Corporate profits hit record as wages get squeezed

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nobody opens a business without potential customers out there,

if I disgreed I"ll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with you liberal strawman between your legs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Other companies are having the same problem I am, and their workers (my customers) now have more dough, and spend it, with me,

so then if stimulus means getting more money to workers lets pass a law, $50 or $100 minimum wage. We could call it a mega stimulus!!What a shot in the arm. Why wait for the protracted union process??THey should have thought of that in the stone age-right? No more economic problems!!

 

[Toro]

Our wealth, pay, etc, derives from what others buy, unless you're purchasing goods your own company sells.

It's a consumer-based economy. None too complicated to grasp, I'd think.

Yes, we buy lots of stuff but we don't buy things in a vacuum. Our ability to buy things is a function of the accumulated and incremental innovation that the American economy has either created or imported.

The demand for things is effectively infinite. Think about life-enhancing and life-extending technologies. There is infinite demand for technologies which improve and prolong our lives. This is as true in 2012 as it was in 1012 and as it will be in 3012. The products that enhance and extend our lives are a function of innovation and our understanding of life. We can demand that we all live healthy lives until we are 120 years old, but only until we understand how to do that does it matter. The demand is infinite but only once we extend the bounds of knowledge can we effectuate that demand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Our wealth, pay, etc, derives from what others buy, unless you're purchasing goods your own company sells.

It's a consumer-based economy. None too complicated to grasp, I'd think.

Yes, we buy lots of stuff but we don't buy things in a vacuum. Our ability to buy things is a function of the accumulated and incremental innovation that the American economy has either created or imported.

The demand for things is effectively infinite. Think about life-enhancing and life-extending technologies. There is infinite demand for technologies which improve and prolong our lives. This is as true in 2012 as it was in 1012 and as it will be in 3012. The products that enhance and extend our lives are a function of innovation and our understanding of life. We can demand that we all live healthy lives until we are 120 years old, but only until we understand how to do that does it matter. The demand is infinite but only once we extend the bounds of knowledge can we effectuate that demand.

yes exactly, people were born for millions of years demanding food, clothing shelter as a natural instinct, and yet moronic liberals want to give them so much credit for instincts they were born with, that exist as free goods much like air or water? They know better than to reward air and water that way but they feel like such losers that they will say anything if it might secure more welfare for them.


That natural demand was not met for millions of years until 250 years ago capitalist Republican inventors came on the scene. Then the earth was instantly transformed by Republican capitalism.

Compare what capitalism did to liberal Marxism slowly starving 100 million to death!! In fact our liberals spied for Stalin when he was slowly starving 20 million death. Would we consider their judgement as anything but dangerous now??

 

[Toro]

That's not true. What it does is raise production relative to wealth; in short, folks now buy more with the same wealth.

This is fundamentally incorrect. Wealth is the ability to produce and consumer more. It is not constant when people can buy more with the same real income.

If you have $10 and a shirt costs $10, then you can buy one shirt. Then, along comes technology which cuts the cost of producing a shirt by 50%. If you have $10 and a shirt costs $5, you can either 1.) buy two shirts, or 2.) buy one shirt and buy something else. You now have more stuff, i.e. wealth, because technology decreased the cost of buying a shirt.

All advances in living standards are a function of this dynamic. All of it. Varying states of demand due to the business cycle is a cyclical phenomenon. Demand growth, in the long run, is a function of real income growth. And real incomes grow because we can produce more for less.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

in short, folks now buy more with the same wealth.

so this means wealth has never increased in human history? We just buy more with the same wealth? Bill Gates and Fred Flintstone have the same wealth, but Gates' just buys more!! Is there one economist on earth who would agree, just one, anywhere??????

Where does this perfectly illiterate liberal idiot come from? Isn't it typical though, he never took one single course in Econ., and yet is very sure he understands Economics!! Hitler Stalin and Mao were so sure too. In reality, they were uneducated fools; and so it never crossed their minds that they were acting on feelings rather than thoughts because they had no idea there was a difference.

 

[Koios]

Hi Ed and Toro,

I hope you slept well.

Now then, let's end the cycle of ask questions, get answers, conjure a new question from among the many minutia, repeat ad nausseum ... we could both go on, endlessly, and not get anywhere.

So let's cut to the chase, i.e., where are we at. No need to go into origins, such as creating a federal currency in lieu of bank notes from the various colonies, or progressive taxes on imports, where tariffs were scaled up on higher volume imports ... just, where are we at today. Here's it goes:

Job creators are those with jobs already, in essence. If the folks with jobs have and spend more, they create more jobs, since entrepreneurs and existing companies will get after the additional demand, and hire to meet the demand. If wages shrink, workers create fewer jobs, since demand diminishes, reducing entrepreneurship and spawning layoffs at existing companies, since fewer workers are needed when demand is less.

Additionally, with subjective value-attributions aside, neither workers, entrepreneurs nor existing companies are what's most important. It's a symbiosis, in which none can exist without the other. Workers are needed for businesses to function. Workers have nowhere to spend their pay if entrepreneurs and existing companies do not scale up to serve their increased wants, which are driven by financial ability to get what they want.

None too complicated, yet all parties to the symbiotic relationship tend to over-think their merits, and thus whine about shit that's merely a perception and nowhere near reality ...

Workers: the man is out to fuck me. Not true. Your employer needs you, but also needs to compete. What's fucking you is a shrinking prevailing wage, since you want high pay but fear if other are highly paid, your Happy Meal will cost you more. Not true, in the slightest, and in fact, the low wages you think make burgers and lattes more affordable, are in fact compressing your wages, and limiting what you can afford.

Entrepreneurs/Existing companies: these people owe me, since I created their jobs. Not true. Other workers needed stuff and you figured out a way to serve the need and make money doing it. But you're limited in your ability to make lots of money, without workers doing things you cannot do yourself. So you both rely on workers from other companies, and need people working for you to help out. They owe you work, you owe them pay, and neither of you made the other. It's a system reliant on both.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Yes, they are getting richer and richer by suppressing wages and BS like this:

Wal-Mart Nixed Paying Bangladesh Suppliers to Fight Fire - Bloomberg

American mega-corporations, for the most part, are unethical, greedy, destructive entities. I, personally am sick to death with the power that they wield over our government.

 

[Koios]

Yes, they are getting richer and richer by suppressing wages and BS like this:

Wal-Mart Nixed Paying Bangladesh Suppliers to Fight Fire - Bloomberg

American mega-corporations, for the most part, are unethical, greedy, destructive entities. I, personally am sick to death with the power that they wield over our government.

It's what businesses do. They cannot unilaterally increase pay and remain competitive. So let's not be Bangladesh. Let's make ours a society of better-paid workers, which we achieve with wage minimums, which levels the playing field for employers by offsetting their higher cost, with increased volume from workers at other companies.

 

[Koios]

in short, folks now buy more with the same wealth.

so this means wealth has never increased in human history? We just buy more with the same wealth? Bill Gates and Fred Flintstone have the same wealth, but Gates' just buys more!! Is there one economist on earth who would agree, just one, anywhere??????

Where does this perfectly illiterate liberal idiot come from? Isn't it typical though, he never took one single course in Econ., and yet is very sure he understands Economics!! Hitler Stalin and Mao were so sure too. In reality, they were uneducated fools; and so it never crossed their minds that they were acting on feelings rather than thoughts because they had no idea there was a difference.

My mother's womb, as you might recall from sex-ed.

Now then, Ed. The stupid "ewww he's a dumb Liberal" aside, let the eduction continue ...

Wealth comes from more people with more money. In the US, the main drivers are population increases and inflation, since we're doing poorly on the more money side, per capita, among our middle classes (lower and middle, albeit upper are holding steady).

The way it's serviced is via a federal currency, which ideally scales to the market (people). Too much money supply, and the currency is devalued resulting in over inflation. Too little, and the currency is over-valued creating a slowing in the economy. The Fed, being expedient, essentially, lets borrowing be their guide. The assumption is, if it's borrowed, it must therefore be needed, and scaled-to-need is prima facie ... albeit not entirely true. But what else is there? You go with what works, even if imperfect.

And at times, you (the Fed) even get stupid, and think you can create need by scaling borrowing. But it's folly, and ass-backward, creating wild, and often unpredictable consequences, especially in the currency value.

Simply the truth, Ed, even if beyond your grasp.

 

[Toronado3800]

Part of the problem is economies do work best with a well off middle class BUT the more open a system is the more wealth gets concentrated at the top. Screws up all kinds of necessity of invention/economy of scale type things.

SO, we tax the wealthy more and regulate the economy.

Is it fair? I dunno. I like being able to drive around st louis w/o the roving poor gangs of the third world in place kidnapping my wife and children for ransom. Do I like taxes? Not really. Do I even like my fellow man or care if the hospital cures his ills? Most days, Not really. But it does make my world better.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

It's what businesses do. They cannot unilaterally increase pay and remain competitive. So let's not be Bangladesh. Let's make ours a society of better-paid workers, which we achieve with wage minimums, which levels the playing field for employers by offsetting their higher cost, with increased volume from workers at other companies.

I agree. Workers have produced record profits for the companies, but the companies are not sharing the fruits of their labor. You know, this sounds really awful, but I believe that the housing bubble / collapse of the economy WAS seen by the private sector but they did nothing to stop it / nay encouraged it, knowing that the tax-payers would foot the bill to the banks (thanks to their bought legislation & repeal of regulation) and would also be thrown out of work, thus decimating wages. I actually think they did it on purpose. I really do. Remember... just looking at the derivatives shenanigans, they don't care about long-term. It's just profits NOW.

Look at Germany. Productive AND prosperous for ALL. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

[Koios]

It's what businesses do. They cannot unilaterally increase pay and remain competitive. So let's not be Bangladesh. Let's make ours a society of better-paid workers, which we achieve with wage minimums, which levels the playing field for employers by offsetting their higher cost, with increased volume from workers at other companies.

I agree. Workers have produced record profits for the companies, but the companies are not sharing the fruits of their labor. You know, this sounds really awful, but I believe that the housing bubble / collapse of the economy WAS seen by the private sector but they did nothing to stop it / nay encouraged it, knowing that the tax-payers would foot the bill (thanks to their bought legislation & repeal of regulation) and would also be thrown out of work, thus decimating wages. I actually think they did it on purpose. I really do. Remember... just looking at the derivatives shenanigans, they don't care about long-term. It's just profits NOW.

Look at Germany. Productive AND prosperous for ALL. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

It's folly to think they will. The game is more profit.

Meanwhile, workers have created the record profits, albeit, indirectly. They feared unions were getting too powerful, and being unfair. They feared that high minimum wages would make burgers more expensive. They bought into the delusion that higher taxes on company profits would put their job at risk, which is stupid since their company needs them to create the profit that is taxed.

So we compressed our own wages, and the result is highly profitable companies while most workers feel stretched beyond their limit, which raises fear even more, making us more susceptible to buying into bullshit pseudo-economics (politics) which will compress wages further and/or make us wary of solutions, muting their effectiveness: if taxes are raised, they won't be raised enough; if we accept the idea of an increased minimum wage, we won't want it to go up to a degree that's beneficial.

Thus, my confidence that we'll return to 1950s-like prosperity is about 10%, while my fear that we'll become a South American-style dual society, is about 90%. It's nothing I wish for, but were I a betting man, that's how I'd score it.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

It's folly to think they will. The game is more profit.

Meanwhile, workers have created the record profits, albeit, indirectly. They feared unions were getting too powerful, and being unfair. They feared that high minimum wages would make burgers more expensive. They bought into the delusion that higher taxes on company profits would put their job at risk, which is stupid since their company needs them to create the profit that is taxed.

So we compressed our own wages, and the result is highly profitable companies while most workers feel stretched beyond their limit, which raises fear even more, making us more susceptible to buying into bullshit pseudo-economics (politics) which will compress wages further and/or make us wary of solutions, muting their effectiveness: if taxes are raised, they won't be raised enough; if we accept the idea of an increased minimum wage, we won't want it to go up to a degree that's beneficial.

Thus, my confidence that we'll return to 1950s-like prosperity is about 10%, while my fear that we'll become a South American-style dual society, is about 90%. It's nothing I wish for, but were I a betting man, that's how I'd score it.

Exactly, just like on another thread, they are jumping up and down about another state becoming "right to work" (an oxymoron, if I've ever heard one). I can't understand if they are willfully ignorant or truly stupid. Remember, the private sector and their cheerleaders (Reagan especially) sold the American people on "trickle down" by proclaiming that EVERYONE would prosper, knowing full well that was bullshit. The right are cheering the speeding up of the US becoming a third world shit-hole. I just don't get it...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

(Reagan especially) sold the American people on "trickle down" by proclaiming that EVERYONE would prosper, knowing full well that was bullshit. .

so you want trickle down welfare instead ?? so the poor can invent new products grow the economy and employ us???

Tell us please or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

 

[Koios]

(Reagan especially) sold the American people on "trickle down" by proclaiming that EVERYONE would prosper, knowing full well that was bullshit. .

so you want trickle down welfare instead ?? so the poor can invent new products grow the economy and employ us???

Tell us please or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

How about you answer a fucking question for once? Just one, applying your ample IQ, which I'm beginning to doubt is north of 2 digits.

But go ahead, and dazzle us with your fucking brilliance, can you, dipshit?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How about you answer a fucking question for once?

what question exactly????????

 

[Koios]

How about you answer a fucking question for once?

what question exactly????????

Take a look up-thread, and pick from of any you've previously dodged by asking yet another stupid fucking question. Pick an easy one even. Don't be too hard on yourself.

I'm on fucking pins and needles.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How about you answer a fucking question for once?

what question exactly????????

Take a look up-thread, and pick from of any you've previously dodged by asking yet another stupid fucking question. Pick an easy one even. Don't be too hard on yourself.

I'm on fucking pins and needles.

what question exactly????????

 

[Koios]

what question exactly????????

Take a look up-thread, and pick from of any you've previously dodged by asking yet another stupid fucking question. Pick an easy one even. Don't be too hard on yourself.

I'm on fucking pins and needles.

what question exactly????????

See quoted text. No point in my retyping it.