load either bread or cake onto a truck. Finally, work rules require that, in some instances even when a route representative is already visiting a customer location, that representative may not move product within that location; rather, a separate employee must visit the customer location to move product from the back room to the shelf. Often, this so-called “pull-up” employee cannot move both bread and cake and, thus, two “pull-up” employees must make this same trip. This multiplies the number of individuals necessary to deliver product to customers and doubles the costs associated with trucks and fuel. Finally, the work rules prevent the Debtors from implementing alternative distribution systems into new, currently unserved markets.Unsustainable Debt Levels. As set forth above, the Debtors have several tranches of secured debt totaling approximately $860 million. While the impact of this debt burden was somewhat ameliorated in the near term by the carefully constructed payment-in-kind features, it is incompatible with achieving a competitive cost structure, funding sorely needed capital improvements and long-term viability.
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 21,318
- 4,432
- 136
And there is a history:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html
Related: The history of labor battles at Hostess
In September, membership of one of its major unions, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, voted narrowly to accept a new contract with reduced wages and benefits. The Bakers' union rejected the deal, however, prompting Hostess management to secure permission from a bankruptcy court to force a new concession contract on workers.
The Teamsters union, which represents 6,700 Hostess workers, issued a statement blaming mismanagement by Hostess executives for the company's problems. But it also was critical of the decision of Bakers' union, although it did not identify the union by name.
"Unfortunately, the company's operating and financial problems were so severe that it required steep concessions from a variety of stakeholders but not all stakeholders were willing to be constructive," said Ken Hall, the Teamsters' Secretary-Treasurer. "Teamster Hostess members, based on the facts and advice from respected restructuring advisors, understood what was at stake and voted to protect all jobs at Hostess."
The new contract cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.
Hostess also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions, including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.
The Bakers Union said Fuck everybody and took down the whole lot.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html
Related: The history of labor battles at Hostess
In September, membership of one of its major unions, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, voted narrowly to accept a new contract with reduced wages and benefits. The Bakers' union rejected the deal, however, prompting Hostess management to secure permission from a bankruptcy court to force a new concession contract on workers.
The Teamsters union, which represents 6,700 Hostess workers, issued a statement blaming mismanagement by Hostess executives for the company's problems. But it also was critical of the decision of Bakers' union, although it did not identify the union by name.
"Unfortunately, the company's operating and financial problems were so severe that it required steep concessions from a variety of stakeholders but not all stakeholders were willing to be constructive," said Ken Hall, the Teamsters' Secretary-Treasurer. "Teamster Hostess members, based on the facts and advice from respected restructuring advisors, understood what was at stake and voted to protect all jobs at Hostess."
The new contract cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.
Hostess also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions, including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.
The Bakers Union said Fuck everybody and took down the whole lot.
They might have also just crunched the numbers and figured they were better off forcing the company to fold and collect unemployment vs. taking another pay/benefits cut. Not at all different from monied capital interests coming in and liquidating a company and selling it off in chunks for their own financial benefit. Both benefit the economy in the long run by reducing man hours tied up in marginally profitable economic activity.
www.in.gov/dwd/files/2612_TAA_Hostess_Brands.pdf
Definitely. There's also social issues to control for as I acknowledge and statisticians purport to control for them, but there's a limit to how many variables one can control for. I still value data over anecdote, however, and my perception is colored by personal experience, of course.
Last edited:
Do you have any evidence that people are working substantially harder or longer, or that worker happiness is drastically lower than usual? I don't believe it and tend to think this simply fits a certain anti-business narrative.
Profit remains relatively high despite lower employment primarily because of the reasons I stated in my previous post: Technology and outsourcing. A symbolic example I caught recently is a ski resort that had 4 ticket checkers stationed at various points amongst the lifts, while now they use bar codes and 1 person sits in front of a computer and monitors it all. Lower skilled white collar jobs are getting hit extremely hard... clerical, admin, sales, even x-ray analysis can be done overseas for cheaper. Bottom line is businesses are finding ways to maintain productivity and profits while unemployment remains high. Our economy has changed a lot while the workforce has changed little. We have an oversupply of low skilled workers and an under-supply of high skilled. Moral of the story is more people had better do what they can to try and become high skilled or this country faces some serious economic problems.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 82,854
- 17,365
- 136
Yeah, and Hostess just layed off tens of thousands of people while giving a handful of execs huge bonuses.
THE ECONOMY IS GREAT!
THE ECONOMY IS GREAT!
Yes, in the form of higher unemployment, falling wages and rising prices.
Profit remains high because those at the top can use their power and influence to keep things that way.
The moral of the story is that those at the top are going to have to part with some of that wealth that they've been hoarding for so long. Otherwise, it'll just get taken from them.
Can any Rightist out the address the crux of my Op on why the Republicans label President Obama as the most anti-business President in history?
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
Why would you want to keep this so called "experiences exec" that is sterring you ship into bankruptcy? And why would you pay him more and not fire him for being shitty?
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,819
- 1,126
- 126
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,819
- 1,126
- 126
OverVolt
Lifer
- Aug 31, 2002
- 14,278
- 89
- 91
Oh god I agree with something you've said now. At least I admit it :awe:
But yes, the guy you quoted, these high skills jobs have way too large of a ratio of workers required to people serviced.
What I mean is take the barcode example, it maybe took 10-50 skilled workers to create that system, and it services thousands of people. Or overseas x-ray reading. It took maybe 50-100 people to work on that, and it could read every single x-ray taken in the country if enough hospitals bought that system. We don't need MORE high skill white collar workers, it will just make things worse.
There are far, far, far, too many people sitting in offices designing things to be used by thousands/millions of users whom have nothing to do with how it is actually implemented at street level.
Besides, if physical goods can be outsourced and shipped 18,000 miles for cheaper than making them here, I don't know what makes these high skilled white collar workers think that their jobs can't be outsourced too, with the internet and whatnot. It should actually be easier to outsource them. Japan, the Swiss, Netherlands, etc. are beginning to seriously kick our ass in education. They should be scared, not brazen. Upper management at corporations hold all the power, not the workers. But since they don't even understand how it works they don't realize how at risk they are, and should be saving money for when its their job and not someone elses that gets axed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter