The Myth of Corporate Profits

[Bigfoot 88]

The Myth of Corporate Profits | National Review Online

This is the most interesting chart in the article:

 

[TheDemSocialist]

The Myth of Corporate Profits | National Review Online

This is the most interesting chart in the article:

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

 

[Jango]

Bull****.

 

[iguanaman]

Here's the REAL data. Look at the Clinton years. That man was magic.

[

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Here's the REAL data. Look at the Clinton years. That man was magic.

[

Thia chart is actually addressed in the article:

"Notice that what’s being compared is corporate profits to the wages of all workers, not corporate employees. Excess corporate profits would be at the expense of the employees of those corporations, not the entire labor force. Likewise, fringe benefits, which make up 19 percent of the average worker’s income, aren’t measured by this graph. Corporate profits and worker compensation should be measured as a percent of corporate income, not the economy as a whole.

Most important, the y-axes on the right and left sides of the chart aren’t held equal. They’ve been cleverly manipulated to get the result ThinkProgress wanted."

 

[Beaudreaux]

Thia chart is actually addressed in the article:

"Notice that what’s being compared is corporate profits to the wages of all workers, not corporate employees. Excess corporate profits would be at the expense of the employees of those corporations, not the entire labor force. Likewise, fringe benefits, which make up 19 percent of the average worker’s income, aren’t measured by this graph. Corporate profits and worker compensation should be measured as a percent of corporate income, not the economy as a whole.

Most important, the y-axes on the right and left sides of the chart aren’t held equal. They’ve been cleverly manipulated to get the result ThinkProgress wanted."

Real math versus... well... it ain't math, it's manipulated magic tricks with graphs as the slight of hand - liberal anti-business style. How can they use unrelated data with skewed parameters and expect people that actually think to not question it?

 

[tres borrachos]

The Myth of Corporate Profits | National Review Online

This is the most interesting chart in the article:

People always have a meltdown about corporate profits. The sad reality is that Americans who allow Think Progress to tell them what to think seem to believe that corporate profits go into the pockets of a handful of rich people, and nobody else. It's pathetic and sad at the same time.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

People always have a meltdown about corporate profits. The sad reality is that Americans who allow Think Progress to tell them what to think seem to believe that corporate profits go into the pockets of a handful of rich people, and nobody else. It's pathetic and sad at the same time.

Where do you think corporate profits go?

 

[tres borrachos]

Where do you think corporate profits go?

To the shareholders. Back into the business. R&D. Profit sharing. And other similar places.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

To the shareholders. Back into the business. R&D. Profit sharing. And other similar places.

Shareholders are overwhelmingly at the top end of the scale. That's kind of the point - the cost of labor has gone down, and the difference is going to ownership and management (not lower prices, either). The only private sector mechanism that keeps income disparity from growing like crazy is a healthy demand for labor, and demand for American labor has been waning for years.

However the graphs are scaled, that is the clear trend. And I'm not saying that it's being caused by anything evil - businesses exist to make profits for ownership, not to distribute the profits evenly. But if you like your country to have its wealth spread around a bit, with a big middle class, we're going to have to meddle with the system, because I don't foresee the demand for labor growing in the future.

 

[tres borrachos]

Shareholders are overwhelmingly at the top end of the scale. That's kind of the point - the cost of labor has gone down, and the difference is going to ownership and management (not lower prices, either). The only private sector mechanism that keeps income disparity from growing like crazy is a healthy demand for labor, and demand for American labor has been waning for years.

However the graphs are scaled, that is the clear trend. And I'm not saying that it's being caused by anything evil - businesses exist to make profits for ownership, not to distribute the profits evenly. But if you like your country to have its wealth spread around a bit, with a big middle class, we're going to have to meddle with the system, because I don't foresee the demand for labor growing in the future.

The demand for labor will likely diminish over the next few years as technology replaces human labor, and companies push for lean initiatives.

 

[FaceofBachmann]

The demand for labor will likely diminish over the next few years as technology replaces human labor, and companies push for lean initiatives.

Depends. Assuming the GOP reign of terror abates with demographic change, we'll finally raise taxes on the rich and free up capital for useful purposes, generating job growth.

 

[DA60]

Depends. Assuming the GOP reign of terror abates with demographic change, we'll finally raise taxes on the rich and free up capital for useful purposes, generating job growth.

Where is your links to unbiased, factual proof (again, not opinions...only data/facts) that raising taxes will generate job growth?

Remember, it is impossible to know the future...even though you stated the above in a matter-of-fact manner (no offense, but you really should learn to phrase your statements better if you want to gain credibility).

You can believe, hope and even prey that raising taxes on the rich will generate jobs...but it is impossible to know.

 

[Ganesh]

Where is your links to unbiased, factual proof (again, not opinions...only data/facts) that raising taxes will generate job growth?

Remember, it is impossible to know the future...even though you stated the above in a matter-of-fact manner (no offense, but you really should learn to phrase your statements better if you want to gain credibility).

You can believe, hope and even prey that raising taxes on the rich will generate jobs...but it is impossible to know.

It's quite easy. I'll raise taxes, and appoint you, DA60, chief of communications for the White House, $80,000/ plus expenses. Why not? An open, transparent democracy requires liaison with the media, in order to inform the citizenry of what is going on. It's a required job, and tax money is going to pay for it. It's a pretty good bet you are going to spend all of that money domestically, and so generate more economic activity in the economy.

Greater capital in the public's hands allows for greater latitude in policy. The private sector will only spend when it is deemed in their own self interest, which may or may not coincide with the greater public interest. We are seeing a good case in point right now, as the private sector is sitting on billions in cash, as there is not enough money in the hands of workers, overall, to create enough demand. Makes sense from their point of view, but not from ours, because that money could be put to work building valuable infrastructure, retraining workers, and providing jobs- a real investment in society that is foregone due to laissez faire philosophy.

 

[DA60]

It's quite easy. I'll raise taxes, and appoint you, DA60, chief of communications for the White House, $80,000/ plus expenses. Why not? An open, transparent democracy requires liaison with the media, in order to inform the citizenry of what is going on. It's a required job, and tax money is going to pay for it. It's a pretty good bet you are going to spend all of that money domestically, and so generate more economic activity in the economy.

Greater capital in the public's hands allows for greater latitude in policy. The private sector will only spend when it is deemed in their own self interest, which may or may not coincide with the greater public interest. We are seeing a good case in point right now, as the private sector is sitting on billions in cash, as there is not enough money in the hands of workers, overall, to create enough demand. Makes sense from their point of view, but not from ours, because that money could be put to work building valuable infrastructure, retraining workers, and providing jobs- a real investment in society that is foregone due to laissez faire philosophy.

Uhhhh....yeah.


Then why don't we just tax everyone 100% and give it all to the government so the public stops spending for their own 'self interest' - against 'the greater public interest' - and the government can put that money into 'real investment'?

Yikes!!!

 

[Ganesh]

Uhhhh....yeah.


Then why don't we just tax everyone 100% and give it all to the government so the public stops spending for their own 'self interest' - against 'the greater public interest' - and the government can put that money into 'real investment'?

Yikes!!!

Because that would be extreme, and extreme measures, socialist or capitalist, have historically proved to be dysfunctional.

What has proved to be a much more successful model is a mixed economy that allows for private initiative, but in which public authority steps in anytime, and every time, the private sector fails to provide for the public good, or at least cannot do so in an efficient way.

This includes "creating" jobs, most of which contain a high degree of subjectivity as to their ultimate value to society anyway. Their creation, in others words, is not some religious event, but merely the notion of what is valuable at the time. Would you really be worth $80,000 as chief of communications? Or $40,000? Would the private sector do things better? Or are you needed at all?

 

[Fearandloathing]

People always have a meltdown about corporate profits. The sad reality is that Americans who allow Think Progress to tell them what to think seem to believe that corporate profits go into the pockets of a handful of rich people, and nobody else. It's pathetic and sad at the same time.

People seem to forget that union pension funds make up a huge part of corporate investment, that most unionized retirees are living off those profits, something I bet is not charted here either.

Personally, this middle income earner and retiree is damned glad Imperial Oil has done so well first in the man made energy crisis and now in the man made scare of global warming.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Uhhhh....yeah.


Then why don't we just tax everyone 100% and give it all to the government so the public stops spending for their own 'self interest' - against 'the greater public interest' - and the government can put that money into 'real investment'?

Yikes!!!

Ah, that has been tried, in fact a couple are still happening, see how well North Korea has turned out, the USSR, East Germany.....

 

[FaceofBachmann]

Ah, that has been tried, in fact a couple are still happening, see how well North Korea has turned out, the USSR, East Germany.....

Stupid post of the month, surpassing only the stupidity of the one it's celebrating.

Since nobody is proposing 100% taxation (whatever that means), we have to assume your lack of knowledge of economics is rivaled only by your willingness to show it.

 

[Visbek]

Thia chart is actually addressed in the article...

No, it isn't.

The TP chart compares employee compensation as a percentage of GDP to corporate profits as a percentage of GDP. Iguanaman's chart shows corporate profits in billions of dollars, and a dropoff in nonfarm labor share. Different measures, similar results.

The author of the NR article was apparently too lazy to look up WASCRU. It includes compensation, 401k contributions, tips, and other beneifts. It might not cover the entire 19% of non-salary compensation, but it gets most of it. I.e. his objection is incorrect anyway. "Labor's share" (Iguanaman's chart) basically shows the same thing.

Now, I would agree that "wages / corporate profits as a percentage of GDP" isn't a particularly meaningful measure. There's no reason why wages ought to be a specific percentage of GDP, and the changes are pretty small anyway.

The basic claim, though, is correct. Corporate profits are going through the roof. Everyone else -- quite possibly including you -- is getting the shaft. Even the WSJ can't ignore how 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1%. So if you are not in that top 1%, you've probably experienced a very weak recovery.

 

[DA60]

Stupid post of the month, surpassing only the stupidity of the one it's celebrating.

Since nobody is proposing 100% taxation (whatever that means), we have to assume your lack of knowledge of economics is rivaled only by your willingness to show it.

I see you avoided my question.

Okay...

Where is your links to unbiased, factual proof (again, not opinions...only data/facts) that raising taxes will generate job growth?

(Keeping in mind that it is impossible to prove the future will happen a certain way)