Obama: Share the wealth?
2/22/2011:
New: Morning Question of the Day
Introducing a new category today – called “Morning Question of the Day.”
From time to time – a local, national or global current event will be published here on Hoboken411 (similar to the “Breakfast Nuggets,” but easier to digest).
These topics will have some kind of dotted line to everyone – including those living in the Mile Square.
Does Obama not know America is a Capitalist Country?
Earlier this month – President Obama addressed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – and the general headline from his speech was:
“Corporate Profits Have To Be Shared By American Workers.”
Adding: “The benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line.”
Who the hell is anyone to dictate how a capitalist market should work?
If you offer a job – with a certain pay – you’ll have people that want to work for that wage. If the wages are too low – you’ll have a tough time finding reliable help – the market decides, you know? Furthermore – our way of living typically rewards people who work harder than others (in most entrepreneurships at least).
Mind you – I do feel that some “Corporate CEO” salaries are ridiculously high (unless they were the founders of said companies). But some blame can be placed the shareholders of those public companies for letting it happen. No one reads proxy statements, or tries to understand the complicated balance sheets of the companies they invest in – and vote accordingly. Oh well.
Do you feel more corporate profits should be “shared” or is a damn salary with benefits enough?
Hoboken NJ
February 22nd, 2011 |
Henry Ford himself paid his workers more than he “needed” to pay them, precisely because sharing some more of the profits would enable the workers to buy the products they were producing, and keep the capitalist ecosystem humming nicely along. It’s very simple – if people are just scraping by, then the whole system starts to starve. My CEOs at various workplaces have walked off with many, many times more pay than even rather well-paid people on the production floor. But the CEO cannot sleep in 150 beds, or drive 150 cars, or eat 150 refrigerators full of all-American beef. If the leaders at the top want consumer consumption to rise then the people at the bottom need to have enough money in order to purchase the goods that will drive increased consumption.
Login or Register to reply
February 22nd, 2011 |
LOL Shareholders voting. Most of us have our money in retirement plans that are managed by others. So how the hell are we supposed to vote?
What we have is carpetbagger capitalism and the new oligarchy. New CEO comes in, makes the bottom line “look good” by laying off workers or shipping jobs overseas. Pays himself a huge bonus and then next year, oops the company is broke. All the while they are throwing money at Congress to legislation passed they want.
So we praise Capitalism because we all wish we were that guy.
Login or Register to reply
February 22nd, 2011 |
Working People bad.
Corporate Executives Good.
Got it.
Login or Register to reply
February 22nd, 2011 |
Definitely capitalism gone wild. On paper it’s a good thing, but in the wrong hands, that’s another story.
bmac, it’s hard to generalize everyone else as scraping by. Back in Henry Ford’s time, we had smaller government and less taxes too. Today, we have bigger government, more taxes and fees. Who lives within their means these days? Why do poor people have flat panel TV’s, BMW’s and cell phones?
Login or Register to reply
February 22nd, 2011 |
This is why Frozen Monkey went under. If Hoboken residents had to lawfully spend a certain monthly amount at retail shops in the mile square they would still be selling milkshakes. (Well, and if the groves of out of towners coming in to buy milkshakes could find parking too). Capitalism sux. F the American Dream. Be average!
Login or Register to reply
February 22nd, 2011 |
You mentioned “Back in Henry Ford’s time, we had smaller government and less taxes too.” so I thought I’d look it up.
In 1917, when Ford instituted the $5 a day pay scale (double what people were getting at the time) the top tax rate in the US was 67% – it’s 35% now.
The tax rates in the US have varied widely, from 7%(1913-1915) to 94%(1944-1945), but it’s pretty clear we’re in an era with low to moderate tax rates.
In response to jonsie who said:
Login or Register to reply
February 22nd, 2011 |
You left out some important details. The bottom three tax rates were 2%, 4% and 5%.
That 67% tax rate you mentioned (in todays dollars) would be for a salary of over $33 million dollars. Not even A-Rod would be in that bracket.
The 2% tax bracket was for a salary of about $33,000 and the 5% tax bracket was for a salary of $125,000 (all in today’s dollars).
Today’s lowest tax bracket is 10%, and 25% for a salary of $125,000.
When you compare the two more thoroughly, today’s taxes are substantially higher. 500% higher.
In response to NotBnR who said:
Login or Register to reply
February 22nd, 2011 |
Who lives within their means these days? Lots of folks. You just don’t hear about them because they’re boring. Stable. Trustworthy. Probably go to church on Sunday, maybe brown-bag to the office a few times a week. Coach baseball or Boy Scouts for the kids; or soccer or Brownies. Mostly, the folks who get taken for granted in today’s bling-obsessed pop media, but some day are going to be called on yet again to save this country’s collective butt.
You may have the causation turned around … The people are poor precisely because they’ve spent their liquidity on meaningless stuff like flat panels, BMWs and extravagant cell phones. (I can’t knock all cell phones … it makes sense for a lot of people to have a cell but no land line.) None of this is new. People have always been willing to forgo their future in favor of temporary bling in the present.
In response to jonsie who said:
Login or Register to reply
February 23rd, 2011 |
Well done Jonsie. I was going to point that out but with this crew I figured why bother….
In response to jonsie who said:
Login or Register to reply
February 23rd, 2011 |
I agree. I live within my means. Have a 10 year old car that when it dies I’ll get rid of without buying a new one. Bought a place that was not at the top of my qualifying amount just in case. Keep 6 months cash for bills and living on deposit at the bank. Some of my friends do likewise. The ones that don’t move home when they lose their jobs or get stuck with a big bill. I don’t feel bad for them when they are foolish unless they have kids. Kids shouldn’t suffer.
In response to bmacqueens who said:
Login or Register to reply
February 23rd, 2011 |
Here’s a good comment I read today:
“What sort of person does not think there is anything wrong with asking the folks that are tasked with teaching our children to take a 20% cut on a 50,000 annual salary, but think it’s terrible idea to asked millionaires to pay an additional 3% more in taxes?”
Login or Register to reply