Why the Rich Love High Unemployment

May 24, 2011 | Posted by: Iria | Full story: www.truthout.org

In the boardrooms of corporate America, profits aren't everything - they are the only thing. A JPMorgan research report concludes that the current corporate profit recovery is more dependent on falling unit-labor costs than during any previous expansion. At some level, corporate executives are aware that they are lowering workers' living standards, but their decisions are neither coordinated nor intentionally harmful. Call it the "paradox of profitability." Executives are acting in their own and their shareholders' best interest: maximizing profit margins in the face of weak demand by extensive layoffs and pay cuts. But what has been good for every company's income statement has been a disaster for working families and their communities.
Comments
1 - 20 of 236 Comments Last updated Aug 20, 2013
First Prev
of 12
Next Last
steve

Acworth, GA

#1 May 24, 2011
until there is labor violence, food riots, that kind of thing they will keep doing it. until ted kascinski becomes a national hero and ceo's are murdered they will continue to kill us and our families.
Ross

Lady Lake, FL

#2 May 24, 2011
Let me see if I can explain business so that even a moron like Iria can understand.

Businesses regulate the level of employment to meet the needs of their businesses. They are not in the business of running charities...that's why it's called business. And if a business doesn't monitor and right size its head count, it will soon be out of business or the shareholders will be seeking a new member of senior management. Shareholders invest in companies and they expect a decent return on that investment. Once again, they are not running charities.

Only a dumbass like Iria would put an article like this out here...more diahhrea from Iria.
Ross

Lady Lake, FL

#3 May 24, 2011
steve wrote:
until there is labor violence, food riots, that kind of thing they will keep doing it. until ted kascinski becomes a national hero and ceo's are murdered they will continue to kill us and our families.
Spoken like a true marxist or are you just a person who enjoys sitting on your dead ass waiting for government handouts.
deep pockets

Spring Hill, FL

#4 May 24, 2011
Why should the "haves" continue to support these spongers at the workplace ?
They need to be out there with 3-4 part time jobs to make ends meet somehow.
A Nnoyed

UK

#5 May 24, 2011
What a non-story if there ever was one.

Supply is high so cost goes down.

Buyers are happy, sellers not happy.

When it's the other way around there aren't any articles about the exploitative sellers. Who then drive up prices by increasing cost to the consumer.

Sometimes it goes for you, sometimes against. Back and forth.
steve

Acworth, GA

#6 May 24, 2011
Ross wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken like a true marxist or are you just a person who enjoys sitting on your dead ass waiting for government handouts.
no. the state had me fired for drug addiction, so they OWE me a living.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#7 May 24, 2011
Ross wrote:
Let me see if I can explain business so that even a moron like Iria can understand.
Businesses regulate the level of employment to meet the needs of their businesses. They are not in the business of running charities...that's why it's called business. And if a business doesn't monitor and right size its head count, it will soon be out of business or the shareholders will be seeking a new member of senior management. Shareholders invest in companies and they expect a decent return on that investment. Once again, they are not running charities.
Only a dumbass like Iria would put an article like this out here...more diahhrea from Iria.
You frightwing morons never cease to amaze and come out of the primordial slime. When the real JP Morgan was around, guess who reigned him and the rest of the robber barrons in? Guess, since you probably don't know.
Ross

Lady Lake, FL

#8 May 24, 2011
steve wrote:
<quoted text>no. the state had me fired for drug addiction, so they OWE me a living.
If you had a drug addiction and you couldn't perform your job, the state owes you squat. You are responsible for your actions...no one else. You have made bad decision...live with it.

Since: May 10

Salinas, CA

#9 May 24, 2011
Beware of the soulless corporations

For-profit corporations are by nature amoral, not patriotic, not compassionate, and held to no standard other than whether their actions improve earnings

For-profit corporations are by nature amoral. In other words, they evaluate prospective actions merely as whether those actions will be profitable. They are not patriotic nor compassionate but very simply either profitable or not. The law professor illustrated the “conscience” of the corporation as follows: A corporation, to increase its profits, must pollute the river instead of otherwise disposing its toxic waste.

There is a basis to argue that this soulless, conscienceless, fictitious person must send jobs to India or China if doing so would substantially increase profits. Indeed, an argument could also be made that if the officers and directors of the corporation fail to take advantage of an opportunity for profits by sending jobs overseas, they might be personally liable to stockholders

http://www.newtimesslo.com/commentary/6002/be...

Since: May 10

Salinas, CA

#10 May 24, 2011
The only recourse against abuses by corporations is strict regulation of their activity by government. We could require corporations to keep their offices in the United States, to keep their production jobs in the United States, by regulating them through taxes and penalties. Unfortunately, this remedy is unlikely because more and more corporate-owned politicians are calling for deregulation of corporate activity. Is anyone surprised?

Apparently the Tea Party, the Libertarians, and some right-wing Republicans want us all to adopt the values of the modern corporation. How else could one explain the renewed popularity of Ayn Rand’s writing, which is treated with renewed Biblical fervor by some politicians? Rand exposed a philosophy of selfishness, small government, and elimination of humanitarian programs. Only selfishness can make the world better, in her view.
Bob Burns

Kunming, China

#11 May 24, 2011
Simple lesson here. Start a business. Everyone benefits

“"I'm A Great American!"”

Since: Sep 08

Obama Nation! USA! USA!

#12 May 24, 2011
Ross wrote:
Let me see if I can explain business so that even a moron like Iria can understand.
Businesses regulate the level of employment to meet the needs of their businesses. They are not in the business of running charities...that's why it's called business. And if a business doesn't monitor and right size its head count, it will soon be out of business or the shareholders will be seeking a new member of senior management. Shareholders invest in companies and they expect a decent return on that investment. Once again, they are not running charities.
Only a dumbass like Iria would put an article like this out here...more diahhrea from Iria.
You're explaining, huh? Breaking it down? Explain this then:

If it's dog eat dog, and the benefit of the shareholders is the ultimate objective, what is to stop labor, or the unemployed, to regard the shareholder as the enemy? To see the senior manager as a stooge who will cast off an employee as an excess cost unit, regardless of the consequences to the family of the employee?

Why would employees, or Steve, or you & I want to cooperate with shareholders? Why not wage war against them? Is the human wreckage caused by shareholders grubbing for one more dime worth the price paid by the people getting hurt?

All trash talking aside, I'm no socialist. But if I wasn't convinced your premise and the implications of what you say are full of crap, you'd push me toward socialism. Or Christianity.
Questioner

Castell, TX

#13 May 24, 2011
Ross wrote:
Let me see if I can explain business so that even a moron like Iria can understand.
Businesses regulate the level of employment to meet the needs of their businesses. They are not in the business of running charities...that's why it's called business. And if a business doesn't monitor and right size its head count, it will soon be out of business or the shareholders will be seeking a new member of senior management. Shareholders invest in companies and they expect a decent return on that investment. Once again, they are not running charities.
...more.
Mostly true, business is in business to make money, and it is foolish to expect anything less. It is also foolish to expect, as many on the right seem to, for a society to put business, profit and markets as the highest purpose and good for a nation. To maximize profit, slave labor, no 'regulation', fraud and intimidation are useful.
Business, corporations etc. are not persons and the interests of business, singly or as a group, need not coincide with that of people. If you doubt this statement look at the pay and privileges business leaders provide to themselves and their favorites. That pay and the cost of the privileges, in the case of corporations, lessens the return to shareholders.

The question is: Should a society be based on business interests or the aggregate good of its people? The corollary is to you want oligarchy or democracy?
Questioner

Castell, TX

#14 May 24, 2011
deep pockets wrote:
Why should the "haves" continue to support these spongers at the workplace ?
They need to be out there with 3-4 part time jobs to make ends meet somehow.
Remember 1789, not in the United States, but in France. And based on many of the comments there would be no shortage of those willing to fire on the mob.

Since: Dec 07

Spring, TX

#16 May 24, 2011
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>You frightwing morons never cease to amaze and come out of the primordial slime. When the real JP Morgan was around, guess who reigned him and the rest of the robber barrons in? Guess, since you probably don't know.
Yes, Teddy Roosevelt, a republican. Thanks for the compliment.
Ross

Lady Lake, FL

#17 May 24, 2011
PooPoo Platter wrote:
<quoted text>
You're explaining, huh? Breaking it down? Explain this then:
If it's dog eat dog, and the benefit of the shareholders is the ultimate objective, what is to stop labor, or the unemployed, to regard the shareholder as the enemy? To see the senior manager as a stooge who will cast off an employee as an excess cost unit, regardless of the consequences to the family of the employee?
Why would employees, or Steve, or you & I want to cooperate with shareholders? Why not wage war against them? Is the human wreckage caused by shareholders grubbing for one more dime worth the price paid by the people getting hurt?
All trash talking aside, I'm no socialist. But if I wasn't convinced your premise and the implications of what you say are full of crap, you'd push me toward socialism. Or Christianity.
You sound like a state or local government employee with both feet in the public trough. That's why the State of Illinois is in such pathetic fiscal shape. Citizens are unemployed and unable to pay taxes and state leadership has made no adjustments in state head count.

Let me say this again. If the economy is down, a company does not need employees. A business manages the number of employees it needs based on the level of business it has. They are not in the business of letting people draw a pay check when there is no work for these employees to do.

What's so complicated about this?

Since: Dec 07

Spring, TX

#18 May 24, 2011
Jonny Boy Central Coast wrote:
The only recourse against abuses by corporations is strict regulation of their activity by government. We could require corporations to keep their offices in the United States, to keep their production jobs in the United States, by regulating them through taxes and penalties. Unfortunately, this remedy is unlikely because more and more corporate-owned politicians are calling for deregulation of corporate activity. Is anyone surprised?
Apparently the Tea Party, the Libertarians, and some right-wing Republicans want us all to adopt the values of the modern corporation. How else could one explain the renewed popularity of Ayn Rand’s writing, which is treated with renewed Biblical fervor by some politicians? Rand exposed a philosophy of selfishness, small government, and elimination of humanitarian programs. Only selfishness can make the world better, in her view.
And when you nail these corporations with strict regulations, what do you think they'll do next? Love to hear it.
steve

Acworth, GA

#19 May 24, 2011
Ross wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had a drug addiction and you couldn't perform your job, the state owes you squat. You are responsible for your actions...no one else. You have made bad decision...live with it.
ok, yes boss, I and millions of others will just quietly go away and starve somewhere. I might, but I think there might be some issues with that. good luck. I know you mean well, but uh, some folks are younger than me and might have violent intentions.
steve

Acworth, GA

#20 May 24, 2011
the fifth collumn strategy is to infiltrate inside the castle long before an attack comes. what has happened is there are so many sleeper cells inside the castle of pure capitalism, aka , trade with slave labor states, no tax collected from overseas corps, drug testing and permanent record of it, that it tends to create even more sleeper cells inside the castle of pure capitalism. I have become fifth collumn while I in general agree that socialism vs capitalism , I would have said earlier in life capitalism was superior, but the govt has created sleeper cells within the castle. I or people in my situation, the younger ones at least are not just going to roll over and die, there's a limit, I think. heck, I could be wrong.
five-one

Holiday, FL

#21 May 24, 2011
Companies laying off when business slows up?No sh*t Sherlock.Maybe obama might figure out how to create a favorable business environment so we can get people back to work.But dont hold your breath.Does Iria ever layoff when they have too many employees for the work they have?You can bet your azz they do.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 12
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Publishing Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
NYT: Democrats Using Ferguson Shooting To Mobil... 2 hr LittleNayNay 1
This industry illustrates the unresolved legal ... 3 hr Belle Sexton 18
People's Climate March: "You will have to answe... Sun litesong 3
U.S. Conducts Airstrikes Near Besieged Iraqi Town Sun USA Today 1
Poll: A deadlock in Iowa's key Senate race Aug 28 Le Jimbo 3
World's oldest man, Alexander Imich, dies at ag... Aug 27 PatchWork 7
Stopping the Islamic State Might Be Obama's Cha... Aug 25 USA Today 1
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Publishing People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••