• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CEOs lay off thousands, rake in millions

Aunt Spiker said:
If I had 50 employees at $8.00/hr - working 40 hours a week . . . I'm paying them a total of $320.00 each per week - which is $16,000 per week total.
That's $64,000 per month. $786,000 per year.

If I fire half of them - my company then retains that extra $$ . . which is $384,000.

However - the problem, here, is that the remaining workers must pick of the slack.

I have thus netted myself more money. . . but I've ****ed over my other employees who are now working double-time. If I don't give them incentive to stay (which is the left over pay from the others who I let go of or increased benefits) then I have set myself up for a crappy business ethic - pushing too few people too hard to get work done for the same amount of $$.

They will be looking for work elsewhere and bailing out asap.

Either way you look at it - it paints an 'ultimate doom' scenario for a company.

The only way to actually save a failing company is to reduce or liquefy your assets. Maybe letting go of people who are directly related to those assets being *there* - *and then* based on that result of that - deciding if you need to let more of your employees go.
Click to expand...

No offense but this is a pretty simplictic view of what happens. Surely there are cases when the above this happens. Usually in bad companies which over time will not be able to compete.

In other cmpanies changes in work force may be due to investments in IT for example so you can improve productivity. Better processes, finding things that you were doing that was not adding value to customers and stop doing that are other examples where there are reductions that do not hurt employees, customers but help both. That is because you can be more competitive, retain customers and be able to give remaining workers a stable work environment.
 
We will all finally witness what happens when the top 1% control all of the money. They hord it and ask for tax breaks to hord more, all the while those who consume their goods fall in economic standing and can no longer consume the goods made, thus a stagnant economy and eventually a collapsed state.
 
Yes, but you can fire one executive and save damn near the same $384,000.
 
tlmorg02 said:
We will all finally witness what happens when the top 1% control all of the money. They hord it and ask for tax breaks to hord more, all the while those who consume their goods fall in economic standing and can no longer consume the goods made, thus a stagnant economy and eventually a collapsed state.
Click to expand...


Damned evil rich people!


j-mac
 
Not evil, just greedy and short-sighted. What is the big effect of making 100million per year and being taxed 50% or even 60%, you are still making 40-50million, is that not enough to have a comfortable life?
 
Companies are laying off because of a severe loss in the quantity of purchase orders. They just don't have enough work to do to carry as many employees as they have in the past.

Think of a corporation as a human body. The brain (CEOs and upper management) will shut off all of the other parts of the body one at a time in order keep itself alive.

Does anyone remember the second half of the nineties, when global competition had every company in America focused on cost reduction? Five or six years of cost reduction will turn your pride and joy widgets into pieces of cheaply made unwanted junk. It does however keep the brain alive, for a while. When a company experiences an employee reduction that is very noticeable, the top guys get closer and closer to getting their hands dirty. They usually jump ship before it sinks taking as much money as they can with them. I would do the same thing if I was in their shoes.

We need to return to quality manufacturing. Pay a little more for the one that will last longer.
 
Perhaps you didn't know it Johnny, but Bush scored higher than John Kerry on Yale IQ tests and had a higher grade point average!

I never understand why those that "hate" someone have to call them "Moron." That is in my opinion an smoke screen for unbridaled hate. Bush has had a lot of that from the Left - It's one of their favorite pasttimes.

I certainly did not agree with a lot of what Bush did - particularly in his second term. But he was far, far more thoughtful and involved that Obama.
Bush's total failure was his terrible speaking ability, which pundits and critics used to whip him.

You should look at the past Mayor of Chicago who ran Chicago for 26 years. He couldn't talk at all and used DuH and other non words and sounded like he was retarded. But he was called the Master Politician. His son, the current Mayor is a near clone and has taken many speech lessons with slight improvement.

Obama is extremely articulate but a hollow shell when it comes to finesse and ability to manage. Remember! He never managed even a Lemonade stand. He is a Alinsky Robot and applies his Rules for revolution as a street organizer. He isn't brilliant and he's not the Messiah. He's only a 100% radical Socialst whose gift with stringing words together has enabled him to go far beyond his capabilty.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Not evil, just greedy and short-sighted. What is the big effect of making 100million per year and being taxed 50% or even 60%, you are still making 40-50million, is that not enough to have a comfortable life?
Click to expand...


Who's job is it to determine what people should make? Is this a free country or not? Who are you to assign greed to a company, or individual making as much as they possibly can? Isn't that what America is all about?


j-mac
 
Last edited:
Vader said:
That's pure rhetoric.

Without their corruptive influence there would be a good, strong, economy.
Click to expand...

With no business? Yeah, good luck with that. :roll:
 
Sure its free, but to pay the police and military and everyone else who ensures that noone comes and forcibly takes the CEO's millions, costs money. Having a court system that protects contracts and business deals costs money, yet the same people who rely the most on the order to protect their way of life, wish to not help pay for it.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Sure its free, but to pay the police and military and everyone else who ensures that noone comes and forcibly takes the CEO's millions, costs money. Having a court system that protects contracts and business deals costs money, yet the same people who rely the most on the order to protect their way of life, wish to not help pay for it.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. the top 1% of earners in this country pay something like 75% of the tax burden or somthing like that. 50% of the population pays no tax at all. How about we institute a flat tax and make everyone pay. Wouldn't that be fair?


j-mac
 
tlmorg02 said:
Sure its free, but to pay the police and military and everyone else who ensures that noone comes and forcibly takes the CEO's millions, costs money. Having a court system that protects contracts and business deals costs money, yet the same people who rely the most on the order to protect their way of life, wish to not help pay for it.
Click to expand...

I'm quite certain most CEO's agree that Police, Military and Law Courts are within the proper functions of government and would be more than willing to pay their fair share for THOSE services.
 
Lachean said:
I'm quite certain most CEO's agree that Police, Military and Law Courts are within the proper functions of government and would be more than willing to pay their fair share for THOSE services.
Click to expand...

They should be willing to pay for anything that protects what they have, I would argue that Welfare and the lot protects those interests.
 
j-mac said:
Nonsense. the top 1% of earners in this country pay something like 75% of the tax burden or somthing like that. 50% of the population pays no tax at all. How about we institute a flat tax and make everyone pay. Wouldn't that be fair?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Of course it would be fair, but we would have to do away with loopholes and hideaways for money to be untaxed. That way if we all pay ten percent, for example a person making 40k would pay $4k and the wealthy man who makes 100million has to claim all 100million and pay his 10million.

Oh, and why wouldn't they pay the majority of taxes? They control 90% of the wealth! Simple math understanding would show that the larger the number of monies controlled will inflate any amount paid even at low percentage rates.
 
Last edited:
tlmorg02 said:
Not evil, just greedy and short-sighted.
Click to expand...

ie, human

drat that human nature, it always screws up all our idealistic economic physics

someone oughtta pass a law...
 
ie, human

drat that human nature, it always screws up all our idealistic economic physics

someone oughtta pass a law...
Click to expand...


Why, we are "free" there should be no laws, right? Freedom to do as we please. Free to do away with social programs that keep the 90% of Americans "in line," and maintain the system. Let's do away with Welfare and assistance programs, keep giving tax breaks to the 10% and corporations in all "fairness" as they earned it and see what freedom rings on this order we have created.
 
Attractive as political narratives might appear, hiring intent depends on business' growth prospects. Notice how hiring expectations have gradually increased as CEO's expectations for sales growth have increased:

http://www.businessroundtable.org/sites/default/files/BR CEOSurvey ShortTables 2010Q2 V1.pdf

Currently, the economy is moving through a soft patch as the handoff between public sector support for aggregate demand to private sector support is in its early stages. Not surprisingly, a somewhat more recent survey indicated that CEOs had grown somewhat more cautious.

The expansion of payrolls usually lags upticks in capital spending, as new employees entail recurring costs. Therefore, the increase in the revenue stream needs to be reasonably durable if firms are to expand their payrolls. Hence, confidence in the strength and durability of an economic expansion is key to robust payroll growth. Firms don't want to be put into a situation where they hire workers and then almost immediately have to lay them off should economic growth come in weaker than expected. Such a move would only undermine their own credibility with respect to prospective employees and undermine the morale of current employees.
 
Last edited:
What is patently obvious is Liberals have about 1% understanding what is entailed in running a business.

Most of them have a - "You make too much money - and I deserve some of what you earned - even though I did nothing to earn it."

I never hear any of that Vitriol directed at Hollyweird actors and actresses, Money making bands, Sports figures, Oprah Winfrey and others.

No it's all reserved for Evil Business and Evil Corporations and Banks.

However if Obama is successful you will soon find out what poor actually means. The low income who all currently pay no taxes are not going to get a free ride in the suffering. You will suffer more - because you will establish yourself on the economic Slavery Plantation of Perpetual Dependency. The Government largesse will not continue. You will have lots of competition particularly if amnesty is provided.
 
TurtleDude said:
Who made you Serge Lang:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I did. :mrgreen:

Strangely I hated higher math in high school and actually had a mild fear of it. Now I go through math text books for fun. It's funny how people change. I actually did better in college than high school. Maybe the fact that I started school at 4 had something to do with it.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Attractive as political narratives might appear, hiring intent depends on business' growth prospects. Notice how hiring expectations have gradually increased as CEO's expectations for sales growth have increased:

http://www.businessroundtable.org/sites/default/files/BR CEOSurvey ShortTables 2010Q2 V1.pdf

Currently, the economy is moving through a soft patch as the handoff between public sector support for aggregate demand to private sector support is in its early stages. Not surprisingly, a somewhat more recent survey indicated that CEOs had grown somewhat more cautious.

The expansion of payrolls usually lags upticks in capital spending, as new employees entail recurring costs. Therefore, the increase in the revenue stream needs to be reasonably durable if firms are to expand their payrolls. Hence, confidence in the strength and durability of an economic expansion is key to robust payroll growth. Firms don't want to be put into a situation where they hire workers and then almost immediately have to lay them off should economic growth come in weaker than expected. Such a move would only undermine their own credibility with respect to prospective employees and undermine the morale of current employees.
Click to expand...

yes

put far more simply, for the benefit of the bottom half of the class, 2 + 2 = 4

except, i don't think very many americans find "attractive" our most hi profile "political narratives"

party on!
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Nonsense. the top 1% of earners in this country pay something like 75% of the tax burden or somthing like that. 50% of the population pays no tax at all. How about we institute a flat tax and make everyone pay. Wouldn't that be fair?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Could you please site your claims to at least a link. You seem to forget all the loopholes for the rich, and the fact that many corporations pay little if any taxes. Warren Buffet's secretary pays more in taxes then he does. He has said that himself.

YouTube - Warren Buffett's Tax Rate is Lower than His Secretary's
 
Cyborg said:
What is patently obvious is Liberals have about 1% understanding what is entailed in running a business.

Most of them have a - "You make too much money - and I deserve some of what you earned - even though I did nothing to earn it."

I never hear any of that Vitriol directed at Hollyweird actors and actresses, Money making bands, Sports figures, Oprah Winfrey and others.

No it's all reserved for Evil Business and Evil Corporations and Banks.

However if Obama is successful you will soon find out what poor actually means. The low income who all currently pay no taxes are not going to get a free ride in the suffering. You will suffer more - because you will establish yourself on the economic Slavery Plantation of Perpetual Dependency. The Government largesse will not continue. You will have lots of competition particularly if amnesty is provided.
Click to expand...


Do you run a business? I run two, and although I consider my self progressive I have no idea what you're talking about.

I've notice a trend with your posts. You blame everyting on so called "liberals." Me thinks your brain has been fried by too much Rush Limbaugh.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Could you please site your claims to at least a link. You seem to forget all the loopholes for the rich, and the fact that many corporations pay little if any taxes. Warren Buffet's secretary pays more in taxes then he does. He has said that himself.

YouTube - Warren Buffett's Tax Rate is Lower than His Secretary's
Click to expand...
Taxation is not about what everyone should pay; it is about what amount the government needs to carry out it's essential functions. The idea that somehow people who have more should pay a higher percentage of it in taxes displays a total perversion of the idea behind taxes. The tax code is not a tool for implementing economic reform or equality, nor should it ever be.
 
Hewlett Packard:

310,000 employees
$118 billion in revenue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom