Wealth Inequality in America

[hank moon]

Typically the investors appoint most of the board and, after the consummation generally bring in their own 'C' team as the former owner gradually steps aside and moves one. The new 'C' team is there because of 80% networking and 20% talent.

hmmm. how then is private enterprise so different from our gov't? :)

Shane, most CEOs (and politicians) of a certain level don't really take risks with their own lives - they take risks exclusively with others' lives.

[Iceaxe]

My point was simply that above a certain level it's all about your network.

So you are saying networking is a valuable skill. I have no disagreement. In your evaluation it appears networking is a highly valuable skill that a person would be wise to develop and improve.... again, I have no problem with that. Networking is certainly very valuable, but I don't place the priority on it you do. My number one priority has always been to be the best, and after that things have a habit of working out. But I have always run a private company and not a public one, so that is all I really know. My only experience with public companies is sitting on the other side of the negotiating table numerous times.

I've done my share of evaluations and hiring and firing, so I know how that works. I also know how to get to C level and that once someone puts you there, as long as that person is still around, you are golden since they will never admit they screwed up by putting you there.

I guess I never looked at it that way... In every job I have ever taken my first goal was to surpass everyone in front of me, including the guy that hired me.


Good luck is when opportunity meets preparation.

[Iceaxe]

Shane, most CEOs (and politicians) of a certain level don't really take risks with their own lives - they take risks exclusively with others' lives.

My point is none of these guys were just handed these positions.... they all had to work to get there. I consider networking part of the job... bottomline... you get paid for what you know... I fail to see a problem with that.

CEO's earn the right to take the risks you mention, and if they screw up they will not last long.

Politicians are a different beast, they are hired by and work for the American public, and for the most part I'm not really impressed with the intelligence of the average person. The American public has no one to blame but themselves for a crappy product, as they are the employer.

[cchoc]

My point is none of these guys were just handed these positions.... they all had to work to get there.

Well, George W Bush was. But more to the point, sadly, private companies priorities are customer and product oriented, public companies answer to shareholders. That makes a real difference on how products are developed and maintained - I've been there. Having a boss who is the owner means they have skin in the game, CEOs have contracts that protect them no matter what. Sure, CEOs own stock in their companies, but they buy the stock with interest free loans from the company and the loans are almost always forgiven if the stock goes down, so they really have no skin in the game. The first thing a public company does when times get tough is get rid of people, and/or send jobs offshore. That has contributed to the lack of loyalty among workers, particularly in high tech fields. And it's in those fields where companies have to go outside the US to hire since there aren't enough qualified workers born and educated here.

I'm not a socialist, though, so I don't expect a solution from our elected officials. Our companies need to wise up and realize that paying a decent wage is good for everyone. Look at the difference between the productivity of Costco workers vs Wal-Mart workers. Only if that happens will we see our middle class come back strong.

[hank moon]

CEO's earn the right to take the risks you mention, and if they screw up they will not last long.

A few CEOs achieve mostly through merit*, but many, probably most, coast to fatland on their network of friends.

*see especially tech and startup CEOs who start with little more than brains, guts, and the American system and exploit it fully. e.g. Jobs, Gates, etc. These guys are the exception, though.

[hank moon]

Our companies need to wise up and realize that paying a decent wage is good for everyone.

True that. Look no further than the Ford model. He knew that to succeed (i.e. sell his cars), others had to have the money to buy them (and perhaps the leisure to enjoy them). Win-win

[Iceaxe]

A few CEOs achieve mostly through merit*, but many, probably most, coast to fatland on their network of friends.

*see especially tech and startup CEOs who start with little more than brains, guts, and the American system and exploit it fully. e.g. Jobs, Gates, etc. These guys are the exception, though.

Guts, brains, foresight are all talents to me that should be paid for.

We are obviously so far apart on our views it's pointless to continue... you are welcome to stand and wait for your ship to come in, I'll continue to bust my ass... maybe both methods will work, who knows...

[Iceaxe]

Well, George W Bush was....

You must have missed this!

"Politicians are a different beast, they are hired by and work for the American public, and for the most part I'm not really impressed with the intelligence of the average person. The American public has no one to blame but themselves for a crappy product, as they are the employer..."

And both Bush and Obama were elected to a second term, that tells me all I need to know about the average American's intellegence.

Look at the difference between the productivity of Costco workers vs Wal-Mart workers.

So Costco pays more and gets the best workers, and Wal-Mart pays crap and gets the bottom of the barrel... I see nothing wrong with that. Employee's reap what they sow.

For the record, I have never met a Wal-Mart employee I would hire. And I have hired a lot of guys right off the street form completely different fields. It's not unusual for me to met a complete stranger and hire them, even if they know nothing about what I do. If I meet someone that is extremely intellegent, street smart, a hard charger, and good personality I will often offer them a job. Because a guy like that I can make a lot of money with.

Bottomline... if you are talented you can bank major coin (if that is your ambition).... and if you are not banking coin you might need to head in a new direction, or perhaps you are not nearly as talented as you think you are and need to do a little self evaluation.

[hank moon]

Guts, brains, foresight are all talents to me that should be paid for.

Yes, I agree - hence the word "merit". I think you might have misjudged me...or perhaps I have mis-communicated. Anyway, yeah. REAL hard work and REAL risk should be rewarded. No contention there!

Re: elected presidents and intelligence of american people

Nothing significant would have changed if Romney had been elected last year (or Gore in 2000). The president is little more than a smokescreen for corporate/moneyed interests. As you said before, nothing will change until the people themselves take action.

[peakbaggers]

Coming in on this lively discussion late - but here's a few additional thoughts.
In watching the video, the same 'a priori" assumptions undergird it that undergird "progressive" thinking. " Wealth redistributiuon" is assumed as "fair." But as others have pointed out, what is " FAIR?" If all cash,assets, holdings, etc were distributed with absolute equality, (which seems to be an underlying premise) then everything would be FAIR? What then of those who really do work harder or who obtained a costlier education so they could excel and succeed, or who sacrificed family or leisure so they could get ahead. Is it FAIR that someone or govt. should step in and say that any extra you obtained should be redistributed so that everyone still has the same in wealth? You get the picture.

Second point: One way to begin to break up the power monopoly of govt. & big business is to implement what the founders of our constitution largely envisioned, which was a house and senate comprised of people who were not professional politicians but citizens and businessmen/women from all walks of life who would serve in the public interest and return to civilian work. In other words, TERM LIMITS would help greatly in reducing the power of government and influence that "big business" has over govt.

Third point: So many seem to assume that if someone in this country is classified as "below the poverty level," then they are destitue and hopeless and have virtually no possessions. Before discussing the issue of poverty in this country, everyone should take a hard look at this study: http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...hat-is-poverty
When I consider what this study says, I see that there are any number of people classified under the level of poverty that in terms of possessions, have more than I and my family! And if you compare that average poverty level person in this country to others around the world, most would be considered by the others as "wealthy!"

[Iceaxe]

True that. Look no further than the Ford model. He knew that to succeed (i.e. sell his cars), others had to have the money to buy them (and perhaps the leisure to enjoy them). Win-win

You do know that Ford drove his employee's so hard that most didn't last at Ford Motor Company more then a couple of years didn't you?

A great book by the way....

FORD The Men and the Machine
http://www.amazon.com/FORD-The-Machi.../dp/0316511668

[cchoc]

You must have missed this!

"Politicians are a different beast, they are hired by and work for the American public, and for the most part I'm not really impressed with the intelligence of the average person. The American public has no one to blame but themselves for a crappy product, as they are the employer..."

And both Bush and Obama were elected to a second term, that tells me all I need to know about the average American's intellegence.




So Costco pays more and gets the best workers, and Wal-Mart pays crap and gets the bottom of the barrel... I see nothing wrong with that. Employee's reap what they sow.

For the record, I have never met a Wal-Mart employee I would hire. And I have hired a lot of guys right off the street form completely different fields. It's not unusual for me to met a complete stranger and hire them, even if they know nothing about what I do. If I meet someone that is extremely intellegent, street smart, a hard charger, and good personality I will often offer them a job. Because a guy like that I can make a lot of money with.

Bottomline... if you are talented you can bank major coin (if that is your ambition).... and if you are not banking coin you might need to head in a new direction, or perhaps you are not nearly as talented as you think you are and need to do a little self evaluation.

I wasn't talking about Dubya getting elected, but the jobs he had before. The hardest he ever worked was when he said "thanks Dad" for each of them.

And I think you said it backwards, employers reap what they sew. If they pay low and offer no advancement path they will not get talented motivated workers.

[peakbaggers]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hol...dist=afterbell

Here's an timely article related to the discussion.

[accadacca]

[Iceaxe]

And I think you said it backwards, employers reap what they sew. If they pay low and offer no advancement path they will not get talented motivated workers.

I agree with that... you get what you pay for in life... which is why the shitty employees usually end up at the shitty companies.


Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[hank moon]

Excerpt:

Why do politicians—aka people who are supposed to be professional experts in representing others—so misunderstand their own communities?

---

An Unrepresentative Democracy


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...racy_20130308/


Posted on Mar 8, 2013


By David Sirota


Why are ideas widely supported in most of the country so often portrayed as controversial, polarizing and divisive once they are taken up by legislatures? Why does the professional political class seem like a wholly separate society that does not understand the constituents it is supposed to be representing? These are the existential questions at the root of America’s political dysfunction—and a new study marshaling reams of data finally provides some concrete answers.


Conducted by the University of California’s David Broockman and University of Michigan’s Christopher Skovron, the survey of nearly 2,000 legislators from across America documents politicians’ perceptions of their constituents’ views on hot-button issues like universal health care and same-sex marriage. It then compares those perceptions with constituents’ actual views.


The juxtaposition reveals a jarring truth: Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers hugely overestimate the conservatism of the very people they are supposed to represent. In all, the report finds that “conservative politicians systematically believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are by over 20 percentage points, while liberal politicians also typically overestimate their constituents’ conservatism by several percentage points.” Ultimately, that has resulted in a political system inherently hostile to mainstream proposals and utterly unrepresentative of public opinion.


The first obvious question is why: Why do politicians—aka people who are supposed to be professional experts in representing others—so misunderstand their own communities?


Broockman and Skovron argue that one answer has to do with the prevalence of right-leaning mythology. Citing “Richard Nixon’s pronouncement that a ‘silent majority’ of Americans backed his policies” and “Sarah Palin’s suggestion that a latent ‘real America’ supported her,” the researchers correctly note that there remains “a folk theory among conservative politicians that the American public is considerably more conservative than it seems at face value.” This theory is undoubtedly fueled by a Fox News-ified media that pushes such inaccurate fables.


That said, the persistence of fairy tales cannot explain the entire phenomenon. There is also the fact that in the age of money-dominated politics, many professional lawmakers do not come from the ranks of the commoner—instead, more and more are wealthy upper-crusters whose cloistered upbringing inside gated communities leaves them wholly unfamiliar with their constituencies.


Such isolation is then exacerbated during their time in office. Ensconced in a bubble of conservative-minded corporate lobbyists and mega-donors, they come to wrongly assume that what passes for a mainstream position in that bubble somehow represents a consensus position in the larger world.


The electoral process, of course, is supposed to be the panacea—it is supposed to pop that bubble and force a connection between the representative and the represented. However, because getting elected to office is now less about town meetings than about buying expensive television ads, even the campaign process fails to familiarize politicians with rank-and-file voters. As the study data confirm, “politicians’ perceptions of public opinion after the campaign and the election itself look identical to their perceptions prior to these events, with little evidence that their misperceptions had been corrected.”


The result is an unrepresentative democracy, which raises the second question—the one about republican democracy itself. Can it truly exist under these conditions?


In name, it most certainly can. As evidenced by the constant references to the concept in political speeches, the venerable brand is indeed alive and well.


The trouble is that a brand alone is limited. It cannot on its own sustain such a radical notion as self-governance, especially at a moment when our representatives are so increasingly ignorant of—and hostile to—public will. If such ignorance and hostility continues, republican democracy will almost certainly become just a meaningless slogan—and America will likely become far less exceptional than we should ever allow it to be.




David Sirota is the best-selling author of the books “Hostile Takeover,” “The Uprising” and “Back to Our Future.” Email him at [email]ds@david sirota.com, follow him on Twitter @david sirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

[2065toyota]

[Iceaxe]

[hank moon]

If Corporations Don’t Pay Taxes, Why Should You?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...ions_20130312/

Posted on Mar 12, 2013

By Robert Scheer

Go offshore young man and avoid paying taxes. Plunder at will in those foreign lands, and if you get in trouble, Uncle Sam will come rushing to your assistance, diplomatically, financially and militarily, even if you have managed to avoid paying for those government services. Just pretend you’re a multinational corporation.

That’s the honest instruction for business success provided by 60 of the largest U.S. corporations that, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, “parked a total of $166 billion offshore last year” shielding more than 40 percent of their profits from U.S. taxes. They all do it, including Microsoft, GE and pharmaceutical giant Abbott Laboratories. Many, like GE, are so good at it that they have avoided taxes altogether in some recent years.

But they all still expect Uncle Sam to come to their aid with military firepower in case the natives abroad get restless and nationalize their company’s assets. We still have a blockade against Cuba because Fidel Castro more than a half century ago dared seize an American-owned telephone company. During that same period, we have consistently intervened to maintain the lock of U.S. corporations on the world’s resources, continuing to the present task of making Iraq and Libya safe for our oil companies.

America’s multinational corporations still need the Navy to protect shipping lanes and the Commerce Department to safeguard U.S. copyrights. They also expect the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department to intervene to provide bailouts and cheap money when the corporate financial swindlers get into trouble, like GE, which almost went aground when its GE Capital financial wing got caught in the great banking meltdown.

They want a huge U.S. government to finance scientific breakthroughs, educate the future workforce, sustain the infrastructure and provide for law and order on the home front, but they just don’t feel they should have to pay for a system of governance, even though it primarily serves their corporate interests. The U.S. government exists primarily to make the world safe for multinational corporations, but those firms feel no obligation to pay for that protection in return.

Think of that perfectly legal and widespread racket when you go to pay your taxes in the next weeks, and consider that you have to make up the gap left by the big boys’ antics. Also, when you contemplate the painful cuts coming because of the sequester that undoubtedly will further destabilize the economy, remember that, as the Wall Street Journal estimated, the tax savings of just 19 of those companies would more than cover the $85 billion in spending reductions triggered by the congressional budget impasse.

The most skilled at this con game are the health care and technology companies, which, as a Senate investigation last year revealed, have become quite expert at shifting marketing rights and patents offshore to low-tax countries. Microsoft boosted its foreign holdings by $16 billion last year, and by the end of the company’s fiscal year on June 30, 2012, had $60.8 billion stashed internationally. Through creative accounting, Microsoft was able to claim that only 7 percent of its pretax profit last year was domestically generated.

Oracle increased its foreign holdings by one-third, including new subsidiaries in low-tax Ireland, and thereby was able to add a cool $272 million to the company’s bottom line by avoiding U.S. taxes. Abbott estimates that it saved $1.6 billion in U.S. taxes through its operations in more than a dozen countries. By moving $8.1 billion of its profits overseas, Abbott was able to claim a pretax loss on its U.S. operations. Johnson & Johnson, another health industry giant, has almost all of its cash—$14.8 billion out of $14.9 billion—abroad, yet still claims to be a U.S. company.

One of the longtime leaders in offshore tax avoidance has been that once-American-as-apple-pie company GE, which in a more innocent time hired Ronald Reagan to advertise its wares. Now GE has nearly two-thirds of its jobs abroad, avoided U.S. taxes in the previous two years and has $108 billion stashed overseas.

Two years ago, President Obama appointed GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to chair his Jobs Council, despite the fact that Immelt had cut his company’s U.S. workforce by a fifth. GE’s expertise is no longer in appliance manufacturing, a division Immelt has tried to shed, but rather in financial manipulation.

GE Capital was a leader in the financial scams that still haunt the U.S. economy, and Immelt has been most effective in lobbying Washington politicians to rig the tax laws to benefit his and other multinational corporations. He has created some jobs, but unfortunately, they are abroad, along with his company’s untaxed profits.


For all these multinational corporations, the love of profit trumps loyalty to country.


AP/Mark Lennihan
Dancers stage the Microsoft logo against the side of a building in New York.

[TABLE="class: footer"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]

---

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.

[Scott P]

Democrats = Blaming the rich for all of society's problems.

Republicans = Blaming the poor for all society's problems.

True Middle Class = income of ~$27,000 to $70,000. If you are outside this bracket, you are not really Middle Class. Weird how most people (poor and rich) consider themselves Middle Class.