50,000 captured/killed....

[JayB]

"The economic growth that has occurred has flowed to corporate profits to a degree unseen in the post-World War II period, leaving relatively little for compensation."

 

If one parses the reasoning in this quote it would seem that:

 

-Companies that are either sustaining losses or eking out marginal profits are more likely to expand production and hiring -let alone wages - than those enjoying robust profits.

 

oh, really! i can tell, you must have failed basic logic in school, which would explain the need for zealotry.

 

Yes. Had I passed it, I would no doubt see the truth behind the proposition that nothing leads to sustained increases in employment and wages like absent, marginal, or declining profits.

[j_b]

That's crap. Even Forwaker has mentioned that I generally provide links.

 

yes, you provide links to right-wing tripe but rarely to reputable sources. i have pointed out a number of times when you didn't provide links that would have been critical to substantiating your assertion.

 

Your link by the way is not substantial at all.

 

whether it's subtantial is matter of opinion; however, that it contains the analysis leading to the comments pasted in this thread is undeniable.

 

It is merely unsubstantuiated opinion.

 

anybody is thus encouraged to follow the following link and see what PP calls unsubstantiated opinion: http://www.cbpp.org/2-16-05ui.htm (also note the "full report" link on the right)

 

I generally try to provide the source data when we have been arguning economic data.

 

see above

 

You have never destoyed my argument ever.

 

as if you could really assess such thing all the while keep making a fool of yourself on this board ...

 

The best example was when you were using the incorrect inflator to indicate the loss in purchasing power. Saez himself was not supportive of your methodology. And this is from the guy holding himself out as Math.

 

i must have struck a nerve .... somewhere ...

 

Please stop the insults as I said earlier you can simply ignore the data.

 

is this the point when i am supposed to repeat what i already said?

[JayB]

"The economic growth that has occurred has flowed to corporate profits to a degree unseen in the post-World War II period, leaving relatively little for compensation."

 

If one parses the reasoning in this quote it would seem that:

 

-Companies that are either sustaining losses or eking out marginal profits are more likely to expand production and hiring -let alone wages - than those enjoying robust profits.

 

oh, really! i can tell, you must have failed basic logic in school, which would explain the need for zealotry.

 

As long as we are on the subject of unemployment...:

Push Me

 

[j_b]

Ah J_B you are amazing. Nothing is hidden all is exposed. It is all revealed in the thread many posts above. Your postings do have a certain similarity to a certain Senator J. MCarthy

 

no PP, as JIm indicated the only link you provided doesn't contain the data you cited. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, this time only.

[j_b]

"The economic growth that has occurred has flowed to corporate profits to a degree unseen in the post-World War II period, leaving relatively little for compensation."

 

If one parses the reasoning in this quote it would seem that:

 

-Companies that are either sustaining losses or eking out marginal profits are more likely to expand production and hiring -let alone wages - than those enjoying robust profits.

 

oh, really! i can tell, you must have failed basic logic in school, which would explain the need for zealotry.

 

Yes. Had I passed it, I would no doubt see the truth behind the proposition that nothing leads to sustained increases in employment and wages like absent, marginal, or declining profits.

 

your readers will be amused at your inference that ""The economic growth that has occurred has flowed to corporate profits to a degree unseen in the post-World War II period, leaving relatively little for compensation" means "nothing leads to sustained increases in employment and wages like absent, marginal, or declining profits". geez, i won't bother explaining to you the difference between the 2, i suspect it wouldn't do much good to sustain blind faith ...

[j_b]

Ah J_B you are amazing. Nothing is hidden all is exposed. It is all revealed in the thread many posts above. Your postings do have a certain similarity to a certain Senator J. MCarthy

 

no PP, as JIm indicated the only link you provided doesn't contain the data you cited. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, this time only.

 

yet, i still would like to see a link to the data you cited. your refusal to provide a link can be interpreted a number of ways; however, none are too pleasing ....

[Dechristo]

You lost him, JayB.

[ChrisT]

Speaking of the economy, more jobs are also headed to Canada. Toyota decided to locate a new plant in Ontario (instead of Alabama) because folks up there are better educated and already come with health benefits.

[j_b]

You lost him, JayB.

 

right, trying to follow JayB twisted logic is sure to get one lost .... even when it is retroactively made to be sarcastic.

[JayB]

That was real time sarcasm, amigo.

 

Quiz: Which company is most likely to increase production, hiring, and wages?

 

A) The company that's conducted its affairs in such a way that it's marginally profitable or actually losing money or,

 

B) The business that's producing record profits?

 

For a bonus, square your answer with the notion that increased profitability is a cause for alarm and dread.

[cj001f]

Quiz: Which company is most likely to increase production, hiring, and wages?

The answer is B. This answer does not specify where those new jobs are to be found, but that answer is increasingly not in the US, or necessarily anywhere. If you can get a better return on profits from investing them other than your business, why plough them back into your business.

[j_b]

That was real time sarcasm, amigo.

 

bullshit

 

Quiz: Which company is most likely to increase production, hiring, and wages?

 

A) The company that's conducted its affairs in such a way that it's marginally profitable or actually losing money or,

 

B) The business that's producing record profits?

 

For a bonus, square your answer with the notion that increased profitability is a cause for alarm and dread.

 

HP Profits Jump 34%

 

HP to slash approximately 15,000 jobs

 

saying that corps pocketed a greater share of revenues since WW2 instead of creating jobs has nothing to do with whether failing corps create jobs. you want us to believe you are being sarcastic yet you keep making the same illogical statements!

 

 

YO, PP! TICK-TOCK-TICK-TOCK

[Jim]

This appears to be the general rule these days rather than the exception. High profits are put into salaries and stock options for very few at the top and to keep shareholders satisfied rather than sharing profits with the workers through higher salaries. Look at Costco as an exception: they pay a decent wage and health care benefits and are lambasted by Wall Street analysts as being too generous. It's a company that appears to care about their employees and shares the profits. Very rare these days.

 

Profits going up, average wages continuing to go down. Nothing encouraging about that.

[archenemy]

This appears to be the general rule these days rather than the exception. High profits are put into salaries and stock options for very few at the top and to keep shareholders satisfied rather than sharing profits with the workers through higher salaries. Look at Costco as an exception: they pay a decent wage and health care benefits and are lambasted by Wall Street analysts as being too generous. It's a company that appears to care about their employees and shares the profits. Very rare these days.

 

Profits going up, average wages continuing to go down. Nothing encouraging about that.

 

Bingo. You are dead-on with this.

[JayB]

"The economic growth that has occurred has flowed to corporate profits to a degree unseen in the post-World War II period, leaving relatively little for compensation."

 

Interesting news item, but it's a blip, not a long-term, world-wide trend. It certainly does nothing to alter the fact that over the long term, a profitable company is much more likely to increase wages and payroll than one that is either making no money or actively losing money.

 

You can even conduct an experiment in your own home! Just quit doing whatever it is that generates money for your household, and engage in producing something - your choice one - that absolutely no one is especially interested in buying, and costs more to produce than you can sell it for. Hire several people to help you. Continue doing so until you have exhausted all of your assets. Then, once all of your assets are gone, your debt vastly exceeds your ability to service it, no one is willing to lend you any more money, witness the effect on your payrolls. My hunch is that they will not increase.

 

Let me know how it goes.

[Jim]

Dripping with sarcasm but no useful information and a metaphorical model with no connection to the discussion. Excellent.

 

By your logic we should all be happy when all companies are run like Walmart. Low wages, no health care, but decent profits. This is the pervailing job growth under the Bushies (though it goes back further - they've just perfected it.)

[prole]

"By your logic we should all be happy when all companies are run like Walmart. Low wages, no health care, but decent profits. This is the pervailing job growth under the Bushies (though it goes back further - they've just perfected it.)"

 

Not just the Bushies, this is the prevailing consensus among neoclassical economists as a whole!

[JayB]

I wouldn't expect everyone to be happy to work at Walmart - but I suspect that those folks whose present set of skills or circumstances led them to believe that a job at Walmart is better than no employment at all are, at the very least, convinced that it was the best option they had at the time. While they are typically very nice people, I am not convinced that the average Walmart greeter had to settle for a spot there as a result of just missing the cut for optical-engineering gig at Cisco.

 

For any given enterprise there's such a thing as an optimal payroll, and if you downsize staff beyond that point you typically end up downsizing profits as well. Some layoffs keep companies in business that otherwise wouldn't be, others are short term gambits that end up hurting the business and...reduce profits. If this happens enough, at some point the shareholders, analysts, lenders, credit-rating agencies, and boards of directors start to take notice. It's a shame when bad management decisions affect people who didn't make them - but I am not aware of any system out there that could address this without resulting in a higher structural unemployment level than we already have. See Germany and France for Exhibits A and B.

 

Anyhow, to reiterate, the basic point was that companies that are either making no money or are losing it are far less likely to increase wages or hiring than those which are profitable. It's amazing that anyone has actually attempted to dispute this point, but -- well, it's actually not amazing on this board but it is kind of sad.

 

Ditto for the aversion to profitability, which simply means that the value of the goods or services that a given concern produces exceed the costs of the things required to make them. Profits, the excess of outputs over inputs, thereby represent the only means by which humanity can increase the resources available to lift its material standards of well-being. A "unprofitable" subsistence farmer who consumes more calories than he produces year after year will surely starve to death, and like it or not, any society without profit-growth that at least keeps up with population growth will eventually experience wide-ranging hardships that are far more difficult to characterize in a single example, but no less real.

 

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

This appears to be the general rule these days rather than the exception. High profits are put into salaries and stock options for very few at the top and to keep shareholders satisfied rather than sharing profits with the workers through higher salaries. Look at Costco as an exception: they pay a decent wage and health care benefits and are lambasted by Wall Street analysts as being too generous. It's a company that appears to care about their employees and shares the profits. Very rare these days.

 

Profits going up, average wages continuing to go down. Nothing encouraging about that.

 

I would only note that any profits would be in excess of salaries and stock option expenses. (leaving aside any valuation questions)

[j_b]

"The economic growth that has occurred has flowed to corporate profits to a degree unseen in the post-World War II period, leaving relatively little for compensation."

 

Interesting news item, but it's a blip, not a long-term, world-wide trend.

 

 

you never tire of your bullshit, do you? most major corps have now gotten rid of pension plans for new employees so it's certainly not just a blip or short term trend. the trend of paying less for labor is definitely worldwide and long term if they can enforce it.

 

You can even conduct an experiment in your own home! Just quit doing whatever it is that generates money for your household, and engage in producing something - your choice one - that absolutely no one is especially interested in buying, and costs more to produce than you can sell it for. Hire several people to help you. Continue doing so until you have exhausted all of your assets. Then, once all of your assets are gone, your debt vastly exceeds your ability to service it, no one is willing to lend you any more money, witness the effect on your payrolls. My hunch is that they will not increase.

 

Let me know how it goes.

 

classic strawman argument! nobody contested the need for profits, nor said that failing corps would provide more jobs, etc ...

 

the issue is that already profitable corps are using globalization to force massive concessions from their employees because it results into increased profits.

[Jim]

It would be interesting to see these three items charted over the last 50 years: Corporate profits, average hourly wage, and percentage of total US taxes paid by corporations vs individuals. From the information I've read it would be easy to guess the trends.

[j_b]

so PP, since you are back, how about that link?

[Peter_Puget]

Jim -Corporations don't pay taxes people do!

 

As far as the link I said where you could get the data you'll have to do the calcs yourself beside didnt you say youd trust me this once?

[Jim]

Jim -Corporations don't pay taxes people do!

 

As far as the link I said where you could get the data you'll have to do the calcs yourself beside didnt you say youd trust me this once?

 

That's the truth - but they used to pick up they're share - no more.

 

And someone else said that - I actually never trust you.

[JayB]

"Profitable corps are using globalization to force massive concessions from their employees."

 

Deepak and Ming-Li don't seem to mind. I agree that Dieter and Laurent may have to come back from the Cote D'Azur a couple of weeks early from now on, but I can live with that.