Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?

If they are unpublished, how do reconcile the statement that there are thousands? Most businesses in the US are small mom and pop shops........barely breaking even after labor costs and other expenses. There's certainly many instances of abuse but again.........no one is forcing people to work for these companies. Time for people to stop whining and do something to better their own lives, as opposed to wanting something given to them.

6/10

Lib Rules wrote:

C'mon, man. Do you honestly believe the thousands of people working for "minimum wage" are all just lazy? There are people trying to support their families on minimum wage because there aren't other jobs to be had where they are - especially jobs that pay more. Meanwhile, the businesses are making profits had-over-fist and sending none of it to the men and women on their front lines.

I made more than minimum wage washing dishes when I was 14 years old. There is something seriously wrong with any grown man who can't command a higher salary than a freshly minted middle school graduate.

Also, no one forced these people to have families. I am holding off on having kids because I'm not financially ready. It would be stupid for me to forgo education in order to have children, when I have the opportunity to put off having children so that I can complete my education and then have kids during or after residency when I can actually afford to take care of them.

And no one is forcing anyone to stay where they are. Pretty much everyone I know has moved at least once for career opportunities. What makes wage earners so special that they can't be expected to leave their neighborhood for work while the rest of us view moving for work as a routine part of life?

dummies amounst us wrote:

Board pay the same taxes? Of course they do. Board members are generally honorary positions, or are appointed because of a constituent shareholder base. Board members don't receive much compensation for their duties.

There couldn't possibly a lower information voter than a conservative. Aww a group you display a mind-boggling level of ignorance.

So "Board members don't receive much compensation for their duties" means they get a quarter million dollars a year for just over a month's work, a yearly wage of over two million.

So you're either dumb as a stump or a liar, both of which mean you're a true conservative.

liberal mania wrote:

Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?

That's like asking the square root of one million. Some things in life man was never meant to understand.

Keith Stone wrote:

dummies amounst us wrote:

Board pay the same taxes? Of course they do. Board members are generally honorary positions, or are appointed because of a constituent shareholder base. Board members don't receive much compensation for their duties.

There couldn't possibly a lower information voter than a conservative. Aww a group you display a mind-boggling level of ignorance.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-30/board-director-pay-hits-record-251-000-for-250-hours

So "Board members don't receive much compensation for their duties" means they get a quarter million dollars a year for just over a month's work, a yearly wage of over two million.

So you're either dumb as a stump or a liar, both of which mean you're a true conservative.

Not to seem crass, but the consummate corrupt liar is currently the frontrunner on the Democratic side. And anyone who is blind enough not to see that and support her is the very definition of "low information" voter..

Yes, I think large profits are perfectly fair if earned in a free market.

Your analogy doesn't work.

A fast 5K runner achieves this essentially by himself and own efforts (assuming no PED's used).

A large company making large profits doesn't achive this by a single person but rather a whole collection of people often exploiting many people along the way e.g. not paying adequate taxes; utilising cheap labour in China etc.

$1 worth of work an hour should be paid $1. $15 worth of work should be paid $15. The actual minimum wage is, and always will be, $0/hr.

point to consider wrote:

Your analogy doesn't work.

A fast 5K runner achieves this essentially by himself and own efforts (assuming no PED's used).

A large company making large profits doesn't achive this by a single person but rather a whole collection of people often exploiting many people along the way e.g. not paying adequate taxes; utilising cheap labour in China etc.

The job of the CEO is to make money for the company and maximize shareholder value (if publically traded). If they have to go to China to find the labor to do it, its due to the bloated unions in this country that have outlived their useful life, as well as government over regulation. As stated in a previous post, if someone does not want to work for the wage being offered, they don't have to take the job.

point to consider wrote:

Your analogy doesn't work.

A fast 5K runner achieves this essentially by himself and own efforts (assuming no PED's used).

A large company making large profits doesn't achive this by a single person but rather a whole collection of people often exploiting many people along the way e.g. not paying adequate taxes; utilising cheap labour in China etc.

I think the 5k analogy is apt; it's just that some people have a 4K head start.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

point to consider wrote:

Your analogy doesn't work.

A fast 5K runner achieves this essentially by himself and own efforts (assuming no PED's used).

A large company making large profits doesn't achive this by a single person but rather a whole collection of people often exploiting many people along the way e.g. not paying adequate taxes; utilising cheap labour in China etc.

The job of the CEO is to make money for the company and maximize shareholder value (if publically traded). If they have to go to China to find the labor to do it, its due to the bloated unions in this country that have outlived their useful life, as well as government over regulation. As stated in a previous post, if someone does not want to work for the wage being offered, they don't have to take the job.

That itself is one of the major flaws in our current model of capitalism.

Businesses have a number of stakeholders far beyond Shareholders; employees, customers, suppliers, and so on, who are affected by the actions of the business, voluntarily or not.

The current share ownership model strips out all stakeholders except the shareholders, whose sole motivation is profit maximisation.

You might argue fair enough, it is their capital and their investment; but even then, concept of limited liability, and diversified portfolios means that a shareholder's risk through exposure to a company is far less than other stakeholders'.

Likewise, it is increasingly apparent that the model we have does not lead to economic success. Most investors are out for a short term gain, as they sell and buy shares over a very short period of time. This leads to the primary focus of a business being its quarterly figures and its annual report, often at the expense of long term strategic planning. We have seen this over and over again, from accounting scandals at Tesco or Enron; to the short termism that drove the banking crisis of 2008.

Yet, people like yourself would tell us that this is the only model; except that this isn't true. The German manufacturing industry is one of the world's strongest; in part because it has given the union board representation, and given workers a direct stake in a company's success. Likewise, the most successful retail business in the UK is Waitrose, which is owned by its employees, and has made the best investment and growth decisions in recent years.

Even in the US, credit mutuals, owned by their customers, tended to avoid the banking crises that privately owned banks did back in 2008.

Does not lead to economic success? Are you kidding me? Time to move to Germany perhaps. Or perhaps we can reincarnate Lenin, or better yet, Ho Chi Minh. Next door neighbor of mine is from Poland, Professor of Computer Science at UMASS. He said to me the other day that he came here to get away from that corrupt socalist system................now he see's it happening here. Makes him sad.

liberal mania wrote:

Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?

Large profit margins = more investment = increased competition = lower prices and margins with increased quality = better product at a lower price for the consumer

... and all this happens very quickly without any involvement from government. This is how the invisible hand of the free market works. If you take away the large profit margins, then the whole model breaks down and your economy slows and the average standard of living drops.

So it's not only fair to "allow" large profits, it's the engine that drives prosperity.

These threads are the best. Thank you everyone

Yes it is as long as (1) they do it legally and (2) tax and regulations ensure that a significant part is injected back into research & development.

I was about to post, "Should faster runners be "allowed" to win races?" But you beat me to it. Should that be "allowed?"

AW Pharmacy wrote:

Your question illustrates your ignorance. Companies aren't "allowed" to make profits, they employ people and capital to go out and earn them against their competitors. This is like asking, do you really think it's fair that some runners are faster and get to run in the Olympics.

Was that hysterical rant supposed to be an argument?

Germany has retained unionised manufacturing jobs. Germany is also not the Soviet Union.

Unrestrained Capitalism is also hugely capable of leading to corruption, anyone who know the slightest thing about the world knows that.

Anthony W wrote:

Lib Rules wrote:

Profiting isn't the issue. Not paying a living wage and using government tax breaks & subsidies to profit are issues, however. There are more, but I'll start there.

We should shutter all profitable companies. They are evil and don't contribute anything to society in today's world.

Well, that would include mine.

It took the last twenty years to get it profitable, and I intend to keep it there.

No government assistance required.