Wall Street, Economic Vamparisme, Why Profitting Off Others Is Bad

a reply to: Edumakated

Thank you for explaining exactly what one of the major problems is.

The CEO is responsible for creating a higher shareholder value, not for the company but for the invisible investors that have nothing to do with the companies.

One of most companies top three business expense is employee cost and is also one of the widest and most easily manipulated margins to increase that value for the shareholders.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

The problem is solved by making the employees the shareholders. By giving your employees purchasing power you enable them then to invest in the company enabling further growth.

A long time ago this was more popular. As the average American has lost all of their purchasing power as money flows to fewer and fewer hands this is no longer possible.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: onequestion

Like I said I agree with you that the system is broke. But many of the symptoms you are seeing is because Corporations are creating the rules as they need to via lobbying and our politicians and CEO are lying through their teeth.

For example:
I'm in the engineering industry and I always hear about the corporate hype about not enough American engineers to fill the jobs.

Then you see companies like Disney who had full staff of American workers who all the sudden were fired and their jobs were outsourced to India. So is the issue really the lack of qualified American workers or the desire by these companies to legally send jobs oversea for cheap labor.

Now the key is not that Disney is evil or enjoys doing this or even greed, Its that Disney HAS TO DO that in order to survive and increase their bottom line for infinity or they fail. The problem is that Oligopolies and corporations such as Disney have made it legal to do that.

You want a fair workers market place you must concentrate on taking that monetary influence away. Or wait till our standard of living drops to the level of China ,so our cost of living becomes equal to theirs. Hence we will be able to compete with them.

bottom line corporations and business are doing what they are suppose to be doing to survive. The people that are dropping the ball are the Politicians and the American voters that don't stick to the only issue at hand: Corruption in DC.

You fix that then workers will have a greater voice to change the system.

The biggest issue for many corporation is constantly appeasing shareholders. You are correct about infinite growth being unattainable. the focus on daily share prices and quarterly earnings forces too many companies to think short term. Executives jobs are only as stable as the most recent earnings report.

I don't know how we fix this conundrum. Obviously, a company remaining private can avoid falling into this trap, but at the same time the public markets are necessary.

a reply to: onequestion

You honestly have some extremely contradictory thoughts on business and economics....

I urge you to go back and look through this thread to see what I mean.

a reply to: onequestion

I consider ther factors into the wage equation. Such as... Hard working.... Yes Product knowledge... Yes Reliable... Yes Good customer service... Yes Full time employee... Yes Does this employee contribute to the success of my company... Yes Then that person deserves a fair share period.

This is the part that many people don't understand or see when it comes to your worth to a company.

Your worth is not only determined by your skill set, but most importantly how many people can do your job.

Lets say Bernie gets elected and everyone gets a free education and 70% of the population becomes doctors and only .5% of the population becomes skilled carpenters.

Who do you think will get paid more, The doctor or the carpenters?

Bottom line your worth is based on the amount of people that can do your job. Hence why Corporations are going after H1 visas and encouraging students to go into HOT careers. A flooded pool of workers is good for them since it makes you replaceable.

The bigger the pool the more likely that some else will do your job for less .

So if their is someone else that is willing to do your job for less why should they hire you?

Its a valid question for outsourcing as well, but with outsourcing you don't have a level playing ground because of the cost of living.

a reply to: Chickensalad

Well, employee retention is a major part of employee cost and is a margin discussed in most board rooms.

I cite Henry Ford as an example.

If they are to increase productivity and employee retention which is necessary for productivity then the individual employee becomes more valuable.

The reason this principle does not apply in today's world is because of the condition of the workforce.

a reply to: Edumakated

I don't know how we fix this conundrum. Obviously, a company remaining private can avoid falling into this trap, but at the same time the public markets are necessary.

I wish I had the answer as well.

Its a mess but what makes it even worse is that those same corporations under such stress to survive are the ones drafting our laws. Its no wonder the world is such a mess.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Chickensalad

How about this...

Which employee can the company be run without, and why does he still work there?

Depends on the company.

I could probably point to any company and point out employees that don't need to be there.
But that comes down to corporate and social responsibility, really.

Either you want jobs created, or you don't.

a reply to: interupt42

Right I get what your saying and your right.

So how do we reconcile that principle with the need to survive and the health of the overall economy?

Just because there's more people on the bottom doesn't necessarily mean that the supply and demand rule SHOULD apply.

The economy requires balance and allowing it to fall onto the shoulders of a single principle won't work. The system needs more complexity and in an ever changing world we need to control and define these principles and how far they are taken.

Supply and demand is good and it may have worked in the past but in today's world we need to balance it out.

a reply to: Chickensalad

How about we look at the business through the lens of scalability.

In order for a company to continue to be able to grow individual rolls needs to be clearly defined. The reason for this is because if you 12 employees doing 17 jobs, how many more jobs can you add to 12 employees before the company fails?

Ok, im not sure if I broke that one down right.

Well, Supply and Demand is a rule for a reason.

You can't just wish it away. Economics is still a science in itself.

a reply to: Chickensalad

Well... Here is where we may differ. See... There's 7 billion people in the world and we don't need 7 billion people working in order to produce that many peoples worth of goods.

All of a sudden free market principles don't apply and what I'm saying is we need to add controls to the market. One of those controls insuring that people who work can afford to live.

We all need food, housing, and honestly most of us need family too..

My purpose to solve that problem.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Edumakated

See this is where we differ.

Your gauging someone's value based on a perceived skill and on that notion alone.

That is exactly where your logic is flawed.

I consider ther factors into the wage equation. Such as...

Skill set...
Is it laborious... Yes
Hard working.... Yes
Product knowledge... Yes
Reliable... Yes
Good customer service... Yes
Full time employee... Yes
Does this employee contribute to the success of my company... Yes

Then that person deserves a fair share period.

I'm not basing their value solely on a perceived skill level. Yes That is a factor but not the only factor.

Answer this question....

Who works harder, the manager or the person unloading the truck, and define exactly why and how?

The actual value depends on the area.

It doesn't matter who works harder. It is irrelevant. What matters is how scarce that employee's skillset is and how much they produce. Digging ditches is hard work. However, ditch diggers are a dime a dozen. Therefore, the ditch digger won't ever make a lot of money no matter how hard the work might be. On the other hand, executives who work in finance, accounting, marketing, etc are much harder to come by and not only that, they add more value to the company.

For example, I make a 1%er income. I work in sales. All things considered, I have a cushy job. However, I am highly compensated because I bring in many times more in revenue and profit than I cost to the company. I am paid because I bring in that money. I am a revenue producer. On the other hand, the janitor that cleans my office works harder. However, he is cost center. He doesn't generate revenue for the company. Is his service needed? Yes. But I personally bring in millions of dollars a year in sales. The janitor simply has to empty the trash.

If the janitor quits, they can find another guy to do his job. Yeah, the bathroom might be a little more smelly for a few days, but it isn't the end of the world. On the other hand, my efforts are a significant contributor to the bottom line of the company. If I quit, an office might close. I personally bring in enough revenue to support 10-15 additional employees. They might lose their jobs. My efforts might represent the entire profit of the company.

This is why some people make more than others. Scarcity and that the are simply more important to the profitability of the company.

It doesn't mean I am any better than the janitor. It is just the reality and our wages reflect this reality.

If you want to make more money, you have to figure out how to be more valuable to a company. It really is that simple.

You seem to believe that everyone deserves a participation trophy just because they work hard.

a reply to: onequestion

No, I underwstand what you meant, because I've been one of the 12 people doing the job of 17.

Really, it still comes down to how many people can they find to do that job...

If one of the 12 isn't willing to do the job of 17, there is still a sucker out there willing to.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I don't necessarily disagree. Globalism can be bad. However, unless the American consumer is willing to pay more for goods and services, companies will continue to look for ways to cut costs which includes moving manufacturing, etc overseas.

US consumers talk a good game until they actually have to make a choice with their wallet.

Personally, I don't mind paying more for goods and services from companies that employ Americans and are locally owned businesses. However, the reality is the vast majority of consumers are always looking to save a buck regardless of the long term costs.

I agree.

The consumer will pay more if they earn more. Its all relative. The products have to be cheap because wages are. The dependency on cheap goods is what shot ourselves in the foot. Because we are not willing to save and pay more for products, wages to produce those products cannot be very high.

To the OP's point. If workers were earning a share and taking home more money, they would have more money to spend on more expensive (and longer lasting : ) products that allow for higher wages and better value of the workers share.


Importing products from nations with much lower standards is the problem. It's throwing the whole thing off balance. Until we level off where all nations are of equal standard, there is nowhere for us to go but down.

a reply to: Chickensalad

I understand that we can't continue to let supply and demand be a determining factor in wages.

This is because we need fewer and fewer workers because of technology.

We have to reason our way out of this paradigm or we won't survive.

a reply to: onequestion

You're right in that we don't need everybody to work to create what we demand. But, that still doesn't forgo the law of supply and demand.

I think the Venus Project by Jacque Fresco may interest you The Venus Project

a reply to: Chickensalad

The law of supply and demand is a perfectly logical conclusion in 1900 when free market principles we're actually necessary to take our next step.

Now in the modern world we need a new system.

a reply to: onequestion

So how do we reconcile that principle with the need to survive and the health of the overall economy?

Honestly , I don't think that is possible any-time in the near future. I see to many people focusing on the symptoms versus on the real issue that we have. I also see the masses to divided and fighting among themselves via racism, sexuality, religion and politics . We are far from solving anything, in reality we are doing the exact opposite and making it worse.

However I would think it would take Baby steps.

Majority of information and intentions sold to the public on a daily basis by the MSM, Corporations, and politicians are lies.

You can't fix any problems without seeing clearly what the issue is.

You must first tackle corruption in Washington and nothing else. And I mean nothing else .like the economy, healthcare, racism, sexuality,religion, SS, energy,jobs, etc ...... . Its not like those issues haven't existed for the last 10 decades.

Once we get rid of the monetary influences and we can see the reality of the issues we can start fixing things


I lean more towards capitalism (not what we have). because its can survive even if driven by selfishness and greed which is a very common human trait whether we like it or not.

So why not embrace it and instead of micro managing a large complex entity such as economic matters make it so the individual needs benefits the masses.

I think where we have gone wrong is with how our compensation models are made. Drugs companies benefit more by selling you drugs on a monthly basis then by cures. So how can we change that so they get "fairly" compensated based on the amount of healthy people?

Same goes for the Military Industrial Complex. Currently the way the system is setup their is more reward for having global chaos than peace time. So how do we build a "fair" compensation model that rewards based on global peace?

Same goes for just about any industry.

However, you cant even discuss any of that until you take away the corruption within the governing bodies and the masses are treated as an adult and are given factual information.

a reply to: interupt42

I agree with your sentiment.

I am just tired of mindlessly debating supply and demand economics when its totally besides the point.

It's like saying, "but this is how the system works"

And in saying, "but this is how it should work"

..."no your wrong this is how it works"

Me- "I know but it's not working anymore this is how it should work"

..."but that's not how it works"

Me- "I understand supply and demand and the reasoning behind it but let's try something different that benefits more people"

.... "But supply and demand"

a reply to: onequestion


What's wrong with a command economy, that's what Governments do when the economy tanks. Plenty of public works projects etc. Beatification of cities instead of utilitarian jokes. Plenty of upskilling, and construction work on housing. Make sure every one is involved right down to the local level. That would be a lot better than going backwards.