Monday, January 22, 2018

Oxfam: World's Richest 1% Hoard 82% of the Wealth

The gap between the super rich and the rest of the world widened last year as wealth continued to be owned by a small minority, Oxfam has claimed. Some 82% of money generated last year went to the richest 1% of the global population while the poorest half saw no increase at all, the charity said. Oxfam said its figures -- which critics have queried - showed a failing system. It blamed tax evasion, firms' influence on policy, erosion of workers' rights, and cost cutting for the widening gap. Oxfam has produced similar reports for the past five years. In 2017 it calculated that the world's eight richest individuals had as much wealth as the poorest half of the world.

More

Comments

Per the link ...

The charity is urging a rethink of business models, arguing their focus on maximising shareholder returns over broader social impact is wrong.

It said there was "huge support" for action with two thirds (72%) of 70,000 people it surveyed in ten countries saying they wanted their governments to "urgently address the income gap between rich and poor".


Maximizing shareholder returns and not reinvesting profits back into R&D and wages is the main problem.

Headrick Smith talks about this problem in the above video titled 'What President Trump is doing to the American Dream'.

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-21 08:50 PM

You do realize that you're part of that top 1%, right?

#2 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-21 10:15 PM

"Maximizing shareholder returns and not reinvesting profits back into R&D and wages is the main problem."

How is that going to lift up the poor of the world? In fact the most effective tool at combatting global poverty is globalization. Something many progressives are adamantly against, as it tends to result in declining wages for low skilled labor in the US.

#3 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-21 10:18 PM

I really don't care about the world in this matter per say, I care about this country.

#4 | Posted by Crassus at 2018-01-21 10:42 PM

A near majority of people in developed nations take out a mortgage/student loans therefore have a negative net worth, and are thus "worse off" on paper than a subsistence farmer in a third world nation.

#5 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2018-01-21 10:49 PM

"You do realize that you're part of that top 1%, right?"

Where are you getting your data? In 2015, it took ~$760,000.00 to be in the top 1%.
www.bbc.com

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-21 10:54 PM

"A near majority of people in developed nations take out a mortgage/student loans therefore have a negative net worth"

In what world does a mortgage cause or create a negative net worth? Any loan is offset by the asset; any down payment is a positive on the net worth sheet.

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-21 10:59 PM

Where are you getting your data?

Madbomber prefers the "global" 1% as opposed to the USA 1%.

The idea being dirt poor people in the US are rich compared to the jungle Mudmen in New Guinea.

#8 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-01-21 11:14 PM

In what world ...

2008. You're correct though, I should've left it at student loans/ credit card debt as the asset purchased with that debt is more ambiguous.

#9 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2018-01-21 11:15 PM

"In fact the most effective tool at combatting global poverty is globalization."

If that's a tool, then the most effective tool for warming the planet is fossil fuel usage.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-22 12:38 AM

"Where are you getting your data? In 2015, it took ~$760,000.00 to be in the top 1%."

Incomes.

From the article: "Some 82% of money generated last year went to the richest 1% of the global population while the poorest half saw no increase at all, the charity said."

From the daily Mail: "America IS the 1%: You need just $34,000 annual income to be in the global elite... and HALF the world's richest people live in the U.S."

www.dailymail.co.uk

We are the 1%.

#11 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-22 09:39 AM

We should make the 1% do 82% of the work to earn their wealth.

#12 | Posted by TenMile at 2018-01-22 09:40 AM

"Madbomber prefers the "global" 1% as opposed to the USA 1%."

The article was addressing the global 1%...genius.

"The idea being dirt poor people in the US are rich compared to the jungle Mudmen in New Guinea."

That's not at all racist...

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-22 09:40 AM

"We should make the 1% do 82% of the work to earn their wealth."

They are doing just that. Had they not, that 82% would have never materialized. Would the world have been better off?

#14 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-22 09:42 AM

And being dirt poor in the US is rich compared to many places in the world. In this country, all your survival needs will be met due to the fact that you draw breath. And you can still get these services without ever lifting a finger. The prevailing argument seems to be that you should be getting even more, even if you're not add more value to society.

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-22 09:44 AM

"We should make the 1% do 82% of the work to earn their wealth."
They are doing just that. Had they not, that 82% would have never materialized. Would the world have been better off?

#14 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Are you...insane? Or just stupid?

They are doing 82% of the work? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You should sit in the corner and think about what an idiotic thing it is you just posted.

#16 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-22 11:09 AM

"It blamed tax evasion, firms' influence on policy, erosion of workers' rights, and cost cutting for the widening gap. "

Here's where it gets so basic. Take away any of the stupid reasons that people try to come up with to explain why the rich are evil. Guess what you have left...simple math. If I have $50 million invested and get an ROI of 5% annually across all my holdings, I get $5 million.

If I have $50k invested and get that same ROI annually across all my holdings, I get $5k.

In 10 years' time, the first person will be worth $150m (not compounding). The second person in 10 years will be worth $100k. So while they both received the same ROI percent, if you measure their "amount of wealth holdings", the guy with more money made MUCH more substantial progress towards overall wealth holding. After every measurement of time, the natural curve of the graph would sharply skew to the rich because that's just how math works.

VERY simple math. Rich people don't have to do anything to increase their hold on the total wealth in the world as it happens naturally based on a mathematical system that governs pretty much everything in existence. The only way to stop it is to create deteriorating ROIs on every single type of investment in the world to where the more you put in, the less you get out. So let's say someone who invests a million dollars right now gets a guaranteed rate of return of 5% but someone who invests $5k gets more like 2% (since this is more accurately how it works)...the returns would have to change to something like the rich person getting .5% and the other person would get 10%. And hell, to do what Liberals want and bankrupt every rich person in the world who doesn't agree with them, they would have to start causing negative ROIs which takes their money.

#17 | Posted by humtake at 2018-01-22 11:59 AM

"If I have $50 million invested and get an ROI of 5% annually across all my holdings, I get $5 million."

You're using Republican Math™. With actual math, you get $2.5 million.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-22 12:02 PM

You're using Republican Math™

I think he's using Vernon's calculator.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-22 12:05 PM

"It blamed tax evasion, firms' influence on policy, erosion of workers' rights, and cost cutting for the widening gap. "
Here's where it gets so basic. Take away any of the stupid reasons that people try to come up with to explain why the rich are evil. Guess what you have left...simple math. If I have $50 million invested and get an ROI of 5% annually across all my holdings, I get $5 million.
If I have $50k invested and get that same ROI annually across all my holdings, I get $5k.
In 10 years' time, the first person will be worth $150m (not compounding). The second person in 10 years will be worth $100k. So while they both received the same ROI percent, if you measure their "amount of wealth holdings", the guy with more money made MUCH more substantial progress towards overall wealth holding. After every measurement of time, the natural curve of the graph would sharply skew to the rich because that's just how math works.
VERY simple math. Rich people don't have to do anything to increase their hold on the total wealth in the world as it happens naturally based on a mathematical system that governs pretty much everything in existence. The only way to stop it is to create deteriorating ROIs on every single type of investment in the world to where the more you put in, the less you get out. So let's say someone who invests a million dollars right now gets a guaranteed rate of return of 5% but someone who invests $5k gets more like 2% (since this is more accurately how it works)...the returns would have to change to something like the rich person getting .5% and the other person would get 10%. And hell, to do what Liberals want and bankrupt every rich person in the world who doesn't agree with them, they would have to start causing negative ROIs which takes their money.

POSTED BY HUMTAKE

First, your math skills are horrible.

Second, you have to make $50K in money you don't need ever to simply invest it and let it grow.

Third, the rich tend to get a much higher ROI than the Middle Class. This comes with different types of business opportunities open to larger investments.

Fourth, the guy making $50,000 needs to spend a huge chunk of it on living expenses. The rich will be spending a much lower percentage.

Seriously, how inept are you that you don't know these basic facts?

#20 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-22 12:09 PM

- And being dirt poor in the US is rich compared to many places in the world.

And that is relevant to a discussion of wealth inequality in this country how?

That herring is terribly red.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-22 12:11 PM

"I think he's using Vernon's calculator." - #19 | Posted by JeffJ

And JeffJ gives us another oldie-but-goldie from the Drudge Retort vintage vault.

#22 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-22 12:17 PM

"They are doing 82% of the work? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You should sit in the corner and think about what an idiotic thing it is you just posted."

So let's do it this way then...had these individuals not engaged in the activities that resulted in the creation of this mass of wealth. What percentage of it would have been created anyway. Maybe more Importantly, what percentage of it would have been created by the lower income earning residents of earth?

"And that is relevant to a discussion of wealth inequality in this country how?"

A better question might be how relevant is your question, given that the article is addressing global wealth inequality.

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-22 12:17 PM

The good news is that market globalization has drastically decreased the number of poor people across the globe, even if it has become more unequal. But I have a sneaking suspicion that most of those in the developing world care more about the money in their own pocket than how much is going into someone else's. I think in many ways' they're smarter than most Americans. They won't want to see their fortunes decline as a means of curbing inequality.

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-22 12:21 PM

You're using Republican Math™

I think he's using Vernon's calculator.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-22 12:05 PM | Reply

Do they have Vernon medically certified scales???

#25 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-22 01:19 PM

Societies that are more equal have lower rates of infant mortality, homicide, imprisonment, teenage motherhood, and other indicators of economic dysfunction. People in those countries also have higher life expectancies, levels of literacy, math proficiency, social trust, social mobility, and other positive signs of a healthy society.

Inequality is growing at a blinding rate. Using GDP growth as society's defining economic goal must rank among the stupidest policy choices human societies have ever made. One guy like Gates or Buffet, renders the "average GDP" a meaningless number.

If you are among the poorest of the poor living on an income of a dollar a day, a 60 percent increase gets you an extra 60 cents a day, but a hedge fund CEO with an annual pay, including bonuses of $100 million, would get an extra $60 million per year.

To make the appropriate policy choices we must understand the sources of our current dysfunction and redirect our economies to achieve an equitable sharing of income and wealth.

#26 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-22 02:33 PM

"And being dirt poor in the US is rich compared to many places in the world"

But being dirt poor in the US is dirt poor, when compared to the US

Kind of like a pound of bricks weighs about three ounces on the moon, but here in the US... it weighs a pound.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-22 03:20 PM

"The good news is that market globalization has drastically decreased the number of poor people"

Has it though?

Are there actually fewer poor people than 30 years ago?

Quick Google shows 780 milluon in absolute ppoverty in 1980, 1.3 billion in 2017.

Maybe you meant a smaller percentage of humans living in poverty. The actual number is a half billion larger since the advent of globization.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-22 03:28 PM

The rich write all the laws.

So in effect. They did create their own wealth.

By making sure the average worker was getting fleeced.

#29 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-22 03:35 PM

I'm still waiting on the liberals on this blog's contribution to my company, since "I didnt build that". I need about $1mil in seed money..

When can I expect a check?

#30 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-22 04:57 PM

So what do you liberals want? Everyone to be equally poor? You want to take innovation out of the world? Cause that exactly what you do.

I'm creating this business because I want to be rich. Not to feed the poor, but to feed ME and my family first.

You seem to have a problem with charity.

The world money supply isnt there to be divided up like a pie. Sorry, but in the real world, PRODUCERS get the first crack at it. And that entail COMPETITION, not a "everyone gets a trophy" world.

Being a liberal must really suck.

#31 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-22 05:05 PM

Being a liberal must really suck.

#31 | Posted by boaz

Since ignorance is bliss you must be in a constant state of ------.

#32 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-22 05:13 PM

"I'm creating this business because I want to be rich." - #31 | Posted by pfc. boazo at 2018-01-22 05:05 PM

We take solace in the knowledge that you'll never be rich, pfc. boazo.

But, fortunate for you, your regular monthly welfare checks, compliments of the US taxpayer, will always be available to you.

So there's something in which you can find solace, too.

Equality.

#33 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-22 05:15 PM

Being a liberal must really suck.

Being a conservative must really blow.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-22 05:37 PM

"When can I expect a check?
#30 | POSTED BY BOAZ"

When you apply for the SBA loan.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-22 05:44 PM

"I'm creating this business because I want to be rich."

Be sure and use that in your advertising. Strong selling point. It clearly shows how your interest is having your business serve its customers well, not just getting rich.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-22 05:51 PM

Since ignorance is bliss you must be in a constant state of ------.

#32 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-22 05:13 PM | Reply | Flag

He's way too emotionally constipated for bliss.

#37 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-22 05:56 PM

So what do you liberals want? Everyone to be equally poor?
#31 | POSTED BY BOAZ

How is that different from everyone being equally rich?

#38 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-22 06:18 PM

I'm creating this business because I want to be rich. Not to feed the poor, but to feed ME and my family first.

You seem to have a problem with charity.

The world money supply isnt there to be divided up like a pie. Sorry, but in the real world, PRODUCERS get the first crack at it. And that entail COMPETITION, not a "everyone gets a trophy" world.

Being a liberal must really suck.

#31 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-22 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yet it was the socialist Military that gave you the chance to start this business in the first place. You owe the public a percentage of your profits.

#39 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-22 07:02 PM

You owe the public a percentage of your profits.

#39 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

You have more faith in Boaz than the rest of us.

#40 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-22 07:16 PM

You have more faith in Boaz than the rest of us.

#40 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-22 07:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

I lost my mind there. My horrible.

#41 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-22 07:41 PM

#26

Do you feel that society would be better served by prohibiting rich people from engaging in activities that make them rich?

"Maybe you meant a smaller percentage of humans living in poverty. The actual number is a half billion larger since the advent of globalization."

I was referencing the rise of the global middle class. One of the direct results of the globalizations of the marketplace has been the rise of the middle class. It's because of globalization that there are now more middle class people on earth than not.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-22 07:47 PM

"By making sure the average worker was getting fleeced."

You could wipe the top 1% off the face of the planet and it's not going to change the earning potential of the bottom 50%. Other than they'll be stuck paying their fair share of the total tax burden.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-22 07:49 PM

"You could wipe the top 1% off the face of the planet and it's not going to change the earning potential of the bottom 50%"

Oh, my...you need to take some serious macro classes. At this point, you're pretending nothing fills a vacuum.

"Other than they'll be stuck paying their fair share of the total tax burden."

Not if we reinstate a full estate tax right before wiping them out.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-22 07:53 PM

"I was referencing the rise of the global middle class."

That wasn't a part of your claim, which was "market globalization has drastically decreased the number of poor people across the globe, which is demonstrably false.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-22 07:56 PM

^should be a closed quote after globe.

Apologies for my error.

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-22 08:02 PM

MadBomber. I have a suggestion for you: Change your handle to DonaldTrumpJr.

#47 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-22 08:05 PM

I'm starting to think all conservatives are a very special kind of retarded.

#48 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-01-22 08:09 PM

"I was referencing the rise of the global middle class"

Middle class is not the same as not living in abject poverty.
And, as best I can tell, the number living in abject poverty is greater under glottalization.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-22 09:39 PM

"You could wipe the top 1% off the face of the planet and it's not going to change the earning potential of the bottom 50%"

What if you cloned the 1%, making them 2%, what would that do for the earning potential of the bottom 50%?
LOL your way of thinking is funny.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-22 09:41 PM

"abject poverty is greater under glottalization."

That's a bit throaty, wouldn't you say?

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-22 11:36 PM

Okay basic logic experiment. If as Boaz says the 1% did 82% of the work then lets just fire the other 99% and leave the jobs unfilled. If what Boaz asserts is true then those jobs worked by the 99% only represent 18% of all the work, then the labor output would only fall 18%. Lets see if Walmart only loses 18% revenue without any cashiers or stockers or truck drivers.

#52 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-23 04:37 AM

The monetary and fiscal policies we live under are an unnecessary legal construct created secretly by JP Morgan and friends like the Rothschild's heirs, for the sole purpose of controlling the money supply privately and charging everyone else for the right to use money, including our Government, which can and should hold that power exclusively for itself. By accomplishing this, the 1% pocket trillions of dollars every year FOR DOING NOTHING (except keeping a ledger of their profits). We live in a sea of lies.

#53 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-23 07:42 AM

Ok Here's another mental excercise for Boaz

2 identical companies have identical products, workforce, sales etc so their books are identical

They each have 100 worker bees and 1 owner/manager

Company A pays each worker bee $60K and the owner/manager a $2 Million salary

Company B pays each worker bee minimum wage and the owner/manager a $6.55 million salary

Questions:

1) Which company is more profitable?
2) If the owner gets a tax cut how many employees will he hire?

#54 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-23 09:49 AM

"Oh, my...you need to take some serious macro classes. At this point, you're pretending nothing fills a vacuum."

Really?

You think that by elimination a brain surgeon, you're going to drive up the earning potential for a ditch digger?

"Not if we reinstate a full estate tax right before wiping them out."

If you confiscated every last bit of wealth the top 1% owned and converted it to cash, you could provide each household in the US with a limp payment of around $300K (not counting taxes). If my numbers are correct. But it would be a one time payment. After that you'd have to figure out a way to cover the 25.4% of income taxes that they were previously responsible for covering.

I'm not sure that progressives have figures this out...but they desperately need the rich in order to achieve their ideological goals. They need them to do those things that have made them rich, but do them without getting fair market price for their services. And that's quite a challenge.

#55 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 11:53 AM

"That wasn't a part of your claim, which was "market globalization has drastically decreased the number of poor people across the globe, which is demonstrably false."

Are you saying that there are more poor people now that previously? If it is demonstrable, please demonstrate.

"MadBomber. I have a suggestion for you: Change your handle to DonaldTrumpJr."

Change yours to NASDP2018 and I will.

"Middle class is not the same as not living in abject poverty. And, as best I can tell, the number living in abject poverty is greater under glottalization."

Abd as best as I can tell the global poverty rate has been cut in half since 1990, and by even more in some cases, depending on how you do your accounting. And its forecast to decline even further.

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 12:01 PM

The only thing that could change the income earning potential for anyone is a change in the supply or the demand for that labor. It doesn't really matter what their income level is.

#57 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 12:02 PM

"Okay basic logic experiment. If as Boaz says the 1% did 82% of the work then lets just fire the other 99% and leave the jobs unfilled."

Either you don't fully understand the processes that lead to wealth creation, or you're ignoring them. It's not like saying that 1% of workers moved 82% of rocks from one pile to another. The point is that these 1% provided the key component to 82% of new wealth created. I suspect that a lot of that is in the form of funding-people providing capital for new development. A smaller segment would be the entrepreneurs who create these new goods and services. Think about how Amazon has expanded over the last serval years, offering pretty much anything you want. Within Amazon, it's going to be the executives and the creators who benefit from this. The ones who actually facilitated these products going from an idea in someone's head to the Echo Look in my house, which controls my TV lights, and before too long a thermostat. It wasn't the guy packing the box who made the Echo Look happen. It wasn't the guy in the parking lot, or the cafeteria. It really wasn't even the UPS driver who delivered it to my door. Because all of those services are basically commodities that allowed me to get what Jeff B and his associates had created.

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 12:30 PM

#58,

But in the sick liberal mind, everyone would be paid the same, even though they didn't put in equal work to create.

#59 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-23 01:01 PM

Somebody needs some cheese to go with their whine today.

#60 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-23 01:09 PM

Because all of those services are basically commodities that allowed me to get what Jeff B and his associates had created.

#58 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2018-01-23 12:30 PM |

Key phrase AND HIS ASSOCIATES. Even the janitor is one of the associates you speak of.

The workers do the work. they should get the fruits of their labor. NOBODY is saying everyone should be equally paid. For 200 years the owner clas was OK with sharing some of the wealth with the workers and getting filthy rich. Now they view the worker as some kind of parasite on their corporation and share as little as possible so they can be obscenely rich.

Its raw greed at the expense of our civilization.

If you can't afford to support your employees you don't deserve a minute of their labor

#61 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-23 01:51 PM

@61 Walmart has mastered the ability to get the government to pay their employees

#62 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-23 01:54 PM

"Key phrase AND HIS ASSOCIATES. Even the janitor is one of the associates you speak of."

No, the janitor is not. Nor is the truckdriver. nor is the HR manager that hired both. You can test this by asking yourself, "would Echo Look exist as it does if this person had not been involved."

"The workers do the work. they should get the fruits of their labor."

The get a wage or salary based on their income to the company. A worker shouldn't expect to see his pay increase as profits increase unless he is equally willing to see his pay cut as profits decline. That's the thing about labor. It's purchased just like other factors of production. Which means they have claim to payment above profits. If you've worked for a company, they owe you for that work even if they're losing money.

"If you can't afford to support your employees you don't deserve a minute of their labor."

And they're absolutely free to go sell their labor elsewhere.

"@61 Walmart has mastered the ability to get the government to pay their employees"

You could also say that the government has mastered the ability to get Wal-Mart to subsidize low value labor so that the taxpayers aren't obligated to pick up the full tab for their survival themselves.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 03:14 PM

The point is that these 1% provided the key component to 82% of new wealth created. I suspect that a lot of that is in the form of funding-people providing capital for new development.

#58 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2018-01-23 12:30 PM | REPLY

Instead of suspecting and theorizing how about some facts?

1) Wall Street does not create capital for companies. It removes it

In 2016 an average of $36 Billion/day changed hands on Wall Street. According to the right this was all capital investment creating growth and jobs. When person A buys stock from person B the company gets nothing. That is the vast majority of Wall Street trading. The company only gains capital when stock is purchased FROM THE COMPANY. In 2016 The sum total value of all IPOS was a paltry $20.2 Billion.

insight.factset.com

"Shareholder Distributions Make Up 117% of Earnings
It is also interesting to look at this ratio for total shareholder distributions, which includes gross share buybacks and
dividends. Shareholder distributions in the trailing twelve months ending in Q3 eased off the $1 trillion mark it hit during
the periods ending in Q4 2015, Q1 2016, and Q2 2016. Over the TTM, shareholder distributions made up 117% of
aggregate earnings for the S&P 500, which marked an uptick from the same period a year ago, but was lower than the
percentage in Q2. Shareholder distributions have exceeded earnings on a trailing twelve-month basis since Q2 2015."

cdn2.hubspot.net)Insight/Migration/Dividend%20Quarterly/Dividend%20Quarterly%20Q3%202016_12.20.pdf

So The NYSE raised $20.2 billion in capital in 2016 but sucked $1 Trillion out.

#64 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-23 03:19 PM

"A worker shouldn't expect to see his pay increase as profits increase unless he is equally willing to see his pay cut as profits decline."

Workers outside the C level aren't typically offered profit sharing.

Care to tell us who chose not to offer that to them, and why?

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 03:27 PM

A worker shouldn't expect to see his pay increase as profits increase unless he is equally willing to see his pay cut as profits decline.

#63 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2018-01-23 03:14 PM | REPLY |

What planet are you on? wages have dropped precipitously in bad years.

If workers shouldn't expect a raise in good years they shouldn't be cut in bad years either.

www.marketplace.org

Corporate America has no problem taking a bite out of the American workers paycheck when times are tough.

Maybe they should give a bit back when the workers make their company flourish

#66 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-23 03:38 PM

No, the janitor is not. Nor is the truckdriver. nor is the HR manager that hired both. You can test this by asking yourself, "would Echo Look exist as it does if this person had not been involved."

#63 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2018-01-23 03:14 PM

www.bizjournals.com

I work for a fortune 500 company that still does things the old way. I get 401(k) AND a pension , numerous other benefits, and generous pay. The thing is even the security guards and cafeteria workers here get the same benefit package. My salary may be higher but I have worked other places and I can't overstate how great it is to work in a place where every employee is proud of the company they work for

You and your kind have lost touch with what America can be.

#67 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-23 03:46 PM

"1) Wall Street does not create capital for companies. It removes it"

I have no idea what you're talking about, but a quick Google Search shows that in 2015, there was $166B in Capital investments. You seem to be focusing on IPOs alone, which really isn't reflective of anything we've been talking about here.

"Care to tell us who chose not to offer that to them, and why?"

That's a great question, lil buddy. Years ago, miners out west were paid based on the health of the company. If the company did well, they made more money. If the company did poorly, they did poorly as well. In effect, they incurred the same risk as owners. They weren't guaranteed a set wage. That all changed when the unions went on strike and negotiated for a set wage that was not dependent on profitability. This meant that workers would always get a paycheck for the work they'd done, but wouldn't experience the boons when they came along.

I don't know that one way is better than the other...

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 03:48 PM

I don't think he and his kind have ever been in touch with what America can be.

Their Utopia is an Ayn Rand novel.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 03:50 PM

"Care to tell us who chose not to offer that to them, and why?"
"That's a great question, lil buddy."

Do you have an answer?
It's a simple question, who offers, or does not offer, profit sharing, and why?
I'm sure you can answer the first part: the employer.
But why don't the bulk of employers offer profit sharing?

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 03:54 PM

Maybe they should give a bit back when the workers make their company flourish

That's up to the company, not the worker.

You really love the "get paid more than your labor is worth" thing...

Workers outside the C level aren't typically offered profit sharing.
Care to tell us who chose not to offer that to them, and why?

Maybe it's because the "worker" didn't help create the business?

#71 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-23 03:54 PM

"What planet are you on? wages have dropped precipitously in bad years."

You must be high. Inocmes at all quintiles have remained steady or increased. How can you possibly continue to move forward with this narrative.

"If workers shouldn't expect a raise in good years they shouldn't be cut in bad years either."

Totally agree...that's the benefit of wage labor. You get paid regardless of how well the company is doing.

"You and your kind have lost touch with what America can be."

I don't really want this country to be a model of mediocrity. If your labor has no value, an employer shouldn't be forced into paying you a wage commensurate with higher value. Labor is the one commodity that has the ability to differentiate. It happens to all of us. I started out in the workforce making $1k a year. Now I make more than ten times that. I don't make more because I'm doing the same things I did then and someone is being forced to, I'm paid more because I developed a skillset that employers are willing to pay more for.

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 03:55 PM

"That all changed when the unions went on strike"

About six percent of the private sector workforce is unionized.
For the other 94%, why aren't they routinely offered profit sharing?

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 03:56 PM

"But why don't the bulk of employers offer profit sharing?"

Dunno. Why don't the bulk of workers offer wage sharing?

#74 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 03:56 PM

"For the other 94%, why aren't they routinely offered profit sharing?"

Maybe for the same reason they don't themselves offer wage sharing.

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 03:57 PM

Maybe it's because the "worker" didn't help create the business?

Posted by boaz at 2018-01-23 03:54 PM | Reply

Without the worker there would be no business.

#76 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-23 04:00 PM

hatter is correct.

madbomber drinks the majority kool-aide which is bunk when he says: "they desperately need the rich in order to achieve their ideological goals"

According to our Constitution, our Treasury Department can and should issue all currency and back all loans. This is exactly how the State Bank of North Dakota operates, in cooperation with private Banks. That Bank returns about 17% profits to the State Treasury every year. There is no need for private operators to control the money supply, a situation that was constructed in secret by JP Morgan and a few friends which gave us the Federal Reserve System we now have. This is a Royal Scam. A few players are pocketing the equivalent of that 17% profit (from the money supply) in exchange for doing nothing except keeping a ledger of their profits.

There is no reason whatsoever, for any private person to control a nations money supply. The Federal Reserve is portrayed as a quasi Government Agency, but it is constructed in such a manner that only looks out for its private stockholders. The problem is it would now take an act of Congress to correct this outlandish situation. The EU is in the same pickle, engineered by the same private interests, but not Iceland, China or Russia.

The real purpose of taxation is to prevent grotesque inequality. There is no need for the CBO to estimate tax revenue and base spending decision on that number. Most on the left and right do not understand this, including Sanders and especially Ryan. Every sovereign Government with a Central Bank has the means and the right to generate as much money as they need to do whatever they want. We demonstrate that during the wars and the 2008 bailout. The limit to this fundamental principle is really just that the money supply needs to be kept in line with real productivity. When you commit to a policy like this you create a positive feedback loop of enough capital, wages and confidence to achieve perpetual prosperity. So why doesn't it happen? The rich fight it because they do not want to pay taxes. All we need is the political will.

#77 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-23 04:04 PM

"Maybe for the same reason they don't themselves offer wage sharing."

Okay.
What is that reason?

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 04:12 PM

"I'm paid more because I developed a skillset that employers are willing to pay more for."

Perhaps you specifically are.
But not everyone.
The problem with your single-factor analysis is it defines things like "being the boss's son" as a skill.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 04:15 PM

Without the worker there would be no business.

Without the business, there would be no worker. Most workers aren't thinking up profitable business or making the effort to create one. I think you are overestimating the worth of a non skilled worker. There's just too many of them out there..

There is no way any worker should make as much or even close to those creating the business.

#80 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-23 04:15 PM

"Without the business, there would be no worker."

That's dumb.
The job title -- the work -- might not exist without the employer, but the worker would

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 04:16 PM

Abraham Lincoln answers this question simply and correctly:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

#82 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-23 04:19 PM

Without the business, there would be no worker. Most workers aren't thinking up profitable business or making the effort to create one. I think you are overestimating the worth of a non skilled worker. There's just too many of them out there..

There is no way any worker should make as much or even close to those creating the business.

#80 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-23 04:15 PM | Reply | Flag

A business without the worker is simply an idea in a person's mind.

#83 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-23 04:22 PM

Dunno. Why don't the bulk of workers offer wage sharing?

#74 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2018-01-23 03:56 PM | REPLY

They do. That's what dividends are. Unearned income taken from the people who earned it. The workers.

#84 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-23 04:25 PM

"madbomber drinks the majority kool-aide which is bunk when he says..."

You forgot to mention my status as a reactionary, class-enemy bourgeoisie.

"The real purpose of taxation is to prevent grotesque inequality."

So basically to put policies in place that will deter people from engaging in activities that make lots of money. You're brilliant...

"What is that reason?"

Why would they be expected to give some of their pay back to the firm if the firm is doing bad?

"The problem with your single-factor analysis is it defines things like "being the boss's son" as a skill."

Except I'm not special. I'm not the bosses son. There's nothing really even that special about me...you progressive tell me all the time what an idiot I am. So if a knuckledragging dolt like me can do it, surely most others can as well.

#85 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 04:26 PM

The problem with your single-factor analysis is it defines things like "being the boss's son" as a skill.

#79 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-01-23 04:15 PM | REPLY |

and being the boss's son's friend, and being the bosses golf buddy, and living in the right zip code, among other valuable skills

#86 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-23 04:28 PM

"They do. That's what dividends are. Unearned income taken from the people who earned it. The workers."

Once you drift in Marxian economic theory, which is what you just did, you may as well start claiming the earth is flat and sits at the center of the universe.

You're going to be hard pressed to find an economics department at even the most progressive school that really treats Marxism as a legitimate theory. You might hear a lot if you're a philosophy major, or some other brand of liberal arts. But not Economics. Or Finance. Or accounting. Or management. Or any of the other places where it really does matter.

#87 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 04:30 PM

These arrogant ------ who think a job is a gift to the worker from the boss.

You think you are better because you started a company? I bet 99% of your employees could run the company better than you if they had a chance.

#88 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-23 04:30 PM

"and being the boss's son's friend, and being the bosses golf buddy, and living in the right zip code, among other valuable skills"

...excuses to follow. Soon.

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 04:31 PM

"You think you are better because you started a company? I bet 99% of your employees could run the company better than you if they had a chance."

Better really has nothing to do with it. They took the risk that someone else didn't. Not the workers. Not the suppliers of needed materials and services. Not you.

But if you are a talented line rat with promise, you're going to get noticed. to what degree that benefits you depends on what you have to offer the company.

#90 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 04:33 PM

Open question for anyone who wants to field it. Are you aware of any company having a banner year that, because they were doing so well, decided voluntarily to pay higher rent? Or pay their electricity supplier more? Or their phone carrier? Maybe pay the supplier of the raw materials more for the same amount of product...just because they were doing well, y'know.

Anyone aware of this being a company policy anywhere? I'm just curious why a person would think that one factor of production should get more out a business relationship than another.

#91 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 04:40 PM

madbomber is in the majority, which is wrong. Classical economists of the past put production above finance. Finance should be a service provided to vital farming, mining and manufacturing (FMM). We most certainly live in a society which has put finance above all else. That is a mistake which will continue to haunt us. If no one has a job in FMM we won't need any hotel rooms either. The entire service sector needs FMM for support. On some level Trump is aware of this and attempting to act. But like his attempt to smooth relations a bit with Russia, its not going to go anywhere. He's simply to ill informed to be effective at anything.

#92 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-23 04:44 PM

Whan a person is hired/takes a position in a company they come on board knowing what their pay will be and if had any sense would have asked and then know about chances of advancement/raises, etc. Should that individual not like what was tendered they are more than able to say no and seek employment elsewhere. The idea of wanting more just because the company prospers is is ludicrous. If a public corp the workers are more than welcome to take on the risk/reward by purchasing shares in the company, thereby either gaining or losing depending on the performance of the company.

#93 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-01-23 04:55 PM

"The idea of wanting more just because the company prospers is is ludicrous."

It's not ludicrous for the CEO.
Why the double standard?

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 04:58 PM

"workers are more than welcome to take on the risk/reward by purchasing shares in the company"

CEOs get much better than that, they get stock options.
Why not workers?

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 04:59 PM

There are companies set up as ESOPs [such as PUBLIX Supermarkets] where the individual receives shares in the company they work. PUBLIX example: Worker receives stock [amount determined by they pay level] every year and get to keep it [or sale it] if they stay there a minimum of 5 years. Also, they can purchase more should they desire. There are bonuses of the quarter inventory [amount also determined by your pay scale]{had a friend working there in the late 90s @ $10.50/hr and her quarterly bonuses were approx 400 dollars}. Actually met one of their retired truck drivers who retired after 30 years and told me when he sold his stock he was worth abouot 1.5 mil due to amount of stock accumulated and appreciation of stock price.

Want to participate in the prosperity of a company, then work for an ESOP company.

ps: Only employees can purchase stock in ones like PUBLIX as being employee owned is just that - outsiders cannot purchase shares in the company,

#96 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-01-23 05:05 PM

"Want to participate in the prosperity of a company, then work for an ESOP company."

Every worker participates in the prosperity of the company.
You mean, if you want to get a piece of the profits.
Find me the worker who doesn't want that! LOL

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 05:10 PM

MSGT,

Because of outsourcing, most jobs over the past twenty years have had hundreds of applicants. Most employees, when offered a job need to accept it. But if they want you, its the only time you will have any bargaining power and for some positions negotiating your best deal before you accept will enhance their respect. But that depends on the nature of the job.

#98 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-23 05:12 PM

Or you could work for a mutual holding company with no shareholders at all

You can make boatloads of money without giving any away to people who get paid for having money.

#99 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-23 05:43 PM

And I got called a communist for wanting the poorest able bodied Americans to be given work for a couple of years.

#100 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-23 06:07 PM

"madbomber is in the majority, which is wrong. Classical economists of the past put production above finance."

An honest economist doesn't care about putting anything first, second, or any other position. Economics is the study of how the members of a society allocate their wealth. What you're choosing to do is overlay your own ideological beliefs...choosing to view the economy through a colored lens of your own choosing.

"It's not ludicrous for the CEO. Why the double standard?"

Most CEO compensation is performance based and realized (or not) in the form of restricted stock. You can go check the financials for any given firm to see the mix.

Oh, and didn't a bunch of companies just give out billions in bonuses?

#101 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 06:09 PM

"And I got called a communist for wanting the poorest able bodied Americans to be given work for a couple of years."

I'm with you. I think the government should be the employer of last resort.

Of course I've taken enough Econ classes to know that Marx is not much more than another speck in the history of economics...so I couldn't be a communist.

#102 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 06:11 PM

"Economics is the study of how the members of a society allocate their wealth."

That sounds more like finance to me.
Which is in line with your finance background.
Economics is about allocating resources to create wealth.

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 06:20 PM

"Most CEO compensation is performance based and realized (or not) in the form of restricted stock. You can go check the financials for any given firm to see the mix."

We are aware of the double standard.
The question was: Why does it exist, and why do you support it?

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 06:37 PM

Whan a person is hired/takes a position in a company they come on board knowing what their pay will be and if had any sense would have asked and then know about chances of advancement/raises, etc.

I have been lied to about chances for advancement/raises I have lost count.

One company said they promoted exclusively from within. I was in training to be front end manager and when the old front end manager quit they had me train the outside employee they hired for that position.

One company said they offered guaranteed cost of living raises plus more if you were a good employee. First year I got it, second year I got an all 5 (out of 5) review and only got cost of living raise. Third year I got no raise.

One company offered profit sharing after 3 years which they stopped 1 month after I hit my three year anniversary.

One company offered stock after 5 years what they failed to mention is their 90% per year attrition rate so after 5 years only 1 out of every 100,000 employees would still be there.

There are others those are just the most egregious.

Perhaps ironically enough the company I work for now made absolutely no promises about raises promotions or profit sharing and yet I am averaging 13% per year in raises. No profit sharing and no benefits beyond 2 weeks paid vac. but they have already paid me for 4 snow days this year and given me paid time off for doctors appointments and a bunch of other perks.

Point is you can't put it all on the employee oh you accepted the terms, companies will lie their cute little posteriors off and there isn't much an employee can do except quit and go to another company that will probably lie as well.

#105 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-01-23 07:31 PM

Oh, and didn't a bunch of companies just give out billions in bonuses?

#101 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER 2018-01-23 06:11 PM

Nope. Unless you're too stupid to know what public relations are.

#106 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-23 07:35 PM

Oh, and didn't a bunch of companies just give out billions in bonuses?

#101 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER 2018-01-23 06:11 PM
Nope. Unless you're too stupid to know what public relations are.

#106 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES


My brother works for AT&T. Those bonuses were real.

#107 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 07:38 PM

"My brother works for AT&T. Those bonuses were real."

They were also--

a) negotiated by the Union,
b) planned before the tax bill passed, and
c) in lieu of pay raises, which the Union preferred. Wanna know why they preferred pay raises to bonuses?

#108 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-23 07:44 PM

My brother works for AT&T. Those bonuses were real.

#107 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

But those raises will be eventually (more sooner than later) dwarfed by the rate of growth in everything else.

#109 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-23 07:44 PM

LOL

Some of you guys crack me up

#110 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-23 07:46 PM

Danforth,

According to my brother, those bonuses were in addition to standard, performance-review raises. I just texted him after seeing your email.

Ever since AT&T announced these bonuses you've been REALLY invested in this narrative. Can you source something that rebuts what my brother just told me?

#111 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 07:54 PM

LOL

Some of you guys crack me up

#110 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Then stop standing in front of a cracked-up fun house mirror.

#112 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-23 08:00 PM

"Can you source something that rebuts what my brother just told me?"

Yeah, I can:

www.thedailybeast.com

www.dailykos.com

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

www.salon.com

www.reddit.com

#113 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-23 08:02 PM

And here's the Boston Globe explaining the difference:

www.bostonglobe.com

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-23 08:04 PM

In late November, the New York Times reported:

This week, the Communications Workers of America asked several companies that employ its members to promise to give workers a pay increase if the cut in the corporate tax rate goes through. The request, while unlikely to be heeded, highlights a critical question over who would benefit the most from the tax bill: shareholders or workers?

splinternews.com

Union wanted pay raises if the tax cut went through; ATT gave bonuses instead.

FTW, that saves the company a lot of money in the long run, bonuses over raises.

#115 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-23 08:09 PM

I clicked the 3 most reputable sources of your links in #113. NONE of them state that the AT&T bonuses were replacing performance-review raises.

You suggested that here:

c) in lieu of pay raises, which the Union preferred. Wanna know why they preferred pay raises to bonuses?

#108 | POSTED BY DANFORTH


So, please source what I put in bold or kindly retract this statement.

#116 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 08:09 PM

"Ever since AT&T announced these bonuses you've been REALLY invested in this narrative."

Mainly because you and (iirc) ROC didn't understand how bonuses were better for the company than raises. I sussed the truth--the Union had wanted raises but got bonuses instead--before any of us knew.

#117 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-23 08:11 PM

"in lieu of pay raises, which the Union preferred."

Ok, in lieu of further pay raises, which the Union preferred.

Better?

#118 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-23 08:12 PM

Factually, it WAS in lieu of pay raises...merely further ones.

#119 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-23 08:12 PM

Mainly because you and (iirc) ROC didn't understand how bonuses were better for the company than raises. I sussed the truth--the Union had wanted raises but got bonuses instead--before any of us knew.

#117 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

According to my brother, those bonuses were in addition to standard, performance-review raises. Those bonuses were NOT in lieu of review raises. Also, according to your last link, the negotiations between the union and AT&T seemed to be contingent upon the tax law passing.

#120 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 08:14 PM

Ok, in lieu of further pay raises, which the Union preferred.
Better?

#118 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Yes.

Factually, it WAS in lieu of pay raises...merely further ones.

#119 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Yes. It was a one-time bonus that according to your last source - Splinternews - seemed predicated on the tax law passing. The union wanted an additional (as in, outside of already scheduled performance-review raises) pay raise, but got a bonus instead.

You seem to be suggesting that this bonus is a bad thing; that it somehow ripped off those who received it.

#121 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 08:17 PM

"The union wanted an additional (as in, outside of already scheduled performance-review raises) pay raise, but got a bonus instead. "

Exactly what I said.

In lieu of a (further) pay raise, which the Union wanted. The fact it was "further" doesn't negate anything.

"You seem to be suggesting that this bonus is a bad thing"

No, you've misunderstood since the start. Let's go back to the basics: can you explain why the Union wanted the same money put to raises instead of bonuses?

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-23 08:24 PM

Danforth,

Based upon your sources (thank you for providing them), those AT&T bonuses were predicated upon the tax law passing. Those bonuses didn't replace standard pay-raises - they were in addition to performance raises.

From what I've gleaned from your biased (a LOT of editorializing mixed in with accurate reporting) the union (adroitly IMO) precipitated negotiations pending the outcome of passage of the tax law. The union wanted an additional pay-raise, in lieu of a bonus, for compounding reasons, but were it not for the passage of the tax law, they wouldn't have even gotten their $1000 bonus.

#123 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 08:26 PM

Scenario A:
A worker makes $50,000. You give him a 2% raise every year, and in the 6th year, instead of a raise, a bonus of 2%.

Scenario B:
A worker makes $50,000. You give him a 2% bonus every year in lieu of a raise, and in the 6th year, again, you give him a bonus of 2%.

Which worker's bonus is larger in the 6th year? By how much?

#124 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-23 08:28 PM

I understand the math behind compound growth.

Here is reality:

Scenario A: Tax law doesn't pass - Everything hums along as planned

Scenario B: Tax law passes - Everything hums along as planned and AT&T employees get a $1000 bonus

Maybe I am misconstruing you, but you seem hell-bent on portraying Scenario A as preferable to Scenario B. And I don't understand why.

#125 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 08:30 PM

"Those bonuses didn't replace standard pay-raises - they were in addition to performance raises. "

But the Union wanted pay raises, and ATT gave the bonuses in lieu in that.

I've been involved in hundreds of these negotiations, and here's a simplistic scenario of how it works: Say it's a 3 year contract, and the Union wants 3-3-3 raises. ATT counters with 2-2-2 and bonuses. If that's the agreed contract, the bonuses were given in lieu of raises. The very fact the Union wanted the money paid as salary proves my point.

#126 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-23 08:32 PM

If that's the agreed contract, the bonuses were given in lieu of raises.

That happens here all the time. Raises last forever, but bonuses are a one shot deal.

Wave a $10,000 cheque at your typical worker and they will take it over a 1% raise in a heartbeat.

#127 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-01-23 08:41 PM

"Maybe I am misconstruing you, but you seem hell-bent on portraying Scenario A as preferable to Scenario B. "

You're misconstruing me. I'm portrating Scenario B as less preferable than Scenario C: that same money as a raise. That's the ONLY issue I've ever been addressing, and for the reason you cited: compound growth.

For those playing the home game, worker A gets $1100 as a bonus; worker B gets $1000. And that's after 5 years; with compounding, the gap would get wider every year.

#128 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-23 08:42 PM

Again, I get all of that.

Bottom line is that these AT&T workers are $1000 richer as a direct result of the passage of this tax law.

That is a good thing no matter how one slices it.

#129 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 08:47 PM

madbomber,

We live in a neoclassical era. An important criteria which distinguishes neoclassical economics from classical economics is that the classical economists sought to tax "passive (unearned) income" at a higher rate than "earned income" in order to prevent grotesque inequality. Passive income includes rent, interest charges, capital gains. I rank production above finance because the first is earned and the later is unearned, by which I mean it is earned while sleeping. If tax policy fails to distinguish these two methods sooner or later landlords and owners have everything, as easily observed in Monopoly. This is the mathematics of compound interest, which is driving this country and the world into unsustainable debt. Student debt $1.5 trillion, credit card debt $1 trillion, housing debt $13 trillion, automobile debt $1.2 trillion will never be paid. The only question is when is the next crash.

You speak in generalities, without any concrete examples. Your ideology shines through.

Why don't you present a retort? For example, the State run Bank of North Dakota is a better example of how to operate banks than the Federal Reserve and Wall Street can ever be, because, unlike Wall Street and the Federal Reserve they have a track record of honesty, profitability and solvency, without any bailouts. They are a socialist institution, invented to protect the public against the invasion of the railroad tycoons. Or argue against Lincoln's assertion instead of changing the subject and declaring a fake victory?

#130 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-23 08:52 PM

"That sounds more like finance to me."

Nope. But your response is what one would expect from someone who doesn't really get economics.

"The question was: Why does it exist, and why do you support it?"

What makes you think I care one way or the other?

#131 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 08:56 PM

"Scenario A: Tax law doesn't pass - Everything hums along as planned
Scenario B: Tax law passes - Everything hums along as planned..."

Uhh...
You're saying the tax law literally changes no plans.

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 08:59 PM

"What makes you think I care one way or the other?"

Because you necessarily have an opinion on the subjects you offer your opinions on.

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 09:00 PM

"Nope. Unless you're too stupid to know what public relations are."

So the bonuses were fake news? Never happened?

"So, please source what I put in bold or kindly retract this statement."

Your reactionary, bourgeoisie ass needs to STFU and listen to what the Daily Kos tells you...

...punk.

#134 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 09:00 PM

#132

If you hadn't deliberately edited my post, you'd see that it most definitely changed plans at AT&T.

#135 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 09:00 PM

Economics is about allocating resources to create wealth.

"Allocating"?

Economics is about the production, consumption and allocation. Not just allocating.

Jeezus you liberals love "allocating" what someone else earned...

#136 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-23 09:00 PM

"Economics is about the production, consumption and allocation. Not just allocating."

Production is an allocation; consumption is also an allocation.

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 09:01 PM

"If you hadn't deliberately edited my post, you'd see that it most definitely changed plans at AT&T."

But the tax law has other impacts. You're ignoring them.

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 09:01 PM

"Maybe I am misconstruing you, but you seem hell-bent on portraying Scenario A as preferable to Scenario B. And I don't understand why."

Dude, you understand what it means if the economy starts functioning better for everyone under a non-progressive government, right?

The whole progressive narrative, forever, has been that unless people hand over economic control to the government, there will be a handful of very rich and a bunch of poor. They've done a really great job of masking reality behind a more negative narrative, but there's a limit to what can be masked.

#139 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 09:03 PM

But the tax law has other impacts.

Of course it does.

You're ignoring them.

#138 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

No, if you scroll up you'll see how this discussion originated. This is where it began:

Oh, and didn't a bunch of companies just give out billions in bonuses?
#101 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER 2018-01-23 06:11 PM


Nope. Unless you're too stupid to know what public relations are.
#106 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

My brother works for AT&T. Those bonuses were real.

#107 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-23 07:38 PM |

#140 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 09:04 PM

"there will be a handful of very rich and a bunch of poor"

Is that not the case?
Are you going to say it's not, by comparing Americans to Haitians again?

#141 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 09:05 PM

The entire discussion I've participated in on this thread stems from #106.

Since the whole AT&T thing seems to be put to bed, I'm willing to discuss other aspects of the tax law after I get my steps in and clean bathroom #2 upstairs.

#142 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 09:06 PM

"No, if you scroll up you'll see how this discussion originated."

That's not relevant.
You are saying business carried on in usual in both scenarios, but that's not possible.
The fact that a bonus was given out, prompted by the tax law, means business was not carried out as usual.
Your term was "Everything hums along as planned."
That's... not what happened when the tax law changed.

#143 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 09:07 PM

"The whole progressive narrative, forever, has been that unless people hand over economic control to the government, there will be a handful of very rich and a bunch of poor."

What's the narrative for why not all companies offer profit sharing?

#144 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 09:08 PM

Corporations are trickling down mere crumbs compared to the benefits they are reaping from the tax cuts. Anyone pretending that the average worker is going to see significant benefit is a partisan tool.

#145 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-01-23 09:10 PM

"We live in a neoclassical era. An important criteria which distinguishes neoclassical economics from classical economics is that the classical economists sought to tax "passive (unearned) income" at a higher rate than "earned income" in order to prevent grotesque inequality."

Just out of curiosity...at which university did you cover these topics in an economics course.

#146 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 09:12 PM

"Corporations are trickling down mere crumbs compared to the benefits they are reaping from the tax cuts."

We're supposed to be grateful for the crumbs, it's their money and their companies, we just happen to be alive on a planet of which then own 82%. Hey, nobody said life was fair!

#147 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 09:13 PM

"Just out of curiosity...at which university did you cover these topics in an economics course."

Just out of curiosity... are you saying he's wrong?

#148 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 09:14 PM

"Is that not the case?"

Well, I guess it depends. I somehow suspect that you're going to view your own poverty in relative terms, and so long as there are those who are richer, you're going to claim you're poor.

But no, you're not poor. You're rich compared to the vast majority of people on this planet.

#149 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-23 09:16 PM

Snoofy

Completely unrelated- have you played Zelda Breath of the Wild?

#150 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 09:23 PM

You're rich compared to the vast majority of people on this planet.

What's your point?

#151 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-23 09:25 PM

This thread is case in point as to how desperate the Left is to construe any economic good news as bad news during Trump's Presidency. If this had happened under Obama they would be doing cartwheels on how awesome this is.

#152 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-23 09:25 PM

"Bottom line is that these AT&T workers are $1000 richer as a direct result of the passage of this tax law. That is a good thing no matter how one slices it."

I never said it wasn't a good thing.

I said raises were a better thing, the Union asked for raises, and ATT gave them bonuses in lieu of asked-for raises. NOT THAT BONUSES ARE A BAD THING, but math tells us raises would've been better for the worker.

Get that? No one said the bonus is bad, just that a raise is better. Simple as that.

#153 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-23 09:26 PM

"But no, you're not poor. You're rich compared to the vast majority of people on this planet."

Who said anything about me?

"There will be a handful of very rich and a bunch of poor"

Is that accurate, or not?
You said, "Well, I guess it depends."
State the dependencies and state your answer.
Or say you can't figure it out.

#154 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 09:29 PM

Danforth,

Cool.

We are 100% on the same page.

#155 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 09:30 PM

"Completely unrelated- have you played Zelda Breath of the Wild?"

---- no.
PC Master Race.

#156 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 09:31 PM

"This thread is case in point as to how desperate the Left is to construe any economic good news as bad news "

As I recall, you didn't understand the concept of raises v. bonuses either.

Please read #153 as many times as it takes. Pay particular attention to the caps.

#157 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-23 09:40 PM

You make me sad. It's a seriously good game

#158 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 09:41 PM

Oh, I'm sure there are great console games. I liked Pikmin. I'm just not a consoler.

#159 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 09:53 PM

Damn.

I was hoping otherwise.

#160 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 10:12 PM

You want co-op?

I got Sniper to play with somebody years ago but we never did.

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 10:13 PM

That is, the game Sniper: True Combat Elite or something like taht. I did not game with the DR regular and Stable Genius named Sniper.

#162 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 12:56 AM

madbomber,

I am an engineer and have never taken an economics course. However, I have read extensively since 2008, including Keynes, Keen, Picketty, Hudson, and Roberts. This puts me out on the fringe of mainstream economics. But history tells us that the mainstream was out to lunch in 2007 under the guidance of the likes of Greenspan. In fact most of what is wrong with our system can be corrected by closing the Fed and restoring the legal structure that FDR put in place after the first great recession. The other way to improve our economy is to incorporate more profit sharing into company plans for employees, based on longevity and contribution.

Most mainstream economists acknowledge that Marx's exploration of the relationship between labor, economic development, capital accumulation, and the boom and bust cycle has enduring value.

My own independent understanding of economic history is that Marx's proletariat revolution never happened in Russia, China or Vietnam, countries which used Marx for propaganda reasons while operating dictatorships. However, it did occur in the EU and USA when labor organized in the face of extremely harsh working conditions and police violence to achieve living wages. A PBS series claimed that Ford's wife cut him off, until he raised wages. Western economies have realized Marx's optimistic predictions better than other parts of the globe. But those ideas are hated and suppressed by the 1% that control our Government and mass media. Again this puts me out of the mainstream, but that in itself is no proof of error. Ignorance dominates human history.

#163 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-24 07:42 AM

Bottom line is that these AT&T workers are $1000 richer as a direct result of the passage of this tax law.

That is a good thing no matter how one slices it.

#129 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-23 08:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

WRONG But don't let facts get in the way of your right winged shilling

www.washingtonpost.com

And, of course, bonuses and pay raises are hardly the only story here. AT&T, for one, apparently is also quietly laying off workers. Officials of the Communications Workers of America, the union representing many front-line AT&T workers, told USA Today they believe about 4,000 workers have been notified that they will be laid off. Trump has had nothing to say about that, at least that I am aware of.

The biggest beneficiaries of the tax bill over time will not be the workers getting one-time bonuses and not those getting raises it's quite possible they would have received regardless, but the owners of substantial amounts of stock. According to a tally kept by Reuters, at least two dozen companies have announced buybacks and dividend increases since the tax bill vote. The idea that these companies simply decided they would make so much money from the tax bill that they would suddenly give out bonuses after the bill passed just doesn't pass the smell test.

#164 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-24 09:08 AM

Bottom line is that these AT&T workers are $1000 richer as a direct result of the passage of this tax law.

#164 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2018-01-24 09:08 AM | REPLY

A very FEW companies have listened to the wind and passed PART of the savings on to employees.

The real news is not the 16 companies in the fortune 500 who are giving one time small bonuses to rank and file workers but the 484 who are not.

If the majority end up doing it I will be sold but until then this is just a few crumbs.

The total cost of the bonuses being handed out is pennies on the dollar for the few that are.

AT&T is giving a one time $1,000 bonus which will cost it $230 billion but also get a $42 million tax break for it. The company is going to save $3.6 Billion PER YEAR in taxes going forward. So looking at this on a 10 year deal AT&T is passing 0.5% of their tax break to the employees.

#165 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-24 09:29 AM

"I am an engineer and have never taken an economics course. However, I have read extensively since 2008, including Keynes, Keen, Picketty, Hudson, and Roberts."

Choosing books on economics based on your chosen political ideology is not going to offer you much in the way of expanded knowledge. And much, if not all of what you're addressing are policy issues, not economics. You can use economics as a tool to determine or shape public policy, but economics is not really a thing. It's not an instrument. You don't "use" economics to do anything.

And I don't think you really understand Marxism. You may feel like you have an understanding of the end-state Marx was predicting...which could still come true I suppose, but Marx predicted that socialism would succeed because everyone would want to work collectively in a manner that would leave everyone free of what. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. And that's works in small, connected populations, like a family. Because those with the abilities care more about those around them in that population that they do themselves. Marxism failed to deliver because those with the abilities had no interest in supporting those in need with whom they had no care or connection. And that's still the case today.

Last thing, IRT JMK. He's not a fringe economist by any stretch, and I would go so far as to say that the Chicago school and Reagan were influenced as much by Keynes as they were by Hayek. From my vantage point, I think that Keynes had a better understanding of Macroeconomics than any of his contemporaries, but that doesn't mean his contemporaries were all wrong either. Keynes has been glorified on the left as a champion of progressive economic though, while skewered on the right for the same thing. Both sides are wrong.

#166 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 11:32 AM

If this had happened under Obama they would be doing cartwheels on how awesome this is.

#152 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Wrong! I would have called Obama a capitulating sellout. Just as I did when he made the Bush tax cuts permanent, and when he made the Medical Industrial Complex even wealthier by giving them the ACA. Obama did some big damage to the middle class as well.

#167 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-01-24 12:18 PM

Bottom line is that these AT&T workers are $1000 richer as a direct result of the passage of this tax law.
That is a good thing no matter how one slices it.
#129 | Posted by JeffJ

Hmmm, A $1000 bonus shortly after the release of the new $1000 iPhone 10 and the Galaxy 8. What a coincidence.

#168 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-01-24 12:27 PM

If you get a $36 Billion tax windfall and give $120 million to the workers who created all of the revenue you are hardly a hero

#169 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-24 12:35 PM

When speaking about thousand dollar bonuses...

...this picture is worth 1,000,000,000,000 words

#170 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-24 12:52 PM

What's the narrative for why not all companies offer profit sharing? - #144 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 09:08 PM
I'll take a crack at that one, Snoofy.
Some companies offer profit sharing because they see it as having a lower cost than the benefit it provides in keeping and attracting good workers who will, over time, increase the profitability of the company.
Some companies don't offer profit sharing because they see it as a cost that will not provide enough back in increased profitability for the company to make up for the cost.

#171 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-24 01:02 PM

I just get tickled at the buzz word 'hoard' used to put a negative anti-wealth spin from t he start: pictures of Scrooge McDuck diving in bin of money dances through people's minds - LOL

#172 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-01-24 01:04 PM

From an economic standpoint a "hoard" of more money than you could ever spend is very wasteful.

What was the point of all that activity if the wealth it produced doesn't get put to use in the economy, MSgt?

You're a smart investor, surely you can see how that wealth could be used to grow business.

You don't think about it that way. You care about personal enrichment. I care about wealth of nations.

#173 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 01:15 PM

"If you get a $36 Billion tax windfall and give $120 million to the workers who created all of the revenue you are hardly a hero"

Why?

The workers were already remunerated for their contributions in the form of a wage or salary.

If taxes go up on enterprise, should workers be expected to accept less pay?

"You don't think about it that way. You care about personal enrichment. I care about wealth of nations."

If you really cared about the wealth of nations...you'd be giddy right now. It would be accurate to say you're preoccupied with who gets to control the wealth of nations, or that a free society will not distribute wealth in a manner that best befits Snoofy.

#174 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 02:55 PM

"The workers were already remunerated for their contributions in the form of a wage or salary."

So who does the $36B windfall remunerate, and for what contributions? LOL!

#175 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 03:00 PM

"It would be accurate to say you're preoccupied with who gets to control the wealth of nations."

No, "wealth of nations" means the nation both possesses and controls the wealth.
Like the way Norway achieves national wealth through oil.
What we are trending towards here in America, and what you and MSgt are apologists for, is wealth of corporations.
Economic power buys access to political power, and you both think that's the way it is supposed to be:
(Financial) might makes right.

#176 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 03:05 PM

"So who does the $36B windfall remunerate, and for what contributions?"

It's not remuneration dude...not at all.

"Like the way Norway achieves national wealth through oil."

"What we are trending towards here in America, and what you and MSgt are apologists for, is wealth of corporations."

I am an ardent supporter of a free society, regardless of the outcome it produces. That's where you and I diverge the greatest. If the majority of Americans wanted to pool their resources and live communally, I fully support their every effort. So long as it's done voluntarily.

Corporations (with a few exceptions) derive any power they have from their client base. Their customers. No one makes you buy an iPhone, or shop at Wal Mart, or buy from Amazon. We do it because those things are awesome. Way, way, way more awesome than achieving ideological goals favored by the nation's idiots.

#177 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 03:28 PM

"I am an ardent supporter of a free society,"

Freedom in our society is practically useless without money.

#178 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 03:39 PM

I just get tickled at the buzz word 'hoard' used to put a negative anti-wealth spin from t he start: pictures of Scrooge McDuck diving in bin of money dances through people's minds - LOL

#172 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2018-01-24 01:04 PM | REPLY

How much is enough?

No 2 people can own the same dollar. There is no economic need for the low wages many companies pay. They have made a concious decision to do it that way. Would the Walton Family really have any different lifestyle if they were worth "only" $20 Billion instead of $140 Billion?

A normal persons income is rent, food on the table, clothing, etc. For people like them they are just numbers on a spreadsheet that have no effect on what they do the next day.

#179 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-24 03:46 PM

"Freedom in our society is practically useless without money. "

was it implied any other way?

#180 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-24 03:47 PM

"was it implied any other way?"

Yes.

#181 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 03:58 PM

"Corporations (with a few exceptions) derive any power they have from their client base."

Corporations have power?
What power do they have?

#182 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 04:01 PM

profit can only be created two ways

1) pay workers less than the value of their labor
2) charge customers more than the value of their goods and services

There is no economic need for profit. A company can thrive without ever making a profit. many do. Some of the largest companies in the world are not for profit. You can continue to grow and create an enormous revenue stream without any profits being needed. In fact profit stymies growth. By definition any money spent growing a company is a business expense and is NOT profit.

#183 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-24 04:08 PM

181

I never thought freedom meant "free".

#184 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-24 04:17 PM

"No 2 people can own the same dollar. There is no economic need for the low wages many companies pay."

Should they ship it overseas to those who could really use it? or are those people just numbers on a spreadsheet as well?

#183

My god, you just might be the planet's last remaining Marxist. Wow.

#185 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 04:23 PM

You know you literally, cannot pay a person less than they value of their labor. It's physically impossible.

#186 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 04:27 PM

"You know you literally, cannot pay a person less than they value of their labor. It's physically impossible." - #186 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 04:27 PM

Is that, you know, literally, from the preamble to the Constitution of the Confederate States of America?

#187 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-24 04:32 PM

You know you literally, cannot pay a person less than they value of their labor. It's physically impossible.

#186 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

There are people working for less than the value of their labor out of desperation all over the world. Even in America.

#188 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-01-24 04:52 PM

"There are people working for less than the value of their labor out of desperation all over the world. Even in America."

Dude, the value of your labor is based on what someone else is willing to pay. And if the worker agrees that the amount being offered is equal to or grater than what they are willing to accept...then you have the value.

And if you were to put together a Kelly Blue Book of labor, you would find that some labor is very expensive, while others is nearly worthless. But You can't really claim that someone offering to sell a 1992 Geo Metro in fair condition with 150K miles is being ripped off at the KBB value of $800, just because the buyer had a lot more money in his or her account. That would be retarded, would it not?

#189 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 05:06 PM

"Dude, the value of your labor is based on what someone else is willing to pay"

Does intrinsic value not exist at all then?
Or just not for labor?

#190 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 05:20 PM

"But You can't really claim that someone offering to sell a 1992 Geo Metro in fair condition with 150K miles is being ripped off at the KBB value of $800, just because the buyer had a lot more money in his or her account. That would be retarded, would it not?"

the analogy of comparing the cost of labor to the cost of...well...anything else is lost on some here.

There are folks here who just can't accept that the cost of labor is a commodity and it's an exchange.

When it doesn't appear equitable in their eyes, it's slavery, desperation, fascism, etc.

#191 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-24 05:30 PM

"profit can only be created two ways

1) pay workers less than the value of their labor
2) charge customers more than the value of their goods and services"

how on earth do people like you function? Do you have a job? May I speak to your boss?

#192 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-24 05:34 PM

"And if the worker agrees that the amount being offered is equal to or grater than what they are willing to accept...then you have the value."

Because we have a "Free Market" right?

lmgtfy.com

#193 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-24 05:35 PM

"the analogy of comparing the cost of labor to the cost of...well...anything else is lost on some here."

The cost of a CEO's labor is largely in stock options.
When was the last time the cost of... well anything else was denominated in stock options?
The double standard seems lost on you, Eberly.
I know you can see it, though.
And now is the time in the thread where you clam up.

#194 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 05:46 PM

"Does intrinsic value not exist at all then? Or just not for labor?"

If you're talking economic value theories, then no. It doesn't exist. At least not outside of the economic history. Replaced by marginal value theories.

"Because we have a "Free Market" right?"

because the worker is as free to not accept as he or she is to accept.

#195 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 05:49 PM

"There are folks here who just can't accept that the cost of labor is a commodity and it's an exchange."

It baffles me how some people can remain so willfully ignorant. I think that most get it...it just causes a lot of inner turmoil. Like being a devout evangelical who suddenly realizes that the bible isn't a history book.

#196 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 05:50 PM

"The cost of a CEO's labor is largely in stock options."

I don't think you understand how stock options work, lil buddy. But I have to ask, are you suggesting that all remuneration should be offered in the same form it's offered to a senior executive?

#197 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 05:52 PM

"But I have to ask, are you suggesting that all remuneration should be offered in the same form it's offered to a senior executive?"

I'm not suggesting that.
I'm merely pointing out the double standard.
You can see it, right?

#198 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 05:54 PM

"because the worker is as free to not accept as he or she is to accept."

Free as in not constrained by needing to eat, or have a home?
No, the worker is ultimately going to accept something that's offered, due to the externalities of being alive, and needing money to stay that way, unless someone else offers them a better deal than their employment options.
There would be no point in having this "labor market" if it didn't have any sales.
People don't work because they are free.
They work because they need money.

#199 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 06:01 PM

You literally, cannot pay a person less than they value of their labor.

You can also pay them the same rate for five decades while the world around them becomes insanely more expensive.

#200 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-24 06:07 PM

"The cost of a CEO's labor is largely in stock options."

LOL

#201 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-24 06:08 PM

"And now is the time in the thread where you clam up."

bottom line is that a CEO, if he's compensated largely with stock options, puts a $$ value on it.

it's still in dollars and the CEO can put a number to it. CEOs can shop their

so, what's your point?

wages are a commodity

#202 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-24 06:16 PM

"so, what's your point?"

That there's a double standard for how labor workers are paid versus management workers.

The difference beyween getting paid in stock options and cash, it's much like the difference between a defined benefit plan and a defined contribution plan.

Both are retirement accounts. Both can have a cash value number put on them. But they're not the same thing.

#203 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 06:26 PM

because the worker is as free to not accept as he or she is to accept.

#195 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I don't think it can be construed as freedom if the only other choice is to starve and/or die. If you really see it in such simple terms, your vision of humanity is pretty screwed up.

#204 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-01-24 07:04 PM

"I'm not suggesting that. I'm merely pointing out the double standard. You can see it, right?"

Uhh...no. A stock option has no monetary value. It is nothing more than an option to buy a stock under specified conditions.

You generally don't repay people with the option to buy something else.

"No, the worker is ultimately going to accept something that's offered, due to the externalities of being alive, and needing money to stay that way, unless someone else offers them a better deal than their employment options."

Completely untrue. One could sell their labor for money, of they could use their labor to provide the things they need to survive. This is how people did it for tens of thousands of years...its still how millions do it today. The choice to sell labor is still just that, a choice. And the other part of this argument is that the worker has the ability to influence the value of their labor. A characteristic absent in other commodities.

#205 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 07:09 PM

"That there's a double standard for how labor workers are paid versus management workers."

You don't really seem to have a clue about how anyone is paid. You'll understand this better once you get a job.

#206 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 07:10 PM

"A stock option has no monetary value. It is nothing more than an option to buy a stock under specified conditions"

No moneyary value?
That option has value, when exercised, equal to the current share price, times the number of shares.
What you're saying is akin to "a paycheck has no monetary value."
Yeah, until you... cash it.

#207 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 07:25 PM

You don't really seem to have a clue about how anyone is paid. You'll understand this better once you get a job.

#206 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Sorry Snoofy. I had to give this a FF. It was Eberly-esque.

#208 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-24 07:30 PM

"The choice to sell labor is still just that, a choice."

It's also a necessity.

Sort of like eating is a necessity, but what you choose to eat is a choice.

Working is a necessity; which worker the person with money to pay chooses, and which workers make themselves available for the choosing, is the narrow range where the choice comes in.

#209 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 07:33 PM

That's fine JeffJ. I've probably had more jobs than you and MadB put together. Even ones with stock options.

#210 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 07:35 PM

"That option has value, when exercised, equal to the current share price, times the number of shares."

It is not an M1/M2-type asset. You must spend your own money in order to get that stock...you're basically offered the option of buying it under favorable conditions...but you still must buy it. I think you may have restricted stock on your mind...something very different.

"It's also a necessity."

Shall I point out the hundreds of millions worldwide that don't sell their labor for income?

"Working is a necessity"

Working is a necessity...working for a wage is a choice.

"That's fine JeffJ. I've probably had more jobs than you and MadB put together."

Just decided to retire young, eh.

#211 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 07:45 PM

Snoof,

I wasn't trying to bag on you. Madbomber's comment was funny in a way that reminded me of Eberly's comments directed at you. That is all.

#212 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-24 07:50 PM

"Shall I point out the hundreds of millions worldwide that don't sell their labor for income?"

Sure. I'll point to the lack of buyers for said labor. It is, as you pointed out, a buyer's market. If your labor, or your used car, isn't wanted by any buyer, it's going to be pretty hard to sell.

Other than that, what do these hundreds of millions of outliers tell us about the billions who do participate in the economy through work?

#213 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 07:54 PM

"Other than that, what do these hundreds of millions of outliers tell us about the billions who do participate in the economy through work?"

It tells us that wage labor offers them a better outcome than keeping their labor for their own use.

#214 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 08:22 PM

"That there's a double standard for how labor workers are paid versus management workers."

You've claimed that but haven't demonstrated it at all.

#215 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-24 09:12 PM

"I've probably had more jobs than you and MadB put together. "

FF

#216 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-24 09:13 PM

You've accepted my claim, so there's no need to demonstrate it further.

#217 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 09:14 PM

"I've probably had more jobs than you and MadB put together. "

FF

#216 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Again, my apologies, Snoof. Ebs just has this nailed. Like a divining-rod pointing toward water I must give this a FF.

#218 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-24 09:18 PM

Eberly seems like he has some breadth of employment experience under his belt.*
You and MadB, not so much.

*It could also just be that Eberly simply talks smarter about the working world than you two, and it shows.

#219 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 09:24 PM

This thread is Exhibit A to prove that most of the DR Left has no conception of even basic economic principles. No wonder they are borderline Marxists.

Wow.

#220 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-24 09:25 PM

Snoofy, what's a "management" worker?

That's a pretty broad term. C-suite only? Middle management, supervisors?

I don't accept your claim. Stock options vs wages. What double standard?

#221 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-24 09:28 PM

"No wonder they are borderline Marxists"

And borderline unemployable.

#222 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-24 09:29 PM

That's fine JeffJ. I've probably had more jobs than you and MadB put together.

Don't brag Snoofy, your talents are necessary as well.

#223 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-24 09:30 PM

I'm curious what Hatter does for a living.

#224 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-24 09:30 PM

#224

He's Snoofy's "intern."

#225 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-24 09:32 PM

"You and MadB, not so much."

Both of those guys have been very candid about their employment. They've given you no reason to doubt them either.

Have you been as candid as them?

#226 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-24 09:33 PM

"Stock options vs wages. What double standard?"

^
That's the one, getting paid like a commodity vs. getting paid like profit sharing.

#227 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 09:34 PM

"Both of those guys have been very candid about their employment. They've given you no reason to doubt them either."

Indeed, that's why I doubt they've had as many jobs as me.

#228 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 09:35 PM

Eberly seems like he has some breadth of employment experience under his belt.*

He undoubtedly does.

You and MadB, not so much.

I can't speak for MadB. I'm 46. I have been in management since I was 23. I've been involved in a start-up during that time and have almost always been in a position of representing my employer.

It could also just be that Eberly simply talks smarter about the working world than you two, and it shows.

#219 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Again, I can't speak for MadB, but as this pertains to me...yes. Eberly absolutely talks smarter about the working world than I do.

I don't flag often. When I do, I make a point of announcing the flag Further, because my most recent posts were at your expense, I felt compelled to give a Mea Culpa because whilst I was acknowledging the humor, I wasn't trying to pick on you.

As for Eberly being smarter than me regarding the working world...that is a no-brainer.

#229 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-24 09:38 PM

It really doesn't bother me at all, to be accused of not plying my wares in the "labor market" like some painted Jezebel.

It's kind of a long-running joke at this point regardless.

Show me the stock options!

#230 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-24 11:24 PM

Performance based incentives fly in the face of labor as a commodity.

If I pay more for a widget, it doesn't make it a better widget. It just makes it more expensive.

So why is it different for a worker hired to run a company, compared to a worker hired to run the fryer?

There is an answer, but if you don't want to go there, I won't make you.

One thing thatg stands out is how the CEO to worker pay ratio has increased by an order of magnitude in just a few decades. Are CEOs really an order of magnitude more scarce than workers were a few decades ago? LOL!

#231 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 12:42 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Florida Governor: Those Under Age 21 Should Not Own Guns (251 comments)

Texas School Will Punish Any Student Who Protests (85 comments)

3 More Deputies On Scene Did Not Enter School (82 comments)

Parkland School Cop Didn't Enter Building (68 comments)

The AR-15 Inflicts Devastatingly Different Wounds (64 comments)

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes (52 comments)

Gates Expected to Plead Guilty, Help Mueller (42 comments)

Teacher Bonuses for Guns But Not Education (38 comments)

House Intel Committee Releases Democratic Memo (23 comments)