Corporate profits hit record high-

[Brigandier]

Large corps have the work to be done. They just don't want to hire FTEs. They would rather double and triple the work for the employees that are left after layoffs.

Hiring more employees wouldn't immediately pay-off, and in the future, Raoul Castro could be elected president so any gains may be negated. Why would any sane corporation hire a bunch of new people when they can continue to overwork the quality workers they have now?

 

[Amused]

...at least in nominal or noninflation-adjusted terms.

I guess someone missed this part.

But why let a pesky little disclaimer get in the way of a sensational story obviously designed to inflame class envy???

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This breakneck pace can be partly attributed to strong productivity growth — which means companies have been able to make more with less — as well as the fact that some of the profits of American companies come from abroad. Economic conditions in the United States may still be sluggish, but many emerging markets like India and China are expanding rapidly.

Guess where the money goes in return? Where the money is made.

 

[JS80]

The rich who, exactly?

Our 401ks. Us couples making $125k each. We are on the same level as Warren Buffett and we need to pay more in taxes.

 

[Patranus]

This is good news. Hopefully these companies will start hiring again.

Not in America.

 

[nick1985]

Our 401ks. Us couples making $125k each. We are on the same level as Warren Buffett and we need to pay more in taxes.

Pay your fair share plz

 

[IBMer]

yah because you know know if you making 250k or more all your money is taxed at the new rate right? I mean its not taxed differently at everything above 250k.

 

[Lanyap]

Hiring more employees wouldn't immediately pay-off, and in the future, Raoul Castro could be elected president so any gains may be negated. Why would any sane corporation hire a bunch of new people when they can continue to overwork the quality workers they have now?

They don't have to hire new people, they can rehire the people that already know the job that they laid off. This tactic by corps can only go so far. The people they are overworking now will start to leave soon as other jobs open up and the companies will be forced to hire replacements. If they wait too long the previously laid off employees will already have jobs and the companies will have to hire and train new people which strains their business operations.

We are still in an economy death loop. If corps don't start hiring then people will hold their spending. If people don't spending then corps will not hire. It's going to take the corps to make the first move to get things going. They may feel a little better about the outlook after the election so they need to move forward.

 

[Throckmorton]

BTW, I thought Obama was "anti business" and having to apologize and "extend an olive branch" to business... wtf?!

 

[Throckmorton]

yah because you know know if you making 250k or more all your money is taxed at the new rate right? I mean its not taxed differently at everything above 250k.

Man... how does someone like js80 who doesn't understand the concept of tax brackets get to a $125k salary? Probably through partying with the right people in college. It goes to show how much we aren't a meritocracy at all.

 

[Fern]

Stole this from someone else on AT, very appropriate.

Ah, making me lol now.

Good One

Fern

 

[Fern]

I guess someone missed this part.

But why let a pesky little disclaimer get in the way of a sensational story obviously designed to inflame class envy???

Yup, noticed that.

Otherwise, I agree with those who feel the OP doesn't understand the whole 'uncertainty and business' thingy

IMO, what we're seeing in these profit numbers, and the businesses' relative financial strength, is the collective work by the CFO workforce. They've been given a lot of power to reshape spending and finances. Corps are now as 'lean-n-mean' as they've ever been, perhaps more so. I see very little in my CFO literature that suggests this is going to change any time soon

Fern

 

[epidemis]

It's because of globalism you tool.. The companies trading public are usually the same that are represented in several countries.

 

[bfdd]

Must be all that socialism

Obviously. If we had just let the economy die like we should have instead of bailing it out, which is a socialist policy, these guys would not have been making these record profits. Sure shit might be worse, but at least we couldn't blame socialism.

 

[manimal]

Yup, noticed that.

Otherwise, I agree with those who feel the OP doesn't understand the whole 'uncertainty and business' thingy

IMO, what we're seeing in these profit numbers, and the businesses' relative financial strength, is the collective work by the CFO workforce. They've been given a lot of power to reshape spending and finances. Corps are now as 'lean-n-mean' as they've ever been, perhaps more so. I see very little in my CFO literature that suggests this is going to change any time soon

Fern

Sorry Im a small business owner and I as well as many feel the uncertaintly excuse is pure bs...

If you drill down into what the cause of the uncertainty is you get more bs...like im not sure what the tax structure is going to be....

 

[werepossum]

Sorry Im a small business owner and I as well as many feel the uncertaintly excuse is pure bs...

If you drill down into what the cause of the uncertainty is you get more bs...like im not sure what the tax structure is going to be....

How is that BS? If I'm profitable now by a small margin, and my health care costs escalate more than in the past (which they generally are, with Obamacare), I may be unprofitable. If a carbon tax is applied, raising my energy costs, I may be unprofitable. If the corporate tax structure changes, I may be unprofitable. If the individual tax structure changes, I personally may not be able to live the same lifestyle. If the regulations I labor under change, increasing my overhead and making it more difficult to conduct business, I may be unprofitable. Should I then take a chance on hiring another person who MIGHT increase my gross enough to offset her cost, or should I say "Sorry, we're not hiring right now"? Should I then take a chance on an expansion or a new production line, knowing that even if my calculations and estimations are correct, any one of a dozen new versions of "change you can believe in" could change that investment from a potential profit to a millstone around my neck?

Couple great uncertainty with a shitty economy and you've got a recipe for companies to maximize and bank their profits against a downturn or increased costs, NOT a recipe for companies to take a chance on new hires or new ventures.

 

[manimal]

How is that BS? If I'm profitable now by a small margin, and my health care costs escalate more than in the past (which they generally are, with Obamacare), I may be unprofitable. If a carbon tax is applied, raising my energy costs, I may be unprofitable. If the corporate tax structure changes, I may be unprofitable. If the individual tax structure changes, I personally may not be able to live the same lifestyle. If the regulations I labor under change, increasing my overhead and making it more difficult to conduct business, I may be unprofitable. Should I then take a chance on hiring another person who MIGHT increase my gross enough to offset her cost, or should I say "Sorry, we're not hiring right now"? Should I then take a chance on an expansion or a new production line, knowing that even if my calculations and estimations are correct, any one of a dozen new versions of "change you can believe in" could change that investment from a potential profit to a millstone around my neck?

Couple great uncertainty with a shitty economy and you've got a recipe for companies to maximize and bank their profits against a downturn or increased costs, NOT a recipe for companies to take a chance on new hires or new ventures.

Health care costs have risen steadily for 20 years...fail

With the house as it is now cap and trade are dead...fail

Corporate tax rates are going to stay the same and small businesses have gotten alot of attention in the form of capital expenditure tax offsets....fail

so basically your argument is fail...

If you dont think the democrats are as corporatist as the rest of the politicians you have no idea how government works....

so yes fail...

 

[hal2kilo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html


Seems the recession is over for the corporate giants....



Hows that uncertainty argument look now?

Yea, but we can't hire anybody till we get (blackmail to get the tax breaks we want) rid of the uncertainty.

 

[manimal]

Yea, but we can't hire anybody till we get (blackmail to get the tax breaks we want) rid of the uncertainty.

what gets my goat is the kids in here do not remember this same crap when Clinton was president. I have always though that this constant parroting is what led him to cave on the repeal of glass-steagel..

I have been part of every recession since the early eighties. Lean and mean followed by huge profits followed by over compensation and tax breaks that rip up the national debt.

Look at every president since our favorite peanut farmer...

Question to the kids...

Which presidential party has added more to the national debt as a percentage and gross since Jimmy?

Hint.....Its the same party that added more jobs...

Democrats have made huge blunders as well with the aforementioned glass-steagel repeal and the home ownership debacles...

What I am trying to highlight here is this patently false premise that uncertainty has anything to do with our economic recovery...

What is certain is that most businesses did just fine under the Clinton era tax rates and their horrible regulations...





Hint

 

[Craig234]

Sorry Im a small business owner and I as well as many feel the uncertaintly excuse is pure bs...

If you drill down into what the cause of the uncertainty is you get more bs...like im not sure what the tax structure is going to be....

You're right on.

It's sad how many people can't see propaganda for what it is.

In this case, it's this mythical 'uncertainty' threat we have to get rid of by implementing right-wing policies.

It's the same technique as when the Reagan administration used 'we have to protect the American medical students from the risk of this left-wing regime' to justify violence.

It didn't matter that the the students were in no danger and their families were desperately crying to the White House to NOT launch violence that might actually create some danger for the family members - the White House went ahead, using them because the lie 'fit the line' many in the public will fall for easily.

'Well, maybe Reagan is making a mistake being too careful, but I'll give him that benefit of the doubt - the President has to protect Americans, and we can't nit pick every time he does that maybe he was a bit too careful about their safety every time, we have to give him some room.'

These people can't tell the difference between a sincere even if mistaken desire to protect Americans, and a complete different agenda simply using the line as propaganda that is a lie, just as it is here, a lie often created by 'think tank' full-time liars who have a mission to create cover story lies to justify bad policies that benefit their 'clients'.

It's a failure of democracy - the people keeping the corrupt interests in check - when the people themselves are corrupted by well-funded propaganda.

We have the real result of this system of propaganda, as wealth has shifted to historic concentration at the top, and the public has been conditioned into opposition to any fixes.

 

[manimal]

You're right on.

It's sad how many people can't see propaganda for what it is.

In this case, it's this mythical 'uncertainty' threat we have to get rid of by implementing right-wing policies.

It's the same technique as when the Reagan administration used 'we have to protect the American medical students from the risk of this left-wing regime' to justify violence.

It didn't matter that the the students were in no danger and their families were desperately crying to the White House to NOT launch violence that might actually create some danger for the family members - the White House went ahead, using them because the lie 'fit the line' many in the public will fall for easily.

'Well, maybe Reagan is making a mistake being too careful, but I'll give him that benefit of the doubt - the President has to protect Americans, and we can't nit pick every time he does that maybe he was a bit too careful about their safety every time, we have to give him some room.'

These people can't tell the difference between a sincere even if mistaken desire to protect Americans, and a complete different agenda simply using the line as propaganda that is a lie, just as it is here, a lie often created by 'think tank' full-time liars who have a mission to create cover story lies to justify bad policies that benefit their 'clients'.

It's a failure of democracy - the people keeping the corrupt interests in check - when the people themselves are corrupted by well-funded propaganda.

We have the real result of this system of propaganda, as wealth has shifted to historic concentration at the top, and the public has been conditioned into opposition to any fixes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Eisenstein

at least Eisenstein did it artfully....the shit thats being fed is far from it but no less effective..