 
     |
| The economy, is it good or bad. (Page 13/181) |
|
heybjorn
|
AUG 05, 08:56 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by pokeyfiero:
But who is stopping people from Un-Locking this flow of money for themselves?
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 84Bill:
I spose that would be the people who have it? |
|
Why would that be, Bill? What purpose would be served? You appear to believe that control of the economy rests in the hands of a wealthy class at the top of the social structure of the United States. These people make money by making money, that is, they rent money for business ventures or they put money into stocks with the expectation that those stocks will rise in value over some period. Since their income comes from the use of money, why would they limit their income growth potential by limiting the growth of the economy?
|
|
|
|
84Bill
|
AUG 05, 09:07 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by heybjorn:
Why would that be, Bill? What purpose would be served? You appear to believe that control of the economy rests in the hands of a wealthy class at the top of the social structure of the United States. These people make money by making money, that is, they rent money for business ventures or they put money into stocks with the expectation that those stocks will rise in value over some period. Since their income comes from the use of money, why would they limit their income growth potential by limiting the growth of the economy? |
|
The people who have the monie MAKE the decissions(not limited to corporations but govt as well) on how that monie is spent. If they decide that "it's too costly" to replace or redesign (for example) the POS Ford AXOD transmission then sales will take a dive because the car is not relyable.. it's a POS car. These decissions are based on numbers and not sense. Though the "decissions makers" IN THE SHORT TERM save the company billions in redesign costs and recalls, so instead they make that 4.5 mil bonus and cause the stock prices to rise a few points because they posted a quartly increase. In the long ter the company looses loyalty.. which switched to Camry.
Again..... Read
| | | quote |
One problem with this argument is that much "at risk" pay is not actually at very much risk at all. The typical grant of stock options will pay off even if it is a general bull market, rather than exceptional performance by the company itself, that boosts the value of the stock. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, among others, has advocated indexing options so that a stock would have to outperform the market or a peer index in order for the options to have value. The practice of repricing options when a company’s stock falls further weakens the relationship between executive pay and company performance.
Big raises for job-cutters
There are other problems with the use of performance-based pay to spur corporate executives. The measures used to gauge performance are typically short term, raising the danger that executives will be encouraged to pursue short-term gains at the expense of the workforce – and of the company’s long-term performance. In fact, it’s not unusual for CEOs to receive big pay increases while their companies are laying off frontline workers. For example, American Express fired 3,300 workers in 1997. That same year, its CEO’s compensation package soared 224 percent, to $33.4 million. That figure includes $27 million from the exercise of previously-granted stock options.
[quote]
Looks GREAT on paper but the reality is the money has gone into the stocks which is used by the company for the company and not the individuals who make that money, need the money and put that money directly back into the local economies.[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 08-05-2007).]
|
|
|
|
Formula88
|
AUG 05, 10:05 AM
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by aceman:
It shows that unemployment is about .6% different than before 9/11. | |
That really doesn't mean much because the economy has changed a lot since 9/11. There are too many factors to consider to say that servicemember deployment had no impact because unemployment is only 0.6% different. What are the impacts of the other changes as well? Tax changes? Outsourcing? Fuel prices? Hurricanes Rita and Katrina?
|
|
|
|
Toddster
|
AUG 05, 10:38 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 84Bill:
Executive Compensation
Pay for top executives soars
CEO pay continues to set new records. According to Business Week’s annual survey of executive pay, compensation for CEOs of major U.S. corporations averaged $12.4 million in 1999, having increased sixfold since 1990. Last year alone, executive compensation rose an average of 17 percent. The average worker, in contrast, received a 3.5 percent pay increase. The chart at left shows how recent pay increases for top executives compare with those going to the average worker.
Sources for Chart: "Worker increase" is based on the wage and salary component of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment Cost Index for all civilian workers. "CEO increase" is drawn from Business Week surveys of executive compensation.
More reliance on stock options
The composition of executive pay has changed markedly in the past two decades. In 1979, Lee Iacocca became the first prominent executive to receive a major portion of his pay in the form of stock options. Since that time, and especially over the past 15 years, the use of stock options has exploded. Long-term compensation (primarily in the form of stock options) accounted for 81 percent of average 1999 pay for the CEOs of the top 365 U.S. companies, according to Business Week.
Does "at risk" pay improve performance?
Shareholder activists and groups concerned with corporate governance have generally favored stock options and other mechanisms intended to link executive pay to company performance. By putting a larger portion of pay "at risk," they argue, top executives will have an incentive to increase the returns on shareholders’ investment.
One problem with this argument is that much "at risk" pay is not actually at very much risk at all. The typical grant of stock options will pay off even if it is a general bull market, rather than exceptional performance by the company itself, that boosts the value of the stock. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, among others, has advocated indexing options so that a stock would have to outperform the market or a peer index in order for the options to have value. The practice of repricing options when a company’s stock falls further weakens the relationship between executive pay and company performance.
Big raises for job-cutters
There are other problems with the use of performance-based pay to spur corporate executives. The measures used to gauge performance are typically short term, raising the danger that executives will be encouraged to pursue short-term gains at the expense of the workforce – and of the company’s long-term performance. In fact, it’s not unusual for CEOs to receive big pay increases while their companies are laying off frontline workers. For example, American Express fired 3,300 workers in 1997. That same year, its CEO’s compensation package soared 224 percent, to $33.4 million. That figure includes $27 million from the exercise of previously-granted stock options.
Executive pay fuels income inequality
The pay of the average worker has not increased at nearly the same rate as pay for those at the top, fueling the trend toward greater income inequality. A worker making $25,000 a year in 1994 would have earned $107,513 in 1999 if his or her pay had grown at the same rate as pay for CEOs. Had the minimum wage grown as fast as executive pay since 1994, it would be more than $18 an hour instead of its current level of $5.15.
U.S. out of step with rest of world
CEO pay is much higher in the United States than in other countries. That’s true both in absolute dollar terms, and relative to pay for the average worker. According to Business Week, an American CEO earns 475 times as much as an average blue-collar worker. German CEOs make, on average, just 13 times as much as a typical manufacturing worker. The ratio in Japan is 11 to 1. The chart at left shows how pay for U.S. CEOs compares with that of their peers in other countries.
Statistics in Brief
High Performance
Work Systems
Productivity
and Growth
Executive
Compensation
Employment in
Major UAW Industries
Employment Situation
U.S. Light
Vehicle Sales
Consumer Prices
International Trade
SEC Website
Noteworthy News
Sources: Business Week "Executive Compensation Scoreboard" (April 17, 2000 and past years); New York Times, "Report on Executive Pay: In the Options Age, Rising Pay (and Risk)" (April 2, 2000); AFL-CIO, Executive Pay Watch (www.aflcio.org/paywatch)
|
|
A non-scientific rant by the press designed to sell magazines and newspapers.
Here is the reality:
http://knowledge.wharton.up...e.cfm?articleid=1431
|
|
|
|
84Bill
|
AUG 05, 11:10 AM
|
|
And there is no scientific data.. any data provided by a scientist is not to be trusted as fact. Statistics prove nothing and are not "complete" facts. Facts are used to formulate statistics thru complex calculations by the stripping of certin facts to outweight other facts which support the objective of the statistic. Statistics will show show the glass is either full or it's empty but the facts are that no matter how high the level is in the glass my head is always one inch under the water. So your scientific statistical facts though valid are not realivent to what IS happening... The economy is drying up.. the money is gone. The reality will set in eventually and when it does.. It will be too late.
and the data is way outdated. However it is accurate. corporate CEOs make an average of 3000 per hr. The average slob makes about 36.
Regardless of the data presented the article STILL remains valid. Corporations still make quartly profits by slashing, outsourcing jobs and increasing the workloads on workers (they call it economizing or restructuring) so the CEO can make is 5.4 mil bonus. That has not changed since this report was published in 2000.
Whats happening now is corporat buyups or buyouts. In order to keep profits up and stocks flowing companies are now selling off stock in "mergers." Comcast buys up Adelphia, AT&T buys up Bell and Cingular. This is a cover manuver for projected failing profits... Banks are merging... etc. This does not factor into the economy because it's a cover for a faltering economy, it makes the companies look like they are gang busters instead of gangs of companies going bust.. which is what is happening.[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 08-05-2007).]
|
|
|
|
Toddster
|
AUG 05, 11:31 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 84Bill:
And there is no scientific data.. any data provided by a scientist is not to be trusted as fact. .. The economy is drying up.. the money is gone. The reality will set in eventually and when it does.. It will be too late.
|
|
DAMN THE FACTS!
THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!
You are starting to sound like Al Gore. 
|
|
|
|
JazzMan
|
AUG 05, 01:36 PM
|
|
|
. [This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-04-2008).]
|
|
|
|
pokeyfiero
|
AUG 05, 01:38 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by pokeyfiero:
But who is stopping people from Un-Locking this flow of money for themselves?
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 84Bill:
I spose that would be the people who have it? |
|
So are you saying that in order for a guy to get in good so to speak it is dependent on some one with the goods to lets him in?
|
|
|
|
pokeyfiero
|
AUG 05, 01:47 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by JazzMan:
Do you enjoy having the weekends off from work? Thank unions for that.
Do you enjoy vacation time every year? Thank unions for that.
Holidays? Thank unions for that, too.
What, you want to go back to working 7 day weeks at leat 12-16 hours a day with no benefits, unemployed as soon as your body wears out, having never made more than the bare minimum to keep yourself fed and meagerly sheltered? If only there was a time machine, you could live out your dream of doing just that by going back a hundred years to live out your fantasy.
JazzMan |
|
And this has what to do with todays facts?
Are you just reaching for anything to argue about so you can post a point on the board?
Tell us in your own words the bad things you know about unions today. I suppose the guys running the unions are saints just looking out for thier fellow worker. Wait they don't actually work with the regular guy do they. Kinda makes unions like a company. With its own self interest in mind. Since they already got the weekend and vacations sown up what is there to get now? They need to look like they are doing something or they will not be needed and people will wonder why they are paying these guys.
|
|
|
|
heybjorn
|
AUG 05, 02:33 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 84Bill:
And there is no scientific data.. any data provided by a scientist is not to be trusted as fact.
|
|
So, "in fact", there is no such thing as gravity which exerts a force of 32 ft/sec^2 upon bodies on earth? Two hydrogen atoms don't combine with one oxygen to form water? That is what you said. But that reality takes away from what I was trying to get to earlier, which I'm not going back to because Bill isn't interested in "facts".
Let me mention something I know quite a bit about, the trucking industry.
"The number of wage and salary jobs in the truck transportation and warehousing industry is expected to grow 14 percent from 2004 through 2014, compared with projected growth of 14 percent for all industries combined. Growth will result in many job openings because the industry is so large. There also will be openings due to replacement needs for the large number of workers who will transfer to other industries or retire. Job opportunities should be especially good for truck drivers and diesel service technicians and mechanics.
One of the main factors influencing the growth of the truck transportation and warehousing industry is the state of the national economy. Growth in the industry parallels the movements of the national economy. As the national economy grows and the production and sales of goods increases, there is an increase in the demand for transportation services to move goods from their producers to consumers. During economic downturns, the truck transportation and warehousing industry is one of the first to slow down as orders for goods and shipments decline. Competition in truck transportation is intense, both among trucking companies and, in some long-haul truckload segments, with the railroad industry. Nevertheless, trucking accounts for the bulk of freight transportation. Warehousing is expected to grow faster than the rest of the industry, although many midsized firms are being purchased by others in attempts to consolidate." From http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs021.htm#emply
Why does this matter? Because stock growth and interest are intangible; socks, shoes, and food are not. The trucking industry is begging for people to work as longhaul truck drivers. The industry hauls real goods to real warehouses and real stores. A driver with three years experience and a good driving record can find a job anywhere in the country, making $40-$70,000 a year. If I started making phone calls Monday morning at 8 AM, I would have ten job offers by noon. This strikes me as a pretty good measure that the economy is doing very well, since producers of real goods don't produce them to have them sit in a vault and earn interest. In addition, everywhere I go, in any major city, I see warehouses going up to store these goods until stores can put them on shelves. Once again, the owners are not building these facilities to sit empty.
The economy is doing very well. If am individual isn't, perhaps he or she is not equipped with the skills to compete. That is a personal problem that Ford's CEO has nothing to do with.
|
|
|
|