Corporate profits hit record as wages get squeezed

[martybegan]

Martybegan,

Feudalism was a way for more aggressive, ambitious individuals (the "1%," say) to control the lives of the other 99%. That is, in my view, a kind of human pathology in that it is abnormal and deviant as compared to the general population. Feudalism ended because the oppressed 99% attacked the lords and demanded better lives.

The lords (the 1%) never went away, though, any more than schizophrenics can disappear from our society (interestingly, about 1% of our general population is schizophrenic). The remaining 99% are easy prey to the 1% because the 99% do not think in the same manner. That 1% wants to control people--and, since currency represents a claim on the labor of another, more money means more control.

Capital is not necessary at all for human endeavor and progress. Human labor is the only important component. Capital is simply a means of extracting the profits of labor from those that do the work. And the 99% are generally too busy living lives to pay much attention to what the 1% does. (Until it gets out of hand, that is.)

Spoken like a true communist, comrade. Now can you tell me why your system doesn't actually work?

And you are trying to sound smarter than you probably are. Take a hint, stop doing it.

What, pray tell, is "my system?" Because I don't profess to have one. I know this current economic system is on the back end of the curve, and will soon collapse. Even Smith predicted it. The "communist" comment on your part merely exposes you as a victim of propaganda. Most Americans cannot successfully explain socialism, fascism, or communism. They merely know that they are "bad things."

How can I possibly "sound smarter" than I am? That makes no sense whatever.

To me they are bad things, and there are reasons why. The main reason being all 3 place way to much power in the hands of a central government for my liking.

If you remove capital from the economic system what is your replacement? I assume communism. Its OK to say you are a communist, hell my cousin is a democratic socialist. Hes a nice guy and all, but his poltiical leanings suck.

 

[Koios]

Spoken like a true communist, comrade. Now can you tell me why your system doesn't actually work?

And you are trying to sound smarter than you probably are. Take a hint, stop doing it.

What, pray tell, is "my system?" Because I don't profess to have one. I know this current economic system is on the back end of the curve, and will soon collapse. Even Smith predicted it. The "communist" comment on your part merely exposes you as a victim of propaganda. Most Americans cannot successfully explain socialism, fascism, or communism. They merely know that they are "bad things."

How can I possibly "sound smarter" than I am? That makes no sense whatever.

To me they are bad things, and there are reasons why. The main reason being all 3 place way to much power in the hands of a central government for my liking.

If you remove capital from the economic system what is your replacement? I assume communism. Its OK to say you are a communist, hell my cousin is a democratic socialist. Hes a nice guy and all, but his poltiical leanings suck.

Probably you're feeling the squeeze by decentralized government, aka state and local, who've had to resort to higher local taxes and fees to make up for the shortfall due to centralized government cutting taxes, and not paying as much back to state and local governments.

Or perhaps it's the loosening of overtime and other federal regs on employment, or the minimum wage that's half what it was at its peak, inflation adjusted. I merely speculate. But you gotta love it: lower taxes on "job creators" and government gettin' outta the way of business on wages and shit, and you're fucked.

Imagine that.

 

[Koios]

In case you need a more in depth read:

Yep, Obama's a Big Spender...Just Like His Predecessors - Forbes

But all this misinformation that is spread is off the hook.

Reading a pub now headed by Malcolm Forbes' idiot child might not be as "in-depth" as you might wish it to be. FWIW.

Now then, of course Obama is spending like his predecessors. It's how it works, and why we should be a smidge cautious when wishing for new programs and such. Once we create it, we own it and pay for it. Congress folks get kinda possessive, especially if they benefit their districts or the lobbyists whose dicks they suck for want of contribs.

Examples:

Home Land Security;

Medicare Part D;

Beefed up border patrols;

Farm subsidies;

Energy subsidies;

DEA gone wild vis a vis "war on drugs."

Now name me which folks in the Cong, left aisle or right, are saying let's cut 'em back. Got many? 10% even, which is a far cry from gettin' 'em whacked, so that spendy fella, Obama, can spend less than his predecessors. Yeah?

 

[Freemason9]

Spoken like a true communist, comrade. Now can you tell me why your system doesn't actually work?

And you are trying to sound smarter than you probably are. Take a hint, stop doing it.

What, pray tell, is "my system?" Because I don't profess to have one. I know this current economic system is on the back end of the curve, and will soon collapse. Even Smith predicted it. The "communist" comment on your part merely exposes you as a victim of propaganda. Most Americans cannot successfully explain socialism, fascism, or communism. They merely know that they are "bad things."

How can I possibly "sound smarter" than I am? That makes no sense whatever.

To me they are bad things, and there are reasons why. The main reason being all 3 place way to much power in the hands of a central government for my liking.

If you remove capital from the economic system what is your replacement? I assume communism. Its OK to say you are a communist, hell my cousin is a democratic socialist. Hes a nice guy and all, but his poltiical leanings suck.

Fascism implies a strong, centralized government and economy. Socialism and communism does not imply either. The Soviet Union was not socialist, it was fascist--hiding behind the kind rhetoric of an advanced socialist economy. Marx's economic treatise on socialism envisioned it as a system of ownership based upon worker involvement ("workers own the means of production"). Communism, as a theory and model, includes no central government at all--only collectives. Those are theories that no nation has put in place, although certain European democracies (notably Germany) use elements of socialism by including workers in the production design process.

I am not a socialist, communist, capitalist, or fascist. I see strengths in all four models, and I see weaknesses as well. All currently depend upon the quality of leadership . . . and, unfortunately, leadership positions often attract people with control ambitions.

 

[martybegan]

What, pray tell, is "my system?" Because I don't profess to have one. I know this current economic system is on the back end of the curve, and will soon collapse. Even Smith predicted it. The "communist" comment on your part merely exposes you as a victim of propaganda. Most Americans cannot successfully explain socialism, fascism, or communism. They merely know that they are "bad things."

How can I possibly "sound smarter" than I am? That makes no sense whatever.

To me they are bad things, and there are reasons why. The main reason being all 3 place way to much power in the hands of a central government for my liking.

If you remove capital from the economic system what is your replacement? I assume communism. Its OK to say you are a communist, hell my cousin is a democratic socialist. Hes a nice guy and all, but his poltiical leanings suck.

Probably you're feeling the squeeze by decentralized government, aka state and local, who've had to resort to higher local taxes and fees to make up for the shortfall due to centralized government cutting taxes, and not paying as much back to state and local governments.

Or perhaps it's the loosening of overtime and other federal regs on employment, or the minimum wage that's half what it was at its peak, inflation adjusted. I merely speculate. But you gotta love it: lower taxes on "job creators" and government gettin' outta the way of business on wages and shit, and you're fucked.

Imagine that.

If the federal government didnt tax us at such a high rate to begin with, then maybe localities could charge us a bit more for services we actually use. When you funnel money up through the feds then BACK DOWN to the local governments all you are doing is adding the cost of managing said money via the buracracy, AND increasing federal control via the purse over local government.

All an increase in minimum wage for me does is increase the cost of a hamburger.

 

[Staidhup]

The very technologically based efficiencies realized in manufacturing, inventory management, and distribution, that puzzled Greenspan and company at the fed, remain in place, the sales and distribution of product remains driven by consumption which has declined substantially due to the popping of the bubble in 01 and 08. Given that GDP is based on production of goods and services profit margins are directly related to the efficiencies realized, thus one can have a decrease in GDP and acceleration in sector profits due to prior efficiencies realized. In short they make a profit, all be it not as large as potential capacity capabilities. Capacity will remain underutilized until the worlds economic conditions improve. One factor that some on the left fail to understand is that during periods of economic down turn smart business managers shed their marginal and lost leaders that the successful portion of their operations have carried along, aka shedding dead wood.

 

[Koios]

To me they are bad things, and there are reasons why. The main reason being all 3 place way to much power in the hands of a central government for my liking.

If you remove capital from the economic system what is your replacement? I assume communism. Its OK to say you are a communist, hell my cousin is a democratic socialist. Hes a nice guy and all, but his poltiical leanings suck.

Probably you're feeling the squeeze by decentralized government, aka state and local, who've had to resort to higher local taxes and fees to make up for the shortfall due to centralized government cutting taxes, and not paying as much back to state and local governments.

Or perhaps it's the loosening of overtime and other federal regs on employment, or the minimum wage that's half what it was at its peak, inflation adjusted. I merely speculate. But you gotta love it: lower taxes on "job creators" and government gettin' outta the way of business on wages and shit, and you're fucked.

Imagine that.

If the federal government didnt tax us at such a high rate to begin with, then maybe localities could charge us a bit more for services we actually use. When you funnel money up through the feds then BACK DOWN to the local governments all you are doing is adding the cost of managing said money via the buracracy, AND increasing federal control via the purse over local government.

All an increase in minimum wage for me does is increase the cost of a hamburger.

Indeed; that is the fear. But it ignores other dynamics in costing of burgers, and the impact of volume sales increases resulting from customers with increased consumption ability.

So if you look at it, over the history of our Federal Minimum Wage, increases in the FMW do not track to inflation. Ergo, worry not. The kids won't go hungry for want of a Happy Meal. Only the person handing it to you will be a bit better off, and maybe buy something that positively impacts the sales where you work.

 

[martybegan]

Probably you're feeling the squeeze by decentralized government, aka state and local, who've had to resort to higher local taxes and fees to make up for the shortfall due to centralized government cutting taxes, and not paying as much back to state and local governments.

Or perhaps it's the loosening of overtime and other federal regs on employment, or the minimum wage that's half what it was at its peak, inflation adjusted. I merely speculate. But you gotta love it: lower taxes on "job creators" and government gettin' outta the way of business on wages and shit, and you're fucked.

Imagine that.

If the federal government didnt tax us at such a high rate to begin with, then maybe localities could charge us a bit more for services we actually use. When you funnel money up through the feds then BACK DOWN to the local governments all you are doing is adding the cost of managing said money via the buracracy, AND increasing federal control via the purse over local government.

All an increase in minimum wage for me does is increase the cost of a hamburger.

Indeed; that is the fear. But it ignores other dynamics in costing of burgers, and the impact of volume sales increases resulting from customers with increased consumption ability.

So if you look at it, over the history of our Federal Minimum Wage, increases in the FMW do not track to inflation. Ergo, worry not. The kids won't go hungry for want of a Happy Meal. Only the person handing it to you will be a bit better off, and maybe buy something that positively impacts the sales where you work.

First of all, those jobs were never meant to provide for a family, but as a stepping stone to better jobs. Second, to make it really a living wage you would have to bump minimum to like $15 an hour, and at that point, my burgers cost goes up so much I dont want to buy it.

So you get a higher cost for the same productivity, hence inflation, and then MY buying power goes down even though I have a better paying job.

Do liberals ever take an economics course that doesnt suck up to Marx and Engels?

 

[Koios]

To me they are bad things, and there are reasons why. The main reason being all 3 place way to much power in the hands of a central government for my liking.

If you remove capital from the economic system what is your replacement? I assume communism. Its OK to say you are a communist, hell my cousin is a democratic socialist. Hes a nice guy and all, but his poltiical leanings suck.

Probably you're feeling the squeeze by decentralized government, aka state and local, who've had to resort to higher local taxes and fees to make up for the shortfall due to centralized government cutting taxes, and not paying as much back to state and local governments.

Or perhaps it's the loosening of overtime and other federal regs on employment, or the minimum wage that's half what it was at its peak, inflation adjusted. I merely speculate. But you gotta love it: lower taxes on "job creators" and government gettin' outta the way of business on wages and shit, and you're fucked.

Imagine that.

If the federal government didnt tax us at such a high rate to begin with, then maybe localities could charge us a bit more for services we actually use. When you funnel money up through the feds then BACK DOWN to the local governments all you are doing is adding the cost of managing said money via the buracracy, AND increasing federal control via the purse over local government.

All an increase in minimum wage for me does is increase the cost of a hamburger.

That's precisely what they're doing now, which is regressive and has been a big part in the wealth that's moved from our middle class to the top 0.1%.

Back in the old days, still today called "Glory Days" businesses paid about half of the taxes to the Federal Government, which was about right, insofar as over half of all government spending benefits business. Now that's down to around 17%, while spending in support of business has grown.

You'll note that profits are at a record high, both before and after tax, nominally and as a percentage of our total GDP, yet wages and middle class wealth continue to shrink. Thus the "getting out of the way of businesses" that began in the 80s, has been a miserable failure, if the the objective was indeed as its proponents stated: Average Americans better off.

But if perhaps the proponents of "getting out of the way of businesses" (aka Right Wing Economic Postulate), who have benefitted to an historic level, which might not be mere serendipity, and rather, we were played for suckers, then it was a tremendous success, since Average Americans have been fleeced, and they hit a huge fucking home run, economically.

 

[Koios]

If the federal government didnt tax us at such a high rate to begin with, then maybe localities could charge us a bit more for services we actually use. When you funnel money up through the feds then BACK DOWN to the local governments all you are doing is adding the cost of managing said money via the buracracy, AND increasing federal control via the purse over local government.

All an increase in minimum wage for me does is increase the cost of a hamburger.

Indeed; that is the fear. But it ignores other dynamics in costing of burgers, and the impact of volume sales increases resulting from customers with increased consumption ability.

So if you look at it, over the history of our Federal Minimum Wage, increases in the FMW do not track to inflation. Ergo, worry not. The kids won't go hungry for want of a Happy Meal. Only the person handing it to you will be a bit better off, and maybe buy something that positively impacts the sales where you work.

First of all, those jobs were never meant to provide for a family, but as a stepping stone to better jobs. Second, to make it really a living wage you would have to bump minimum to like $15 an hour, and at that point, my burgers cost goes up so much I dont want to buy it.

So you get a higher cost for the same productivity, hence inflation, and then MY buying power goes down even though I have a better paying job.

Do liberals ever take an economics course that doesnt suck up to Marx and Engels?

Yes, so they've been saying, and many still repeat. But the reality of our minimum wage workforce tells a very different tale.

Maybe this too is where ya'll have been played for suckers. And while it might indeed be painful, I'd advise removing the hook. You, your children and their children, would benefit from your brief bit of emotional pain due to smartening up.

Merely a suggestion.

 

[martybegan]

Indeed; that is the fear. But it ignores other dynamics in costing of burgers, and the impact of volume sales increases resulting from customers with increased consumption ability.

So if you look at it, over the history of our Federal Minimum Wage, increases in the FMW do not track to inflation. Ergo, worry not. The kids won't go hungry for want of a Happy Meal. Only the person handing it to you will be a bit better off, and maybe buy something that positively impacts the sales where you work.

First of all, those jobs were never meant to provide for a family, but as a stepping stone to better jobs. Second, to make it really a living wage you would have to bump minimum to like $15 an hour, and at that point, my burgers cost goes up so much I dont want to buy it.

So you get a higher cost for the same productivity, hence inflation, and then MY buying power goes down even though I have a better paying job.

Do liberals ever take an economics course that doesnt suck up to Marx and Engels?

Yes, so they've been saying, and many still repeat. But the reality of our minimum wage workforce tells a very different tale.

Maybe this too is where ya'll have been played for suckers. And while it might indeed be painful, I'd advise removing the hook. You, your children and their children, would benefit from your brief bit of emotional pain due to smartening up.

Merely a suggestion.

Its being repeated because it is the truth, as much as it hurts you to hear it.

Nothing is stopping a person from bettering themselves to get out of said minimum wage job, short of thier own lack of ambition.

 

[Koios]

First of all, those jobs were never meant to provide for a family, but as a stepping stone to better jobs. Second, to make it really a living wage you would have to bump minimum to like $15 an hour, and at that point, my burgers cost goes up so much I dont want to buy it.

So you get a higher cost for the same productivity, hence inflation, and then MY buying power goes down even though I have a better paying job.

Do liberals ever take an economics course that doesnt suck up to Marx and Engels?

Yes, so they've been saying, and many still repeat. But the reality of our minimum wage workforce tells a very different tale.

Maybe this too is where ya'll have been played for suckers. And while it might indeed be painful, I'd advise removing the hook. You, your children and their children, would benefit from your brief bit of emotional pain due to smartening up.

Merely a suggestion.

Its being repeated because it is the truth, as much as it hurts you to hear it.

Nothing is stopping a person from bettering themselves to get out of said minimum wage job, short of thier own lack of ambition.

You'll feel some pain (the hook tearing out of your mouth), so be advised before replacing what you believe with something you actually know, which ideally one should not confuse with one another.

Being so advised, enjoy knowing: Demographic Change and the Future Workforce

 

[Freemason9]

The very technologically based efficiencies realized in manufacturing, inventory management, and distribution, that puzzled Greenspan and company at the fed, remain in place, the sales and distribution of product remains driven by consumption which has declined substantially due to the popping of the bubble in 01 and 08. Given that GDP is based on production of goods and services profit margins are directly related to the efficiencies realized, thus one can have a decrease in GDP and acceleration in sector profits due to prior efficiencies realized. In short they make a profit, all be it not as large as potential capacity capabilities. Capacity will remain underutilized until the worlds economic conditions improve. One factor that some on the left fail to understand is that during periods of economic down turn smart business managers shed their marginal and lost leaders that the successful portion of their operations have carried along, aka shedding dead wood.

This is simply a summary of the mathematics of micro- and macroeconomic theory. It might even be correct--but it neglects the very important human component of economics. At some point, we will likely move beyond cause/effect relationships of supply chain management and productivity increases based upon lowered labor costs.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Geez...typical CNNMoney article...long on fluff, short on details.
Why are profits up?
1) Low capital investment. Companies are not reinvesting, not expanding and are putting off replacing equipment.
Capital spending is a HUGE expense line for companies. If you don't buy anything - guess what? You have more money left in the bank (a.k.a. profit). In other words it doesn't mean revenue is up.
2) Companies are seeking short-term gains with low investment. Again - the name of the game is to spend as little as possible, short term gains do not require the capital investment as long-term/large projects. Why are they doing this? Lack of confidence. Everyone still has in the back of their monds that things are going to get ugly again.
3) They are not hiring, they have found ways to do more - with less. When the economy is strong companies tend to get fat, managers are not getting squeezed to cut staff or look for savings. When the economy sours - obviously companies go on a diet. When the economy collapses as it did in 2008 - companies shrank tremendously. During this period - they found out that maybe they didn't need all of those people. Guess what? Companies don't hire employees if they don't need them.

In a nutshell...companies are not investing due to a lack of confidence, and have reason to believe that they will need rainy day funds ahead. Companies have become more efficient and are not going to hire back staff because you think they should.
How to fix the problem? What problem? America has been riding a wave of debt for 30 years. We had this coming. And we are far - far - far from over paying the piper.

 

[Koios]

Geez...typical CNNMoney article...long on fluff, short on details.
Why are profits up?
1) Low capital investment. Companies are not reinvesting, expanding and are putting off replacing equipment.
Capital spending is a HUGE expense line for companies. If you don't buy anything - guess what? You have more money left in the bank (a.k.a. profit). In other words it doesn't mean revenue is up.
2) Companies are seeking short-term gains with low investment. Again - the name of the game is to spend as little as possible, short term gains do not require the capital investment as long-term/large projects. Why are they doing this? Lack of confidence. Everyone still has in the back of their monds that things are going to get ugly again.
3) They are not hiring, they have found ways to do more - with less. When the economy is strong companies tend to get fat, managers are not getting squeezed to cut staff or look for savings. When the economy sours - obviously companies go on a diet. When the economy collapses as it did in 2008 - companies shrank tremendously. During this period - they found out that maybe they didn't need all of those people. Guess what? Companies don't hire employees if they don't need them.

In a nutshell...companies are not investing due to a lack of confidence, and have reason to believe that they will need rainy day funds ahead. Companies have become more efficient and are not going to hire back staff because you think they should.
How to fix the problem? What problem? America has been riding a wave of debt for 30 years. We had this coming. And we are far - far - far from over paying the piper.

1) That's not profits; it's merely what's being done with them once realized.

2) That directly contradicts your item #1. What short term investments are creating the profits, if that's a significant contributing factor? Can you name any, or even conjure some up? Do tell.

3) They are hiring, more all the time, but paying less. Go look.

 

[Freemason9]

In a nutshell...companies are not investing due to a lack of confidence, and have reason to believe that they will need rainy day funds ahead. Companies have become more efficient and are not going to hire back staff because you think they should.

Uh, NO. Companies are not hiring/investing because demand is insufficient to justify an increase in business activity. Demand is insufficient because wealth concentration has reached a dangerous tipping point--i.e., workers can no longer afford to purchase the things they produce.

This is always a downward spiral unless there are substantial changes in tax policy, unionization rates, or legal worker protections.

 

[Koios]

In a nutshell...companies are not investing due to a lack of confidence, and have reason to believe that they will need rainy day funds ahead. Companies have become more efficient and are not going to hire back staff because you think they should.

Uh, NO. Companies are not hiring/investing because demand is insufficient to justify an increase in business activity. Demand is insufficient because wealth concentration has reached a dangerous tipping point--i.e., workers can no longer afford to purchase the things they produce.

This is always a downward spiral unless there are substantial changes in tax policy, unionization rates, or legal worker protections.

Bingo! Tell him what he's won, Johnny.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Geez...typical CNNMoney article...long on fluff, short on details.
Why are profits up?
1) Low capital investment. Companies are not reinvesting, expanding and are putting off replacing equipment.
Capital spending is a HUGE expense line for companies. If you don't buy anything - guess what? You have more money left in the bank (a.k.a. profit). In other words it doesn't mean revenue is up.
2) Companies are seeking short-term gains with low investment. Again - the name of the game is to spend as little as possible, short term gains do not require the capital investment as long-term/large projects. Why are they doing this? Lack of confidence. Everyone still has in the back of their monds that things are going to get ugly again.
3) They are not hiring, they have found ways to do more - with less. When the economy is strong companies tend to get fat, managers are not getting squeezed to cut staff or look for savings. When the economy sours - obviously companies go on a diet. When the economy collapses as it did in 2008 - companies shrank tremendously. During this period - they found out that maybe they didn't need all of those people. Guess what? Companies don't hire employees if they don't need them.

In a nutshell...companies are not investing due to a lack of confidence, and have reason to believe that they will need rainy day funds ahead. Companies have become more efficient and are not going to hire back staff because you think they should.
How to fix the problem? What problem? America has been riding a wave of debt for 30 years. We had this coming. And we are far - far - far from over paying the piper.

1) That's not profits; it's merely what's being done with them once realized.

2) That directly contradicts your item #1. What short term investments are creating the profits, if that's a significant contributing factor? Can you name any, or even conjure some up? Do tell.

3) They are hiring, more all the time, but paying less. Go look.

1) What?? Where do you think capital investment comes from? Money that falls from the sky? Capital spending comes from past profits, and effects future profits.
2) Not it doesn't. Smaller, short term profit ventures do not take as much resources as large expansive long term investments...a.k.a. less capital spending.
3) They are not hiring..why do you think there are fewer people employed today than since the depression?

** Wages have been stagnant for quite sometime, at the same time senior managers and bonus structures have been blown out of orbit. No one could possibly argue with the egregious disparity between average salaries of middle income, and top earners. But, they got away with it because people treated debt as income...only now that the easy credit available has vanished are people getting a true feel for their earnings.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why then is the GDP so low?

Really?

Obama outlined his economic policies in the 2008 Presidential election campaign. Once elected, he named former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who advocated tougher financial restrictions, to head his Economic Advisory Panel. He then launched the $787 billion Economic Stimulus Package, which returned the economy to positive GDP growth by the third quarter 2009.

Comparison of Obama and Bush Economic Policies

Really.

 

[Koios]

Geez...typical CNNMoney article...long on fluff, short on details.
Why are profits up?
1) Low capital investment. Companies are not reinvesting, expanding and are putting off replacing equipment.
Capital spending is a HUGE expense line for companies. If you don't buy anything - guess what? You have more money left in the bank (a.k.a. profit). In other words it doesn't mean revenue is up.
2) Companies are seeking short-term gains with low investment. Again - the name of the game is to spend as little as possible, short term gains do not require the capital investment as long-term/large projects. Why are they doing this? Lack of confidence. Everyone still has in the back of their monds that things are going to get ugly again.
3) They are not hiring, they have found ways to do more - with less. When the economy is strong companies tend to get fat, managers are not getting squeezed to cut staff or look for savings. When the economy sours - obviously companies go on a diet. When the economy collapses as it did in 2008 - companies shrank tremendously. During this period - they found out that maybe they didn't need all of those people. Guess what? Companies don't hire employees if they don't need them.

In a nutshell...companies are not investing due to a lack of confidence, and have reason to believe that they will need rainy day funds ahead. Companies have become more efficient and are not going to hire back staff because you think they should.
How to fix the problem? What problem? America has been riding a wave of debt for 30 years. We had this coming. And we are far - far - far from over paying the piper.

1) That's not profits; it's merely what's being done with them once realized.

2) That directly contradicts your item #1. What short term investments are creating the profits, if that's a significant contributing factor? Can you name any, or even conjure some up? Do tell.

3) They are hiring, more all the time, but paying less. Go look.

1) What?? Where do you think capital investment comes from? Money that falls from the sky? Capital spending comes from past profits, and effects future profits.
2) Not it doesn't. Smaller, short term profit ventures do not take as much resources as large expansive long term investments...a.k.a. less capital spending.
3) They are not hiring..why do you think there are fewer people employed today than since the depression?

** Wages have been stagnant for quite sometime, at the same time senior managers and bonus structures have been blown out of orbit. No one could possibly argue with the egregious disparity between average salaries of middle income, and top earners. But, they got away with it because people treated debt as income...only now that the easy credit available has vanished are people getting a true feel for their earnings.

1) Profit is not investment. It's profit, from doing business.
2) That's not an answer; it's a cheesy dodge of my question
3) The more slaient question is why you think that. Is it becuase women have entered the workforce, and you're going on stats for male percentage of the Participation Rate? Try getting your facts right, then ask me a question. K?