Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low

hvactec

VIP Member
Jan 17, 2010
1,316
106
83
New Jersey
in case you need more confirmation that the US economy is out of balance, here are three charts for you.

1) Corporate profit margins just hit an all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before. (And some people are still saying that companies are suffering from "too much regulation" and "too many taxes." Maybe little companies are, but big ones certainly aren't).

corporate-profits-as-percent-of-gdp.png


2) Fewer Americans are working than at any time in the past three decades. One reason corporations are so profitable is that they don't employ as many Americans as they used to.

3) Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low. This is both cause and effect. One reason companies are so profitable is that they're paying employees less than they ever have as a share of GDP. And that, in turn, is one reason the economy is so weak: Those "wages" are other companies' revenue.

read more, 2nd & 3rd chart Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low - Business Insider
 
Last edited:
The only facts or figures which those who support the GOP will accept as relevant/important are those which at the moment confirm their preconceived opinions.

Remember their hysteria as gas prices rose? Silence as they are now dropping.
 
Granny wantin' to know if the gubmint can afford to give alla dat money to big business - how come she still ain't got her 2nd stimulus check?...
:eusa_eh:
'Corporate Welfare' Costs Taxpayers Almost $100 Billion in FY 2012, Cato Report Finds
August 3, 2012 – Subsidies to businesses in the federal budget in Fiscal Year 2012 cost taxpayers almost $100 billion, according to a new report from the Cato Institute.
“That includes direct and indirect subsidies to small businesses, large corporations, and industry organizations,” the libertarian think-tank said in its latest policy analysis. The subsidies are handed out from programs in many federal departments, including the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development, the report noted. At the same time, the federal government will run its fourth consecutive deficit in excess of $1 trillion this year. “If the nation is to avert a debt crisis, federal policymakers need to dramatically cut spending,” said the report, which was written by Cato’s budget analyst on federal and state budget issues Tad DeHaven. “Whole programs need to be terminated, and handouts to businesses are a good place to start.”

According to Cato, the most spending on “corporate welfare” programs in the federal budget -- more than $25 billion -- went to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A majority of the department’s farm subsidies go to the largest farms, the report noted. The Department of Energy is responsible for nearly $18 billion in corporate welfare in FY 2012. Other programs to make the list: the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s Community Development Block Grant program ($285 million); the Commerce Department’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program ($2.2 billion); attempts by Transportation Department policymakers to develop a high-speed rail network ($1.2 billion) and the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management ($1.4 billion) land-use programs.

The report contains numerous examples of what it calls corporate welfare plans gone awry – with the most familiar being that of the now-bankrupt solar energy company, Solyndra. In 2009, the Energy Department awarded Solyndra a $535 million loan guarantee. “A little more than a year after Obama’s visit, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy protection,” the report noted. The report explains that aside from the issue of spending, business subsidies distort economic activity by aiding some businesses at the expense of others. DeHaven said the subsidies also undermine the market by diverting resources from market-preferred businesses to those preferred by policymakers and allow policymakers to “bet” on firms with shaky finances and questionable business models, fostering a “corrupt relationship between big business and government.”

The Cato analysis concludes by saying that rising spending and huge deficits are pushing the nation toward an economic crisis – and cutting corporate welfare programs is a good start. “Despite [the] hurdles to reform, Congress is entirely capable of cutting spending and will have to do so in coming years to avoid economic calamity,” DeHaven wrote. “Corporate welfare doesn't aid economic growth and it is an affront to America's constitutional principles of limited government and equality under the law. Policymakers should therefore scour the budget for business subsidies to eliminate,” the report said.

Source
 
Granny wantin' to know if the gubmint can afford to give alla dat money to big business - how come she still ain't got her 2nd stimulus check?...
:eusa_eh:
'Corporate Welfare' Costs Taxpayers Almost $100 Billion in FY 2012, Cato Report Finds
August 3, 2012 – Subsidies to businesses in the federal budget in Fiscal Year 2012 cost taxpayers almost $100 billion, according to a new report from the Cato Institute.
“That includes direct and indirect subsidies to small businesses, large corporations, and industry organizations,” the libertarian think-tank said in its latest policy analysis. The subsidies are handed out from programs in many federal departments, including the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development, the report noted. At the same time, the federal government will run its fourth consecutive deficit in excess of $1 trillion this year. “If the nation is to avert a debt crisis, federal policymakers need to dramatically cut spending,” said the report, which was written by Cato’s budget analyst on federal and state budget issues Tad DeHaven. “Whole programs need to be terminated, and handouts to businesses are a good place to start.”

According to Cato, the most spending on “corporate welfare” programs in the federal budget -- more than $25 billion -- went to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A majority of the department’s farm subsidies go to the largest farms, the report noted. The Department of Energy is responsible for nearly $18 billion in corporate welfare in FY 2012. Other programs to make the list: the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s Community Development Block Grant program ($285 million); the Commerce Department’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program ($2.2 billion); attempts by Transportation Department policymakers to develop a high-speed rail network ($1.2 billion) and the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management ($1.4 billion) land-use programs.

The report contains numerous examples of what it calls corporate welfare plans gone awry – with the most familiar being that of the now-bankrupt solar energy company, Solyndra. In 2009, the Energy Department awarded Solyndra a $535 million loan guarantee. “A little more than a year after Obama’s visit, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy protection,” the report noted. The report explains that aside from the issue of spending, business subsidies distort economic activity by aiding some businesses at the expense of others. DeHaven said the subsidies also undermine the market by diverting resources from market-preferred businesses to those preferred by policymakers and allow policymakers to “bet” on firms with shaky finances and questionable business models, fostering a “corrupt relationship between big business and government.”

The Cato analysis concludes by saying that rising spending and huge deficits are pushing the nation toward an economic crisis – and cutting corporate welfare programs is a good start. “Despite [the] hurdles to reform, Congress is entirely capable of cutting spending and will have to do so in coming years to avoid economic calamity,” DeHaven wrote. “Corporate welfare doesn't aid economic growth and it is an affront to America's constitutional principles of limited government and equality under the law. Policymakers should therefore scour the budget for business subsidies to eliminate,” the report said.

Source

It's sort of typical for the CATO institution to correctly identify some problems..but come to an entirely wrong conclusion.

It would have better served the American people had both TARP and Stimulus come with some conditions.

Like hiring Americans and sharing profits more equitably across the board.
 
Granny wantin' to know if the gubmint can afford to give alla dat money to big business - how come she still ain't got her 2nd stimulus check?...
:eusa_eh:
'Corporate Welfare' Costs Taxpayers Almost $100 Billion in FY 2012, Cato Report Finds
August 3, 2012 – Subsidies to businesses in the federal budget in Fiscal Year 2012 cost taxpayers almost $100 billion, according to a new report from the Cato Institute.
“That includes direct and indirect subsidies to small businesses, large corporations, and industry organizations,” the libertarian think-tank said in its latest policy analysis. The subsidies are handed out from programs in many federal departments, including the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development, the report noted. At the same time, the federal government will run its fourth consecutive deficit in excess of $1 trillion this year. “If the nation is to avert a debt crisis, federal policymakers need to dramatically cut spending,” said the report, which was written by Cato’s budget analyst on federal and state budget issues Tad DeHaven. “Whole programs need to be terminated, and handouts to businesses are a good place to start.”

According to Cato, the most spending on “corporate welfare” programs in the federal budget -- more than $25 billion -- went to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A majority of the department’s farm subsidies go to the largest farms, the report noted. The Department of Energy is responsible for nearly $18 billion in corporate welfare in FY 2012. Other programs to make the list: the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s Community Development Block Grant program ($285 million); the Commerce Department’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program ($2.2 billion); attempts by Transportation Department policymakers to develop a high-speed rail network ($1.2 billion) and the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management ($1.4 billion) land-use programs.

The report contains numerous examples of what it calls corporate welfare plans gone awry – with the most familiar being that of the now-bankrupt solar energy company, Solyndra. In 2009, the Energy Department awarded Solyndra a $535 million loan guarantee. “A little more than a year after Obama’s visit, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy protection,” the report noted. The report explains that aside from the issue of spending, business subsidies distort economic activity by aiding some businesses at the expense of others. DeHaven said the subsidies also undermine the market by diverting resources from market-preferred businesses to those preferred by policymakers and allow policymakers to “bet” on firms with shaky finances and questionable business models, fostering a “corrupt relationship between big business and government.”

The Cato analysis concludes by saying that rising spending and huge deficits are pushing the nation toward an economic crisis – and cutting corporate welfare programs is a good start. “Despite [the] hurdles to reform, Congress is entirely capable of cutting spending and will have to do so in coming years to avoid economic calamity,” DeHaven wrote. “Corporate welfare doesn't aid economic growth and it is an affront to America's constitutional principles of limited government and equality under the law. Policymakers should therefore scour the budget for business subsidies to eliminate,” the report said.

Source

It's sort of typical for the CATO institution to correctly identify some problems..but come to an entirely wrong conclusion.

It would have better served the American people had both TARP and Stimulus come with some conditions.

Like hiring Americans and sharing profits more equitably across the board.


Like hiring Americans and sharing profits more equitably across the board.
__________________
It really is that simple.

I don't understand the concept of sharing profits.
The company hires someone to work.The company benefits from that labor
in return they pay a salary and in most cases offer some form of Health Care package.
This is the compensation for working for the company.

Now the company is obligated to pass along their profits to the workers.
They have been compensated already. :confused:
 
in case you need more confirmation that the US economy is out of balance, here are three charts for you.

1) Corporate profit margins just hit an all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before. (And some people are still saying that companies are suffering from "too much regulation" and "too many taxes." Maybe little companies are, but big ones certainly aren't).

corporate-profits-as-percent-of-gdp.png


2) Fewer Americans are working than at any time in the past three decades. One reason corporations are so profitable is that they don't employ as many Americans as they used to.

3) Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low. This is both cause and effect. One reason companies are so profitable is that they're paying employees less than they ever have as a share of GDP. And that, in turn, is one reason the economy is so weak: Those "wages" are other companies' revenue.

read more, 2nd & 3rd chart Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low - Business Insider

Republicans say that's how it's supposed to be. They are very self satisfied.
 
It's the same thing that happened during the New Deal, a Marxist Ideologue President terrified US businesses into sitting still. That's what happening today: Obama's radical idea are making businesses just stockpile cash
 
It's the same thing that happened during the New Deal, a Marxist Ideologue President terrified US businesses into sitting still. That's what happening today: Obama's radical idea are making businesses just stockpile cash

Sometimes you say something only mildly stupid, but not this time.

Corporations have said, "Without demand, no jobs". You know, Demand as in "Supply and Demand"?

Companies don't just make jobs. It's one of those really stupid Republican policies like "trickle down" and "cut taxes on the rich and they will create jobs". These are fantasy that doesn't work.
 
Made in America becoming popular again...
:cool:
‘Made in US’ more popular with firms as wages decline
Mon, Sep 24, 2012 - Watch out China and Canada, “Made in America” has an attractive ring to it these days.
Four years after the height of the financial crisis, marked by a drastic drop in salaries, the US is again finding favor among manufacturers. Out on the campaign trail ahead of the Nov. 6 elections, US President Barack Obama has picked up on the point to convince voters that the US economy is back on track. “After years of undercutting the competition, now it’s getting more expensive to do business in places like China,” he said in May, adding that both wages and shipping costs were up in the single-party state known for attracting foreign firms that often subsequently cut jobs back home. “American workers are getting more and more efficient. Companies located here are becoming more and more competitive. So for a lot of businesses, it’s now starting to make sense to bring jobs back home,” Obama said.

According to a Boston Consulting Group survey, and referenced by Obama, 48 percent of executives at companies with US$10 billion or more in revenues said they plan to bring back production to the US from China — or are considering it. Officials at 106 firms from a range of industries responded to the poll, released in April. “Companies are realizing that the economics of manufacturing are swinging in favor of the US, for goods to be sold both at home and to major export markets,” Harold Sirkin, a BCG senior partner, said. “This trend is likely to accelerate starting around 2015.” With weeks to go before balloting begins, both the president and his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, have taken aim at China, with Obama seeking WTO action against Chinese auto subsidies.

Romney has vowed a much tougher line on China if he wins, including declaring that Beijing is manipulating its currency to make its exports artificially cheaper. Obama has renewed his charge that Romney, as a multimillionaire businessman at his private equity firm Bain Capital, was an early pioneer in advising US corporations to outsource blue-collar jobs to low wage economies overseas. Politics aside, the tendency to relocate is a long process centered on growth prospects in the US and “a lot of manufacturers have made a strong point of being closer to their customers,” Adam Fleck, an economist at Morningstar, said. Not to be forgotten is the prospect of cheap and abundant energy thanks to a shale gas boom in the US.

Among those who have made the move are construction equipment maker Terex and Agco, a manufacturer of agricultural machines, according to Fleck. Even giants such as General Electric (GE) and Caterpillar, while they may not have reduced their China production, are more likely now than a few years ago to expand their operations stateside. “Since 2009, GE has announced plans to create more than 15,500 American jobs and is building 15 new factories in the US,” company spokesman Sebastien Duchamp said. He said that the firm had added 10,000 jobs last year alone. Salary cuts in a number of sectors aimed at preserving jobs, especially in the car industry, have also prompted large US businesses to repatriate production from Canada to south of the border.

?Made in US? more popular with firms as wages decline - Taipei Times
 

Forum List

Back
Top