Sunday, February 19, 2012
World Order
What would the world be like with just one (small) standing army to maintain peace among and within countries?
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Comment on the following article:
All economic changes/actions are tied together with one another. Make a change and it ripples through many other areas of the economy. To just discuss raising wages, leaves so much that is not thought through, seems unfair and certainly not thorough. I certainly don't pretend to know how much of an effect a change like this would have on other economic areas, but I know they are there. As examples: I feel confident if we raise the cost of labor, read as salaries/benefits, business expenses go up and companies will more than likely increase the price of the product or service costing all of us more. What will this affect be on the economy? Or, let's say companies absorb that increased cost resulting in less money for the stockholders (the owners), capital investments (new stores, new automation), acquisitions, dividends etc. What will those affects be? And horrors of horrors, if companies don't pass on the additional costs they will have less net income. This translates into fewer/less taxes paid into the government coffers. What are those affects? Will our governments have to raise taxes? As I said, I don't know exactly what the affects are, but I know they are there and will ripple through the economy. Let the professionals/experts/economists (NOT politicians) sit down and discuss and make balanced changes that can positively improve all our life styles. Can we do that?
Dear Walmart, McDonald’s, Starbucks: How Do You Feel About Paying Your Employees So Little That Most Of Them Are Poor?
By Henry Blodget | Daily Ticker – 3 hours ago.. .
One of the big problems with the U.S. economy is the disappearance of the middle class.
The rich keep getting richer and the poor stay poor, and many folks who used to have decent jobs and lives in the middle are now joining the ranks of the poor or near-poor.
The reason this hurts the economy is that pretty much all the money earned by middle-class households gets spent, while much of the money earned by rich people gets saved or invested.
If investment were needed badly right now--if our problem was a lack of products to buy--the investment would help the economy. But America's formerly huge and well-off middle-class is now broke. So there isn't as much demand for products and services as there used to be. (See: "MILLIONAIRE'S ISLAND: A Simple Example Of How Rich People Don't Actually Create Jobs").
The disappearance of America's middle-class is generally attributed to the "loss of manufacturing jobs," as technology replaces people and companies move jobs overseas. (Apple, for example.)
This explanation is a smoke-screen.
Yes, a lot of the manufacturing jobs that America has lost paid good middle-class wages. And, yes, many of the folks who lost manufacturing jobs have not been able to find comparably compensated other jobs.
But the real problem is the loss of good-paying jobs, not the loss of manufacturing jobs.
Many Americans who used to have middle-class manufacturing jobs--or who would have had them had they not disappeared--now work in low-wage service jobs at companies like Walmart, McDonald's, and Starbucks.
The consensus about these low-wage service jobs is that they're low-wage because they're low-skilled.
But that's not actually true. They're low-wage because companies choose to make them low-wage.
No, you say. Low-wage service jobs are low-wage because they're low-skilled. It's a free market. Companies should pay their employees whatever the market will bear. If those low-skilled low-wage workers had any gumption, they'd go get themselves skilled and then then they'd be able to get high-paying high-skill jobs. Employers shouldn't have to pay employees one cent more than the market will bear.
This argument overlooks three things:
•First, all those good-paying manufacturing jobs that the U.S. has lost weren't always good-paying. In fact, before unions, minimum-wage laws, and some enlightened thinking from business owners, they often paid terribly.
•Second, the manufacturing jobs also weren't high- or even medium-skilled. In fact, most of these manufacturing jobs required no more inherent skill than the skills required to be a cashier at Walmart, a fry cook at McDonald, or a barista at Starbucks. (Yes, people who work on assembly lines building complex products need training. But cashiers, fry cooks, and baristas need training, too. Don't believe this? Go volunteer to be a Walmart cashier or a Starbucks barista for a day. )
•Third, it is often in companies' interest--as well as the economy's interest--to pay employees more than the market will bear. For one thing, you tend to get better employees. For two, they tend to be more loyal and dedicated. For three, they have more money to spend, some of which might be spent on your products.
A century or two ago, many of the manufacturing jobs in the economy paid extremely low wages, and the work was done in dangerous, unhealthy environments. Then workers began negotiating collectively, and wages and working conditions improved.
Importantly, some companies also realized that paying their workers more would actually help their own sales, because their workers would be able to buy their products. Henry Ford famously decided to pay his workers well enough that they could afford to buy his cars. This was not just altruistic. It helped Ford sell more cars. But it also helped America build a robust middle-class and middle-class manufacturing jobs.
Struggling companies don't have the option of paying their workers more, because they operate on razor-thin margins. But this is not the case for Walmart, McDonalds, Starbucks, and other robustly healthy companies that employ millions of Americans in low-wage service jobs.
Corporate profit margins, in fact, are close to an all-time high, while wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low.
So companies have plenty of room to pay their employees more, if only they choose to do so.
ight now, these companies are not choosing to do so. They're choosing to pay their employees nearly as little as possible--wages that, in many case, leave the employees below the poverty line.
(The average Walmart associate makes under $12 an hour).
There is a lot to support the argument that, if these companies paid their employees more it would not just help the employees and the economy but the companies' customers and shareholders, as well. But we'll leave that discussion for another day.
For now, we'll just ask a simple question of three companies--Walmart, McDonald's, and Starbucks.
How do you feel about paying your employees so little that most of them are poor?
These employees are dedicating their lives to your companies. They're working full-time in jobs that are often physically and mentally demanding (again, if you don't think so, try being a barista). And you pay many of the employees so little that they're poor.
Walmart, McDonald's, and Starbucks employ about 3 million people (not all Americans). They also collectively generate about $35 billion of operating profit per year. If the companies took, say, half of that operating profit and paid their employees an extra $5,000 apiece, it would make a big difference to the employees and the economy. The companies would still make boatloads of money, and the employees' compensation would finally be above the poverty line.
Yes, we know, of course you wouldn't do this out of the goodness of your hearts. Again, we'll save a full discussion of the benefits of this decision for another day, but here are a few to think about:
If you paid your employees more, they would have more money to spend on your products, which could modestly boost your growth and profits. You would probably also have better employees: You could be choosier in hiring, and your employees would probably work for you for longer and be more dedicated. And with better, more dedicated employees, your productivity and customer-service would probably go up, which would create value for your shareholders--long-term brand value, not just short-term profit dollars.
So, again, how do you feel abiout paying your employees so little that most of them are poor?
All economic changes/actions are tied together with one another. Make a change and it ripples through many other areas of the economy. To just discuss raising wages, leaves so much that is not thought through, seems unfair and certainly not thorough. I certainly don't pretend to know how much of an effect a change like this would have on other economic areas, but I know they are there. As examples: I feel confident if we raise the cost of labor, read as salaries/benefits, business expenses go up and companies will more than likely increase the price of the product or service costing all of us more. What will this affect be on the economy? Or, let's say companies absorb that increased cost resulting in less money for the stockholders (the owners), capital investments (new stores, new automation), acquisitions, dividends etc. What will those affects be? And horrors of horrors, if companies don't pass on the additional costs they will have less net income. This translates into fewer/less taxes paid into the government coffers. What are those affects? Will our governments have to raise taxes? As I said, I don't know exactly what the affects are, but I know they are there and will ripple through the economy. Let the professionals/experts/economists (NOT politicians) sit down and discuss and make balanced changes that can positively improve all our life styles. Can we do that?
Dear Walmart, McDonald’s, Starbucks: How Do You Feel About Paying Your Employees So Little That Most Of Them Are Poor?
By Henry Blodget | Daily Ticker – 3 hours ago.. .
One of the big problems with the U.S. economy is the disappearance of the middle class.
The rich keep getting richer and the poor stay poor, and many folks who used to have decent jobs and lives in the middle are now joining the ranks of the poor or near-poor.
The reason this hurts the economy is that pretty much all the money earned by middle-class households gets spent, while much of the money earned by rich people gets saved or invested.
If investment were needed badly right now--if our problem was a lack of products to buy--the investment would help the economy. But America's formerly huge and well-off middle-class is now broke. So there isn't as much demand for products and services as there used to be. (See: "MILLIONAIRE'S ISLAND: A Simple Example Of How Rich People Don't Actually Create Jobs").
The disappearance of America's middle-class is generally attributed to the "loss of manufacturing jobs," as technology replaces people and companies move jobs overseas. (Apple, for example.)
This explanation is a smoke-screen.
Yes, a lot of the manufacturing jobs that America has lost paid good middle-class wages. And, yes, many of the folks who lost manufacturing jobs have not been able to find comparably compensated other jobs.
But the real problem is the loss of good-paying jobs, not the loss of manufacturing jobs.
Many Americans who used to have middle-class manufacturing jobs--or who would have had them had they not disappeared--now work in low-wage service jobs at companies like Walmart, McDonald's, and Starbucks.
The consensus about these low-wage service jobs is that they're low-wage because they're low-skilled.
But that's not actually true. They're low-wage because companies choose to make them low-wage.
No, you say. Low-wage service jobs are low-wage because they're low-skilled. It's a free market. Companies should pay their employees whatever the market will bear. If those low-skilled low-wage workers had any gumption, they'd go get themselves skilled and then then they'd be able to get high-paying high-skill jobs. Employers shouldn't have to pay employees one cent more than the market will bear.
This argument overlooks three things:
•First, all those good-paying manufacturing jobs that the U.S. has lost weren't always good-paying. In fact, before unions, minimum-wage laws, and some enlightened thinking from business owners, they often paid terribly.
•Second, the manufacturing jobs also weren't high- or even medium-skilled. In fact, most of these manufacturing jobs required no more inherent skill than the skills required to be a cashier at Walmart, a fry cook at McDonald, or a barista at Starbucks. (Yes, people who work on assembly lines building complex products need training. But cashiers, fry cooks, and baristas need training, too. Don't believe this? Go volunteer to be a Walmart cashier or a Starbucks barista for a day. )
•Third, it is often in companies' interest--as well as the economy's interest--to pay employees more than the market will bear. For one thing, you tend to get better employees. For two, they tend to be more loyal and dedicated. For three, they have more money to spend, some of which might be spent on your products.
A century or two ago, many of the manufacturing jobs in the economy paid extremely low wages, and the work was done in dangerous, unhealthy environments. Then workers began negotiating collectively, and wages and working conditions improved.
Importantly, some companies also realized that paying their workers more would actually help their own sales, because their workers would be able to buy their products. Henry Ford famously decided to pay his workers well enough that they could afford to buy his cars. This was not just altruistic. It helped Ford sell more cars. But it also helped America build a robust middle-class and middle-class manufacturing jobs.
Struggling companies don't have the option of paying their workers more, because they operate on razor-thin margins. But this is not the case for Walmart, McDonalds, Starbucks, and other robustly healthy companies that employ millions of Americans in low-wage service jobs.
Corporate profit margins, in fact, are close to an all-time high, while wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low.
So companies have plenty of room to pay their employees more, if only they choose to do so.
ight now, these companies are not choosing to do so. They're choosing to pay their employees nearly as little as possible--wages that, in many case, leave the employees below the poverty line.
(The average Walmart associate makes under $12 an hour).
There is a lot to support the argument that, if these companies paid their employees more it would not just help the employees and the economy but the companies' customers and shareholders, as well. But we'll leave that discussion for another day.
For now, we'll just ask a simple question of three companies--Walmart, McDonald's, and Starbucks.
How do you feel about paying your employees so little that most of them are poor?
These employees are dedicating their lives to your companies. They're working full-time in jobs that are often physically and mentally demanding (again, if you don't think so, try being a barista). And you pay many of the employees so little that they're poor.
Walmart, McDonald's, and Starbucks employ about 3 million people (not all Americans). They also collectively generate about $35 billion of operating profit per year. If the companies took, say, half of that operating profit and paid their employees an extra $5,000 apiece, it would make a big difference to the employees and the economy. The companies would still make boatloads of money, and the employees' compensation would finally be above the poverty line.
Yes, we know, of course you wouldn't do this out of the goodness of your hearts. Again, we'll save a full discussion of the benefits of this decision for another day, but here are a few to think about:
If you paid your employees more, they would have more money to spend on your products, which could modestly boost your growth and profits. You would probably also have better employees: You could be choosier in hiring, and your employees would probably work for you for longer and be more dedicated. And with better, more dedicated employees, your productivity and customer-service would probably go up, which would create value for your shareholders--long-term brand value, not just short-term profit dollars.
So, again, how do you feel abiout paying your employees so little that most of them are poor?
Monday, February 13, 2012
Sunday, December 20, 2009
The Best Degrees for Next Generation Jobs
The Millennial Generation – roughly defined as those currently in their 20s – has been hit particularly hard by today’s struggling economy. The national unemployment rate is in double-digit territory, right at 10.0 percent, but the rate for those in their 20s is even higher – currently standing at 14.8 percent for 20-24 year olds and 10.5 percent for those aged between 25-29.
Given the current economic environment, twenty-somethings are experiencing increased anxiety about choosing the right major that will lead to the right career, according to Jordan Goldman, CEO of Unigo.com , an online resource for college information.
CNBC.com asked Goldman for his predictions of the hottest sectors and careers for the next generation and which majors can best prepare students to fill these jobs.
Click ahead to see Goldman’s list of hottest sectors, majors and careers.
By Brooke Sopelsa
Posted 16 Dec 2009
Sector: Health Care
Under President Obama’s health care proposals, millions of additional people will have access to health care. Goldman expects this, along with advances in medical technology, will contribute to an “explosion of jobs” in all medical specialties.
Associated Majors: Biology, Public Health, Health Information Technology, Pharmacy, Nursing
Hot Jobs For Growth: Genetic Counselor, Medical and Public Health Social Worker, Registered Nurse, Clinical Laboratory Technologist, Home Care Aid
Sector: Business
"There will be a great demand for consultants and business development specialists as US companies rush in to work with foreign firms, execute deals, and carry them through to profitability,” predicted Goldman.
Associated Majors: International Finance, Ecommerce, Business Statistics, Information Resource Management, Financial Support Services
Hot Jobs For Growth: International Consultant, Mergers and Acquisitions Specialist, Strategic Planner, Portfolio Manager, Business Analyst
Sector: Green Collar Jobs
"President Obama has promised to create 5 million green collar jobs. These jobs will go towards a wide variety of initiatives as we tackle cleaning up the environment, controlling global warming, gathering energy from more renewable resources, reducing waste and pollution, installing wind turbines and solar panels, cleaning up public transit, enhancing energy efficiency and overhauling the electrical grid,” said Goldman.
Associated Majors: Environmental Science, Natural Resource Management and Policy, Electromechanical Technology, Natural Resource Economics, Architecture
Hot Jobs For Growth: Sustainability Officer, Renewable Energy Technician, Waste Management Consultant, Sustainable Urban Planner, Geophysicist
Sector: Finance
"Although the ailing banking and financial sectors will contract in the short term, in the future the need for bright and creative economists – and the opportunities for all financial-related fields – will rebound and grow to offer lucrative employment,” said Goldman. He predicts business intelligence will be more focused on predictive modeling and offer more real-time analysis.
Associated Majors: Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Investments and Securities, Analysis and Functional Analysis, Financial Planning, Accounting
Hot Jobs For Growth: Forensic Accountant, Credit Analyst, Private Equity, Management Consultant, Securities and Commodities Agent
Sector: Advanced Medical Research
"Over the next two decades, medicine will change from a reactive mode – where doctors wait for people to get sick – to a preventative mode, where medical researchers can prevent you from ever getting sick in the first place,” said Goldman. He expects growth in “personalized” medicine that focuses on the role of genes and the environment, breakthroughs in common diseases due to “systems biology” and more rapid drug discovery and development.
Associated Majors: Biotechnology, Bioinformatics, Cell Biology and Anatomical Sciences, Molecular Pharmacology, Laboratory Technology
Hot Jobs For Growth: Robotics Technician, Nanotechnologist, Simulation Engineer,
Synthetic Biologist, Gene Screener
Sector: Digital Space
"The digital space is transforming every aspect of the workplace and our lives, and jobs in this sector are booming,” said Goldman. He sees strong future growth in digital networks, virtual worlds and robotics.
Associated Majors: Computer Science, Computational Mathematics, Game Design and Development, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Data Processing Technology
Hot Jobs for Growth: Interface Designer, Mobile Application Developer, Content Curator, Cyber Security Specialist, Casual Game Developer
Sector: Automotive
"While automobile production is currently dwindling, future demand will exponentially increase for designers and engineers to create the next generation of hybrid and energy-efficient cars,” said Goldman. Goldman predicts auto companies will face far more stringent requirements and standards for energy efficiency in the future.
Associated Majors: Transportation and Highway Engineering, Environmental Science, Natural Resource Management and Policy, Drafting and Design, Industrial Safety Technology
Hot Jobs For Growth: Energy Efficiency Manager, Automotive Field Technician Specialist, Industrial Production Manager, Mechanical Engineer, Energy Conservation Engineer
Given the current economic environment, twenty-somethings are experiencing increased anxiety about choosing the right major that will lead to the right career, according to Jordan Goldman, CEO of Unigo.com , an online resource for college information.
CNBC.com asked Goldman for his predictions of the hottest sectors and careers for the next generation and which majors can best prepare students to fill these jobs.
Click ahead to see Goldman’s list of hottest sectors, majors and careers.
By Brooke Sopelsa
Posted 16 Dec 2009
Sector: Health Care
Under President Obama’s health care proposals, millions of additional people will have access to health care. Goldman expects this, along with advances in medical technology, will contribute to an “explosion of jobs” in all medical specialties.
Associated Majors: Biology, Public Health, Health Information Technology, Pharmacy, Nursing
Hot Jobs For Growth: Genetic Counselor, Medical and Public Health Social Worker, Registered Nurse, Clinical Laboratory Technologist, Home Care Aid
Sector: Business
"There will be a great demand for consultants and business development specialists as US companies rush in to work with foreign firms, execute deals, and carry them through to profitability,” predicted Goldman.
Associated Majors: International Finance, Ecommerce, Business Statistics, Information Resource Management, Financial Support Services
Hot Jobs For Growth: International Consultant, Mergers and Acquisitions Specialist, Strategic Planner, Portfolio Manager, Business Analyst
Sector: Green Collar Jobs
"President Obama has promised to create 5 million green collar jobs. These jobs will go towards a wide variety of initiatives as we tackle cleaning up the environment, controlling global warming, gathering energy from more renewable resources, reducing waste and pollution, installing wind turbines and solar panels, cleaning up public transit, enhancing energy efficiency and overhauling the electrical grid,” said Goldman.
Associated Majors: Environmental Science, Natural Resource Management and Policy, Electromechanical Technology, Natural Resource Economics, Architecture
Hot Jobs For Growth: Sustainability Officer, Renewable Energy Technician, Waste Management Consultant, Sustainable Urban Planner, Geophysicist
Sector: Finance
"Although the ailing banking and financial sectors will contract in the short term, in the future the need for bright and creative economists – and the opportunities for all financial-related fields – will rebound and grow to offer lucrative employment,” said Goldman. He predicts business intelligence will be more focused on predictive modeling and offer more real-time analysis.
Associated Majors: Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Investments and Securities, Analysis and Functional Analysis, Financial Planning, Accounting
Hot Jobs For Growth: Forensic Accountant, Credit Analyst, Private Equity, Management Consultant, Securities and Commodities Agent
Sector: Advanced Medical Research
"Over the next two decades, medicine will change from a reactive mode – where doctors wait for people to get sick – to a preventative mode, where medical researchers can prevent you from ever getting sick in the first place,” said Goldman. He expects growth in “personalized” medicine that focuses on the role of genes and the environment, breakthroughs in common diseases due to “systems biology” and more rapid drug discovery and development.
Associated Majors: Biotechnology, Bioinformatics, Cell Biology and Anatomical Sciences, Molecular Pharmacology, Laboratory Technology
Hot Jobs For Growth: Robotics Technician, Nanotechnologist, Simulation Engineer,
Synthetic Biologist, Gene Screener
Sector: Digital Space
"The digital space is transforming every aspect of the workplace and our lives, and jobs in this sector are booming,” said Goldman. He sees strong future growth in digital networks, virtual worlds and robotics.
Associated Majors: Computer Science, Computational Mathematics, Game Design and Development, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Data Processing Technology
Hot Jobs for Growth: Interface Designer, Mobile Application Developer, Content Curator, Cyber Security Specialist, Casual Game Developer
Sector: Automotive
"While automobile production is currently dwindling, future demand will exponentially increase for designers and engineers to create the next generation of hybrid and energy-efficient cars,” said Goldman. Goldman predicts auto companies will face far more stringent requirements and standards for energy efficiency in the future.
Associated Majors: Transportation and Highway Engineering, Environmental Science, Natural Resource Management and Policy, Drafting and Design, Industrial Safety Technology
Hot Jobs For Growth: Energy Efficiency Manager, Automotive Field Technician Specialist, Industrial Production Manager, Mechanical Engineer, Energy Conservation Engineer
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Corporate Taxes and their affects on price of goods/services.
http://www.finweb.com/taxes/are-most-corporate-tax-hikes-passed-on-to-consumers.html
Friday, November 20, 2009
Health care and National debt
Here are interesting videos discussing the health care costs and the national debt.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1337157284&play=1
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1337163453&play=1
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1337157284&play=1
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1337163453&play=1
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Who Really Pays
Extracted below is a current article on the 3 health care bills currently working their way through the Senate and House. Just do a quick read and look at those fees/taxes/penalties the health care industry will pay? I'd ask anyone to rationalize what happens to those fees etc. once paid by companies. I suggest most will end up being paid by 'we the consumer' of health care in one fashion or another. a. One way we'll pay may be through lower dividends paid out by the companies to retirement fund holders/investors/me/you, b. two higher charges for health services to consumers, c. three fewer services to the consumer, d. four less capital investment that makes the providers more efficient/effective providers, or e. four lower profit which also will contribute to item four. The bottom line is that 'We The Consumer" will pay the fees which should be described as INDIRECT TAXES on US. Give me a break, do we really want to spend more money on health care?
"Quote" House Democratic, House GOP and Senate Democratic health care bills compared
By Erica Werner and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press Writers
On 8:25 pm EST, Saturday November 7, 2009
House version:
There are also more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; a new $20 billion fee on medical device makers; $13 billion from limiting contributions to flexible spending accounts; sizable penalties paid by individuals and employers who don't obtain coverage; and a mix of other corporate taxes and fees.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll.
Senate version:
Fees on insurance companies, drug makers, medical device manufacturers. Tax levied on insurance companies, equal to 40 percent of total premiums paid on insurance plans costing more than $8,000 annually for individuals and $21,000 for families. But that number may rise to $23,000. Retirees over age 55 and people in high-risk professions may be allowed to have somewhat more valuable plans before they're taxed. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. A fee on employers whose workers receive government subsidies to help them pay premiums. Fines on people who fail to purchase coverage. "End-Quote"
"Quote" House Democratic, House GOP and Senate Democratic health care bills compared
By Erica Werner and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press Writers
On 8:25 pm EST, Saturday November 7, 2009
House version:
There are also more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; a new $20 billion fee on medical device makers; $13 billion from limiting contributions to flexible spending accounts; sizable penalties paid by individuals and employers who don't obtain coverage; and a mix of other corporate taxes and fees.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll.
Senate version:
Fees on insurance companies, drug makers, medical device manufacturers. Tax levied on insurance companies, equal to 40 percent of total premiums paid on insurance plans costing more than $8,000 annually for individuals and $21,000 for families. But that number may rise to $23,000. Retirees over age 55 and people in high-risk professions may be allowed to have somewhat more valuable plans before they're taxed. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. A fee on employers whose workers receive government subsidies to help them pay premiums. Fines on people who fail to purchase coverage. "End-Quote"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
