[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I don't understand some posters are so against big companies and big business.

Big business can buy things in bulk and lower operating costs. Big business is able to do what small business can't do; save consumers money and operate at a number of locations. Why do people on the political left malign this type of business operations over and over. It just looks to me like they are jealous of the big bucks that CEO's make.

Business is business. So many posters expect a business to hand over an advantage, like handing the football to the opposing team.

WHY is it WRONG for a CEO to make big bucks?? WHAT does giving to charity have anything to do with this discussion?

It just sounds like people talking who have always been employed by the government or a school or a non profit.

I really don't understand why people constantly post on Facebook things that put down large corporations. I have unfriended several people because I grow tired of hearing it.

Not all big business are ethical, but not all big business is unethical. It is the same with people of modest means. When you are running a company you use plans to make the company expand, increase profit and employ more people and make more money for yourself. That is how it works.

If a person is successful and makes a lot of money working for large corporations or running large corporation does not mean he or she is not conscious or helpful of others. Nor does it mean that a person of modest means is kind and helpful of others.

AND ED. We all know Rags is Bucco. He has discussed this. There are other posters on here with two screen names too.

I can't tell for sure, but you seem to be scolding me, so I'll respond. So are you saying that someone who has only been employed by government, school, or non profit can't understand these economic issues like you? BTW I was employed by schools for fourteen years but spent 25 years working for mega corporations FWIW. I NEVER stated CEOS on the whole were overpaid, I said some of them seemed to get paid a lot even though they are not producing. The point of the article I linked was that the ratio of CEO comp to average employee comp has skyrocketed over the last twenty years, I left it to the reader to judge if that was good or bad. As far as the study only covering 350 companies there are two points that would make sense to me, 1. Those companies employ a massive amount of the workforce, and 2. The data is readily available on those companies. For those that say all companies should be used to get a ratio of five to one, I would point out the following.
There are over 27.7 million companies operating in the U.S.
21.7 M of those companies have no employees ( more than 75% have no ratio)
Of the remaining 6 M, 3.7 M have 1-4 employees, and 1 M have 5-9 employees.
In other words the vast majority of businesses are eithe sole proprietors with zero employees or mom and pop businesses with fewer than ten employees, which really don't have a CEO.
Statistics about Business Size (including Small Business) from the U.S. Census Bureau
The only conclusion that I drew from the study I linked was that since the average worker has lost buying power over the last twenty years, maybe the average workers comp should be rising commensurately with the CEOs when these corporations succeed.
Also, unfriending people on Facebook because they share certain things that don't fit your worldview is troubling to me. I have friends of all persuasions, some of whom post things I find disgusting, but have never unfriended them. I like to see what everyone is talking about whether I agree or disagree.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I don't understand some posters are so against big companies and big business...WHY is it WRONG for a CEO to make big bucks??...

As usual...what gracie said.

Big bucks for the people at the top is as natural as the falling rain. It's true in all fields. Sports, entertainment, business, industry, you-name-it.

Society is pyramidal by nature. Even socialism has an elite class. In a capitalist society it's the CEO's and other superstars. It doesn't automatically make them good or evil.

And in most cases, I think they deserve it. They've worked and accomplished things for it.

[njbchbum]

IF:
* "There are over 27.7 million companies operating in the U.S.
* 21.7 M of those companies have no employees ( more than 75% have no ratio)
* Of the remaining 6 M, 3.7 M have 1-4 employees, and 1 M have 5-9 employees.
*In other words the vast majority of businesses are eithe sole proprietors with zero employees or mom and pop businesses with fewer than ten employees, which really don't have a CEO."

Where did the surveyors find reliable /credible data for 350 CEOs and employees to use in their survey?

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

IF:
* "There are over 27.7 million companies operating in the U.S.
* 21.7 M of those companies have no employees ( more than 75% have no ratio)
* Of the remaining 6 M, 3.7 M have 1-4 employees, and 1 M have 5-9 employees.
*In other words the vast majority of businesses are eithe sole proprietors with zero employees or mom and pop businesses with fewer than ten employees, which really don't have a CEO."

Where did the surveyors find reliable /credible data for 350 CEOs and employees to use in their survey?

Financial information on publicly Held corporations is Public information.

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

That's a good question. There are many of us with no pensions for income. And for a lot Social Security has not begun and in most cases is not enough to live on. But interest rates were high and corporate bonds were at par, and you could get an income stream from them. Of course, that model has changed.

Some time ago my financial advisor said that contrary to a natural inclination to become very conservative in your asset mix that equities need to be a higher percentage than I was comfortable with. But I followed the advice. Once a year I sell 4% of my portfolio. The advisor picks the mix. I understand that this formula is far from unique to me.

A higher market let's me cash in for the year and may cushion the next withdrawal during a down year. I retired at the beginning of 2010 and switched to a higher equity mix in an up market. So I bought at yearly highs which was a hard concept but it has worked out due to the bull market. Another thing the advisor said was there were very few places for investors to put their money other than equities which creates a demand for them.

The 4% can be tweaked as circumstances dictate. Your money should outlive you.

Wow! Sounds like the folks with an "asset mix" and a financial advisor stand to benefit from the 1/2%. Good for them! Wonder if the rest of us without such mix and advice ever will; or if what purchasing power the rest of us have is responsible in some way for that 1/2%! I liked the days of higher interest rates when even I could make some $$!

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

Wow! Sounds like the folks with an "asset mix" and a financial advisor stand to benefit from the 1/2%. Good for them! Wonder if the rest of us without such mix and advice ever will; or if what purchasing power the rest of us have is responsible in some way for that 1/2%! I liked the days of higher interest rates when even I could make some $$!

I am going to repeat what I said in my earlier post....in the last 10 years the difference between GDP and wages has widened and widened. We keep talking about it and blaming corporations or whatever, but it is something that hopefully congress and the WH will now address....

"
" In ...... ....’s first six years GDP rose 16%, but median incomes fell 2%. Under .. ..... it has been even worse: GDP is up 8% and median income is down 4%, according to the Census Bureau and Sentier Research, a private outfit."


This is speaking to the last 14 years, and the point is NOT p........ but it is economic."


THIS IS NOT THE FAULT OF CORPORATIONS OR CEOS......not in anyway.

The 18000 on the dow is mostly because of the fed keeping interest rates down so you are not getting that high rate, but also not paying any inflation.

This has to be addressed by congress...and soon. EVERYONE is correct..the average Joe is suffering....but everyone keeps looking for a scapegoat. There really isn't any......tax reform, re thinking entitlements, etc is what will work.

[Rags123]

Just addressing the problem a bit more with our economy, I looked through my archives and discovered this gem from a writer at Economist who speaks to the American economy. This was dated just a few weeks ago and instead of blaming people, we shoud put the heat on the WH and congress to TALK to each other about trying to solve the problem.

Posturing for poll numbers, etc is not going to cut it....

This address the interest rates I mentioned earlier....

"America is still in a world in which interest rates are effectively zero. It will be in that world for at least another six months and probably quite a bit longer. Futures markets reckon we will be well into 2016 before rates reach even 1%. For most of the next two years, in other words, the monetary response to any negative shock, domestic or abroad, will come entirely in the form of unconventional policy. That makes me extremely nervous, as the Fed is obviously uncomfortable about relying so heavily on unconventional tools. Any delay or under-response to a shock due to this discomfort makes a recession much more likely. And I would note that over time and across countries tightening cycles off of zero lower bound episodes tend to be much more abbreviated than what we would normally expect. A half point rise would represent the opening act of a tightening cycle in most cases. Coming off of the ZLB, however, it may well represent the beginning, middle and end."

And while I posted a very rosy and optimistic point of view in an earlier post, we have to be realistic......

"One metric might be a cross-country comparison. On that score one might suppose optimism is clearly warranted. America's recovery is the envy of the rich world. On the other hand, that is not saying much. Being the best of the bunch when the bunch has done so miserably is not exactly reason for cheer. And while America is far more insulated from global ups and downs than other economies it is not immune. Poor enough performance abroad would indeed slow American growth, particularly if that poor performance were linked to a major financial meltdown. On a cross-country basis one can make a case for optimism, but it's not a strong one.

An historical comparison, by contrast, leads to a much bleaker assessment of the current recovery. The employment recovery since June of 2009 is the worst of any American rebound in the postwar period, and the GDP recovery is the second worst, outdone only by the performance after the 2001 recession. America remains well below the levels of output and employment one might reasonably have expected it to attain both before the Great Recession and in its immediate aftermath. It is true that growth in GDP and employment has been surprisingly—even shockingly—steady and resilient. But that makes it all the more remarkable that America has made up so little of the ground lost since 2007.

That brings us to another case for pessimism: the limited nature of the recovery. GDP is growing, but you can't eat GDP. You can't even eat employment. Incomes you can eat, if you spend them. Real GDP per capita is only a shade above its level of seven years ago: $50,675 now to $49,455 in the third quarter of 2007. At the median the performance has been much worse; real median household income tumbled from 2007 and has barely recovered."

The real point and brought home by njbchbum post is that nothing is touching the average Joe in anyway. I hope that people will do the math and read and realize that penalizing the corporations will not either.

Lets root for bi partisan working together to address this problem

[Chi-Town]

Originally Posted by Rags123

If you really want a rosy picture of our country right now and want credit to be handed out...read the link below. I will give you just the last paragraph but it is all upbeat and positive...

"You don’t have to endorse Obama’s economic philosophy to realize that it hasn’t wreaked short-term havoc, just as you don’t have to endorse the Obama or George W. Bush anti-terror philosophies to acknowledge that America hasn’t endured a rash of terror attacks since 2001. Last week, polls finally found a majority of Americans recognizing that the economy is improving, which is to say a majority of Americans are recognizing reality. It’s probably time for politicians to discover a new Ebola to scream about.
There is no shortage of candidates in this less-than-perfect union. The U.S. is still plagued by inadequate public schools, crumbling infrastructure, soaring college tuition costs, stark inequality. Many Americans want accountability for reckless bankers, torturers and fatal choke-holders. Washington is still almost as dysfunctional as everyone says it is. Congress this session really was the second least productive ever. And even though Obama is winding down the U.S. involvement in overseas wars, the world remains a scary place. There’s still plenty to worry about."


Read more: Everything Is Awesome! - Michael Grunwald - POLITICO Magazine

This is an opinion piece you will love CHITOWN.....

Actually this is the end of the article:

"But for now be merry! And may the new year be as awesome as this year."

Rags123, I know where you're coming from. This has been a trying year. Sometimes we need a little good news to get us through.

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by Rags123

Just addressing the problem a bit more with our economy, I looked through my archives and discovered this gem from a writer at Economist who speaks to the American economy. This was dated just a few weeks ago and instead of blaming people, we shoud put the heat on the WH and congress to TALK to each other about trying to solve the problem.

Posturing for poll numbers, etc is not going to cut it....

This address the interest rates I mentioned earlier....

"America is still in a world in which interest rates are effectively zero. It will be in that world for at least another six months and probably quite a bit longer. Futures markets reckon we will be well into 2016 before rates reach even 1%. For most of the next two years, in other words, the monetary response to any negative shock, domestic or abroad, will come entirely in the form of unconventional policy. That makes me extremely nervous, as the Fed is obviously uncomfortable about relying so heavily on unconventional tools. Any delay or under-response to a shock due to this discomfort makes a recession much more likely. And I would note that over time and across countries tightening cycles off of zero lower bound episodes tend to be much more abbreviated than what we would normally expect. A half point rise would represent the opening act of a tightening cycle in most cases. Coming off of the ZLB, however, it may well represent the beginning, middle and end."

And while I posted a very rosy and optimistic point of view in an earlier post, we have to be realistic......

"One metric might be a cross-country comparison. On that score one might suppose optimism is clearly warranted. America's recovery is the envy of the rich world. On the other hand, that is not saying much. Being the best of the bunch when the bunch has done so miserably is not exactly reason for cheer. And while America is far more insulated from global ups and downs than other economies it is not immune. Poor enough performance abroad would indeed slow American growth, particularly if that poor performance were linked to a major financial meltdown. On a cross-country basis one can make a case for optimism, but it's not a strong one.

An historical comparison, by contrast, leads to a much bleaker assessment of the current recovery. The employment recovery since June of 2009 is the worst of any American rebound in the postwar period, and the GDP recovery is the second worst, outdone only by the performance after the 2001 recession. America remains well below the levels of output and employment one might reasonably have expected it to attain both before the Great Recession and in its immediate aftermath. It is true that growth in GDP and employment has been surprisingly—even shockingly—steady and resilient. But that makes it all the more remarkable that America has made up so little of the ground lost since 2007.

That brings us to another case for pessimism: the limited nature of the recovery. GDP is growing, but you can't eat GDP. You can't even eat employment. Incomes you can eat, if you spend them. Real GDP per capita is only a shade above its level of seven years ago: $50,675 now to $49,455 in the third quarter of 2007. At the median the performance has been much worse; real median household income tumbled from 2007 and has barely recovered."

The real point and brought home by njbchbum post is that nothing is touching the average Joe in anyway. I hope that people will do the math and read and realize that penalizing the corporations will not either.

Lets root for bi partisan working together to address this problem

Yup

[Chi-Town]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

Wow! Sounds like the folks with an "asset mix" and a financial advisor stand to benefit from the 1/2%. Good for them! Wonder if the rest of us without such mix and advice ever will; or if what purchasing power the rest of us have is responsible in some way for that 1/2%! I liked the days of higher interest rates when even I could make some $$!

I think we all slept better. I know I did.

[graciegirl]

[

Sometimes it is hard to follow the train of thought on here.

[eweissenbach]

The problem with high interest rates is that they are generally accompanied by inflation. In the late seventies and early eighties you could get 12% on a CD, but if you had to borrow for a home or a car you paid 15% or more. Inflation during those years was 10-14% so after paying taxes on your earned interest, your buying power was basically negative. The inflation rate currently is 1.3%, so the buying power on your income is not eroding much. At seven percent inflation your buying power is cut in half over about ten years, not good for people on fixed incomes. There are always pros and cons to any investment and economic scenario, but low inflation plays pretty well into most people's strategy.

[Chi-Town]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

[

Sometimes it is hard to follow the train of thought on here.

njbchbum mentioned at the end of her post that she liked the higher interest rates where you could make some money. I did too, because if it was a bond or a cd you would know how much would be paid for a certain period of time without the worry of market fluctuations.

Originally Posted by graciegirl

[

Sometimes it is hard to follow the train of thought on here.

[zonerboy]

Yes, I remember when you could buy a short term CD with practically zero principal risk and earn 10 t0 12 percent. But those days are gone.
You don't have to have a financial advisor or a mixed basket of equities in order to participate in the stock market gains. There are many, many, many ETF's which you can purchase with practically zero sales charge and which contain a large basket of stocks in almost any sector of business you care to choose. Some even pay dividends way higher than interest rates of current CD's or government bonds. There is risk, of course, in the case of a market collapse. But that is the price you pay for higher returns. This is why generally the owner of a corporation has a higher salary that the employees. If the company fails, the owner looses the money he invested. While the employees only lose their job.