• 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!

U.S. companies hoard record amount of cash

ttwtt78640 said:
How, exactly, would you go about changing that ratio? My earnings (self employed handyman) are not affected by what a CEO makes, nor is what the CEO makes affected by my earnings. Do you propose that a national pay scale be established by the government - similar to what the GS pay schedule now does for federal workers?
Click to expand...

No, I would not favor a national pay scale. I have enough trouble with the Minimum Wage issue.

There are economists and others who know about this. One whose book I have read is Naomi Klein. I am not an economist.

But considering (from memory and notes) that in 1980 the average CEO made 43 times what the average worker in his company made, and that in 2005 that changed to 411 times what his average worker made, something is wrong.

I make no claims to knowing the answer, how to correct something like that, but it is not difficult to understand that such trends and statistics work against the notion that any sort of equality exists on a basic level. Just as they can assign reasons for that disparity, somebody can come up with a solution. Not me, but somebody can.
 
DVSentinel said:
How many companies lost to hostile take overs of stock because they didn't have the liquid assets to protect their stocks? Just how stable is our current economy? Why is that Chesapeake no longer advertises itself as the largest independent producer of natural gas? (Hint, it's related to the first question).

When a company bases itself and it's profits on a certain market, they have to retain control to pursue their vision and goals. Stock piles of money (liquid assets) is one way to hedge against hostile take overs and other downturns, such as regulation.

Even the largest of companies need liquid assets to keep control of their companies. There are many other things that those liquid assets exist to protect a company from. Considering the actions of Obama and the DNC towards corporations, is it really that confusing on why they would stock pile money for the future?
Click to expand...

Essentially I agree with you--I think every successful company should have cash reserves, every individual should have savings and cash reserves.

The point is that (from my previous post) various ratios are going the wrong way, assuming one buys into that romantic notion that ours is a democratic society in which anybody willing to work hard can get ahead and support a family, and that all men are equal before the law.

Do compassionate corporations exist, or is the bottom line the only thing that drives American industry today?
 
Henry David said:
No, I would not favor a national pay scale. I have enough trouble with the Minimum Wage issue.

There are economists and others who know about this. One whose book I have read is Naomi Klein. I am not an economist.

But considering (from memory and notes) that in 1980 the average CEO made 43 times what the average worker in his company made, and that in 2005 that changed to 411 times what his average worker made, something is wrong.

I make no claims to knowing the answer, how to correct something like that, but it is not difficult to understand that such trends and statistics work against the notion that any sort of equality exists on a basic level. Just as they can assign reasons for that disparity, somebody can come up with a solution. Not me, but somebody can.
Click to expand...

Again you reply with the income inequality slogan (mantra?), implying, but never stating how or by who the ratio can be changed. You seem to imply that some correct ratio exists between any given CEO's compensation and that of their "average" worker and that "someone" must assure that this is made so. That seems to require that "someone" do two basic things: 1) establish a "correct" ratio and 2) either lower the CEO compensation or raise the compensation of the "average" worker to attain that ratio.

You now have created a serious dilemma; the larger the corporation/company then the more that the CEO is responsible for, and yet a cashier, shelf stocker or forklift operator does the same "little" job regardless of how large that their employer happens to be, there are simply more of them working for the larger company. If we set the CEO's pay based on the average worker's pay (using some ratio) then the CEO of Walmart would be paid the same as the CEO of Dollar General (or any smaller retail operation).

A similar dilemma occurs for companies that use more highly paid "average" employees, such as the NBA or a pharmaceutical developer - should the CEO of the NBA or Big Pharma make "way more" than the CEO of Walmart or Burger King?
 
Last edited:
Henry David said:
No, I would not favor a national pay scale. I have enough trouble with the Minimum Wage issue.

There are economists and others who know about this. One whose book I have read is Naomi Klein. I am not an economist.

But considering (from memory and notes) that in 1980 the average CEO made 43 times what the average worker in his company made, and that in 2005 that changed to 411 times what his average worker made, something is wrong.

I make no claims to knowing the answer, how to correct something like that, but it is not difficult to understand that such trends and statistics work against the notion that any sort of equality exists on a basic level. Just as they can assign reasons for that disparity, somebody can come up with a solution. Not me, but somebody can.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering where this "notion of equality" thing that you mention comes from. Is that something you've dreamed up? It's certainly something that doesn't exist in reality when considering someone's right to make decisions about the use of their own property or money?
 
jet57 said:
Obama has spent less money than Bush OR Reagan. Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes
Like Carter and Vietnam, Obama got stuck with a helluva bill. His abilities to at the very least keep our heads above water and save US from complete collapse is what's making his presidency. For the record, Obama is no friend of mine, but I know very well what's been going on and his policies have at the very least stabilized the economy into the upswing that we have now. QE BTW has gotten the demand side spending which is what its designed to do.

Your hate for Obama is clouding your ability to read the signs.
Click to expand...

More lies and dishonest progressive paradigms.

That hack article blames all of the FY2015 Budget on Bush.

Even though Obama signed 9 out of the 12 spending appropriations bills in that budget.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're even capable of telling the truth.
 
Henry David said:
Essentially I agree with you--I think every successful company should have cash reserves, every individual should have savings and cash reserves.

The point is that (from my previous post) various ratios are going the wrong way, assuming one buys into that romantic notion that ours is a democratic society in which anybody willing to work hard can get ahead and support a family, and that all men are equal before the law.

Do compassionate corporations exist, or is the bottom line the only thing that drives American industry today?
Click to expand...

Is it more compassionate to do what corporations are doing now or to allow society to continue down the road to the bankruptcy of socialism? What is or is not compassionate is often a matter of perspective.

Why are those ratios going the wrong way? What is the level of actual competition in most market segments? How many companies are restricted in what they can pay and benefits because unions and laws force them to keep undesirable employees? Are companies really that non-compassionate or is it a case of media exaggeration of a biased issue?

Walmart, Lowes and many other companies have many people who started at or near the bottom but are now in management and worked their way up. Why is it the ones that are unable to do so we always see complaining on the news? Why do we only see or hear about the stories that feed hysteria and focus on expanding socialist like controls?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Again you reply with the income inequality slogan (mantra?), implying, but never stating how or by who the ratio can be changed. You seem to imply that some correct ratio exists between any given CEO's compensation and that of their "average" worker and that "someone" must assure that this is made so. That seems to require that "someone" do two basic things: 1) establish a "correct" ratio and 2) either lower the CEO compensation or raise the compensation of the "average" worker to attain that ratio.

You now have created a serious dilemma; the larger the corporation/company then the more that the CEO is responsible for, and yet a cashier, shelf stocker or forklift operator does the same "little" job regardless of how large that their employer happens to be, there are simply more of them working for the larger company. If we set the CEO's pay based on the average worker's pay (using some ratio) then the CEO of Walmart would be paid the same as the CEO of Dollar General (or any smaller retail operation).

A similar dilemma occurs for companies that use more highly paid "average" employees, such as the NBA or a pharmaceutical developer - should the CEO of the NBA or Big Pharma make "way more" than the CEO of Walmart or Burger King?
Click to expand...

If it ever came to pass, what I'm trying to find, the mechanics and rules of how the change might come about would be established by committee, not by me. I merely express an idea. :peace

And hope that good men outnumber bad men.
 
DVSentinel said:
Is it more compassionate to do what corporations are doing now or to allow society to continue down the road to the bankruptcy of socialism? What is or is not compassionate is often a matter of perspective.

Why are those ratios going the wrong way? What is the level of actual competition in most market segments? How many companies are restricted in what they can pay and benefits because unions and laws force them to keep undesirable employees? Are companies really that non-compassionate or is it a case of media exaggeration of a biased issue?

Walmart, Lowes and many other companies have many people who started at or near the bottom but are now in management and worked their way up. Why is it the ones that are unable to do so we always see complaining on the news? Why do we only see or hear about the stories that feed hysteria and focus on expanding socialist like controls?
Click to expand...

Humans complain easily. It is second nature for many of them, and truly a bipartisan example of social behavior. ;)

So my position here has been one of curiosity. I wonder what the ideal in theory would be the ratio between average CEO and average worker?
 
Mycroft said:
I'm wondering where this "notion of equality" thing that you mention comes from. Is that something you've dreamed up? It's certainly something that doesn't exist in reality when considering someone's right to make decisions about the use of their own property or money?
Click to expand...

I happily admit to being an idealist, yes. :)

And I understand that reality is seldom ideal, that Utopia is not an option when it comes to government policy as interpreted by reality, not the ideal.

But when talking in theory, especially about government policy, one should at least include the ideal, strive for the ideal. :peace
 
Luftwaffe said:
Some people have the... Well not right... But the power to tell the business what to do with their money.

They are the investors.

Hoarding cash during the recession? Fine. Hoarding cash when the recession is over? The companies better give the investors a good reason is all I can say.

If I were the investors I'd start questioning soon.
Click to expand...

Most business are smart enough to invest their money only if there is a reasonable chance of making a profit off of such investment. That patently stupid Ponzi scheme known as Obamacare is making labor so expensive that it's hard to make a profit.
 
iguanaman said:
Along with 30 years of coddling corporations and the wealthy in the insane hope that the wealth would "trickle down".
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you don't understand the concept of trickle down.
 
DVSentinel said:
EPA, OSHA, High corporate taxes to fund social programs, Unions/No national right to work, Minimum Wage, Mandated Benefits, Affirmative action, Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

in which of those is the government owning the means of production of an industry?
 
ObamacareFail said:
Your problem is that you don't understand the concept of trickle down.
Click to expand...

LOL It doesn't mean the wealthy will piss on us if we give them tax breaks? Since it never happened I don't really see why I should care about your "concept of trickle down". Most of us are worse off than when supply-side coddling began.
 
Montecresto said:
Good to see you corrected your error. Conservatives here are blaming the democrats for companies holding onto their money. But the world looks as close to another world war as it ever has in the last 70 years.
Click to expand...

We call it as we see it. Obamacare has caused many companies to hold onto much of their cash flow rather then paying through the noise for patently stupid Ponzi schemes like "Obamacare".
 
Henry David said:
I happily admit to being an idealist, yes. :)

And I understand that reality is seldom ideal, that Utopia is not an option when it comes to government policy as interpreted by reality, not the ideal.

But when talking in theory, especially about government policy, one should at least include the ideal, strive for the ideal. :peace
Click to expand...

LOL!!

Okay. You go ahead and strive for your ideal. I'll continue to live in the real world.

btw, what might seem to be ideal to you is against human nature. The only way you can achieve your ideal is by forcing it upon people. That seldom works. You might be better served by re-aligning your idea with reality. You'll piss less people off that way.
 
Montecresto said:
Bush broke it, and Obama's been working to fix it while the GOP has been a force of opposition. Wouldn't it look badet for a republican president to ruin the economy and a democratic president to fix it.
Click to expand...

Bush did not break it. Democrats like Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, etc did. When you learn how the history of the mortgage market, you will know who to blame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom