Companies stash cash, but won't hire

[Wild Cobra]

BUT

We are not entirely immune to the benefits those corporations provide, even poor people who might not directly own stock.

Very true.

People like Miami want to in essence, steal my retirement savings.

[boutons_deux]

"Always remember that publicly traded companies are primarily owned, often literally, by widows and orphans."

bull . link?

"benefits those corporations provide"

Whatever they are, they don't exempt them from vilification, doesn't give them license to pollute up water, air, land, and to steal from and defraud citizens, to disenfranchise citizens' votes, not to protect their employees from injury and death. All of corporate crimes are committed in pursuing profits, esp for the greedy, wealthy mgmt.

Corporations simply won't behave in any interests except that of profits.

[Wild Cobra]

Corporations simply won't behave in any interests except that of profits.

You have such a bigoted narrow minded view. Corporations are responsible to their stock holders. However, that doesn't mean they all operate as you think. many corporations do good things for their communities, charities, etc. and still return a profit to their shareholders.

[MiamiHeat]

Very true.

People like Miami want to in essence, steal my retirement savings.

no, i want to keep our current system where anyone can be rich and successful

but people would like to add many regulations and obligations to corporations that want to operate in this country.

the greed, "profit above all" mindset has to go in times of economic crisis or when the general population has a pressing need.

[MiamiHeat]

You have such a bigoted narrow minded view. Corporations are responsible to their stock holders. However, that doesn't mean they all operate as you think. many corporations do good things for their communities, charities, etc. and still return a profit to their shareholders.

All of those things are tax-write offs.

and the world will be burning in before it is saved by the goodwill of greedy businessmen.

Henry Ford himself, started out as a great philanthropist and angel to the workers of america. Eventually though, he forgot where he came from. He changed into the same greedy pigs we have today.

When workers lobbied for Unions, guess what Ford did? Hired gun wielding goons to ASSAULT and INTIMIDATE anyone who even MENTIONED unions in his factories.

Look man, Wild Cobra. You are a soulless, immoral individual if you care more about your own self than you do about others.

[boutons_deux]

You have such a bigoted narrow minded view. Corporations are responsible to their stock holders. However, that doesn't mean they all operate as you think. many corporations do good things for their communities, charities, etc. and still return a profit to their shareholders.

you have such ivory tower ideological bull bias for ins utions and against individuals.

[Stringer_Bell]

the greed, "profit above all" mindset has to go in times of economic crisis or when the general population has a pressing need.

Prisoner's dilemma, yo. Profit above all is the truth, especially in a crisis. You gotta store your nuts for the winter.

[Wild Cobra]

Look man, Wild Cobra. You are a soulless, immoral individual if you care more about your own self than you do about others.

No. The soulless immoral people are those like you, who want to do things with "other people's money."

[MiamiHeat]

No. The soulless immoral people are those like you, who want to do things with "other people's money."

Yes, you are a soulless immoral individual who cares more for himself than you do about other people and their suffering. This is a great indicator that you have never seen the truth about the world. You have lived a sheltered life, it looks like. Thank your parents for that, but they did you a disservice by not teaching you about it, in my opinion.

About your savings, I'm talking about regulating corporate activities for the benefit of the population

not taking anything away from citizens.

[LnGrrrR]

Gotta say, I can't fault corporations too much. If they're making MORE profit now by streamlining their processes... well, that's good on them. Sucks for the American worker, of course.

[Drachen]

Gotta say, I can't fault corporations too much. If they're making MORE profit now by streamlining their processes... well, that's good on them. Sucks for the American worker, of course.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that simply the act of borrowing the money will eventually lead to profit. If you can borrow a ton of money which isn't due for 10years at 1% and the economy starts rebounding, this may cause the inflation rate to go back to 3-4% which means effectively you are borrowing at a negative interest rate. Additionally, if you are using this money to refinance higher debt, then the positives are far greater. I believe that this will essentialy create a situation of greatly increased free cash flows which will have to either be spent on new projects, employment, etc. or sent to investors in the form of dividends, share buybacks, etc. Either way, the money gets into the hands of people.

If we are going to go about giving money away, I personally would prefer the more direct route than routing through a corporation due to the differing time horizons (it seems less efficient to go through a corporation), but I guess discounting the time period, it is about the same eventual effect.

[CosmicCowboy]

"Always remember that publicly traded companies are primarily owned, often literally, by widows and orphans."

bull . link?

"benefits those corporations provide"

Whatever they are, they don't exempt them from vilification, doesn't give them license to pollute up water, air, land, and to steal from and defraud citizens, to disenfranchise citizens' votes, not to protect their employees from injury and death. All of corporate crimes are committed in pursuing profits, esp for the greedy, wealthy mgmt.

Corporations simply won't behave in any interests except that of profits.

Seriously. Boutons...how old are you and what do you do for a living?

[boutons_deux]

Can't fault corps for making profits, but in many cases, it's profits at the expense of air, water, land, employee health, safety, and against the health of the country.

Citizens have no right to a job, and corps have no obligation to provide jobs.

The question is philosophical. Should a country organize itself in the interests of all its citizens, or let the powerful, super-wealthy orgs and individuals run the country into the ground?

America is ed, the mythic American Dream has evaporated for lower 95%, and I can't see any possibility of un ing it, because the top 5% have all the power that matters.

This isn't just a somewhat-deeper, longer economic trough. It's a sea change, and the sailing will be very poor for millions.

There's amazing agreement here about how wealth should be distributed, and amazing ignorance about how it IS distributed.



http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...who-has-money/

[Wild Cobra]

Can't fault corps for making profits, but in many cases, it's profits at the expense of air, water, land, employee health, safety, and against the health of the country.

Citizens have no right to a job, and corps have no obligation to provide jobs.

The question is philosophical. Should a country organize itself in the interests of all its citizens, or let the powerful, super-wealthy orgs and individuals run the country into the ground?

America is ed, the mythic American Dream has evaporated for lower 95%, and I can't see any possibility of un ing it, because the top 5% have all the power that matters.

This isn't just a somewhat-deeper, longer economic trough. It's a sea change, and the sailing will be very poor for millions.

There's amazing agreement here about how wealth should be distributed, and amazing ignorance about how it IS distributed.



http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...who-has-money/

This all sounds good, but really. Just how would you implement such a thing. To what degree of authoritarianism would you use to destroy liberties for the pursuit of happiness?

Please...

What is your game-plan if you were King.

[LnGrrrR]

This all sounds good, but really. Just how would you implement such a thing. To what degree of authoritarianism would you use to destroy liberties for the pursuit of happiness?

Please...

What is your game-plan if you were King.

That's the big question though. How could we more evenly stratify our economy, while maintaining the greatest amount of liberty? If I knew that, I'd be a millionaire.

[Wild Cobra]

That's the big question though. How could we more evenly stratify our economy, while maintaining the greatest amount of liberty? If I knew that, I'd be a millionaire.

We all would.

I don't have the answers to fix everything. Very few actually. I do know that we are taxing ourselves out of prosperity. That much I see as certainty.

[Nbadan]

The whole taxing 'ourselves out of prosperity' issue is over-blown....if your paying over 30% in federal taxes, you simply need a new accountant and more tax exemptions...I don't know where the perfect level of wealth redistribution is, there are economists who study this all day, but the GOP tax cuts have led to a wealth redistribution to the top which has failed to create jobs, and led to decreased consumer demand....they should be repealed...

[TDMVPDPOY]

barrow at these rates while offloading it into a high interest savings account...companys come out on top again...

[MiamiHeat]

I believe that this will essentialy create a situation of greatly increased free cash flows which will have to either be spent on new projects, employment, etc. or sent to investors in the form of dividends, share buybacks, etc. Either way, the money gets into the hands of people.

....or the multinational corporations will use their funding to expand and develop foreign interests in China, India, etc.

[boutons_deux]

I do know that we are taxing ourselves out of prosperity. That much I see as certainty.

If Yoni or WC "knows" it, then it mus be wrong.

US has one of the lowest tax burdens of any industrial country, a key reason wealth has been redistributed to the top for the last 35 years.

[boutons_deux]

US Corps are firing in USA, hiring in Asia

"It's all the fault of the lib s and employees"
-- WC

U.S. jobs continue to flow overseas


Though some companies have actually moved operations back to American shores recently, the lure of cheaper labor in China, India and other foreign countries is more irresistible than ever.

October 6, 2010

Though some American firms are bringing overseas work back home, evidence is growing that companies are moving more jobs than ever to China and other countries — a trend that could exacerbate efforts to bring down the nation's stubbornly high unemployment rate.

One sign of increased offshoring is the rising number of applications for federal Trade Adjustment Assistance, which usually goes to factory workers who lost their jobs because their work was sent overseas or was undercut by cheaper imports.

For the six months that ended Sept. 30, workers at about 1,200 offices and plants nationwide were approved for federal Trade Adjustment Assistance. That's about 20% more approvals than in the same six-month period last year, according to the U.S. Labor Department.

In addition, the most recent Commerce Department data show that employment at the foreign subsidiaries and affiliates of U.S. multinational firms grew by 729,000 in two years, to 11.9 million in 2008 from 2006. Over that same period, domestic employment by such firms slipped by 500,000 jobs, to 21.1 million.

"The paradigm has shifted," said John Challenger, chief executive of outplacement and consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. "Most companies see the next phase or era of growth as global.… That'll still create jobs here, just not on the scale when they were focusing on growth in the U.S."

That trend could further stall the recovery, which many economists believe will continue to lack vigor while unemployment remains at current levels — 9.6% nationally and 12.4% in California. The government is expected to report Friday that the economy added few if any jobs in September.

Among the companies that have recently sent jobs overseas are Hewlett-Packard Co. in Palo Alto, CKE Restaurants Inc. in Irvine and Hilton Worldwide, the McLean, Va., hotelier that maintained a reservations center in Hemet employing 295 people.

Hilton's filing and comments indicated it was moving the center to the Philippines to save money. "Across all aspects of its business, Hilton Worldwide is committed to maximizing operating efficiencies while maintaining service levels," Hilton said in a brief statement.

Also moving to the increasingly popular Philippines this year were JPMorgan Chase's telephone banking operations, from Troy, Mich., and CKE is moving its technology assistance desk there.

HP is laying off an undisclosed number of human resources employees in California and nine other states, transferring their functions to Panama.

HP, CKE and Hilton would not provide details of the job moves, which were disclosed in recent government filings.

The offshoring of American production and jobs has been going on for more than two decades, with service firms more recently pushing the trend. Experts say more offshoring could help U.S. firms better compete in the global economy, thus boosting sales and profits that will sustain them and generate new business.

Eventually, stronger, expanding firms could create more opportunities for American workers, though that's not a sure thing. More and more, for example, upscale engineering and development for products manufactured in China are being done in China — not the U.S. — near the centers of production.

"When companies succeed abroad, people at home succeed," said Mihir Desai, a finance professor at Harvard Business School.

(You Lie)

Challenger agrees with that logic, but he also said that some companies continue to engage in "pure labor arbitrage," moving overseas simply for cost savings. That kind of rationale may do little for building long-term value in the company or its products and services.

Many others, he said, don't see much choice but to do more overseas given the prospects of a hobbled American economy.

( so the financial sector s Americans, then the industrial sector s them again. America The Beautiful )

But whatever happens long term, current high levels of offshoring will add to the nation's employment hardships for workers with college training as well as for lower-skilled workers.

PwC, the big accounting firm formerly known as PricewaterhouseCoopers, last spring and summer laid off about 125 support staff members in client services, transferring the work to Uruguay. Those positions were considered mid-level.

Dennis Donovan, a veteran corporate-relocation consultant, said many legal and engineering firms already have outsourced routine work overseas, and he sees a bigger wave of offshoring by the burgeoning healthcare industry. At the same time, he sees fewer companies moving overseas strictly on the basis of cost.

"Now it's R&D centers and also for market penetration," said Donovan, a principal at Wadley-Donovan-Gutshaw Consulting in New Jersey.

He said some American firms were beginning to move call centers and other back-office operations — or "in-sourcing" — back to the U.S. because costs in China, India and other top outsourcing countries had risen sharply and quality hasn't been consistent.

One example is Allstate Insurance Co., which in June opened a $12-million call center in San Antonio, where the company expects to have 600 employees by year's end. Customer sales and service reps earn a base salary of $27,000.

In picking Texas, the Northbrook, Ill., firm passed up sites in India and the Philippines, said Thomas Wilson, Allstate's chairman.

"I'm a believer in offshoring," Wilson said in an interview, noting that his overseas offices have helped Allstate operate around the clock and compete with rivals that also have gone abroad for services.

But even though labor will cost more in San Antonio than in India, Wilson hopes for a bit of a public relations boost from the move.

In a customer survey, he said, "81% of the people said they would think better of the company even if it costs more."

Even so, Wilson doesn't see his company's overall domestic employment changing much anytime soon. And although there are some examples of in-sourcing, their numbers don't add up to a lot compared with the jobs being lost.

President Obama has complained that the U.S. tax system encourages companies to invest and hire abroad, but a bill that would have ended certain tax credits and deferrals to companies expanding or moving overseas was voted down in the Senate last week.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...59,print.story

[RandomGuy]

This all sounds good, but really. Just how would you implement such a thing. To what degree of authoritarianism would you use to destroy liberties for the pursuit of happiness?

Please...

What is your game-plan if you were King.

I would scrap most of the tax code, and all the gimmies. Flat income tax with exemptions on the first 50,000 of individual income. Leave the % at what it is about now, 22 to 28% (wieghted average tax burden) if memory serves.

This means I would tax dividends and capital gains at the same rate as earned income.

I would ins ute a government run single payor health insurance system and require everybody to pay into it.

I would pay for just about anything that your primary care physician thinks is necessary, no questions asked, no justification needed. Ins ute safe-gaurds against abuse of this, like doctors who simply "prescribe" non-necessary plastic surgery.

I would force everybody to plan for end of life care in order to receive any benefits out of this system at all.

I would pay the full college tuition/books costs of anybody who wants to be a primary care physician.

I would scrap the "fee for service" model of health care reimbursement, and replace it with a flat capitated rate, or somethign similar. It is still unclear how one would replace the fee for service model, but it is clear that it is a major driver of cost.

BAM.

[Wild Cobra]

I would scrap most of the tax code, and all the gimmies. Flat income tax with exemptions on the first 50,000 of individual income. Leave the % at what it is about now, 22 to 28% (wieghted average tax burden) if memory serves.

I would prefer a consumption tax that is tax free on necessities, but I can go along with a flat tax with only a personal exemption. Still, I would lower that to the poverty rate. Anyone above that figure should pay taxes in my view. I would also lower the tax rate. 22% to 28% is a high number once you remove everything you can exempt. Back in the early 90's, it was calculated that a 17% tax rate with the first $30k being exempt would cover the government needs. That $30k would now be around your $50k, maybe higher. I personally thing just under 20% would be good. I would start with the 18.3% average revenue/GNP figures.

This means I would tax dividends and capital gains at the same rate as earned income.

I can deal with that, but since dividends are effective taxed before distributed too, are you going to eliminate taxes on businesses?

I would ins ute a government run single payor health insurance system and require everybody to pay into it.

If you were to do such a thing, it either needs to be paid for from that tax system, or a separate tax deduction. I am against this idea and it ends up making it more expensive, but I'll play along for now.

I would pay for just about anything that your primary care physician thinks is necessary, no questions asked, no justification needed. Ins ute safe-gaurds against abuse of this, like doctors who simply "prescribe" non-necessary plastic surgery.

Still, this opens up a can of worms. College used to be affordable for middleclass families until the government formed the department of education.

I would force everybody to plan for end of life care in order to receive any benefits out of this system at all.

That could be a wide range of things. Planning and paying are two different things. Will this include assisted suicide?

I would pay the full college tuition/books costs of anybody who wants to be a primary care physician.

And if they don't complete the program?

Hey... Ever watch the pilot for Norther Exposure?

I would scrap the "fee for service" model of health care reimbursement, and replace it with a flat capitated rate, or somethign similar. It is still unclear how one would replace the fee for service model, but it is clear that it is a major driver of cost.

BAM.

We disagree most I think on health care. that's a big topic that I will stop there. Needs to be a different thread to continue with that I think.

You didn't address corporate taxes. I personally think corporations should be tax free. But it's also why I prefer a consumption based tax system. I really think it would make America more prosperous if we taxed consumption rather than production. I would like to bring manufacturing jobs back.

[Drachen]

I would prefer a consumption tax that is tax free on necessities, but I can go along with a flat tax with only a personal exemption. Still, I would lower that to the poverty rate. Anyone above that figure should pay taxes in my view. I would also lower the tax rate. 22% to 28% is a high number once you remove everything you can exempt. Back in the early 90's, it was calculated that a 17% tax rate with the first $30k being exempt would cover the government needs. That $30k would now be around your $50k, maybe higher. I personally thing just under 20% would be good. I would start with the 18.3% average revenue/GNP figures.

I can deal with that, but since dividends are effective taxed before distributed too, are you going to eliminate taxes on businesses?

If you were to do such a thing, it either needs to be paid for from that tax system, or a separate tax deduction. I am against this idea and it ends up making it more expensive, but I'll play along for now.

Still, this opens up a can of worms. College used to be affordable for middleclass families until the government formed the department of education.

That could be a wide range of things. Planning and paying are two different things. Will this include assisted suicide?

And if they don't complete the program?

Hey... Ever watch the pilot for Norther Exposure?

We disagree most I think on health care. that's a big topic that I will stop there. Needs to be a different thread to continue with that I think.

You didn't address corporate taxes. I personally think corporations should be tax free. But it's also why I prefer a consumption based tax system. I really think it would make America more prosperous if we taxed consumption rather than production. I would like to bring manufacturing jobs back.

My main problem with a consumption tax is that if a recession hits and consumers stop consuming, how does the government survive. I am sure you could say that the government would need to contract and I can agree . . . to a point, but think (percentagewise) about how much less consumers were consuming between 2007 and 2008, or 2007 and 2009. The government couldn't come near to contracting that much in such a short span of time.

[Wild Cobra]

My main problem with a consumption tax is that if a recession hits and consumers stop consuming, how does the government survive. I am sure you could say that the government would need to contract and I can agree . . . to a point, but think (percentagewise) about how much less consumers were consuming between 2007 and 2008, or 2007 and 2009. The government couldn't come near to contracting that much in such a short span of time.

No tax system is perfect. Besides, we borrow now anyway.

Who is more important?

The people, or the government?