Posted on 02/08/2011 2:36:30 AM PST by Scanian
Nothing wrong with profit sharing - as long as it's a private transaction either between an employee and the company or the union and the industry.
But Obama's not concerned about that kind of setup. In fact, he makes it sound as if government would have a role in enforcing such profit sharing (video at RealClearPolitics link)
"'If we're fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, 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,' President Obama told the Chamber of Commerce on Monday morning."
Someone might suggest a way this would work. I suppose government could mandate a certain percentage of profits - "excess profits" - be put in a kitty for all workers. Or government could just seize what it thinks is too much profit and redistribute the wealth.
Any way you look at it, it's more coercion, more redistributive nonsense from someone who has no respect for business or the people who create wealth.
Never been proven or verified by independant witness. No one at Columbis remembers him.
He only SAYS he has these degrees. I think he's lying.
“Are the workers stockholders?
No! Then they have no right to share in any profits, because they having nothing at risk.”
_______
Bulls#*%!!!!!! Its disdain for workers that has conmtributed to the mess we’re in. Treat workers loike crap and if they whimper send the jobs to Honduras or Indonesia, or wherever.
You had better warm up to the fact that without a healthy and prosperous workforce, there is no domestic market for products. Henry Ford knew that you had to pay the employees enough so they could afford to buy a car. Recent theory is screw the worker, make big profit margins and pay investors big returns. Attracting investment dollars is more important to some companies then attracting market share for the products. Result is crappy products and screwed workers.
His new “spread the wealth” comment.
The WH will walk this back today. It’s gaining traction on Google.
Come on down and I'll put you on one of our longliners...or perhaps get you a job with my BIL in the coals mines in Kentucky. Then we will discuss risk.
You are confusing worker risk (for which they are compensated in their pay or benefits) with investor risk (for which they are compensated in their profits).
Take away the investor's profit and there is no reason to take the risk.
So while the production risk does exist, it is part of the contract between the worker and the firm and is mostly immaterial to the investor (as long as that risk is accounted for in the financials)
You are confusing workers pay with profits. The worker has no right to the profits UNLESS that is part of his contract package. If He’s not a shareholder then he has nothing invested into the company and is owed no share of the returns
He is merely selling his labor for an agreed upon fee.
Will the company prosper in the long run if they don’t treat their workers correctly? Of course not. But that doesn’t mean that anyone else (government or union or whomever) has the right to interfere with the contract between the firm and the worker.
It’s still early...let’s see what the Google comment section looks like after the loafers get up.
All I know is that cavalier mistreatment of the labor force is the fastest way to cause support for unions. The worst type is the high regard for investors and disdain for the working man on the factory floor.
ACTORS’ profits must be shared with movie-goers !
FOOTBALL PLAYERS’ PROFITS must be shared with game-goers and viewers !
Spread it, baby!
geez.
You are correct. But improving that treatment is no one’s business but the company and the workers.
Little Pharma, you troll,
Why don’t you go back to the Daily Kos where you belong.
Did President Obama tell that to shareholders who put their capital at risk that they now have a partner, “workers”,who want a piece of their returns without sharing in the risk?Obama is either an illiterate when it comes to understanding basic principles of capitalism or an unconscionable pandering fool.
Think about this silliness. When Democrats like Obama are chasing jobs to China there are NO American workers to share the profits with. In fact I have noticed on MSNBC progressives like Ed Schultz , Maddow (aka Mad-Cow) and the union leaders are now calling the unemployed ‘American Workers’.
Obviously you have not heard about global competition. We no longer live in the fifties when we had no competition for our industrial might. Why do you think these jobs went overseas. It had nothing to do with “healthy and prosperous” workers here and everything to do with global competitors having cheaper work forces and less regulation.
Every worker has a choice. If you do not like the conditions of your job, quit it or stay.There will always be someone to take your place.That is what free markets are all about.
I do think you are on the wrong site.You might want to consider some of the “progressive” sites.
Obama’s speech to the Chamber of Commerce was more epic failure. Among everything else, this guy is also the worst politician in history.
We are talking capital investment risk. If Obama proclaims that investors must accept forfeiture of any future excess profits (to use his term) then there will be no coal mining jobs. By the way, I worked for 20 years on construction and manufacturing jobs and am well acquainted with the physical risks of operating heavy machinery. I still operate farm and construction machinery on a fairly regular basis.
Ummm. Millions have 401ks, IRA's etc, with stock and mutual funds that hold stock. You are barking up the wrong tree.
In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.
Exactly. And the reason so many people moved to places like Detroit was because employment was available. If employment is no longer available in Detroit (or any other town) there is no reason for citizens in other parts of the country to subsidize anyone continuing to live there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.