| Author |
Message |
    
Buellifer
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 01:30 am: | 
|
Quote>>>I wonder if the UAW will strike as the agreement ends with GM.
You replied to reindog and his employers are on strike comment. This is what I am talking about with you and your dialogue. I look at your quote and it has nothing to do with what you originally posted or what everyone is talking about. I feel you are just starting crap with the union comment. WHY BRING A UNION ISSUE IN TO THE THREAD? The end of their contract has nothing to do with employers not hiring.
No pissing in the wind here. Damn I just need to avoid certain threads from now on. Who needs the headache.
Goodnight |
Patrick2cents
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 01:37 am: |
|
what most individuals like you need to understand is that companies don't owe you, or anyone else, a darn thing. They exist to make money. Just the same as I expect to make money on money I invest.
Look up the dividends paid, P/E ratios, profit margins etc of some of these companies and see how much money they (ie shareholders, many of whom are working class individuals investing towards retirement) are really making.
If they do start making a HUGE profit (as you assert) competition will arise and do it for less (taking away market share) thus evening things out. It's actually a pretty amazing system.
The trouble comes when the government tries to control it. There are so many unintended consequences from any piece of legislation they really should learn to keep a laissez faire approach. that really would make things better. |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 06:09 am: |
|
Stop making sense; it will ruin the fantasy. |
Court
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 09:02 am: |
|
>>>> Clearly GE makes tens of billions every year they do not need to kill American jobs!!!
I disagree with much of what you say but I do have to ask one question.
If the above is true . . . about GE making tens of billions, answer these simple questions.
1) Why did Barack Obama appoint the Chairman of the Board of GE (the same guy who devised and deployed the plan to move GE overseas) to be to head his President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness?
2) Why did Barack Obama help fund moving GE's medical division to China?
While your assertions are entertaining they frankly show a basic lack of understanding of how business operates.
I also have to ask . . . have you ever owned or been CEO of a firm with more than 50 employees?
I ask because the perspective of watching a street fight and having your ass kicked are quite different.
I would avoid hiring new employee at this time through any legal means available.
Good reading |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 09:20 am: |
|
My point about the UAW was simply to ask if they would press the contract issue at a time when the real unemployment rate is around 17%.
I didn't really think about my comment's juxtaposition with Reindog's comment. Until you mentioned it, I hadn't noticed. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 09:24 am: |
|
Bullifer,
You have very specific ideas on how you think things ought to be. I'm trying to understand them. My questions are to help me to do that.
What would YOU do to reverse the trend of offshoring?
How would YOU bring jobs back to the US?
You believe "greed" made them leave. How would you bring them back? |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 09:42 am: |
|
are you kidding? without offshoring and outsourcing, I would be unemployed.
Thank goodness for a second language and the understanding of a MARKET economy.
There is indeed money to be made. |
Bartimus
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 10:36 am: |
|
I see here in the southwest, plenty of jobs for skilled trades. When I lived in Phoenix, I had plenty of employers contacting me. here in Albuquerque, it's much the same.
Employers are looking for potential employees, that have been through trade schools, and/or military service.
I currently work for Tempurpedic mattress.
The company cannot keep up with demand, with it's two US factories. Our factory here in New Mexico, due to it's size and capabilities, is the only one worldwide able to produce the quantities, consumers are wanting.
Hence, we are stepping up production, creating another shift, and hiring 75 more employees.
It's going to be tough on the maintenance department. Less time for Preventative maint, more runtime on the equipment, more demand to keep the equipment running, etc.
But overall, a big plus for the company, and the local economy.
It still amazes me that people are willing to pay thousands for a mattress.
But until you've slept on one, you will never know just how comfortable they are... |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 11:01 am: |
|
Unions are a hiring issue I ll never have a union in any company I own. I ll just shut them down and or Offshore them. I started as a Union member they became impossible to deal with more so since the annoited one was elected.
Companies leave because union and the gov are such a pain in the ___ to work with. The NRLB and Boeing issues prevent any CEO from sugggesting any thing but exiting the US with this bad of thieves and crooks in charge.
Follow the dead state economies and dead cities Democrats and Unions are in control of. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 11:17 am: |
|
It's funny hearing the arguments about how a business shouldn't try to make large profits. Consider the fact that as an employee, you are a business of one. You supply a service under contract to your employer. Have you ever considered negotiating a lower profit for yourself? Do unions ever do this?
I've actually done this. Trust me, I got something else that I wanted. The look on the person's face I was negotiating with was priceless though. He did say that was a first for him. |
Buellifer
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 11:24 am: |
|
In my comment I said GE (this goes for most big business traded on the market) Being an American company means nothing to them... They do not care about the American worker or making America grow... They create jobs outside the USA. Why because it is cheap labor bigger profits... Money is the only thing they care about and you are telling me it is not Greed? Right!!!
Here is how you bring jobs back... Tax the living crap out of the American company for creating jobs out of the country but instead government gives them tax breaks for it. Also give very minimal or no taxes for keeping jobs in the USA... It all comes down to money with business you hit them hard enough they will keep jobs here. To keep them competitive with there over seas counterparts tax the hell out of imported goods. Those countries do it to us. America needs to do the same. Or there will be no middle class and the unemployment rate will keep climbing not because of the economy tanking but because business's keep replacing American jobs with cheap over seas/across the boarder labor.
Now I'm sure you have a comment to tell me it would never work.
But anything is possible if there were enough people in congress who would have the balls to stop them from going over seas. A balance of taxation between exporting jobs, keeping job here a taxing imported goods could help keep and create jobs here.
It would work but congress has to much to lo$e to have the balls to put a taxation bill in place like that.
OK go ahead and say it is impossible. That's what you like to do. Give me your dialogue on it. Can't wait to hear how moronic I am but you will say it a nice way!!!
There is my 2 cents... Everyone knows it will work but everyone is worried what other countries think about us and those countries would give us some major crap for going against the very trade agreements they go against. America needs to look out for it's self. But as long as our business's do their business outside the country with no penalty we will continue to lose jobs and raise the unemployment rate. THINK ABOUT THIS...WHERE WILL OUR KIDS WORK? OR WILL THEY EVER FIND A DECENT PAYING JOB? |
Sifo
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Buellifer,
I'm not show who the "you" is that you are referring to. I'll go ahead and give some of my thoughts though.
Taxing someone for business that is done outside of your borders? Really? How does that work. Can Michigan tax a company that sets up shop in Ohio? I think you are referring to tariffs, but tariffs normally target specific good from specific countries and are justified for a wide variety of reasons. Using GE as an example though, if we impose a tariff against goods produce by GE in China, then they can no longer compete with the same Chinese manufactures that were beating them to begin with, at least with goods going to the US. If the tariff is high enough they won't be able to sell their goods in the US, but it sill isn't profitable to do production in the US. This leave the choice of closing shop, or doing business in China, and simply not selling in the US.
Sure you can set up tariffs on even more goods from out of country, rather than targeting GE for example. This becomes very isolationist, and historically doesn't lead to long term prosperity and good relations with the world. It's a tempting direction to go, but leads to very difficult trade relations with all countries. It really winds up setting you up to be at a disadvantage to the rest of the entire world. This is because all other countries will trade amongst themselves, but become unwilling to trade with you. Countries like China can get away with this to some degree because their production costs are so low for various reasons, so their good are still competitive even if we put heavy tariffs on them. US companies just aren't in that position, because of higher wages, higher taxes, EPA regs. etc.
This also does nothing to encourage foreign companies to set up shop in the US. It is simply punitive to US companies that go over seas. Cutting corporate taxes across the board OTOH, especially cutting them to zero addresses these issues far better. It encourages US companies to stay here, it encourages foreign companies to set up shop here, and it doesn't make for more difficult foreign relations.
Of course that leave the issue of where to make up the tax shortfall, and that means higher taxes on the consumer. This isn't really a big deal though simply because of the fact that current corporate taxes come from cash paid by consumers anyway.
Didn't your parents ever teach you that positive reinforcement is better than negative; You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, etc. |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 12:29 pm: |
|
You should read the PPACA; there is no greater document coming down the pike that will force jobs overseas than that one.
It goes live 1.1.2014 - insurance companies, support staff, call centers, and actuarials will be overseas by the end of the quarter - hell many of them already operate overseas. Many of them will just shut the lights off here and go to a market that is not as restrictive, detrimental, hostile and profitable. your choices in healthcare are about to get less available, more expensive and cover less because of this bill. And it was ALL at the gun barrel of Hope and Change - enjoy the Delta
(no one ever promised you it was change for the better)
Ps Why are you having kids in this market ?!?!?! there is not a bright future for them. |
Court
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 01:42 pm: |
|
>>>Taxing someone for business that is done outside of your borders? Really? How does that work.
I was getting ready to ask the same thing. I'm not sure our Congress can make laws that govern places like Adelaide, South Australia (where Harley-Davidson wheels come from) or Japan (where Harley-Davidson suspensions come from) or Canada (where many Ford motors come from).
Import tariff wars generally have a number of unintended consequences.
For instance . . . (and I confess I've thought of this) what if there was a $2,000 imported vehicle fee on every car and $1,000 on every motorcycle, brought into the USA?
The last time that happened (that I am familiar with) was when the feds stepped in to help Harley-Davidson.
But . . . Ford (the sole private maker of cars in the USA) does most (someone can fact check that, I'm not entirely sure it's accurate) it's business overseas. What if suddenly Europe and Japan do the same thing?
It's complicated.
But . . .your "greed" thinking is pretty much the crowd chant of those with few facts. It's easy to point at someone making millions (about the same as the Clintons are), point a finger and blame the wealthy. |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 01:59 pm: |
|
Court the Transit Connect is under a Tariff ever wonder why the funky window panels and interiors. They are all Imported as passenger vans stripped at the POE and the seats windows etc shipped back to Turkey to avoid a High Tariff on the Mini Cargo Vans. It saves about $3200.00 even with the parts fire drill and shipping. |
Court
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 02:46 pm: |
|
Interesting . . . did not know that. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 02:55 pm: |
|
Tariffs lead to interesting things though. During the tariffs to protect HD back in the 80's it the tariff was on 750cc and greater bikes. The 750 class was king of the hill back then. Smart businessmen will always be adjusting to the hurdles put in front of them, often with unintended consequences. |
46champ
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 08:38 pm: |
|
I'm not sure Buellifer has got his tariff procedures quite correct but I think we can't be the only open market in the world. If something isn't done we will be a third world country in side of 20 years. I do believe the corporate tax rate needs to disappear and if that happens foreign companies will set up plants here. Something has to be done about patent right and copyright infringement by the Chinese and others it does no good to be innovative when they steal what you have innovated. |
Court
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2011 - 10:29 am: |
|
I'm finding the Gibson guitar thing more and more disturbing . . . I bought my first Gibson (a Melody Maker and a Skylark amp) in 1965 and have been a fan through the last Gibson Custom 12 String I recently bought.
I'm well aware that the Epiphone, made overseas, is now of equal quality for about 1/4 the price but am still looking at a '61 SG and a 335 over the G400 and Casino anyway.
American manufacturing is poised to regain it's "best in the world" status. . . we have a LOT going for us right now and there is too much focus on the wages and not enough on the talents we bring.
It's unfortunate that government, in an attempt to artificially influence the markets, has to mess things up. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2011 - 10:57 am: |
|
Buellifer,
Thank you for your response. I'd like to address your suggestions.
There is the carrot approach, and there is the stick approach. Higher taxes and higher tariffs could work. These are the stick approach.
The main issue I see with the stick approach is unintended consequences. Foreign countries will simply increase tariffs to match ours. Higher corporate taxes will discourage foreign investment (Toyota, Nissan, Honda, UBS, ING, Nestle, Sony, HSBC, Volkswagen, etc.).
The carrot approach rewards activities and behaviors that are believed to be good for business and society as a whole. Tax deductions for mortgage interest is one of these carrots.
The advantage of the carrot approach is that it has fewer unintended side effects. The main issue with the carrot is that you may get more of the target behavior than intended.
There are no "special breaks" given to companies to off shore jobs. The issue is that a corporation can limit the tax exposure of the company by placing and keeping capital outside of the US. In fact, the tax laws actually punish companies trying to bring assets back into the US (repatriate assets).
What if we used a carrot approach for corporations?
First, there are few countries where corporations have a higher tax and expense of operation. Part of the reason for jobs moving overseas is this expense of operation of business in the US.
What if we created a carrot specifically targeted to US employment. Higher employment is the target, what action would drive that behavior with the least number of side effects?
What if we provided a 1 for 2 tax rate reduction based upon percentage of US employees? If a company has 50% of it employees US based, it would receive a 25% reduction in corporate tax rate. 100% US based employees, the company would receive a 50% reduction in corporate tax rate.
Taxes are one of the single largest expenses an employer has. Taxes compete with other expenses for shelf space. Price, because of competition, is not flexible. Therefore, employers seek to cut costs. Labor is one that can be cut.
By sourcing the labor component outside the US, corporations are able to remain competitive.
I asked you what you felt was a reasonable rate of return. The reason I asked this is that I wanted to illustrate that the profit margins corporations currently earn are not unreasonable. Too often, opponents of capitalism and free market concentrate on the nominal dollars earned by a corporation rather than the profit margin. If a company is VERY large, it will earn large amounts of nominal profit, but that profit may only be pennies on the dollar (the health care industry is one example). Healthcare companies earn about 3% profit margin but are huge, so the nominal dollars earned is very large.
Please see the attached link:
Profit Margin by Industry
My contention is that if you want employers, particularly manufacturing employers, to hire more US workers, why not encourage that activity. |
|
