• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Tea Party blog calls for Job Creator! Strike

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,917
173
106
I think we still have alternatives, like restructuring corporate governance and staking a societal claim on the offshore profits of Corporate America.

Socialism? It's the best of the limited alternatives, other than for a very small segment of the population. They'll get by, I'm sure.
How will you make sure these companies remain in USA? Or does your world view take that as a given?
They won't remain in the USA and there's no way of stopping it.

They'll do what's called corporate inversion (IIRC) and be gone. There's not a damn thing that can be done about it. At least not until you change the Constitution to prohibit US citizens and residents from owning foreign property. Good luck with that.

From what I read we're more likely to move the opposite direction: Give up claiming taxes on corporate income earned outside our borders.

Fern
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,983
14,137
136
They won't remain in the USA and there's no way of stopping it.

They'll do what's called corporate inversion (IIRC) and be gone. There's not a damn thing that can be done about it. At least not until you change the Constitution to prohibit US citizens and residents from owning foreign property. Good luck with that.

From what I read we're more likely to move the opposite direction: Give up claiming taxes on corporate income earned outside our borders.

Fern
I think we need to go in exactly the opposite direction of what you offer, Fern. If it were up to me, we'd eliminate corporate taxes entirely, tax all income progressively as earned income. We'd necessarily need to maintain and enhance our ability to tax overseas earnings of American citizens and corporations at the same time.

The sort of offshoring of corporate headquarters we've seen would be instantly reversed, and the rationale for holding profits offshore to avoid the IRS would also disappear, because corporations would only be avoiding paying dividends to stockholders.

It would also radically simplify the tax code, making a whole class of taxation disappear.
 

ComradeBeck

Senior member
Jun 16, 2011
262
0
0
The "job creators" actually do anything productive in society? LOL! Why do you think they call them the "leisure class"? Back to work serf!
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
The "job creators" actually do anything productive in society? LOL! Why do you think they call them the "leisure class"? Back to work serf!
i don't know, man... *puff* stuff just.. like... *puff* invents itself, man *cough cough*. its crazy out there.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,983
14,137
136
i don't know, man... *puff* stuff just.. like... *puff* invents itself, man *cough cough*. its crazy out there.
Yeh, it'd be a mistake to limit the creativity of private equity managers & hedge fund managers, given all they've done for the world. Wouldn't want to inhibit the future creativity of the financial geniuses who created Enron & Global Crossing, nor the earning potential of future Bernie Madoffs, either.
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,990
9
81
Yeh, it'd be a mistake to limit the creativity of private equity managers & hedge fund managers, given all they've done for the world. Wouldn't want to inhibit the future creativity of the financial geniuses who created Enron & Global Crossing, nor the earning potential of future Bernie Madoffs, either.
But good management!
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
Yeh, it'd be a mistake to limit the creativity of private equity managers & hedge fund managers, given all they've done for the world. Wouldn't want to inhibit the future creativity of the financial geniuses who created Enron & Global Crossing, nor the earning potential of future Bernie Madoffs, either.
I guess there weren't corrupt union leaders, corrupt government officials and those who make ends meet by gaming social programs. It's just the rich guys that are corrupt.
 

ComradeBeck

Senior member
Jun 16, 2011
262
0
0
i don't know, man... *puff* stuff just.. like... *puff* invents itself, man *cough cough*. its crazy out there.
These criminal banksters do not create wealth, they are the parasite capitalist class, small business and working people create the wealth in this country. The bigger the business the less efficient, the more subsidies from the public it requires, big business almost always = corruption (or an anomaly) in a healthy regulated market. Take a look at how big business got to where it is in the USA. Slavery and on the back of whatever minorities the corporate media can scapegoat that decade. This goes back to the start.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
These criminal banksters do not create wealth, they are the parasite capitalist class, small business and working people create the wealth in this country. The bigger the business the less efficient, the more subsidies from the public it requires, big business almost always = corruption (or an anomaly) in a healthy regulated market.
I thought you liked inefficiency. It inflates the ranks of the workers, so more comrades on the payroll. Unfortunately, biggest business are usually the most efficient and healthiest. Wal-Mart is way, way more efficient than anything else in its industry. It's the small business that are in danger during an economical downturn.
Of course if you'll bring some examples that would be very nice.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,983
14,137
136
I guess there weren't corrupt union leaders, corrupt government officials and those who make ends meet by gaming social programs. It's just the rich guys that are corrupt.
None of them were successful enough to nearly collapse the financial system, or to obtain the kind of compensation wall st execs received in the process. None of them were able to rig the system so as to be above the law, either.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,648
0
71
It's the owner's money. They are keeping more of it, for sure, but it's theirs in the first place, isn't it?

If these companies are so evil, boycott them.

If these owners got so rich by doing nothing, join their ranks and start a business.

If you are underpaid, leave your work place and find a new one. If you can't find a new one, then you are not underpaid, you just THINK you are.

Personal responsibility first and foremost. Regulation as far and distant 2nd.
Your options aren't quite as open as you think they are, or as you suggest they are. Companies have merged and merged to the point where you can't reasonably boycott them and go elsewhere. We have 4 options for Cell Phones nationwide, and if the latest merger goes through it will be down to 3. Rumors of Sprint needing to be absorbed would make it 2. Mega corporations and mergers (that always seem to get approved) take away any reasonable ability to take your business elsewhere.

Starting a business isn't easy without capital, and institutions aren't lending now. The whole "sitting on trillions in cash" has been a problem for a few years. Of course, when you do take off, like say Netflix, you are seen as a threat and your suppliers try to edge you out of the market via backroom deals. Have you seen what the media companies have been doing to try and kill off Netflix? Only with oligopolies can that happen.

We are competing with what is essentially slave labor internationally. Telling someone to find a new job with unemployment at these levels is silly. Telling them to accept less pay because of a global workforce is equally silly. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the economy we have.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
Your options aren't quite as open as you think they are, or as you suggest they are. Companies have merged and merged to the point where you can't reasonably boycott them and go elsewhere. We have 4 options for Cell Phones nationwide, and if the latest merger goes through it will be down to 3. Rumors of Sprint needing to be absorbed would make it 2. Mega corporations and mergers (that always seem to get approved) take away any reasonable ability to take your business elsewhere.

Starting a business isn't easy without capital, and institutions aren't lending now. The whole "sitting on trillions in cash" has been a problem for a few years. Of course, when you do take off, like say Netflix, you are seen as a threat and your suppliers try to edge you out of the market via backroom deals. Have you seen what the media companies have been doing to try and kill off Netflix? Only with oligopolies can that happen.
I never said it was easy. I know for a fact it's not, and so do most of the "free money" crowd that are looking for shortcuts through government handouts. This is why they are at this position in the first place, while I'm working my ass off for 18 hours a day to run my own company.

I also know that there are people making money, there are people starting companies and doing well and the world has not ground to a halt after the recession.

As for the cellular market, this is a stark example of government regulation failure. As for Netflix, they did very well until their recent blunder. The media companies have been on the receiving end for nearly a decade now and they are fighting for survival, it's natural they'll try screwing up the new disruptive players. I would not have expected them to embrace it, just as they did not embrace the MP3.

We are competing with what is essentially slave labor internationally. Telling someone to find a new job with unemployment at these levels is silly. Telling them to accept less pay because of a global workforce is equally silly. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the economy we have.
Welcome to reality. Other than convincing the Chinese to riot against THEIR economic system and demand a wage raise, this is the way it's going to be. Consumers demand higher salaries with one hand, and lower priced goods with the other. International trading and offshoring is everywhere and this process can not be stopped.

Who, exactly, do you suggest pays up for this difference in cost of labor? Will the consumers agree to pay more? Will the employees agree to be paid less? Or are we just going to do the easy thing and reach out to the pockets of the wealthy and take whatever money we need to close this gap?

My problem with this policy is that beyond being unjust - unless like comrade Jhhnn you believe it's all stolen from the public anyway - it is also irresponsible and unsustainable. You can fool yourself for so long but eventually the American worker IS competing with the Chinese worker, today in manufacturing and tomorrow in engineering. The sooner reality is accepted, the better off everyone will be.
 
Last edited:

ComradeBeck

Senior member
Jun 16, 2011
262
0
0
Wal-Mart is way, way more efficient than anything else in its industry.
Ever taken a look at the trade imbalance with China? That is not efficient, it is corruption, as I said.

Wal-mart is a perfect example of a corporation who has corrupted government to promote its long-term economically suicidal business plan to be bankrolled by US taxpayers.


I thought you liked inefficiency..
I do not even know what kind of response you would expect to such a idiotic statement or what your point was.
 
Last edited:

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,463
2
0
I never said it was easy. I know for a fact it's not, and so do most of the "free money" crowd that are looking for shortcuts through government handouts.

Who, exactly, do you suggest pays up for this difference in cost of labor? Will the consumers agree to pay more? Will the employees agree to be paid less? Or are we just going to do the easy thing and reach out to the pockets of the wealthy and take whatever money we need to close this gap?
If the price of things go up, the citizens DEMAND higher wages.... the company is then forced to either lay off employees or raise costs(or some combo of both) to maintain a profit margin..... BOTH bad for the economy because now things cost more( do you see a cycle? ) and nobody is working.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,983
14,137
136
Welcome to reality. Other than convincing the Chinese to riot against THEIR economic system and demand a wage raise, this is the way it's going to be. Consumers demand higher salaries with one hand, and lower priced goods with the other. International trading and offshoring is everywhere and this process can not be stopped.

Who, exactly, do you suggest pays up for this difference in cost of labor? Will the consumers agree to pay more? Will the employees agree to be paid less? Or are we just going to do the easy thing and reach out to the pockets of the wealthy and take whatever money we need to close this gap?

My problem with this policy is that beyond being unjust - unless like comrade Jhhnn you believe it's all stolen from the public anyway - it is also irresponsible and unsustainable. You can fool yourself for so long but eventually the American worker IS competing with the Chinese worker, today in manufacturing and tomorrow in engineering. The sooner reality is accepted, the better off everyone will be.
Nice framing, particularly the part about reaching into the pockets of the wealthy.

It's not like this country was some sort of communist dictatorship prior to Reagan, when we did, in truth, reach much deeper into the pockets of the wealthy than today, and when we did a much better job of reducing the conflicts of interest so prevalent in the financial situation of today. We also had mechanisms other than taxes that promoted better circulation of money in the economy and wealth creation among the middle class, Unions and tariffs being chief among them.

What we're discovering, despite denials from those on the Right, is that cheap foreign goods and bigger lines of credit are insufficient compensation for the job loss of offshoring and automation. It shows in the radical redistribution of income from the lower 75% of workers to the top 1%, and in the acquisition of debt, both governmental and private.

As a democracy, we have the right and the responsibility to demand more from our own capitalists, and they have a greater responsibility to the society that protects their interests than they're currently willing to owe up to.

If we're expected to pay first world overhead to support our capitalist system in terms of housing, energy, food and whatever, we need to have the incomes to do that, and that simply can't be achieved if we invoke the false paradigm of competing directly with Chinese labor. Denied the mechanisms of tariffs and jobs where labor can organize, we have little choice other than imposition of higher taxes on America's wealthiest citizens.

They paid much higher taxes pre-Reagan, and also had much higher labor costs, but still managed to thrive, to be wealthy, and more than a few Americans managed to become wealthy at the same time.

As I've offered above, we can very much favor the interests of business by shifting taxation away from business itself and onto the ownership of business, and we can also increase the competitiveness of American business by moving burden of health insurance onto the govt, as well. We can take taxes out of the back end, the dividend and capital gains end, rather than the front end, the corporate end, to accomplish all that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY