Reply With Quote
The fat cats on top are getting fatter.
They don't even want to pay fair wages. Back in the 1950s, 1960s a guy could buy a house on a factory workers salary and support his wife who could stay at home with the kids.
The 2011 Fortune 500 list was unveiled today, surveying the growth and profits of the nation’s largest 500 corporations.
All told, the Fortune 500 generated nearly $10.8 trillion in total revenues last year, up 10.5%. Total profits soared 81%. But guess who didn’t benefit much from this giant wave of cash? Millions of U.S. workers stuck mired in a stagnant job market. [...] Nevertheless, we’ve rarely seen such a stark gulf between the fortunes of the 500 and those of ordinary Americans.
At the same time, corporate tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower than it has been in years, meaning that not only is the wealth not trickling down, but that these big firms are also becoming less and less likely to pay their fair share.
The fat cats on top are getting fatter.
They don't even want to pay fair wages. Back in the 1950s, 1960s a guy could buy a house on a factory workers salary and support his wife who could stay at home with the kids.
Aren't you guys tired of having your panties in a wad? So what. Corporations gained back some revenues they lost over the years. So will the people if the government stops making it so hard to have productive jobs here.
It's all about feeding the C-level guys and the mega-stockholders. the people who actually make those profits possible.
Hmm. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GE, NBC, General Motors, Chrysler.......
Damn. The government is doing pretty damn good
Nothing to see here. Move along.
So you're jeolous. Instead of striving to be rich, or accept it can happen, you want to talk down and destroy others.
You you communist s bag!
lol
5-star post. Will recommend it as sig-worthy.
This is great news! We've been hearing for years that the economy is in a rut, but these companies prove that it's possible to overcome the odds. Not only that, the consumers they serve also profit because it means their needs are being met.
Who said Obama was bad for business? 81% jump in profits ftw!
Oh my bad, I give credit to Bush tbh. He ed up the gameboard so bad that a massive profit jump was inevitable when started getting back to normal. Thanks GW!
communist s bags
I concur... I assume that from here on out we'll stop hearing any kind of ing on how Obama's economy is a failure...
Another tax cut is in order, jobs just aren't trickling down yet.
Aren't the people striving to be rich the "jeolous" ones?
ROFLyou want to talk down and destroy others.
You you communist s bag!
I'm pointing out that corporate profit does not correlate with the income or welfare of the general populous, as the original post CLEARLY illustrates.
Reagan's "trickle-down" theory would entail that the top 1% wouldn't ac ulate MORE of the wealth, right? Since the top 1% gets MORE of the wealth, wealth is in fact trickling UP! Is your mind blown?
10t in revenue, how much of that goes to taxes in america and not horded into tax minimization schemes....where it comes down to 10% or lower....
it's got nothing to do with that. i'm rich as and i disagree with everything you're saying.
Its future success is not a foregone conclusion either.
Me personally, I'm still braced for something even worse to happen. Not that Obama will necessarily be at fault for that. Unfortunately for Mr Obama (in this he resembles all his predecessors), being technically blameless qua Presdient will in no way prevent him from being conveniently blamed/praised for whatever horrible/great thing happens next.
Such is the nature of our binary politics.
Great news for employees of those companies and for people who have stock/401k investments in those companies.
"Great news for employees of those companies"
give the link where the employees of those companies got any raises in line with the companies' increased profits.
CEO Bonuses Rose By Nearly 20% In 2010, While Average Worker Saw Income Stagnate
For the surveyed CEOs, the sharpest pay gains came via bonuses, which soared 19.7% as profits recovered, especially in some hard-hit industries. … Net income rose by a median of 17%; shareholders at those companies enjoyed a median return, including dividends, of 18%.
Median household income has fallen nearly 5% over the past decade and in 2010 was $50,221. The lack of wage growth has made it difficult for average Americans to keep up with rising prices on everything from gas to food.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/09/...350-companies/
that "past decade" above was driven by VRWC policies of cutting taxes on corps and wealth, screwing employees and unions, and driving up the national debt with bogus/botched wars. Employment growth was the lowest since WWII.
UCA's motto is "Greatest Good For the Smallest Number"
No , but the "have-nots" want to sink those who have risen above them instead of attempting to rise themselves.
Typical liberal lowest common denominator thinking.
Really cause I'm an employee of one of those companies and we still have restricted raises (2%), and 2 weeks ago they eliminated the position i was to be promoted to.
That's probably due to the extra mandated health care insurance costs. It's cheaper to work people overtime than hire new people.
I can guarantee you they won't give out raises or create new positions if they are NOT growing.
LOL...
No !
But they will sometimes eliminate positions and require people to work longer hours even if they are growing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
