Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:37 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:36 am
Posts: 559
hi Glenn, I love boats as well, shame about the bounty replica...don't you just hate the French :wink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZO7-22 ... ure=relmfu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Merry Christmas to you and your family, Glenn. Thanks for dropping by.

And yea, you're a slacker! :lol:

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 1348
Location: Somerville, ma.
Relevant article
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdes ... but-a.html

_________________
- Justin Powell


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Valkenar wrote:


First, I always consider the source. PBS gets funded partially by forced wealth redistribution. Naturally they have a perspective not shared by people who work for private industry and don't take from the system.

Quote:
ANDREW SMITHERS: The change in the way company managements are remunerated has been dramatic in this century. Salaries have ceased to be the main source of income to senior management, with bonuses and options taking over. There has been major change in management incentives and it should not cause surprise, though it evidently has to most economists, that management behavior has changed. The current incentives discourage investment and encourage high profit margins.

This is dangerous for companies' long-term prospects as it increases their risk of losing market share and reduces their ability to reduce costs. It is very damaging for the economy, but it maximizes the income of managements. Senior management positions change frequently, so if management wish to get rich, they have to get rich quickly. I am not alone in this diagnosis. A recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York comes to the same conclusion from a theoretical analysis as I have come from data analysis.


I do not see a trend in this plot.

Image

Rather what I see is economic cycles. One nasty one that makes management look "evil" happened right in the midst of WWII. What's up with that? When you think about it, it has a lot to do with how these statistics were put together, and how the economy can change on a dime.

Markets self-correct. If a company isn't investing in its future, then they will lose out to other companies that do. Ultimately the survival of a company isn't about whether this or that part of the employee population is getting a piece of the pie, but rather whether the activity within the company is sustainable.

Meanwhile... that which constitutes "labor" is a dieing paradigm. Much of the work done in my company is efficiently run by people like yours truly who operate servers that do my work. Much money is put into the hardware and software, and my specialized work is force-multiplied by technology. Hence I do not work in a labor intensive business. That which constitutes profit - which is only a few percent of total revenue anyway - is then proportionally fairly high with respect to "labor" costs.

For the record, companies do *not* exist to employ people. They exist to turn a profit for the owners and/or shareholders. Employment is a fringe benefit of said economic activity. Requiring companies to put more revenue into labor (to what end???) and less towards profit is anathema to the raison d'etre of the company.

Also... the uncertain economic market is causing companies not to hire. Until the federal government stops being stupid, companies will continue not to hire.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm
Posts: 1221
Interesting article

One thing though is that it frames the discussion mainly in terms of "share" instead of actual wages or how much wages have increased.

A lot of Lefties use that approach--that way they don't have to discuss actual wages going up (up until the crisis) . Plus it gives tham a chance to wail about how much more the CEO makes than the dude in the mailroom.

The question I always want to ask is why is it looked at as warrented for union workers to get the best deal they possibly can--regardless of the cost to everyone else that buys their product. BUT its somehow wrong when the CEO etc. does the same thing.

I see no moral or ethical difference between one dude getting the best possible deal for themselves and another dude doing the same.......

I notice that the union workers that got fired last year for drinking and smoking pot on their lunch breaks---then going back to making cars that the rest of DRIVE--put our kids in etc. Are likely to get their jobs back--with possible back pay because their bosses failed to follow proper union precedure when they fired them.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm
Posts: 1221
Not to keep beating what is clearly a dead horse---I mean really whom can actually defend this stuff?

As of today Al Gore's Current TV sold to the Al-Jazera (sp) network out of Qatar for 500 million dollars.

Lets table the whole anti-Jews, Anti West, Anti USA, pro-terrorist spin of ALJ.

Instead lets focus on 2 points:

1-According to reports Al Gore tried like heck to get the sale to close in December so as to avoid the higher taxs coming down the pike.

Generally I would go "ok--good business" however, just recently Mr. Gore was taped expounding on his belief that those that have the resources should......wait for it....wait for it... "pay their fair share."

Unless of course you stand to pocket a personal 100 million dollars on the deal.

You might say to yourself--"hey, its a 100 million dollars" but lets not forget that Gore ALREADY has a reported 100 million.

Which brings me to point #2--Gore made his FIRST 100 million selling a GREEN agenda and warning everyone about the evils of fossil fuels.

2-What does Qatar produce--huge, vast amounts of OIL!--ya know the evil fossil fuel that Gore has been running around telling everyone that its killing the planet.

But hey, what is killing the planet compared to makeing another 100 million? ;)

Funny--or it would be if it were not so serious--but the Left so often accuses the Right of being hypocrites they NEVER seem to be willing or able to address their own shortcomings.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:46 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Posts: 1747
Location: USA
Al Gore may be a (gigantic) hypocrite, but he's not a stupid hypocrite.
It's not so much that the left is inable to address its own shortcomings... it's that the Left acknowledges that it is actively engaged in a culture war. All's fair in love and war, so they say...

_________________
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group