Corporate Greed = ?

The Occupy protests have got me thinking specifically about corporate greed. Is there some measure by which we can determine if a corporation is guilty of corporate greed, or if they are not? For example, if their profit margin is 25%, or if they have revenues above some number, or if they've decreased their workforce? Or is it more subjective where each individual goes by intuition about each corporation? Or are all corporations greedy, or excessively greedy? Is there a dividing line below which a corporation is OK?

My starting point in terms of measuring corporate greed would be to see if profits increased while any of a number of other key things happened concurrently, such as:

profits increased and jobs were being outsourced to other countries
profits increased and employee benefits were drastically cut

I think greedy would apply also if they are more concerned about profit then they are about destroying the environment [[e.g., BP in the Gulf Coast).

You cannot punish someone for making profit, even ones deemed excessive...especially if they invented something new and useful.

That said, perhaps some calculation based upon those profit versus contributions to the public good...including taxes and job creation. There should be some penalty for excessive executive compensation and overly aggressive business practices. Something to balance out the drive for ever-greater stockholder compensation and execudroid priveleges.


Curious...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Det_ard

The Occupy protests have got me thinking specifically about corporate greed. Is there some measure by which we can determine if a corporation is guilty of corporate greed, or if they are not? For example, if their profit margin is 25%, or if they have revenues above some number, or if they've decreased their workforce? Or is it more subjective where each individual goes by intuition about each corporation? Or are all corporations greedy, or excessively greedy? Is there a dividing line below which a corporation is OK?

---

Good question. It seems to me that the measure most people use is CEO compensation. I'm sure this is not being used today but at one time for Japanese Auto companies the CEO compensation was no more than 10 times the salary of a assembly line worker. I think now its more by intuition. For example if an CEO got a million dollar bonus on top of his salary because of decisions, while it increased the companies bottom line caused a hardship on the workforce, I think people wouldn't look to kindly on that.

I believe that the emphasis on short term max profits instead of the long term and the CEO compensation being tied to those short term results causes decisions to be made that upsets main street america.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstandten

I believe that the emphasis on short term max profits instead of the long term and the CEO compensation being tied to those short term results causes decisions to be made that upsets main street america.

---

short term thinking is never good over the long haul. It drives market instability and sacrifices the future for the present.

I don't really believe that there is any such thing as "corporate" greed -- it's executive greed, from golden parachutes to huge bonuses to CEOs while demanding the rank-and-file take huge cuts, to bonuses paid to CEOs who drivetheir companies into bankruptcy.

Of course, most corporations are very greedy. Taking our hard earned money and put it in their pockets.

Take Bank of America for example. Recent reports from CPR stated that first they have decided by next year they will charge their customers $5.00 fee who used ther dedit cards. Debit cards are meant for the person who control their and manage their own money. Not to have corporations or anyone esle take their money.

Also Bank of America took tens of billions of taxpayer dollars from the Troubled Asset Relief Program [[TARP) in 2008. This bailout was supposed to help shore up the entire US financial system—as banks can be too big to fail but never too big to take free taxpayer money. Anyway, the terms of these loans required recipient banks to individually maintain sufficient cash to ward off a broader Wall Street meltdown. However, as last week’s Special Investigator General [[SIGTARP) report confirms, Bank of America lobbied heavily to escape the program before they’d achieved the required financial reserves. Why? According to the report, Bank of America cited “…concerns including market perception and restrictions established by the Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation.” In other words, a shaky Bank of America weaseled out early to polish its image and pay executives more—jeopardizing the fiscal health of their company and the stability of our country.

This one wasn’t even close. On September 12th, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan announced 30,000 layoffs—that’s more than twice the number of layoffs [[13,000) declared by 2011’s second-place downsizer, pharmaceutical titan Merck & Co. Bank of America’s bombshell dropped just one month after Moynihan informed investors that “our capital levels are among the highest they’ve ever been in this institution’s history.” Maybe he’s confusing “our” capital levels with his capital levels: last year, Moynihan collected $2 million of his $10 million 2010 total compensation package. Other executives, in some cases, collected even more. Thomas Montag, head of investment banking and capital markets, will rake in $16 million for his work in 2010. Not bad for tanking one of the biggest banks the world has ever seen, though we have to wonder, how many jobs could be saved by firing these two alone?

If you paid any federal income taxes at all last year, you paid more than Bank of America. In fact, unless you got a refund check bigger than $1 billion, you paid more taxes than Bank of America. It gets worse: these freeloaders paid no taxes last year and likely won’t for a long time Chew on that next time pro-banker legislators demand we balance the budget through Social Security and Medicare cuts from middle class families.

All of which leads up to the latest Bank of America gaffe: the unprecedented $5 monthly debit fee slapped on any customer guilty of using his or her debit card for its intended purpose of buying things. This charge comes courtesy of a bank that for years encouraged frequent use of and zealous devotion to debit cards—mainly to help the bank rack up sky-high “interchange” fees from merchants on every card swipe. The company changed their tune, however, following federal legislation requiring that fees be “reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction.” Apparently, despite final federal rulemaking that more than doubled the fee limit set by Congress, reasonable and proportional profits just aren’t enough for this champion profiteer—hence the shocking new fee.

While we applaud the furor over the monthly debit charge, be sure to consider this fee just the latest of many anti-consumer and anti-worker moves from the king of both. We’ll go to another surprising Forbes magazine masterpiece for the final word: “Banks aren’t our friends.” From one friend to another, we couldn’t agree more.


We proletarians [[ especially the 99 percenters who Occupy Wall Street) declared WAR against marriage relationships between U.S.Government and corporations. They must be broken up. The U.S. Constitution says that Government should be treated as a business. It's main goal its to exercise power in this nation to make and pass laws to prevent other state and local governments for making their laws that are not included in the U.S. Constitution. Congress have the power to declare war against foriegn nations [[ if they broke doctrinate peace treaties or promote a act of terrorism and sudden invasion in U.S. lands). The 99 Percent Party will restore the American Middle class and end Kleptocracy rule in the land of free the home of brave.

Downtown Lady sez..."My starting point in terms of measuring corporate greed would be to see if profits increased while any of a number of other key things happened concurrently, such as: profits increased and jobs were being outsourced to other countries"

Yes greedy corporations can do that Take Gateway Computers for example:



February 9, 2006; Chairman Rick Snyder, THE NERD! served as interim CEO until September 7, 2006 when J. Edward Coleman was brought in as the new CEO. At this point, Gateway still sold both Gateway and eMachines brand computers through retail vendors like Circuit City, Best Buy, TigerDirect, Wal-Mart, and CompUSA. Its Gateway brand products continued to be available in direct channels.

Like most large corporations, Gateway has OUTSOURCED! some of its operations, such as customer support. In 2002, Gateway expanded into the consumer electronics world with products that included plasma screen TVs, digital cameras, DLP projectors, wireless internet routers, and MP3 players. While the company enjoyed some success in gaining substantial market share from traditional leaders in the space, particularly with plasma TVs and digital cameras, the limited short-term profit potential of these product lines led then-CEO Wayne Inouye to pull the company out of that segment during 2004. Gateway still acts as a retailer selling third-party electronic goods online.

Gateway has resourced customer support within North America, priding itself as "100% North America-based support". Gateway also moved build-to-order desktop, laptop, and server manufacturing back to the United States, with the opening of its Gateway Configuration Center in Nashville, Tennessee in September 2006. It employed 385 people in that location. As of April 2007 Gateway notebook computers were produced in China and its desktops had "made in Mexico" stickers.




"profits increased and employee benefits were drastically cut"



Evil Wal-Mart has lots of dirt from critics:



With close to two million employees worldwide, Walmart has faced a torrent of lawsuits and issues with regards to its workforce. These issues involve low wages, poor working conditions, inadequate health care, as well as issues involving the company's strong anti-union policies. Critics point to Walmart's high turnover rate as evidence of an unhappy workforce, although other factors may be involved. Approximately 70% of its employees leave within the first year. Despite the turnover rate the company still is able to affect unemployment rates. This was found in a study by Oklahoma State University which states, "Walmart is found to have substantially lowered the relative unemployment rates of blacks in those counties where it is present, but to have had only a limited impact on relative incomes after the influences of other socio-economic variables were taken into account."


The activist group Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy [[LAANE) said "in 2006 Walmart reports that full time hourly associates received, on average, $10.11 an hour." It further calculated that working 34 hours per week an employee earns $17,874 per year and claimed that is about twenty percent less than the average retail worker. [[The number of hours the "average retail worker" worked was not specified.) The report from LAANE further opines that this pay is "over $10,000 less than what the average two-person family needs." Walmart managers are judged, in part, based on their ability to control payroll costs. Some say this puts extra pressure on higher-paid workers to be more productive.
By contrast, Walmart insists its wages are generally in line with the current local market in retail labor, although direct comparisons are complicated because Walmart employs more part time workers, and the company's more extensive training, supervision, and automation provides opportunity to workers with little or no experience or skills, which may account for wage differences. Walmart grants "full time" benefits to those working as little as 34 hours per week, but does not limit workers to just 34 hours per week. The company does control labor costs by such ways as discouraging overtime, and by the use of "off the clock" labor. There have been numerous lawsuits against Walmart by former employees because of this problem.

Other critics have noted that in 2001, the average wage for a Walmart Sales Clerk was $8.23 per hour, or $13,861 a year, while the federal poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. Walmart founder Sam Walton once said, "I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment."
In August 2006, Walmart announced that it would roll out an average pay increase of 6% for all new hires at 1,200 U.S. Walmart and Sam's Club locations, but the same time would institute pay caps on veteran workers.While Walmart maintains that the measures are necessary to stay competitive, critics believe that the salary caps are primarily an effort to push higher-paid veteran workers out of the company.
Because Walmart employs part-time and relatively low paid workers, some workers may partially qualify for state welfare programs. This has led critics to claim that Walmart increases the burden on taxpayer-funded services. A 2002 survey by the state of Georgia's subsidized healthcare system, PeachCare, found that Walmart was the largest private employer of parents of children enrolled in its program; one quarter of the employees of Georgia Walmarts qualified to enroll their children in the federal subsidized healthcare system Medicaid. A 2004 study at the University of California, Berkeley charges that Walmart's low wages and benefits are insufficient, and although decreasing the burden on the social safety net to some extent, California taxpayers still pay $86 million a year to Walmart employees.

More to come.....

Continued....

Walmart has also faced accusations involving poor working conditions of its employees. For example, a 2005 class action lawsuit in Missouri asserted approximately 160,000 to 200,000 people who were forced to work off-the-clock, were denied overtime pay, or were not allowed to take rest and lunch breaks. In 2000, Walmart paid $50 million to settle a class-action suit that asserted that 69,000 current and former Walmart employees in Colorado had been forced to work off-the-clock. The company has also faced similar lawsuits in other states, including Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Minnesota. Class-action suits were also filed in 1995 on behalf of full-time Walmart pharmacists whose base salaries and working hours were reduced as sales declined, resulting in the pharmacists being treated like hourly employees.

Walmart has also been accused of ethical problems. It is said that the Walmart employees are gender discriminated when trying to be hired and treated in the work area. In Duke vs. Walmart inc., which was a discrimination case on behalf of more than 1.5 million current and former female employees of Walmart’s 3,400 stores across the United States. [[9th circuit 2007) Dr. William Bliebly who evaluated Walmart’s employment policies "against what social science research shows to be factors that create and sustain bias and those that minimize bias” [[Bliebly) and he finished by saying, the men and women not being created equal in the workforce is what Walmart is doing and what they should essentially not be doing.
On October 16, 2006, approximately 200 workers on the morning shift at a Walmart Super Center in Hialeah Gardens, Florida walked out in protest against new store policies and rallied outside the store, shouting "We want justice" and criticizing the company's recent policies as "inhuman." This marks the first time that Walmart has faced a worker-led revolt of such scale, according to both employees and the company. Reasons for the revolt included cutting full-time hours, a new attendance policy, and pay caps that the company imposed in August 2006, compelling workers to be available to work any shift [[day, swing or night), and that shifts would be assigned by computers at corporate headquarters and not by local managers. Walmart quickly held talks with the workers, addressing their concerns. Walmart asserts that its policy permits associates to air grievances without fear of retaliation.
The 2004 report by U.S. Representative George Miller alleged that in ten percent of Walmart's stores, nighttime employees were locked inside, holding them prisoner. There has been some concern that Walmart's policy of locking its nighttime employees in the building has been implicated in a longer response time to dealing with various employee emergencies, or weather conditions such as hurricanes in Florida. Walmart said this policy was to protect the workers, and the store's contents, in high-crime areas and acknowledges that some employees were inconvenienced in some instances for up to an hour as they had trouble locating a manager with the key. However, fire officials confirm that at no time were fire exits locked or employees blocked from escape. Walmart has advised all stores to ensure the door keys are available on site at all times.
In January 2004, The New York Times reported on an internal Walmart audit conducted in July 2000, which examined one week's time-clock records for roughly 25,000 employees. According to the Times, the audit, "pointed to extensive violations of child-labor laws and state regulations requiring time for breaks and meals," including 1,371 instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day.

More to come...

Continued....




There were 60,767 missed breaks and 15,705 lost meal times. Walmart’s vice president for communications responded that company auditors had determined that the methodology used was flawed, and the company "did not respond to it in any way internally."

Walmart has been accused of allowing illegal immigrants to work in its stores. In one case, federal investigators say Walmart executives knew that contractors were using illegal immigrants as they had been helping the federal government with an investigation for the previous three years. Some critics said that Walmart directly hired illegal immigrants, while Walmart claims they were employed by contractors who won bids to work for Walmart.

On October 23, 2003, federal agents raided 61 Walmart stores in 21 U.S. states in a crackdown known as "Operation Rollback," resulting in the arrests of 250 nightshift janitors who were undocumented. Following the arrests, a grand jury convened to consider charging Walmart executives with labor racketeering crimes for knowingly allowing illegal immigrants to work at their stores. The workers themselves were employed by agencies Walmart contracted with for cleaning services. Walmart blamed the contractors, but federal investigators point to wiretapped conversations showing that executives knew some workers did not have the right papers. The October 2003 raid was not the first time Walmart was found using unauthorized workers. Earlier raids in 1998 and 2001 resulted in the arrests of 100 workers without documentation located at Walmart stores around the country.
In November 2005, 125 alleged undocumented immigrants were arrested while working on construction of a new Walmart distribution center in eastern Pennsylvania. According to Walmart, the workers were employees of Walmart's construction subcontractor.

In November 2009, Joseph Casias was fired from Walmart in Battle Creek, Michigan, for using medical marijuana. Joseph Casias was a cancer patient with a prescription for marijuana. WalMart spokesman Greg Rossiter claimed that Walmart policy is to terminate employees who take certain prescription medications, and he believed that this policy complied with the law.

More to come...

In October 2001, a class action sexual discrimination lawsuit, Mauldin v. Walmart Stores, Inc., was filed against Walmart challenging the company's denial of health insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives. The lawsuit was certified for class action status, but later dropped by the plaintiffs in 2006 once Walmart agreed to change its health insurance policies.
In March 2008, Walmart sued a former Walmart employee, Deborah Shank, to recover the money it spent for her health care after she was brain-damaged, restricted to a wheelchair, and nursing home-bound after her minivan was hit by a truck. Walmart sued the former employee for $470,000 after she received a settlement from the accident, citing that company policy forbids employees from receiving coverage if they also win a settlement in a lawsuit. After a wave of bad publicity, Walmart dropped its suit.
New, full-time Walmart associates must work at least six months before being eligible to purchase the company's primary health insurance.



Walmart has been criticized for its policies against labo unions. Critics blame workers' reluctance to join the labor union on Walmart anti-union tactics such as managerial surveillance and pre-emptive closures of stores or departments who choose to unionize. Walmart states that it is not anti-union but, "pro-associate," arguing that its employees do not need to pay third parties to discuss problems with management as the company's open-door policy enables employees to lodge complaints and submit suggestions all the way up the corporate ladder.In 1970, company's late founder Sam Walton resisted a unionization push by the Retail Clerks International Union in two small Missouri towns by hiring a professional union buster to conduct an anti-union campaign. On the union buster's advice, Walton also took steps to show his workers on how the company had their best interests in mind, encouraging them to air concerns with managers and implementing a profit-sharing program. A few years later, Walmart hired a consulting firm, Alpha Associates, to develop a union avoidance program.

In 2000, meat cutters in Jacksonville, Texas voted to unionize and Walmart subsequently eliminated in-house meat-cutting jobs in favor of prepackaged meats on the claims that it cut costs and was a preventive measure to lawsuits. Walmart claimed that the nationwide closing of in-store meat packaging had been planned for many years and was not related to the unionization. In June 2003, a National Labor Relations Board judge ordered Walmart to restore the meat department to its prior structure, complete with meat-cutting, and to recognize and bargain with the union over the effects of any change to case-ready meat sales.

More to come...

Walmart's anti-union policies also extend beyond the United States. The documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, shows one successful unionization of a Walmart store in Jonquière, Quebec [[Canada) in 2004, but Walmart closed the store five months later because the company did not approve of the new "business plan" a union would require. In September 2005, the Québec Labor Board ruled that the closing of a Walmart store amounted to a reprisal against unionized workers and has ordered additional hearings on possible compensation for the employees, though it offered no details.
In March 2005, Walmart executive Tom Coughlin was forced to resign from its Board of Directors, facing charges of embezzlement.] Coughlin claimed that the money was used for an anti-union project involving cash bribes paid to employees of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union in exchange for a list of names of Walmart employees that had signed union cards. He also claimed that the money was unofficially paid to him, by Walmart, as compensation for his anti-union efforts. In August 2006, Coughlin pleaded guilty to stealing money, merchandise, and gift cards from Walmart, but avoided prison time due to his poor health. He was sentenced to five years probation and required to pay a $50,000 fine and $411,000 in restitution to Walmart and the Internal Revenue Service. A U.S. attorney has stated that no evidence was found to back up Coughlin's initial claims, and Walmart continues to deny the existence of the anti-union program, though Coughlin himself apparently restated those claims to reporters after his sentencing.
Walmart has also had some run-ins with the German Ver.di labor union as well. These issues, combined with cultural differences and low performing stores, led Walmart to pull out of the German market entirely in 2006.
In August 2006, Walmart announced that it would allow workers at all of its Chinese stores to become members of trade unions, and that the company would work with the state-sanctioned All-China Federation of Trade Unions [[ACFTU) on representation for its 28,000 staff. However, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions has been criticized because it is the only trade union in China and as a tool of the government, ACFTU has been seen as not acting in the best interest of its members [[workers), bowing to the government pressure on industry growth and not defending workers' rights.
As a large customer to most of its vendors, Walmart openly uses its bargaining power to bring lower prices to attract its customers. The company negotiates lower prices from vendors. For certain basic products, Walmart "has a clear policy" that prices go down from year to year.If a vendor does not keep prices competitive with other suppliers, they risk having their brand removed from Walmart's shelves in favor of a lower-priced competitor. Critics argue that this pressures vendors to shift manufacturing jobs to China and other nations, where the cost of labor is less expensive.
In the mid-1990s, Walmart had a "Buy American" campaign. Yet by 2005, about 60% of Walmart's merchandise was imported, compared to 6% in 1995. In 2004, Walmart spent $18 billion on Chinese products alone, and if it were an individual economy, the company would rank as China's eighth largest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia, and Canada.One group estimates that the growing US trade deficit with China, heavily influenced by Walmart imports, is estimated to have moved over 1.5 million jobs that might otherwise be in America to China between 1989 and 2003. According to the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations [[AFL-CIO), "Walmart is the single largest importer of foreign-produced goods in the United States", their biggest trading partner is China, and their trade with China alone constitutes approximately 10% of the total US trade deficit with China as of 2004
While the company certainly imports many products, it points out that it purchases goods from more than 68,000 US vendors, spending $137.5 billion in 2004, and supporting more than 3.5 million supplier jobs in the US.

Walmart has been criticized for not providing adequate supervision of its foreign suppliers. It has also been criticized for using sweatshops and prison labor. For example, in 1995, Chinese dissident Harry Wu charged that Walmart was contracting prison labor in Guangdon Province. However, Walmart says it does not use prison labor. There have also been reports of teenagers in Bangladesh working in sweatshops 80 hours per week at $0.14 per hour, for Walmart supplier Beximco. The documentary film Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price shows images of factories that produce goods for Walmart that appear in poor condition, and factory workers subject to abuse and conditions the documentary producers consider inhumane.

According to Walmart and many self-described advocates of free trade, comparisons of wage levels between vastly different countries is not a useful way to assess the fairness of a trade policy. The company also points out that wages paid to overseas workers are comparable to or exceed local prevailing wages. In that case, the company claims that the overseas manufacturing jobs it creates are often an improvement in the quality of life for its employees. They have also drawn attention to the fact that factory jobs with its suppliers are often safer and healthier than local alternatives, which may include prostitution, the drug trade, or scavenging.
Walmart currently uses monitoring which critics say is inadequate and "leaves outsiders unable to verify" conditions. Since Walmart will not release its audits or factory names, outside organizations are left to simply take Walmart's word. Critics suggest an agency such as Social Accountability International or the Fair Labor Association should do the monitoring. In 2004, Walmart began working with Business for Social Responsibility, a San Francisco, California-based nonprofit organization, to reach out to groups active in monitoring overseas plants.
In June 2006, Walmart was excluded from the investment portfolio of The Government Pension Fund of Norway, which held stock values of about US$ 430 million in the company, due to a social audit into alleged labor rights violations in Walmart operations in the United States, Canada, Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Although Walmart did not respond to questions from the fund's auditors, it later claimed the decision "[doesn't] appear to be based on complete information".

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

All of those poisons while Evil Wal-Mart is making money lowering its prices. That is why I NEVER shop Evil Wal-Mart ever again for Neda's sake!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannon

You cannot punish someone for making profit, even ones deemed excessive...especially if they invented something new and useful.

---

The workers who make that profit possible...are they not entitled to any share of increased profits?

I mean, Steve Jobs may have been the Second Coming for all we know, but without people actually designing, manufacturing, and testing the latest iThing, he doesn't make dollar one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

The workers who make that profit possible...are they not entitled to any share of increased profits?

I mean, Steve Jobs may have been the Second Coming for all we know, but without people actually designing, manufacturing, and testing the latest iThing, he doesn't make dollar one.

---

Workers have the right to leave and work for someone else or start their own companies if they wish. Some probably did. Maybe a committee of workers can replace Steve Jobs now that he is gone.:rolleyes:

I've asked before why billionaire Democrats or labor unions don't buy an oil company or a pharmaceutical company and sell gas and drugs at cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Workers have the right to leave and work for someone else or start their own companies if they wish. Some probably did. Maybe a committee of workers can replace Steve Jobs now that he is gone.:rolleyes:

I've asked before why billionaire Democrats or labor unions don't buy an oil company or a pharmaceutical company and sell gas and drugs at cost.

---

So you're stating that employees do not deserve fair compensation for their efforts. Is that a correct assessment of your blase attitude toward workers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

So you're stating that employees do not deserve fair compensation for their efforts. Is that a correct assessment of your blase attitude toward workers?

---

No, I'm saying if they do not think they are receiving a fair salary, they should get another job or start their own company so they can be just like Steve Jobs. Second, I'm pointing out the vacuous hypocrisy of democrats who want to do things they refuse to do themselves. My sons average $101,000/year doing their respective computer jobs. How much do you consider to be fair? How much should they demand in your opinion? Why didn't the government invent computers and just give them away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

No, I'm saying if they do not think they are receiving a fair salary, they should get another job or start their own company so they can be just like Steve Jobs.

---

Did it ever occur to you that maybe some people do not *want* to be Steve Jobs? Or that an economy simply can't function if everyone is a multi-millionaire CEO? Or that some people are fortunate enough to have access to capital, and others do not?

If Steve Jobs didn't need any employees at Apple, why didn't he just make everything with his own bare hands? I'm simply arguing that if a company [[and its CEO) are making money hand-over-fist, they can afford to pay their employees a decent wage. I'm looking at you, Walmart.

You, on the other hand, are promoting a reintroduction of a feudal economy. A feudal economy, I might add, where even the sons you ostentatiously BRAG about would be peasants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Did it ever occur to you that maybe some people do not *want* to be Steve Jobs? Or that an economy simply can't function if everyone is a multi-millionaire CEO? Or that some people are fortunate enough to have access to capital, and others do not?

If Steve Jobs didn't need any employees at Apple, why didn't he just make everything with his own bare hands? I'm simply arguing that if a company [[and its CEO) are making money hand-over-fist, they can afford to pay their employees a decent wage. I'm looking at you, Walmart.

You, on the other hand, are promoting a reintroduction of a feudal economy. A feudal economy, I might add, where even the sons you ostentatiously BRAG about would be peasants.

---

You, not I, brought up Steve Jobs under this heading of greed in your post #12. I did not suggest that everyone wants to be Steve Jobs or that "an economy simply can't function if everyone is a multi-millionaire CEO". Some might prefer to attempt aspiring as an alternative to whining however.

You didn't answer my question about how much more money Apple computer employees should be getting paid. If I were to criticize Steve Jobs it would instead be for sending so many of Apple's production jobs overseas. What is your basis though for saying that Apple's US employees don't receive an decent wage or was that just a rhetorical comment? The House and Senate, by the way, just passed free trade type bills with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea so I expect that our economic traitor in chief will soon be signing away more US jobs to those countries. Will you insist that Apple share owners share more of it's profit with S. Korean computer engineers too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

You, not I, brought up Steve Jobs under this heading of greed in your post #12. I did not suggest that everyone wants to be Steve Jobs or that "an economy simply can't function if everyone is a multi-millionaire CEO". Some might prefer to attempt aspiring as an alternative to whining however.

---

So what's your excuse? Why aren't you a multi-millionaire? Lazy, are we???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

No, I'm saying if they do not think they are receiving a fair salary, they should get another job or start their own company so they can be just like Steve Jobs.

---

In an economy with virtually no protection for working people, and very little capital to be found, that is a very naive-sounding statement.

Quote:

---

Second, I'm pointing out the vacuous hypocrisy of democrats who want to do things they refuse to do themselves.

---

huh?

Quote:

---

My sons average $101,000/year doing their respective computer jobs. How much do you consider to be fair? How much should they demand in your opinion? Why didn't the government invent computers and just give them away?

---

That sounds fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

You didn't answer my question about how much more money Apple computer employees should be getting paid.

---

Maybe Apple is not the best example, since that involves highly-skilled employees who probably will not be struggling wherever they happen to work.

Many years ago I worked [[very briefly) in the offices of a small automotive supplier in Farmington Hills. The shop employees earned minimum wage working on dangerous machines, for owners that were not very interested in maintaining OSHA safety standards, most likely due to associated costs.

Many of the employees had minimal education, and some had a prison record and therefore had difficulty getting hired, so they took whatever they could get to be able to put food on the table. The company was not struggling; the owners were millionaires.

I think this is the kind of corporate greed that is being referred to, where profits are more important than providing safety and a decent wage to people putting in an honest day's work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

The House and Senate, by the way, just passed free trade type bills with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea so I expect that our economic traitor in chief will soon be signing away more US jobs to those countries.

---

I would bet that Obama isn't a fan of free trade agreements generally, but given the economic situation that we face he is doing the pragmatic thing by getting these agreements passed.
We have an imbalance of of imports versus exports. Free trade agreements can be good or bad depending on how they are structured and what segments of the economy do you want to help.

In this case the president is trying to jumpstart the economy since this agreement will boost exports by 13 billion which will help the auto industry and farmers. Now these kinds of agreements need to be used along with more long term measures to get the economy to where it should be.

The president got assurances from Korea which will help the US auto industry , from Panama to help root out tax cheats [[Panama is a big banking center) and Colombia concerning labor rights.

The reason this agreement took so long to get passed was because the president wanted funding to help workers displaced by lower trade barriers and of course the Repubs fought him on this even though they were in support of the agreement in general.

The reason we elect a president is to not see only the black and white of an issue but to understand the many shades of grey in a issue and act accordingly.

firstandten, We already have experience with NAFTA and GATT. Such trade policies have made it easier to import overseas goods. Such policies have contributed to an overall imbalance of imports vs. exports. Such policies are the dream of corporations. Obama knows that expanding such poliies but will fill his campaign coffers. Even by his own admission, "The reason this agreement took so long to get passed was because the president wanted funding to help workers displaced by lower trade barriers." IT WILL DISPLACE MORE US WORKERS.

"To date, 682,900 U.S. jobs have been lost or displaced since the North American Free Trade Agreement." When Senator Obama was running for president, he campaigned against NAFTA.

Quote:

---

The Economic Policy Institute estimated in 2010 that the Korean and Colombian trade agreements will result in 214,000 jobs lost in the United States.

---

The new Korean trade pack was passed just in time to import lithium battery cells from S. Korea for GM Volts.