Seeking Alpha

Wal-Mart (WMT), McDonald's (MCD) and Starbucks (SBUX): Why do you pay your employees so little...

Wal-Mart (WMT), McDonald's (MCD) and Starbucks (SBUX): Why do you pay your employees so little that most of them are poor? Profit margins at many big U.S. firms are near all-time highs, so there's plenty of room to pay more, but they've made the short-sighted decision not to do so. Henry Blodget thinks if they spent half their profit on better wages, it would help the employees, the companies and the economy.
Comments (134)
  • dsr70
    , contributor
    Comments (1407) | Send Message
     
    It would not help the economy because it would be a misallocation of resources. Liberal thinking like this misses the vital point that a society has finite resources. We must allocate correctly or else we all get poorer. Manual labor at MCD and elsewhere isn't worth anymore than it takes to get someone to show up.
    18 Feb 2012, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • jdben518
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    You do realize that you are arguing against trickle down? Which last time i checked was a Conservative way of thinking. Trickle down is money from the top coming down to the worker who in-turn spend that money in other places, which would then pay their employees more starting a cycle all over again. Reganomics 101!!!
    18 Feb 2012, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    The problem with many so-called conservatives is that they lump all "rich" people into one group and assume that they all have the same characteristics. The Left of course makes the same mistake on the opposite side.

     

    A lot of the money from small business owners in the over $250K class, does in fact trickle down. But I don't think that anyone really believes that the guys getting millions from microsecond machine trading on .00004 cent arbitrage are doing much for the economy.
    18 Feb 2012, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • optionmike
    , contributor
    Comments (82) | Send Message
     
    "We must allocate correctly or else we all get poorer" so this allocation is helping the poor get more poor and the rich get richer. Also, when these companies and the S&P 100 pay a collective negative corporate tax rate (in other words don't pay a dime), and treat their employees the way they do your argument is flawed
    18 Feb 2012, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • LKofEnglish
    , contributor
    Comments (4386) | Send Message
     
    maybe he's rising for "rise up!" that's also part of Conservative thinking.
    18 Feb 2012, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • LKofEnglish
    , contributor
    Comments (4386) | Send Message
     
    tax them. conservatives will not complain.
    18 Feb 2012, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    jdben518
    You do realize that you are arguing against trickle down? Which last time i checked was a Conservative way of thinking.
    ======================...
    Please feel free to check it more often and deeper

     

    Money coming down as payment for product and service

     

    Product and services produced by enterprises created by profit invested

     

    Profit is what MCD makes minus what Government waste
    18 Feb 2012, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • Clayton Rulli
    , contributor
    Comments (2472) | Send Message
     
    That's what so awsome about illegals coming here. They save every penny and send it bakc to mexico, totally voiding the circle. There is no trickle down pass it around with these workers
    18 Feb 2012, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Actually illegals spend a lot of money at McDonalds.
    18 Feb 2012, 05:13 PM Reply Like
  • anonymous#12
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
     
    Ah, trickle down theory, voodo economics, Reaganomics.

     

    Poverty rising while corporate profits surge. Our Galtian overlords are laughing at us. They sold us the "American Dream", if you worked harder you could get rich.....They have fleeced the Middle Class, cut benefits, and sent vital manufacturing jobs to other countries. While this was and it is happening, the average compensation of a executive increased 10,000%.
    18 Feb 2012, 05:20 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    Yes, the government managed to do all of that, and more.
    18 Feb 2012, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    Big Brother in the form of uber-rich owners of multi-national corporations are gaining control of governments and creating a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle-class to themselves.

     

    Revolution or enslavement. Take your pick.
    19 Feb 2012, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    webmind

     

    False choice but reads great in revolutionary pamphlets. And I though the middle class and poor had nothing to take. You also need to explain why the uber rich even care.
    19 Feb 2012, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    <p>Why would I steal from the poor when the rich have all the money?</p>
    19 Feb 2012, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    webmind
    Revolution or enslavement. Take your pick.
    ======================...
    What about going to voting booth

     

    Revolution
    Land to farmers, factories to workers
    Leaders of progressive mankind dressed in leather jackets ruling by law of gun
    19 Feb 2012, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    I don't need to explain anything. But for your edification - I know actual ideas are hard to come by these days with the recession and all - I'll leave you with something to stimulate that dark matter between your ears.

     

    Ever hear of the American Revolution? The founding of this country coddy0 so blissfully takes for granted was the product of a revolutionary war, and he can only make sarcastic comments about "revolution"? All that blood and sacrifice must make a nice painting hanging above your TV as you watch reruns of "Dallas", totally divorced from reality.

     

    It's precisely complacent arrogance like yours that allows our government to destroy the fabric of our constitution.

     

    Where do you think the wealthy get their wealth if not from the labor and consumption of the poor and middle-classes?

     

    "Can the Middle Class Be Saved?

     

    "The Great Recession has accelerated the hollowing-out of the American middle class. And it has illuminated the widening divide between most of America and the super-rich. Both developments herald grave consequences...

     

    "IN OCTOBER 2005, three Citigroup analysts released a report describing the pattern of growth in the U.S. economy . . .

     

    " . . . they said, America was composed of two distinct groups: the rich and the rest. . . All the action in the American economy was at the top: the richest 1 percent of households earned as much each year as the bottom 60 percent put together; they possessed as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent; and with each passing year, a greater share of the nation’s treasure was flowing through their hands and into their pockets. . . a term for this state of affairs: plutonomy.

     

    "In a plutonomy. . . “economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few.”

     

    ". . . The consumer recovery, such as it is, appears to be driven by the affluent, not by the masses. Three years after the crash of 2008, the rich and well educated are putting the recession behind them. The rest of America is stuck in neutral or reverse.

     

    "Income inequality usually shrinks during a recession, but in the Great Recession, it didn’t. From 2007 to 2009, the most-recent years for which data are available, it widened . . .

     

    ". . . high earners have come back strong. In 2009, the country’s top 25 hedge-fund managers earned $25 billion among them—more than they had made in 2007, before the crash . . .

     

    "It’s hard to miss just how unevenly the Great Recession has affected different classes of people in different places. From 2009 to 2010, wages were essentially flat nationwide—but they grew by 11.9 percent in Manhattan and 8.7 percent in Silicon Valley. In the Washington, D.C., and San Jose (Silicon Valley) metro areas—both primary habitats for America’s meritocratic winners—job postings in February of this year were almost as numerous as job candidates. In Miami and Detroit, by contrast, for every job posting, six people were unemployed.

     

    " . . . The ease with which the rich and well educated have shrugged off the recession shouldn’t be surprising; strong winds have been at their backs for many years. The recession, meanwhile, has restrained wage growth and enabled faster restructuring and offshoring, leaving many corporations with lower production costs and higher profits—and their executives with higher pay.

     

    " . . . [in] several recent financial crises . . . the rich have usually strengthened their economic position. . .In most cases . . . the middle class suffered depressed income for a long time after the crisis, while the top 1 percent were able to protect themselves—using their cash reserves to buy up assets very cheaply once the market crashed, and emerging from crisis with a significantly higher share of assets and income than they’d had before. “I think we’ve seen the same thing, to some extent, in the United States” since the 2008 crash, he told me. “Mr. Buffett has been investing.”

     

    “The rich seem to be on the road to recovery,” . . . while those in the middle [class], especially those who’ve lost their jobs, “might be permanently hit.” Coming out of the deep recession of the early 1980s . . . “you saw an increase in inequality … as the rich bounced back, and unionized labor never again found jobs that paid as well as the ones they’d had. And now I fear we’re going to see the same phenomenon, but more dramatic.” Middle-paying jobs in the U.S., in which some workers have been overpaid relative to the cost of labor overseas or technological substitution, “are being wiped out. And what will be left is a hard and a pure market,” with the many paid less than before, and the few paid even better—a plutonomy strengthened in the crucible of the post-crash years.

     

    "The Culling of the Middle Class

     

    " . . . the most important economic trend in the United States over the past couple of generations has been the ever more distinct sorting of Americans into winners and losers, and the slow hollowing-out of the middle class.

     

    “ . . . The Great Recession has quantitatively but not qualitatively changed the trend toward employment polarization” in the United States, wrote the MIT economist David Autor in a 2010 white paper. Job losses have been “far more severe in middle-skilled white- and blue-collar jobs than in either high-skill, white-collar jobs or in low-skill service occupations.”

     

    " . . . Autor isolates the winnowing of middle-skill, middle-class jobs as one of several labor-market developments that are profoundly reshaping U.S. society.

     

    "Can the Middle Class Be Saved?

     

    ". . . Since 1993, more than half of the nation’s income growth has been captured by the top 1 percent of earners, and the gains have grown larger over time: . . . Nearly 2 million people started college in 2002—1,630 of them at Harvard—but among them only Mark Zuckerberg is worth more than $10 billion today; the rise of the super-elite is not a product of educational differences. In part, it is a natural outcome of widening markets and technological revolution, which are creating much bigger winners much faster than ever before—a result that’s not even close to being fully played out, and one reinforced strongly by the political influence that great wealth brings . . .

     

    ". . . America’s classes are separating and changing. A tiny elite continues to float up and away from everyone else. . .

     

    ". . . The true center of American society has always been its nonprofessionals—high-... graduates who didn’t go on to get a bachelor’s degree make up 58 percent of the adult population. And as manufacturing jobs and semiskilled office positions disappear, much of this vast, nonprofessional middle class is drifting downward . . .

     

    ". . . A cultural chasm—which did not exist 40 years ago and which was still relatively small 20 years ago—has developed between the traditional middle class and the top 30 percent of society . . .

     

    ". . . the growing cultural gulf between highly educated Americans and the rest of society. . . . American communities have become ever more finely sorted by affluence. . .

     

    ". . . while most Americans believe that opportunity is widespread in the United States, and that success is primarily a matter of individual intelligence and skill, the reality is . . . class was stickier among those born to parents who were either rich or poor . . . rags-to-riches stories [are] extremely rare.

     

    "A thinner middle class, in itself, means fewer stepping stones available to people born into low-income families. If the economic and cultural trends under way continue unabated, class mobility will likely decrease in the future, and class divides may eventually grow beyond our ability to bridge them.

     

    ". . . Momentum alone suggests years of trouble for the middle class.

     

    "Changing the Path of the American Economy

     

    ". . . In 2010, the McKinsey Global Institute released a report detailing just how mighty America’s multinational companies are—and how essential they have become to the U.S. economy. Multinationals headquartered in the U.S. employed 19 percent of all private-sector workers in 2007, earned 25 percent of gross private-sector profits, and paid out 25 percent of all private-sector wages. They also accounted for nearly three-quarters of the nation’s private-sector R&D spending. Since 1990, they’ve been responsible for 31 percent of the growth in real GDP.

     

    "Yet for all their outsize presence, multinationals have been puny as engines of job creation. Over the past 20 years, they have accounted for 41 percent of all gains in U.S. labor productivity—but just 11 percent of private-sector job gains. And in the latter half of that period, the picture grew uglier: according to the economist Martin Sullivan, from 1999 through 2008, U.S. multinationals actually shrank their domestic workforce by about 1.9 million people, while increasing foreign employment by about 2.4 million.

     

    "The heavy footprint of multinational companies is merely one sign of how inseparable the U.S. economy has become from the larger global economy—and these figures neatly illustrate two larger points . . . something has nonetheless gone wrong with the way America’s economy has evolved in response to increasingly dense global connections.

     

    ". . . even in boom times, many more people than we would care to acknowledge won’t have the education, skills, or abilities to prosper in a pure and globalized market, shaped by enormous labor reserves in China, India, and other developing countries. Over the next decade or more, even if national economic growth is strong, what we do to help and support moderately educated Americans may well determine whether the United States remains a middle-class country.

     

    ". . . in the next decade or more, a larger proportion of Americans may need to take work in occupations that have historically required little skill and paid low wages . . . from 1999 to 2007, low-skill jobs grew substantially as a share of all jobs in the United States. And while the lion’s share of jobs lost during the recession were middle-skill jobs, job growth since then has been tilted steeply toward the bottom of the economy; according to a survey by the National Employment Law Project, three-quarters of American job growth in 2010 came within industries paying, on average, less than $15 an hour. . .

     

    ". . . extreme income inequality causes a cultural separation that is unhealthy on its face and corrosive over time. And the most-powerful economic forces of our times will likely continue to concentrate wealth at the top of society and to put more pressure on the middle. It is hard to imagine an adequate answer to the problems we face that doesn’t involve greater redistribution of wealth.

     

    ". . . the United States has expected less and less of its elite, even as society has oriented itself in a way that is most likely to maximize their income. The top income-tax rate was 91 percent in 1960, 70 percent in 1980, 50 percent in 1986, and 39.6 percent in 2000, and is now 35 percent. Income from investments is taxed at a rate of 15 percent. The estate tax has been gutted.

     

    "High earners should pay considerably more in taxes than they do now. Top tax rates of even 50 percent for incomes in the seven-figure range would still be considerably lower than their level throughout the boom years of the post-war era, and should not be out of the question—nor should an estate-tax rate of similar size, for large estates.

     

    " . . . The rich have not become that way while living in a vacuum. Technological advance, freer trade, and wider markets—along with the policies that promote them—always benefit some people and harm others. Economic theory is quite clear that the winners gain more than the losers lose, and therefore the people who suffer as a result of these forces can be fully compensated for their losses—society as a whole still gains. This precept has guided U.S. government policy for 30 years. Yet in practice, the losers are seldom compensated . . .

     

    ". . . some of the policies that have most benefited the rich have little to do with greater competition or economic efficiency. Fortunes on Wall Street have grown so large in part because of implicit government protection against catastrophic losses, combined with the steady elimination of government measures to limit excessive risk-taking, from the 1980s right on through the crash of 2008.

     

    "As America’s winners have been separated more starkly from its losers, the idea of compensating the latter out of the pockets of the former has met stiff resistance: . . . many elites have pushed policies that benefit them, by touting theoretical gains to society—then ruled out measures that would distribute those gains widely.

     

    "Even as we continue to strive to perfect the meritocracy . . . built-in advantages and disadvantages may be growing. And the concentration of wealth in relatively few hands opens the possibility that much of the next generation’s elite might achieve their status through inheritance, not hard or innovative work.

     

    ". . . The strongest forces of our time are naturally divisive; absent a wide-ranging effort to constrain them, economic and cultural polarization will almost surely continue.

     

    "But few Americans, no matter their class, will be eager for that outcome. "
    ------- http://bit.ly/x0YR2z
    20 Feb 2012, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    Web,

     

    All of your quotes and data are just rhetoric.

     

    It is not what you make or how much others have.

     

    It is how one lives.

     

    Fact of the matter is, a larger percentage of the population now enjoys more amenities and luxuries that at any time in human history.

     

    ( at least in the US for now)

     

    All the rest is just "Noise"

     

    Coveting somebody else's money, possesions and accomplishments is immoral, not unlike coveting thy neighbor's wife is so, as in the Ten Commandments.

     

    And, In other news for the clueless,

     

    http://bit.ly/ACvbqx
    20 Feb 2012, 04:26 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    So from all the things you quoted, you seem to think that it is better to reduce the income of the rich than to increase the income of the poor?
    20 Feb 2012, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    webmind

     

    Seriously?

     

    Copying and pasting a lot of sound bites from the last 8 years shows you have a great grasp of the copy/paste function but little else. You can also get similair sound bites from the mid 80's just in case you are under the impression this is all new.

     

    If the matter between my ears is dark as you say well at least I can claim I have some matter.
    21 Feb 2012, 12:00 AM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    "How the Stinking Rich Ate the Economy

     

    "Income inequality is accelerating fastest at the top. Who are the 0.1%?

     

    "If a $100,000-a-year household thinks itself to be middle class," the neoconservative writer Irving Kristol once wrote, "then it is middle class." This sentiment is widely held, but it makes no mathematical sense. Any family whose income exceeds that of 90 percent of all other families cannot sensibly be called anything but rich.

     

    "But within the top decile distinctions are nonetheless worth making.

     

    "-- The Rich, defined as the top 10 percent, which today means everyone making $109,000 or more, increased their share of national income during the Great Divergence from about one third (34 percent) to nearly one half (48 percent).

     

    "-- The top 5 percent (Basically, Undeniably, Really, and Stinking Rich; today, everybody making at least $153,000) increased their share from 23 to 37 percent.

     

    "-- The top 1 percent (Undeniably, Really, and Stinking Rich; today, everybody making at least $368,000) more than doubled their share of the national income from 10 to 21 percent.

     

    "-- The top 0.1 percent (Really and Stinking Rich; today, everybody making at least $1.7 million) tripled their share of the national income to 10 percent.

     

    "-- The top 0.01 percent (the Stinking Rich; today, everybody making at least $9.1 million) nearly quadrupled their share of income during the Great Divergence, from 1.4 to 5 percent.

     

    "Notice a pattern? The richer you are, the faster you expand your slice of your country's income. Or as Emmanuel Saez put it to me, "The [inequality] phenomenon is more extreme the further you go up in the distribution," and it's "very strong once you pass that threshold of the top 1 percent."

     

    "WHO ARE THE STINKING RICH?

     

    ". . . among the Really and Stinking Rich -- the top 0.1 percent, who currently make at least $1.7 million -- 43 percent were executives, managers, and supervisors at nonfinancial firms, and 18 percent were financiers. . .

     

    "American chief executives typically get paid two to three times what their European counterparts earn. . . In 1973, . . . chief executives were paid twenty-seven times more than the average worker. By 2005 that had risen to 262 times.

     

    ". . . [a] quadrupling of chief executives' pay during the 1990s . . .

     

    ". . . financiers . . . Back in 1979, the financial sector represented only 11 percent of the Really and Stinking Rich. By 2005, financiers represented 18 percent . . .

     

    "Between 1980 and 2000, the assets held by commercial banks, securities firms, and the securitizations they created grew from [the equivalent of] 55 percent of GDP to [the equivalent of] 95 percent ... Between 1990 and 1999, the ten largest bank holding companies' share of all bank assets grew from 26 percent to 45 percent, and their share of all deposits doubled from 17 percent to 34 percent.

     

    In effect, Wall Street ate the economy."

     

    http://bit.ly/xD10vH;/p>
    21 Feb 2012, 02:04 AM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    <p>"you seem to think that it is better to reduce the income of the rich than to increase the income of the poor"

     

    That is a massive oversimplification of the issues. It is really just a matter of sense of equity and justice.

     

    Should the government be able to bail out banks, insurance and mortgage companies to the tune of trillions while you foot the bill?

     

    Should the government subsidize oil companies that earn billions in profits while clean energy alternatives languish? Enjoy your cancer.

     

    Should pharmaceutical companies that produce toxic poisons, kill millions of people and create millions of drug addicts a year be given price-gouging monopolies with a trillion dollars in world-wide profits while the FDA attacks the free speech of alternative health care? Enjoy your cancer.

     

    Should the government spend trillions on a useless war in Iraq when that money could have been better spent securing our borders and providing better education and healthcare to US citizens? If you think so, say a little prayer for the millions of killed innocents.

     

    If you're really happy with the state of the Union, then God Bless. I think it's reached a pathetic low, and I'm not going to waste my time on such people.
    21 Feb 2012, 02:14 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    All of your "questions" are not questions at all, but statements meant to express an opinion (not fact). But just one example:
    "Should the government subsidize oil companies that earn billions in profits while clean energy alternatives languish.."

     

    The oil companies make billions - yes, so does Apple and hundreds of other megacorps - and many have special tax breaks, most of them far more than the oil companies do. I have never figured out this fascination of the Left with "big evil oil companies". They get fewer subsidies and tax breaks than many other industries - for example GE and Boeing get far more on a per capita basis.

     

    And the single most subsidized sector of all is "green" energy - yet it has been the most costly to the taxpayer, with the least amount of payback.
    21 Feb 2012, 03:04 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    web

     

    A lot of this is breathless hype and shock and awe with numbers for people who don't understand numbers. And also to sell Atlantic magazines. I seen very similair stories from Atlantic back in the mid 1980's about the demise of manufacturing and the middle class so this is a common theme. They probably just cut and paste some of the content over to today.

     

    But to illustrate the point between 1980 and 2000 I gained 20 pounds and if every American gained 20 pounds I venture to guess we ate the world! WOW!!!!!

     

    More seriously the S&P has went from 102 to 1498 from 1980 to 2000. This funded a lot of retirement accounts and would have worked wonders for the SSA fund if they would have been partially invested in it. For the last 10 years it has been slightly down so it is hard to complain about 1980 to 2000.

     

    Assets in commerical banks increased because we became richer as a country (look at GDP) and the top 10 grew because there was continous consolidation and restrictions against interstate banking were dropped.

     

    When looking at income inequality not every household should be in the analysis. Unemployed, students and retired should be taken out as they skew the numbers and are not productive. Making the assumption that the same group of people are in the same income groups each year is also a common mistake. People in peak earning years will not remain there as they leave the workforce. And assuming that high incomes equates to wealth is another mistake. Finally $100K in NYC is not much while $100K in Tulsa is great so standard of living is the real measure or at least adjust for cost of living. And adjust for kids and family expenses so we understand how people are living.

     

    There are issues worth exploring but if not done intelligently it is a trip without a map or a compass.
    21 Feb 2012, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • MaxPSA
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    Henry Blodget = same guy who was promoting tech stocks to his brokerage's clients at ridiculous valuations during the Dot.com era (late 1990's & 2000), while privately deriding the same stocks in private emails? He's a multi-millionaire from questionably-aquired wealth, and he's now preaching from the pulpit? Go fish Blodget. If you want to donate half your net worth to charity, then lead by your own example.

     

    Free markets mean you can pay low wages to low-skill employees. When suggesting that companies should aim to support the masses rather than reward their shareholders (the owners of the companies), I'd suggest that charity is not the function of corporations, which are in the business of making money.

     

    If governments want to impose minimum wage increases, that's the function of governments and not individual companies. Companies have no role in hamstringing their own results in order to benefit people who did not invest their hard-earned capital in said companies.
    21 Feb 2012, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • PlaydohGlobe
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Hi Web,

     

    Looks like you can think clearly and do math. It is very helpful when trying to develop a clear concept on the big picture in the USA..then compare to the Rest of the world.
    You mentioned Machiavelli earlier and some challenged your premise.

     

    I Say your 100 % clear headed in your thinking - I got your point - it is easy to connect the facts.
    Add in for effect - Machiavelli would be proud of - Haliburton + Dick Cheney + faked weapons of mass destruction +military -industrial complex = profits for the Uber rich & dividends for SA folks that do not understand your points.

     

    Others point out -"Fair Wages For fat lazy Americans " but do not understand % in relation to your request for a Luxury Tax - I saw it as a simple request to just pay your fair share targeted at the-uber rich and uber powerful

     

    Machiavelli would be Oh so proud of the "RICH" who use the government to insert "Legal: help in return for campaign contributions as Free Speech benefits" =
    AS in Carried interest income at 15 % for some - secret Swiss accounts as tax dodges -Cayman bank accounts that screw over the intent - yes "legally" of IRA programs - BTW - really smart elected officials intended such programs for the 99% so they do not need to be on the government dole.

     

    When people that are well off in the USA say "Let them Eat Cake" and ignore the real reasons people "Eat Misery" in slave labor conditions, Drink poisoned water, breath horrible air, eat contaminated food grown from soil diseased with cadmium, lead + other heavy metals.
    You will have to forgive them as they can not connect the dots to effective government and education in the USA that generates such benefits as the EPA, OSHA, mine safety, Dept of Education and the Department of Indian Affairs. These little benefits of good government paid by taxes - good ,decent Americans that do not make bundles of money..people that fight against Koch-like Brothers who use faulty pipelines that leak, blow up and destroy poor children that where working for minimum wage. Same guys that under report oil pumped off of Indian reservations to avoid full mineral extraction payments...and a fair share of owed  taxes.

     

    We could go on about who are the million plus patriots that serve in the military that protect "GLOBAL" Assets that Corporations paying dividends protected with the most precious of human assets -each person's very life proudly standing tall out on the very front lines. Probably just a bunch of liberal artist majors that studied about the the original Occupy Wall Streeters - we know them as the patriots that got shot down during the Boston Massacre the last time the uber rich told the fat and lazy, uneducated, dirty, Americans - how dare they ask for a fair shake....and we rich must pay our fair share!

     

    Maybe the 99 % could get some laws passed in the USA to deport these Uber Rich to go try to " MAKE IT" in a place like communist China..Maybe after a few years they would understand your point about giving the lower income folks a bit of a break..then they really might appreciate a bit better you points.

     

    Machiavelli would be proud of these "Uber Rich" - He knew how to play power, money and government - just like the 33 players who are giving 10s of millions to their favorite Super Pacs to keep the Tax code to their eternal liking.

     

    I have no problems with capitalism.. as long as we educate people correctly on why the Founding Fathers knew why an estate tax was VERY good policy, why the .01 % should not have too much control over a great democracy and why the uneducated continuously need to get better educated.

     

    You are just asking to give lower income people a chance at a good education. a shot to move up the ladder..paid for by taxes "fairly" accumulated by an effective government.

     

    I am now in the 1 % - got to that level from the bottom 5 % in the USA - I am VERY  proud of my country- my Dad was a history teacher - his union pension is 2,000 USD per month....he majored in Liberal Arts - mastered in US history - at a state college. He was the son of a share cropper who worked on a farm - owned by an absentee landlord.
    And I do understand fair share.
    21 Feb 2012, 10:57 PM Reply Like
  • Perkins Cove
    , contributor
    Comments (625) | Send Message
     
    PlaydohGlobe,

     

    Excellent reply from a 1%er. Maybe there is still hope for a simpler tax code, with fairer percentages for all.

     

    "The people shall lead, and the government will follow". Anon

     

    Right now it's the other way around.

     

    Thanks,
    Perk
    22 Feb 2012, 07:04 AM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    Very well said PlaydohGlobe, and congrats for making it to the 1%. You have a heart as well as a mind, and America needs more people like you at this dark hour. It's nice to know there are some people on SA that "get it" - who take the time to think things through instead of trolling forums taking cheap, mindless potshots at people to assuage their sense of inadequacy.

     

    I'm very proud of the US too, which is why its current state of affairs is so appalling to me. I am shocked that such a great nation can lose its bearings so quickly, and I pray that folks can see what's happening and do what's best for the country.

     

    Along the lines of our theme, here's a little blurb from Philip Davis' recent article, one of SA's best writers, discussing Europe (please take his analogy with a grain of salt, as it was intended).

     

    "Larry Summers wrote in the Financial Times: "The spread of stagnation and abnormal unemployment from Japan to the rest of the industrialized world does raise doubts about capitalism's efficacy as a promoter of employment and rising living standards for a broad middle class. Serious questions about the fairness of capitalism are being raised. These are driven by sharp increases in unemployment beyond the business cycle - one in six of American men between 25 and 54 is likely to be out of work even after the economy recovers - combined with dramatic rises in the share of income going to the top 1% (and even the top 0.01%) of the population and declining social mobility. The problem is real and profound and seems very unlikely to correct itself untended."

     

    "Globally we are fighting a war between the haves and the have-nots and the situation in Europe does very much remind me of the rolling Axis threat in WWII, with the American people standing by and doing nothing (because we have our own problems, right?) while the banksters roll their bond tanks over nation after nation and each time the other nations rush to appease them - hoping they will be spared."
    http://seekingalpha.co...
    22 Feb 2012, 12:36 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7641) | Send Message
     
    If the wages are so bad, why do hundreds of people show up for every job opening?
    Did Blodget ever take an economics class?
    18 Feb 2012, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • jdben518
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    reason why so many people apply for those types of jobs, is a low paying job is better than NO JOB. that's just common sense
    18 Feb 2012, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • richjoy403
    , contributor
    Comments (8810) | Send Message
     
    if you remember blodget at his best, in the 90's, you would find this new opinion to be almost comical.

     

    however, given that we have found unbridled capitalism to require restraints in many forms, it seems a fair question...not as a % of profits tax on a few successful enterprises, but perhaps applying more widely. Perhaps as a higher minimum wage, when the economy is expanding, and a lower one when the reverse is the case? The basis being that wages should reflect the excess supply of low-skilled labor in a contracting economy (which is when employers can least afford above-market wages).

     

    this kind of engineering is fraught with dangers...where to draw the line? Some want a managed economy, where no one suffers the consequences of their failures...some would keep their foot on the necks of others in perpetuity.
    18 Feb 2012, 12:56 PM Reply Like
  • LKofEnglish
    , contributor
    Comments (4386) | Send Message
     
    i have heard that FFA (that would Future Farmers of America for all you weirdo's out there) are planning on opening a branch in Detroit soon as well!
    18 Feb 2012, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    Comical is right. Blodget campaigning for the working class is like Oliver North pretending to be a patriot after smuggling cocaine into the US as an agent for the CIA.
    19 Feb 2012, 09:18 AM Reply Like
  • Canuk100
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    The real reason most biz management don't pay based on profitability is there isn't a mechanism to scale back wages in tough times without causing riots/or at least poor moral...
    18 Feb 2012, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    There is some truth to that. Time after time - especially in unionized company's, we have seen where the union made the choice to lose jobs rather than take a pay cut for all.
    18 Feb 2012, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • Azh
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    Germany is a significant exception where they had mechanisms in place to reduce pay and keep jobs. Seemed to have worked wonders.
    18 Feb 2012, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Detroit, the shining trophy of the UAW.
    19 Feb 2012, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    Actually, American auto makers didn't know how to manage a company and make competitive products. The blame lies squarely with management, not the unions, although I agree union leaders became very corrupt.
    21 Feb 2012, 02:28 AM Reply Like
  • User 353732
    , contributor
    Comments (4788) | Send Message
     
    Total compensation is a function of labor competition mobility and real value added.

     

    These firms, unlike the US Regime of Big Govt, Big media and Big Money, create real jobs for real people doing real things. The Regime destroys jobs, hopes and dreams and creates poverty, class warfare and dependence so naturally Regime sycophants attack real job creators. This is how it always is in a Soviet , of course.
    18 Feb 2012, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • jdben518
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    yeah big govt is in the way so much nobodies hiring and unemployment keeps going up!!!!!!!! Oh wait the complete opposite is happening.
    18 Feb 2012, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Government has thrown business under the bus every chance they get. And then threaten higher taxes. That will kill investment including jobs.
    18 Feb 2012, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • Johann Galt
    , contributor
    Comments (235) | Send Message
     
    JDben518:

     

    "the complete opposite is happening." Really? Don't bother to look up the numbers, or anything-- just keep repeating what you hear from the White House.

     

    Facts (from BLS): Unemployment rate in Jan '09: 7.8% (recently revised upwards from 7.6) TODAY- 8.3%

     

    Number Unemployed, Jan '09: 12,049,000

     

    Number Unemployed TODAY: 12,758,000

     

    (These are the seasonally adjusted numbers)

     

    Congrats Orwell, "job creation" must now mean more unemployed. Or are you OK just repeating what you hear on MSNBC?
    19 Feb 2012, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    Total nonfarm employed as of Jan 2009 = 133,561,000
    Total nonfarm employed as of Jan 2012 = 132,409,000

     

    That is a net loss of about 1.1 million jobs. So it is actually worse than what the unemployment figures show.

     

    Source: BLS
    19 Feb 2012, 01:51 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    As long as there is an excess of low and no skill workers, wages will not go up. It is just like everything else - supply and demand. Very few - if any - of those type jobs are more than short term careers for any but the least skilled and least ambitious.
    18 Feb 2012, 11:19 AM Reply Like
  • jgbrowning
    , contributor
    Comments (205) | Send Message
     
    "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wage possible."

     

    - Henry Ford
    18 Feb 2012, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1583) | Send Message
     
    Just in the interests of total balanced picture -- Henry Ford was also the pre-eminent practitioner of a belief that paying his employees "reasonably well" also created a market for his product.

     

    On the other hand -- I can see that for cars. Not sure better paid employees would buy significantly more at McD and SBUX?

     

    And better paid employees wouldn't want to shop at Walmart ;-)
    18 Feb 2012, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • LKofEnglish
    , contributor
    Comments (4386) | Send Message
     
    Henry Ford! Wonderful man! How could anyone say anything bad about Henry Ford. I must i am fascinated with their relationship with Goldman Sachs. Anyone else wanna chime in on this one?
    18 Feb 2012, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • mweaver
    , contributor
    Comments (201) | Send Message
     
    why is blodgett still around?
    he was wrong fifteen years ago
    and he's still wrong
    18 Feb 2012, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • LKofEnglish
    , contributor
    Comments (4386) | Send Message
     
    well he's also working on a show "so you wanna be a Billionaire cuz i'm on number 12 that i've made so far this year!" from what i hear. His first guests are apparently "the Dorks of Groupon." it's funny how when you're called "a billionaire" being called "a dork" doesn't bother you anymore.
    18 Feb 2012, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4010) | Send Message
     
    you tell em weaveman
    18 Feb 2012, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    The Next time he goes into McDonalds I expect him to offer to pay more than what his total check would otherwise be.

     

    He should never use coupons, or buy anything on sale either. As that would just be taking from the workers.

     

    Kind of like the Hypocrite, Warren Buffett.

     

    Buffett, could pay taxes more than required, but doesn't.

     

    In fact, he owes back taxes, unpaid at even current levels for which he spins as being too low.

     

    http://bit.ly/r7wlK3

     

    Besides, If they paid more, their low income customers would no longer enjoy a dollar menu.
    18 Feb 2012, 11:55 AM Reply Like
  • LKofEnglish
    , contributor
    Comments (4386) | Send Message
     
    this is actually a good point. one of the best approaches in my view that we could use...and i am being serious about this...is to go "full on third world" and return to an open outcry system of having to bargain for everything. the fact of the matter is the problem isn't the money per se but "the meaning" of money. that's why it's always good to have an English Major in your corner when you are...ahem..."investing." of course "how could the government allow auctions for all goods produced" because "they wouldn't be able to keep track of said merchandise and be able to tax it." and thus the bankruptcy is guaranteed cuz "in 'merica as long as you have McDonalds you can create very good tent cities" as well.
    18 Feb 2012, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (947) | Send Message
     
    Careful what you wish for. Then again, how can you rebuild a solid foundation on quicksand. Sometimes purging the system is best. Those most fearful of the purge have the most to lose. But some will actually sacrifice some of what they have to secure a better future for their kids. 16.2 trillion in debt, primarily to ourselves. 1.3 trillion deficit spending. It is not sustainable.
    18 Feb 2012, 04:59 PM Reply Like
  • Jake Huneycutt
    , contributor
    Comments (1353) | Send Message
     
    Wal-Mart's profit margins are fairly slim. From FY '09 - FY '11, they ranged from 3.3% to 4.0%. Not that atypical of retail. The idea that they could "pay more" is misinformed and based on populist myths about the economy. In order to pay more, they'd have to raise prices and become less competitive. Then people would complain about how Wal-Mart's "high prices" harm middle-class consumers; so they can't win.

     

    The idea that American has fewer 'good paying jobs' now is likewise a myth. More of our economy was focused on low-paying agriculture in the first part of the 20th century. People talk about the shift away from manufacturing, but the bigger trend is the shift away from agriculture. Getting paid $10 an hour at Wal-Mart or Starbuck's beats working in a field all day for a few bucks. For that matter, I'd take Starbucks over working 12 hours per day, 6 days per week in some nasty factory for virtually nothing.

     

    The way to increase wages is to increase economic growth. And the way to increase economic growth, is to incentivize people to innovate. Simply paying low-skilled occupations higher wages isn't actually a sustainable formula.
    18 Feb 2012, 11:57 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    The politicians and pundits/bloggers on the Left are always quick to point out the "record profits" of large corporations, but totally ignore the actual percentages of profit margin. Their favorite target of course is the "big oil companies", but for some reason they always fail to mention the 100's of thousands of jobs in those corporations.

     

    What the author also fails to mention is that a large majority of those "high paying union jobs" were at the expense of anyone not in the union - which at that time included almost anyone not white.
    18 Feb 2012, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (947) | Send Message
     
    You fail to mention that 4% translates to billions.

     

    "The idea that American has fewer 'good paying jobs' now is likewise a myth." Somewhere you are sheltered under a rock or living in a cave disconnected from the 46 mm Americans on food stamps. Your statement is so far from reality. Do five minutes of research about wages over last 10 years. Good grief!

     

    "The way to increase wages is to increase economic growth." It should work that way, but it doesn't. The corp KEEPS more profits in reserves (as they are doing NOW and have for last three years) and the CEO's continue to pay themselves tens of millions as they tell the "workers" about how difficult the economic environment is and how they should just feel "lucky" to have a job regardless of what it pays. This is classic broken 1980's style thinking. Jump on board, the new millennium is waiting.....
    18 Feb 2012, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (947) | Send Message
     
    Big oil is only part of the problem. The unregulated investment banks are at the core. Why would GS and MS be the biggest buyers of oil futures when they use no oil? Each time you go to the pump, you can assume that a big % of the retail prcie is going toward the salaries of the investment bankers that have bid up the futures prices. Think I'm wrong, research who bought the most oil in USA last year. Go further and compare 2007 peak brent price with USA national average gas prices, then compare those same prices to where we are today. Right, it doesn't add up. Who is making more off the big spread- refiners no, transports no, retail no, big oil and investment banks......
    18 Feb 2012, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • LKofEnglish
    , contributor
    Comments (4386) | Send Message
     
    people have been shifting back to agriculture actually. as the lunacy of the internet heats up...you will see that "shift back" dramatically. for example "the collapse of Chicken City, Iowa caused the prices of eggs to double today. We've interviewed the few survivors. One Chicken excaimed "IT WAS LIKE A WAR ZOINE IN THEIR, MAN! ONE CHICKEN STARTED PECKIN' ANOTHER AND THEN....
    18 Feb 2012, 02:22 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    How do you not know they are not Shorting oil futures, thereby keeping prices in check?

     

    They don't care which way the prices go. Only that they bet the proper forward direction.

     

    I suppose you believe GM bought and threw away the plans for the 200 MPG carburetor too.

     

    Conspiracy theory guy I see?
    18 Feb 2012, 03:24 PM Reply Like
  • Clayton Rulli
    , contributor
    Comments (2472) | Send Message
     
    MJ 457.... your thinking is so narrow...how much is a gallon of Gas? Now how much is a gallon of Milk? A gallon of water? The price is right where it belongs in my opinion.....just as high as everything else we need! :-(
    18 Feb 2012, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (947) | Send Message
     
    I see you don't follow the commodity markets very close.
    18 Feb 2012, 05:01 PM Reply Like
  • anonymous#12
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
     
    J 457, you are forgetting something. The monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. Which produces all this momentum chasing in all risk assets.
    18 Feb 2012, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Big Bro makes more than Big Oil on every gallon sold on a percentage basis.

     

    Look elsewhere for the problem.
    19 Feb 2012, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    In fact, with federal and state gasoline taxes combined, it makes about 3x s much as the evil oil companies. One might ask where all of that money has gone - apparently not to roads and highways and bridges, like it is supposed to. http://bit.ly/wW86dS
    19 Feb 2012, 11:56 AM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    You are right anonymous, the FED does provide incentives for the rich to get richer.
    20 Feb 2012, 12:13 AM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    Good points H.J., but Wal-Mart can afford low margins because they artificially depress prices on the backs of slave labor to boost sales. Raising prices a little wouldn't harm middle-class consumers if middle-class consumers would quit believing they have to buy everything in sight to keep up with the Joneses and be happy.
    20 Feb 2012, 12:13 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    web

     

    I am sure you only have a few items of clothing in your closet which reflects your minimalist philosophy.

     

    A lot of poor people shop at WalMart and they need low prices.
    20 Feb 2012, 02:33 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    I'll bet a lot of McDonalds employees shop at Walmart, LOL!

     

    And Likewise, alot of Walmart employees likely enjoy the Dollar menu at McDonalds as well.
    20 Feb 2012, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    I do have few items in my closet because I'm not a mindless consumer idiot who thinks that happiness lies in spending money and buying more junk.

     

    So you think the exploitation of Third World workers is justified because poor people in the US can buy more stuff?
    21 Feb 2012, 02:29 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    In your mind, exploitation = having a low paying job, and that is worse in your opinion than having no job at all.
    21 Feb 2012, 03:07 AM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    Can you show me the source of that fact so we can compare the percentages?
    21 Feb 2012, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    If the low paying job is a small fraction of the minimum wage paid in this country, often in brutal working conditions that would be illegal in this country, then that can be called exploitation. It is well documented around the world.
    21 Feb 2012, 10:43 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (557) | Send Message
     
    1. (insert anti-capitalist, pro worker comment here)
    2. Drive off to buy groceries, electronics, clothing, transportation, and gas based almost solely on the item with the lowest price which fits the need.
    3. Enjoy blissful ignorance.
    18 Feb 2012, 01:13 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (947) | Send Message
     
    We haven't been a "capitalist" system for decades. Once you understand that you gain a better understanding of how things really work. If we were capitalist, 1/4 of the companies you see today would have been gone in last four years alone. Can't have it both ways...
    18 Feb 2012, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (557) | Send Message
     
    My point flew over your head higher than one of those U2 spy planes, but no bother, you're busy ranting.
    19 Feb 2012, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    1. (J 457)
    18 Feb 2012, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (947) | Send Message
     
    3. (1980XLS-2.0)
    18 Feb 2012, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    Let's just raise the minumum wage to $100 per hour.

     

    That should fix everything. (sarcasm)
    18 Feb 2012, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (947) | Send Message
     
    Sounds like we found the union boss after all?
    18 Feb 2012, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    Have you people ever heard of employee ownership in a corporation? Do you really believe slave wages are necessary for capitalism to succeed? Let's get a little creative.
    20 Feb 2012, 12:12 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    I think the slave labor rhetoric went out about 20 years ago, the new term now is exploited workers.

     

    If you are going to spout bumper sticker slogans, update them at least.
    20 Feb 2012, 02:22 AM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    Exploited workers is more politically correct than slave labor? I stand corrected!
    21 Feb 2012, 02:29 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    Those greedy workers stole a slice of cheese from me, as the Dollar menu double cheeseburger has morphed to the "McDouble"

     

    Pay cuts are in order, to both boost the stock and go back to two slices of Cheese as befits a proper Double Cheeseburger for a Buck.

     

    Or, was that Uncle Ben's QE, that stole my cheese?
    18 Feb 2012, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (947) | Send Message
     
    That's not real cheese, its partially synthetic and probably doesn't cost as much. Eat lots of it so big pharma can sell you meds for the rest of your lifetime and taxpayer, opps, I mean medi-care can flip the bill to save you. Ahh, is this the capitalist way? But medi-care is govt hand-out and not private sector. Hmm. Sounds like we're in a quagmire here. We so desperately want it both ways, but it doens't quite work that way.
    18 Feb 2012, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    Hilarious 1980XLS-2.0! Spot on as always J 457. You guys don't realize it but you're actually agreeing with each other.
    20 Feb 2012, 12:14 AM Reply Like
  • Machiavelli999
    , contributor
    Comments (829) | Send Message
     
    Henry Blodget, why are you so evil? Why do you pay your mechanic only the market rate for his services? Same to the farmer for your food (via the grocery store)? Same to any other service you hire from relatively poor people. You are obviously well off and can afford to pay them more. Why don't you do this??
    18 Feb 2012, 02:04 PM Reply Like
  • Machiavelli999
    , contributor
    Comments (829) | Send Message
     
    What's truly sad to me are not all the ignorant comments from SA commenters. I expect that. But Henry Blodget is supposed to be one of the top economists in his field and he is putting out drivel like this.

     

    It's actually amazing how much liberals are obsessed with money. Money is just a medium of exchange. Passing money around does not make a society richer. If that was true (and I hate to bring this example up) then Zimbabwe would be the richest country on Earth. Producing more is what makes a country richer.
    18 Feb 2012, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (947) | Send Message
     
    +1
    18 Feb 2012, 02:17 PM Reply Like
  • Lee3do
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Because the purpose of the firm is to make money for the owners!
    18 Feb 2012, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (947) | Send Message
     
    That would be true if only we could force them to pay a dividend. They make money, but it usually goes straight to senior mngt and not the owners. Example, look at AAPL- where is the dividend?
    18 Feb 2012, 02:19 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    If 300% capital appreciation in Apple's stock in 3 years is not good enough for you, you would be the greedy one methinks.

     

    The dividend would be a corporate governance issue.

     

    If you don't like the stock, don't own it.
    18 Feb 2012, 02:22 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (947) | Send Message
     
    My advice, sell why your ahead. The beaver has nearly gnawed thru the tree....
    18 Feb 2012, 05:03 PM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    APPL will soon go the way of MSFT. Now if only I could figure out how to spend a hundred billion dollars . . .
    20 Feb 2012, 12:16 AM Reply Like
  • Matt9636
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Pay for performance. These companies all do employee reviews and the result of that will determine increase or no increase. More new store openings will create more jobs, Allocation of distribution of funds is important but pay for performance NOT because they have it. That will not help the business, It will destroy it.
    18 Feb 2012, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    Yes, yes.....

     

    Let's have a utopia! Heck, Starbucks should pay their "baristas" $100 a hour. "Baristas" is such a hard work that needs a lot of skills, you know....making coffe is hard.....

     

    Or we could get real and let the market dictate the prices for such work.....
    18 Feb 2012, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • John ODonnell
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    Excuse me isn't that what happened to the Auto Industry and Detroit?
    18 Feb 2012, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (947) | Send Message
     
    No, its not the same because govt didn't bail-out SBX the way they bailed out GM. But maybe they would if the coffee servers made $100 and the business collapsed. Remember the corp motto; if we make money it goes to the corp, if we lose money the taxpayer must bail us out. Same as it ever was....
    18 Feb 2012, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • Perkins Cove
    , contributor
    Comments (625) | Send Message
     
    Or we could get real, and attack the real problem in this country (that no one really wants to talk about), the tax code. While those workers at Micky D's probably don't pay Federal and State taxes, we consumers do. And the thought that I have to pay more in percentage than Mitt sucks. A better tax code (flatter and fairer) would do a world of good in bringing this country back. Many of you remember the Dream. Well, that dream has turned into a nightmare for my kids and grandkids. We are printing fiat money they will never be able to pay back. Face it, the 1%, and even the .01% own us. And the only way out I see is with a better tax code. But no one seems to have the guts to make it happen.

     

    Perk
    18 Feb 2012, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • untrusting investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9923) | Send Message
     
    Yes, tax code preferences are one of the major problems in the country today. Too bad that such will probably never be addressed. Too many vested interests got rich and stay rich from such tax code distortions/
    18 Feb 2012, 04:41 PM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    The tax structure allows for corruption. Without it, it would be much more difficult for the rich to exploit the poor.

     

    Where would Nietzsche and Machiavelli be then?
    20 Feb 2012, 12:16 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    If the poor had any brains they would be exploiting the rich, after all that is where the money is.
    20 Feb 2012, 02:23 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    Windsun, being that the top 10% pay about 90% of all income taxes, I fear that may already be happening.

     

    While everybody discusses the "Wealth Gap,"

     

    We have more fat, poor people than ever before.

     

    More poor people, with Cable TV, I-Phones, cell phones, air conditioning, High speed internet, flat screen TV's, housing subsidies, food stamps, EIC, etc, etc, than ever before in our history.

     

    And most importantly, Barrack Obama, in their corner, asking for more.

     

    It's not how much you make, It's how you live.

     

    I fear those "poor people" may not be so "stupid aftter all.

     

    What happens when the "Rich" people finally Wise up?
    20 Feb 2012, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    What is really stupid is that the far Left has been spouting that bit about the rich stealing from the poor for decades now. Which shows how smart they are I suppose - if I was going to steal money from someone the last place I would go is poor people.
    20 Feb 2012, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    web

     

    A better definition is that the tax structure is corrupt in all directions. And the existence of rich people does not by definition reveal exploitation of poor people. You need to present some homework rather than slogans.

     

    What does Machiavellis have to do with any of this rhetoric?
    20 Feb 2012, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    I did not know Mitt Pays more on his long term cap gains than you do?

     

    How is that possible?
    18 Feb 2012, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • Perkins Cove
    , contributor
    Comments (625) | Send Message
     
    Mitt is one of the fortunate that HAS long term cap gains. If he really had any guts he would campaign on changing the percentages. And that goes for all of the politicians. When someone comes up with a comprehensive plan to make our tax system work for every one...they get my vote.

     

    I really don't see another way to bring this country back to the beacon for all it used to be. But I'm open to suggestions.
    18 Feb 2012, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • Eighthman
    , contributor
    Comments (212) | Send Message
     
    My Heavens! The Financial Elite have done an amazing job of Keeping the Truth Away from the public.
    Why do US corporate types get paid So Much More (by orders of magnitude sometimes) than European, Chinese or Japanese business leaders for running companies that MAY EVEN BE SMALLER? This briefly came up when Chysler merged with Mercedes, years ago.

     

    You put workers under a magnifying glass while three martini lunch, golf playing, coke snorting, latest buzz-word quoting empty suits run the country and get their buddies to elevate their corporate-culture salaries. The outcome?

     

    You can keep repeating all this growth/work harder/do more stuff all you like.... and then wonder why you can't find anything worth a long term investment in this market. In part, that's why we stumbled into this subprime debilitated economy - greedy corporate culture and governments have drained away opportunity.
    18 Feb 2012, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • Clayton Rulli
    , contributor
    Comments (2472) | Send Message
     
    Supply and Demand. Right now there is plenty of supply of workers and not enough jobs, so they lower the wages. They will pay as little as they can to get the right person to do the job. Its that simple people. If the job doesnt pay enough then find something that pays more. When you leave, theres 50 people more than willing to take your place for same or less wage.
    18 Feb 2012, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (3519) | Send Message
     
    I think that they should allow people from third world countries as guest workers to work at WMT, MCD and SBUX at $1.50 per hour. There are at least 200 mliion people in India alone that will be willing to take up that job, and to do it without any complaints.

     

    That is the only way the job creators of this country - the geniuses and the brilliant business persons of this country - will be able to get their due share for the selfless service that they provide to make this nation great.

     

    That, and zero tax rate on those making over $1M per year.
    18 Feb 2012, 04:07 PM Reply Like
  • Clayton Rulli
    , contributor
    Comments (2472) | Send Message
     
    Since when did flipping a burger or brewnig a coffee require so much skill as to require 15$ an hour? Give me a break people!!!!!! I won't be paying more than the 1.50$ I do now for a cup of water trickled through beans for you!
    18 Feb 2012, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (947) | Send Message
     
    $15 is too steep. Public sector can do it for $14 but will also require lifetime pensions and retirement after 10 years.
    18 Feb 2012, 05:13 PM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    varan, I'm sure there are some Africans willing to work for under $.50 an hour. Maybe we can start a reality TV show where people compete to work for the lowest wage.

     

    Winner takes home a new Hummer, but they have to pay taxes on it.
    20 Feb 2012, 12:17 AM Reply Like
  • Jake Huneycutt
    , contributor
    Comments (1353) | Send Message
     
    Here's why Blodgett's idea wouldn't work in reality:

     

    http://bit.ly/zwaEWJ
    18 Feb 2012, 04:07 PM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1085) | Send Message
     
    The link provided does "close the circle" on this one. Great counter-point.
    19 Feb 2012, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • Ricardo Espinosa
    , contributor
    Comments (451) | Send Message
     
    I feel sorry for the young kids that need to find a job in 15 or more years, combine job automation, which makes us more efficient, with corporate profit needs (look at what happens to a company that misses estimates and lowers guidance), with a system that requires you to pull money by working for others for survival, and you got a recipe for disaster. The jobs aren´t coming back, companies no longer need that many workers, simple as that, let´s enjoy trading while capitalism (or whatever you want to call it) still exists, because I personally don´t think people around the world can go another 15-20 years with rising unemployment, increasing wealth gap from interest payers to interest recipients.
    Or we can put everyone to work on digging a ditch, then pay the person behind them to cover it up, rinse and repeat.
    18 Feb 2012, 04:27 PM Reply Like
  • divestor
    , contributor
    Comments (91) | Send Message
     
    I agree but think the 15 year time frame is a bit optimistic.
    18 Feb 2012, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • Jake Huneycutt
    , contributor
    Comments (1353) | Send Message
     
    The agricultural sector has been bleeding jobs for the past 100+ years. It didn't cause massive unemployment. People took factor jobs or service jobs in the cities.

     

    We've had rapid technological innovation for 300+ years. Once again, the world didn't come to an end. People developed new skills and took different jobs.

     

    The only thing that creates long-term unemployment is market interventions that prevent labor and capital from coming together at optimal terms, based on the idea that a few bureaucrats know how to solve issues better than the market participants themselves.
    18 Feb 2012, 05:26 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    It is actually worse than it might appear. It was not that long ago that a kid could get his first taste of business selling warm lemonade. Now they would get arrested for not having a $5,000 health permit and food inspection. A taxi license in NYC costs over $100,000. And it goes on and on. I need a long school and a license to be a barber. The list is endless of ways that local government interferes, and it keeps getting worse.

     

    While all the headlines and complaints are about the federal government, local governments have actually been far worse at stifling entrepreneurship, but nobody seems to notice.
    18 Feb 2012, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    Windsun,

     

    NYC taxi medallions are over $1,000,000.00. Not $100K, LOL.

     

    http://reut.rs/AuGKi7

     

    They are one of the absolute best performing asset classes of the last 40 years.

     

    There is an equity (TAXI) that is a play on it.
    19 Feb 2012, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    H.J., those bureaucrats in China seem to be doing pretty well against the market participants in the West. Maybe they have just been out-bureaucrating the bureaucrats.
    20 Feb 2012, 12:17 AM Reply Like
  • Jake Huneycutt
    , contributor
    Comments (1353) | Send Message
     
    webmind,

     

    They've done a spectacular job of creating those "slave labor" jobs that you criticized a few posts up. By intentionally intervening in the economy to favor manufacturing jobs, they've created a mass of low-skill, low-pay jobs and they've prevented their service sector from developing more fully. All the while, they've created a massive real estate bubble that makes America's look tiny in comparison.

     

    I'm always amused by people who criticize the American economy for providing 'low-wage jobs', but then praise China. That's like saying that the Soviet Union does an excellent job at creating civil liberties while Denmark does not. When you sit down and analyze the claim, it becomes laughable on its face.

     

    This bizarre fetish people have for China and its disastrous economic model is truly puzzling. I'd much rather work at Starbucks than be forced to work 7 days a week, 12 hours per day, building products from Western consumers, to the point that I wanted to take my own life.

     

    If there's an Asian economic model that has been successful, it would be Singapore's; not China's.
    20 Feb 2012, 06:07 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    HJ

     

    Well put and I would also add that China's use of Capitalistic methods is not to promote freedom but rather to ensure that centralized government does not lose control over people living in poverty and on the edge of starvation. They ran the communist PR machine to its logical conclusion and then had to change courses as nobody believed it any longer.
    20 Feb 2012, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    Hi H.J. Actually my comment about China was meant in jest: "Maybe they have just been out-bureaucrating the bureaucrats."
    22 Feb 2012, 12:39 PM Reply Like
  • Deja Vu
    , contributor
    Comments (1155) | Send Message
     
    No one, in any other countries except the welfare heavens of US, Europe and Australia, would expect the following when they have a low or zero skill job

     

    1. Having and driving a car
    2. Having a heated and cooled apartment/house
    3. As much food as they can eat
    4. Healthcare insurance or free care at a emergency room

     

    In the rest of the world, when you have a low or zero skilled job, you live in a slum, starve, sweat, shiver and die of common diseases caused by malnutrition. The average low skilled American gets so much for having NO skills and still is not satisfied. Do high school dropouts making coffee and burgers expect want $15/hour? Are they really that productive? Would they then expect raises on this amount each year? Jesus, no wonder, I don't hire anyone except as a contractor.
    18 Feb 2012, 04:41 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (947) | Send Message
     
    Seems to me EVERY American has a long-term interest in maintaining our good lifestyle. The current path is the wrong path. Unsustainable debt, 600 billion trade gap, endless entitlements. We better reach a happy medium very soon or we'll be having a bad day of reckoning. The corp need to pay more to those lower level employees that deserve it. The hand-outs to those not deserving them need to stop. Raise taxes on everyone. Cut services and entitlements. Agree to pay more for American made goods. Create an energy plan. The solutions are a plenty, but most are too self-interested to place priority of the entire country over themselves.
    18 Feb 2012, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Really debatable that corps pay taxes. They just pass on the costs and taxes are one of those costs. Ultimately consumers pay.
    18 Feb 2012, 05:40 PM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    J 457, agree with everything but don't think we should raise taxes on the poor and middle-class. A luxury tax would more than suffice.
    20 Feb 2012, 12:17 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    web

     

    So give your numbers on how this will "more than suffice."
    20 Feb 2012, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    Thomas - not likely that he will - math is hard, especially when you don't get the expected or hoped for results, because then you have to resort to slogans.
    20 Feb 2012, 04:36 PM Reply Like
  • webmind
    , contributor
    Comments (1181) | Send Message
     
    Slogans? Didn't you guys say that the rich can't steal from the poor and middle class because they don't have enough money to make it worthwhile? Now you're saying we should address our financial problems in part by raising taxes on the poor and middle-class?

     

    How does that compute?
    22 Feb 2012, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    I have family members that run franchise restaurants. Their employees are young kids who want a part time job while going to school and young adults who need job training around the basics like showing up on time, smiling at customers, talking to people, being responsible, etc.

     

    None of them are employable at higher level jobs or they would not be in the restaurant. And they have to get rid of a lot of them as they don't want to work and want to tell everyone else what to do. Or they want to treat the customer any way they feel.
    18 Feb 2012, 05:22 PM Reply Like
  • Archman Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2354) | Send Message
     
    You get paid what your worth these days.

     

    Long ago, you could go to college get an average degree in basket weaving and through hard work and motivation you could move up the ladder in a company and many times end up at the very top of that company.

     

    Alas, today's younger generation face many headwinds.

     

    *Being Unmotivated.
    *Brainwashed into believing that life is a reality show.
    *Brainwashed into believing that all your so called Facebook "friends" are going to help you.
    *Believing that if have no desire to excel, receive a useless Liberal Arts degree from college today, that qualifies you to be hired at the $75K range right out of college.
    *Blaming everyone else for your troubles because that's not the way it is supposed to work. Well according to American Idol.

     

    Americans are digging their own graves. Out entitlement nation is sitting there in the corner crying "Why me? Why me? Why is no one taking care of me?"

     

    It's only getting worse for the next generation of dumbed down kids.
    The Disney channel, Nickelodean channels, etc. all show the exact same children's programming now: Unrealistic portrayals of every kid being a "star" with zero parental supervision, unlimited wealth, and a "happy life" full of "happy kids" and easily solved problems.
    Welcome to the real children's America:
    *Over medicated kids whose parents give no discipline to.
    *Shrinking social skills leading to criminal behavior.
    *A larger and larger percentage of children the US that go hungry every day and night.
    *Continued acceptance of this low brow culture, from music to films where the lowest common denominator is championed.

     

    Why is the number one degree in America received by American students Liberal Arts, and the number one degrees received by foreign students studying in our own schools, the STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering, math)?

     

    In this 21st century you get what you deserve.
    Make your own future.
    If you want to be a Barista, you deserve to make $13/ hour.

     

    You want to take the risk, own your own coffee shop, then do it and stop crying about your future and current life.
    18 Feb 2012, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    Archman,

     

    But that's not 'Fair," LOL.

     

    (sarcasm)
    18 Feb 2012, 05:29 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    Maybe when the government stops propping up house prices to protect Bank's balance sheets, they can afford to go out on their own.
    18 Feb 2012, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • robertsiegel55
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    That is a great opening for a discussion on entry level minimum wage
    jobs. P.S. Henry When was the last time You gave a TIP to a McDonalds or Starbucks Employee? Or anyone that feels sorry for ANY minumum wage worker?
    18 Feb 2012, 07:33 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|