Business Notes****

[Frankn]

I have noticed several details you might be interested in.

Because of medical coverage etc. , the cost of production in the US has gone up 1.4%. Now you might think this is small, but production in the US has dropped 1.7%.

Here's a note on Coke. The CEO or COO or what ever his title is, has received 31M+ in compensation for the year. This has started an uproar with the stock holders. I personally don't think any person is worth 31M a year. He probably spends a lot of the time on the gulf coarse anyway.
I would like to see revisions in corp. law. I think the profit of a Corp. should be split 2 ways. Half to the employees and half to the stock holders. The stock holders half would pay the board and CEO. I think this would take care of the abuse at the top of corporations. Just a thought, Frank...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[dieselram94]

I have noticed several details you might be interested in.

Because of medical coverage etc. , the cost of production in the US has gone up 1.4%. Now you might think this is small, but production in the US has dropped 1.7%.

Here's a note on Coke. The CEO or COO or what ever his title is, has received 31M+ in compensation for the year. This has started an uproar with the stock holders. I personally don't think any person is worth 31M a year. He probably spends a lot of the time on the gulf coarse anyway.
I would like to see revisions in corp. law. I think the profit of a Corp. should be split 2 ways. Half to the employees and half to the stock holders. The stock holders half would pay the board and CEO. I think this would take care of the abuse at the top of corporations. Just a thought, Frank...
View attachment 990812

Frank, I have to respectfully disagree with this. The purpose of a corporation is to make money. Splitting it 50/50 with stockholders and employees defeats the purpose of the businesses existence, as well as wouldn't leave any capital for the corporation to grow the business and develop new products. The corporation would become stagnant and die...worst of all it is more govt control...

sent from a potato...

 

[bigscoop]

Not too long ago companies pushed "profit sharing", remember that? The problem here, however, was that "profit" didn't come into play until after the bottom line, which wasn't clearly spelled out in most cases. Companies hid these profits in all sorts of legal places so they wouldn't have to pay it out to employees. Then came 401k's, a means by which the emplyoee still has no control on "exactly" where his money is to be invested. Point is, all of these are just scams that have been created to keep the money feeding the big machine. If it sounds too good to be true it probably isn't true. On the other hand, there were a few companies who created stock earnings for employees, this quickly being phased out when some of these "successful" companies realized that seasoned and experienced employees were retiring early and leaving the company far too early. I think Harley Davidson even experienced this mass exodus off trained and skilled employees at one time.

 

[Frankn]

Frank, I have to respectfully disagree with this. The purpose of a corporation is to make money. Splitting it 50/50 with stockholders and employees defeats the purpose of the businesses existence, as well as wouldn't leave any capital for the corporation to grow the business and develop new products. The corporation would become stagnant and die...worst of all it is more govt control...

sent from a potato...

I think you have a different view of profit then I. Developing research and growing are expenses that come out of income before profit is declared. The ripoff is the excessive compensation of upper management. The corporation is owned by the stockholders, not management. Just my view. Frank...-

 

[Frankn]

Not too long ago companies pushed "profit sharing", remember that? The problem here, however, was that "profit" didn't come into play until after the bottom line, which wasn't clearly spelled out in most cases. Companies hid these profits in all sorts of legal places so they wouldn't have to pay it out to employees. Then came 401k's, a means by which the emplyoee still has no control on "exactly" where his money is to be invested. Point is, all of these are just scams that have been created to keep the money feeding the big machine. If it sounds too good to be true it probably isn't true. On the other hand, there were a few companies who created stock earnings for employees, this quickly being phased out when some of these "successful" companies realized that seasoned and experienced employees were retiring early and leaving the company far too early. I think Harley Davidson even experienced this mass exodus off trained and skilled employees at one time.

I have to agree with you on most of this because I have lived thru it in a top 10 corp. I would like to mention though that in my original post, The stock option of the top executives is one of the biggest abuses by the CEO.
I have seen good CEOs that nurtured and grew there corporations and I have seen CEOs that sucked the golden parachutes out of them. Lately, the latter prevail. Human nature at the top is decaying. Frank...-

 

[Frankn]

Saw this on TV. It was stated that the top 1% in income (the rich) control more than 40% of the wealth in this country. That means I am only allowed to control my 2 cents worth. lol Frank...-
playing hearts and flowers

 

[dieselram94]

Saw this on TV. It was stated that the top 1% in income (the rich) control more than 40% of the wealth in this country. That means I am only allowed to control my 2 cents worth. lol Frank...-
View attachment 992151playing hearts and flowers

Frank, that can't be true. Chairman of the fed is in supreme control of the wealth...directed by the king of course...

sent from a potato...

 

[BC1969]

Guess the king in that case would be bush, for his tax cuts on the ultra wealthy, cost the gov about 6 trillion, but that's OK, make it up on the backs of those that actually work.

Mike

 

[dieselram94]

Guess the king in that case would be bush, for his tax cuts on the ultra wealthy, cost the gov about 6 trillion, but that's OK, make it up on the backs of those that actually work.

Mike

You can't say "cost the government" as it isn't the governments money. It is being stolen from EVERYONE who isn't part of the recipient class...

sent from a potato...

 

[dieselram94]

Obama is still the king. Just look at the level of national debt now and look at when Bush left office... that tells the tale!

sent from a potato...

 

[BC1969]

That's crap..who took us into the middle east, cost how many lives, why so friends and family at haliburton could get even more rich, Obama came into a mess that bush created, I know it and everybody else does to, I don't like Obama at all either, but at least he isn't letting the super rich run rampant either, its not stealing, when those sub-humans never paid their fair share..I mean really, how much money does somebody need ?

Side note, surprised they are letting us talk about this, probably because we can agree to disagree in a polite manner, since all the trouble makers apparently took perm vacations, miss being able to have good convos about what's important to each and everyone of us no matter which side of the page its on.

Mike

I use that term sub human, because, nobody needs billions of dollars, damn shame so many children starve in this country, when so many have billions...something very wrong with that.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Politics and locked...






American by birth, Patriot by choice.

I would rather die standing on my two feet defending our Constitution than live a lifetime on my knees......