Corporate Profits Hit New Record In 3rd Quarter

[vvvvvvv]

They're spending it to try to attract more new customers, and you can't justify hiring more people until you have the customers to generate enough revenue to pay more people.

Companies and freelancers in my industry are turning down work left and right because of the demand from companies with money to spend on marketing who are trying to get more customers. If someone in the web development or design industry tells you they can't find work, then they've either screwed too many clients in the past, they are just being lazy, or they chose to specialize in a niche that has zero demand and you probably won't find another developer to maintain your project after they're gone. Our problem in this industry now is there is so much demand that there are extremely few talented individuals still available.

 

[Lurker66]

I think far too many people come to the defence of huge companies. By defending huge corporations and not the workforce or consumers that is our downfall.

Corporations are not people, they have no RIGHTS, only the privlege to do business with citizens. The SCOTUS might disagree but theyre wrong.

Its past the point of argueing that a giant company hires part time workers to avoid labor costs. They also seek to marginalize the education and skills workers have to reduce or supress wages.

Benefits used to be offered or paid to full time employees. Companies now avoid doing this due to cost and profit margins. Instead of companies doing this, it has fallen to the Gov and thus the taxpayer.

Ive argued for years the Bush tax cuts did nothing but increase profits for companies. 8 years later profits grew yet wages and jobs did not increase at the same rate, in fact wages and jobs were lost.

Its way past time to reign in the obscene money and profits and force companies to increase wages and benefits.

Free markets and capitolism can only succeed if both consumers and the workforce are protected from greed. When greed goes unchecked you get a F'd up situation like we have today.

 

[DPI]

It's not that difficult.

You can't compare your wages when you threw papers at 14 to your wages at 50 as an engineer.
It's not the same job and you can't say that a paperboy's wages have increased dramatically over the last 30 years.
It's not about You, it's about the job.

Put another way:

Compare your wages, at your present job, with what that same job payed 30yrs ago adjusted for inflation.

And I am saying if you are still throwing papers at the age of 50, there is something wrong with the picture!

 

[Hobbes]

And I am saying if you are still throwing papers at the age of 50, there is something wrong with the picture!

Are you sure you have a college degree?

Because you don't even have the foggiest idea of "inflation adjusted wages" when used by economists.

 

[DPI]

Macro and Micro economics were my favorite courses!

 

[inactive]

And I am saying if you are still throwing papers at the age of 50, there is something wrong with the picture!

That's not how the inflation-adjusted wage for a particular job works. You should ask, does the paperboy in 2012 make more, or less, adjusted for inflation, than he did 15, 25, 45 years ago?

The bigger issue though is quite larger in scale. Does the aggregate average come for all workers compare higher or lower to the aggregate wage for the workforce 15, 25, 45 years ago (again, adjusted for inflation)? You can't look at microeconomics here. It's not an individual. It's not even a job or even an industry. It's the aggregate of all workers. Think about your macroeconomics here.

 

[DPI]

That's not how the inflation-adjusted wage for a particular job works. You should ask, does the paperboy in 2012 make more, or less, adjusted for inflation, than he did 15, 25, 45 years ago?

The bigger issue though is quite larger in scale. Does the aggregate average come for all workers compare higher or lower to the aggregate wage for the workforce 15, 25, 45 years ago (again, adjusted for inflation)? You can't look at microeconomics here. It's not an individual. It's not even a job or even an industry. It's the aggregate of all workers. Think about your macroeconomics here. Intermediate preferred.

I understand. I am just having fun with Hobbes...

 

[Lurker66]

Yall economy/tax guys are boring. The problem is greed and the answer is to increase the minimum wage and tax the crap out of those huge profits.

 

[inactive]

Yall economy/tax guys are boring. The problem is greed and the answer is to increase the minimum wage and tax the crap out of those huge profits.

I'll concede that greed means nothing in economic theory. It doesn't exist as an emotion or a character shortcoming; on the contrary, maximizing profit and efficiency is pretty much the singular end goal. It is the ultimate driver of the perfectly rational human being.

They might have well named Gordon Gekko "Adam Smith."

 

[Hobbes]

Yall economy/tax guys are boring. The problem is greed and the answer is to increase the minimum wage and tax the crap out of those huge profits.

So you're sayin "If we don't have enough consumers then create more consumers" ?