2016 Presidential Horse Race

[GoIrish41]

Anyway, I am curious, what is the source of the $11.5B you quote in your post?

All this talk about the workings of R&D and now I'm forced to admit I never bothered to learn how to embed, lol. This isn't the same chart -- the one I saw originally just had bar charts and I eye-balled where they fell because there weren't actual numbers associated with each company (that's why I used "about" in front of the numbers I posted). Anyway, this one seems to have the numbers posted. They may be off by a hair from the ones I posted earlier, but they look like they came from the same place.

9 Out Of 10 Big Pharma Companies Spent More On Marketing Than On R&D | The Big Picture

Edit: I went back and corrected the numbers I posted in the earlier post with the actual numbers from this graph.

 

[MJ12666]

All this talk about the workings of R&D and now I'm forced to admit I never bothered to learn how to embed, lol. This isn't the same chart -- the one I saw originally just had bar charts and I eye-balled where they fell because there weren't actual numbers associated with each company (that's why I used "about" in front of the numbers I posted). Anyway, this one seems to have the numbers posted. They may be off by a hair from the ones I posted earlier, but they look like they came from the same place.

9 Out Of 10 Big Pharma Companies Spent More On Marketing Than On R&D | The Big Picture

Edit: I went back and corrected the numbers I posted in the earlier post with the actual numbers from this graph.

Okay I am not blaming you but the numbers used in the chart are not correct. The author who prepared the chart was either lazy or intentionally used misleading balances to support his position. It is hard to sort through the financial reports to identify specific expense information, assuming it is even available, but the marketing expense certainly appears to include "regular" G&A expenses (these would include for example expenses related to finance and treasury and other supporting departments). As I noted in my original response, Pfizer reported $3B in adverting expenses on 2014 and this number can be found it the footnotes of their published financial statements. Just a word of advise as it pertains to financial information you quote in the future, if you are going to numbers of a publicly traded company you are better off going to a company's website and review their annual report then to go shopping for an article to match you argument, the numbers in the article are most likely incorrect.

Sorry if you respond and I don't get back to you but I need to run.

 

[GoIrish41]

Okay I am not blaming you but the numbers used in the chart are not correct. The author who prepared the chart was either lazy or intentionally used misleading balances to support his position. It is hard to sort through the financial reports to identify specific expense information, assuming it is even available, but the marketing expense certainly appears to include "regular" G&A expenses (these would include for example expenses related to finance and treasury and other supporting departments). As I noted in my original response, Pfizer reported $3B in adverting expenses on 2014 and this number can be found it the footnotes of their published financial statements. Just a word of advise as it pertains to financial information you quote in the future, if you are going to numbers of a publicly traded company you are better off going to a company's website and review their annual report then to go shopping for an article to match you argument, the numbers in the article are most likely incorrect.

Sorry if you respond and I don't get back to you but I need to run.

In fairness, advertising and marketing are not exactly the same thing -- although they are certainly tied together. I'm sure there are a number of expenses in the "marketing" budget that are not paying someone to run an ad on television or in a magazine -- Sales force, lobbying, campaign contributions, printed materials, conferences/displays, travel, promotional videos, legal fees, etc., etc. I can't speak to the accuracy of the chart I posted. I had a vague notion from some memory in my past that marketing budgets generally were greater than R&D budgets and that is the first info that popped up when I googled the topic, so I wasn't really "shopping" for supporting documentation of my point. But your advice is good, in general. However, I will say that your suggestion of looking to the financial reports of the organizations in question seems a bit like taking a leap of faith that they did not shuffle expenses around to be the most favorable to them.

 

[connor_in]

CLINTON HAS EARLY, COMMANDING DELEGATE LEAD FOR NOMINATION from The Associated Press

 

[Buster Bluth]

I thought Bernie crushed Hillary and O'Malley probably gets a few percentage points now.

Hillary had a certifiable "dafuq?" moment when she plays both the 9/11 and women cards in response to her Wall Street donors.

O'Malley looked good IMO. His corruption isn't tattooed on his forehead, so that won't hurt him right now. But he was in attack mode on Hillary and I bet he gets a bit of the not-Hillary-but-also-not-the-socialist vote not, maybe 5% or so.

I wanted Lessig to stay in the race and make it to the stage so he could rip on Hillary and bring up the central issue of our time, Congress being owned by special interests, but I guess I'll settle for O'Malley doing his thing.

The fact that there are only six debates and this one was on a Saturday night disgusts me. The DNC is awful. When is the next one, 9am on Thanksgiving? This shit is ridiculous. Just shows up undemocratic the parties are.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[yankeehater]

I thought Bernie crushed Hillary and O'Malley probably gets a few percentage points now.

Hillary had a certifiable "dafuq?" moment when she plays both the 9/11 and women cards in response to her Wall Street donors.

O'Malley looked good IMO. His corruption isn't tattooed on his forehead, so that won't hurt him right now. But he was in attack mode on Hillary and I bet he gets a bit of the not-Hillary-but-also-not-the-socialist vote not, maybe 5% or so.

I wanted Lessig to stay in the race and make it to the stage so he could rip on Hillary and bring up the central issue of our time, Congress being owned by special interests, but I guess I'll settle for O'Malley doing his thing.

The fact that there are only six debates and this one was on a Saturday night disgusts me. The DNC is awful. When is the next one, 9am on Thanksgiving? This shit is ridiculous. Just shows up undemocratic the parties are.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Heard they did it intentionally to hide Hillary. They know that no one watches a debate on a Friday or Saturday. The highest rated debate nights are Thursdays and they only have one scheduled on a Thursday. The dafaq moment you speak of no one even saw and I only saw one headline about it. Most news sites are pro-Hillary and are claiming she dominated.

 

[FearTheBeard]

Shit, there was a debate saturday? I honestly had no idea ill need to try and find it online somewhere

 

[connor_in]

Heard they did it intentionally to hide Hillary. They know that no one watches a debate on a Friday or Saturday. The highest rated debate nights are Thursdays and they only have one scheduled on a Thursday. The dafaq moment you speak of no one even saw and I only saw one headline about it. Most news sites are pro-Hillary and are claiming she dominated.

What are you talking about?

This isn't fair and balanced?

1 winner and 3 losers from the Democratic debate - Vox


But yet Time's online poll lists...

The 3 Democratic presidential candidates took to the stage for a debate Saturday night. Who do you think won?
Bernie Sanders
80 %
Hillary Clinton
14 %
Martin O'Malley
5 %




Hillary Clinton's debate remark backpedal not going over well twitchy.com

 

[connor_in]

I thought Bernie crushed Hillary and O'Malley probably gets a few percentage points now.

Hillary had a certifiable "dafuq?" moment when she plays both the 9/11 and women cards in response to her Wall Street donors.

O'Malley looked good IMO. His corruption isn't tattooed on his forehead, so that won't hurt him right now. But he was in attack mode on Hillary and I bet he gets a bit of the not-Hillary-but-also-not-the-socialist vote not, maybe 5% or so.

I wanted Lessig to stay in the race and make it to the stage so he could rip on Hillary and bring up the central issue of our time, Congress being owned by special interests, but I guess I'll settle for O'Malley doing his thing.

The fact that there are only six debates and this one was on a Saturday night disgusts me. The DNC is awful. When is the next one, 9am on Thanksgiving? This shit is ridiculous. Just shows up undemocratic the parties are.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

You didn't see the Rachael Maddow SC D Presidential Forum last week?

 

[connor_in]

Washington Post article:

Clinton’s debate performance leaves trail of fodder for political adversaries

 

[kmoose]

Washington Post article:

Clinton’s debate performance leaves trail of fodder for political adversaries

On the "living wage" debate:

One thing that all of the candidates seem to be completely missing, or maybe just dismissing, is that the root cause of the "living wage" issue is the lack of manufacturing in the United States. How many of us over 40 can remember when jobs like fast food and delivering newspapers were almost exclusively done by teenagers just looking for beer money? How many of you have teenaged paperboys? I bet not many, because adults have been forced into those jobs now. Those jobs were never intended to provide a living wage. They were traditionally used to give teenagers a chance to put a little money in their pocket, while teaching them some of the basics about work ethic. So now the politicians answer to the problem is to artificially value those jobs, instead of bringing back the jobs that actually were meant to provide support for families and be done by heads of families. I'm sympathetic to someone trying to earn a living at McDonalds, but at the same time......... that's not what a fast food job is supposed to be.

Bring back the jobs that produce durable goods, and pay a living wage, and let these other jobs revert back to teenagers who can benefit from them.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

On the "living wage" debate:

One thing that all of the candidates seem to be completely missing, or maybe just dismissing, is that the root cause of the "living wage" issue is the lack of manufacturing in the United States. How many of us over 40 can remember when jobs like fast food and delivering newspapers were almost exclusively done by teenagers just looking for beer money? How many of you have teenaged paperboys? I bet not many, because adults have been forced into those jobs now. Those jobs were never intended to provide a living wage. They were traditionally used to give teenagers a chance to put a little money in their pocket, while teaching them some of the basics about work ethic. So now the politicians answer to the problem is to artificially value those jobs, instead of bringing back the jobs that actually were meant to provide support for families and be done by heads of families. I'm sympathetic to someone trying to earn a living at McDonalds, but at the same time......... that's not what a fast food job is supposed to be.

Bring back the jobs that produce durable goods, and pay a living wage, and let these other jobs revert back to teenagers who can benefit from them.

Good post. I agree here.

As pro-Dem as I may seem, this is one area where I completely disagree with the $15/hr living wage. I think it should be increased a little, but not the $12-$15 the Dem candidates are pushing. I don't believe it will solve the problems they're claiming. Not all money struggles are the result of low-income. Sometimes it's poor management.

Definitely agree with kmoose that bringing back the manufacturing jobs, etc are what will help the most. The vast majority of people want to work and there are a ton who have suffered the loss of jobs/income because of these types of jobs fleeing the country for cheaper labor and tax credits.

 

[phgreek]

On the "living wage" debate:

One thing that all of the candidates seem to be completely missing, or maybe just dismissing, is that the root cause of the "living wage" issue is the lack of manufacturing in the United States. How many of us over 40 can remember when jobs like fast food and delivering newspapers were almost exclusively done by teenagers just looking for beer money? How many of you have teenaged paperboys? I bet not many, because adults have been forced into those jobs now. Those jobs were never intended to provide a living wage. They were traditionally used to give teenagers a chance to put a little money in their pocket, while teaching them some of the basics about work ethic. So now the politicians answer to the problem is to artificially value those jobs, instead of bringing back the jobs that actually were meant to provide support for families and be done by heads of families. I'm sympathetic to someone trying to earn a living at McDonalds, but at the same time......... that's not what a fast food job is supposed to be.

Bring back the jobs that produce durable goods, and pay a living wage, and let these other jobs revert back to teenagers who can benefit from them.

This post is spot on...instead of facing their collective failures, politicians assign blame to the successful, and make the operating environment tougher / cost more. The sad part is that there are enough people who think hammering McDonalds for 15 bucks an hour is a good idea. BTW...been to McDonalds lately...experienced the KIOSK? I hate them and refuse to use them, but the one $15 per hour 40 year old behind the counter will only be able to do so much...

 

[phgreek]

Washington Post article:

Clinton’s debate performance leaves trail of fodder for political adversaries

watching Hillary Clinton followers is like watching a vampire rally to the count's defense...they don't know why, and they can't help it.

 

[GoIrish41]

On the "living wage" debate:

One thing that all of the candidates seem to be completely missing, or maybe just dismissing, is that the root cause of the "living wage" issue is the lack of manufacturing in the United States. How many of us over 40 can remember when jobs like fast food and delivering newspapers were almost exclusively done by teenagers just looking for beer money? How many of you have teenaged paperboys? I bet not many, because adults have been forced into those jobs now. Those jobs were never intended to provide a living wage. They were traditionally used to give teenagers a chance to put a little money in their pocket, while teaching them some of the basics about work ethic. So now the politicians answer to the problem is to artificially value those jobs, instead of bringing back the jobs that actually were meant to provide support for families and be done by heads of families. I'm sympathetic to someone trying to earn a living at McDonalds, but at the same time......... that's not what a fast food job is supposed to be.

Bring back the jobs that produce durable goods, and pay a living wage, and let these other jobs revert back to teenagers who can benefit from them.

I agree with the historical perspective, but how do we just "bring back the jobs" that have been removed from our economy? It's not enough to simply lament the passing of the good old days. We have to come to grips with how we got to this place, and take steps to remedy the problems. Ultimately, what needs to be addressed is a corporation's ability to "shop" US jobs to the lowest bidder overseas. Because this was allowed to happen over the past 40 years, corporations have in effect, bargained away much of the nation's middle class.

In the meantime, the problem that you described above is a real one for this country and its working class. With fewer and fewer jobs available that can realistically sustain a family, people turn to the service sector jobs to try to make it. While this may not be what these jobs have been historically, it is what they are now. We can't just shrug our shoulders and point to a point 40 years ago and say "sorry, those jobs aren't supposed to pay enough to support yourself or a family." People who are working should make enough to support themselves and to feed, clothe and shelter their families without making choices between paying their electric bill and eating. We are the wealthiest country in the world, and the corporations are doing better than they have ever done, if the stock markets are any indication. Corporate greed is crushing people.

Until we actually "bring back the jobs" that paid living wages, something needs to be done to help people make it in the world that we live in today. Perhaps $15 is too much, but I think we can all agree that $7.25 is not a realistic bottom for wages for American workers.

 

[wizards8507]

I agree with the historical perspective, but how do we just "bring back the jobs" that have been removed from our economy? It's not enough to simply lament the passing of the good old days. We have to come to grips with how we got to this place, and take steps to remedy the problems. Ultimately, what needs to be addressed is a corporation's ability to "shop" US jobs to the lowest bidder overseas. Because this was allowed to happen over the past 40 years, corporations have in effect, bargained away much of the nation's middle class.

That's absolutely wrong, because you're conflating two different issues. Domestic wages and outsourcing are positively correlated. In other words, the way jobs return to the United States is with falling wages. That's why the minimum wage is so destructive. When you set an artificial price floor on labor, those jobs are going to go to where labor is more in line with market rates. You can't raise wages and encourage companies to bring jobs back to America. Those are the exact opposite of one another.

 

[GoIrish41]

That's absolutely wrong, because you're conflating two different issues. Domestic wages and outsourcing are positively correlated. In other words, the way jobs return to the United States is with falling wages. That's why the minimum wage is so destructive. When you set an artificial price floor on labor, those jobs are going to go to where labor is more in line with market rates. You can't raise wages and encourage companies to bring jobs back to America. Those are the exact opposite of one another.

Paying workers below a living wage and poverty are also correlated. The people who work in those jobs overseas live and work in deplorable conditions. I understand the economics, but at what point does this become a morality issue? If there was no minimum wage in this country, many workers would be in the same boat as the kids who are sewing our Nikes together in Korea. If the $20 an hour job that was shipped overseas comes back as a $1.50 an hour job, what is the point? The only people who profit from that are corporate executives and investors. At some point, we have to recognize that this is more than simply an economic input ... we are talking about people. Certainly there are things that we can do as a nation to prevent corporations from shopping our middle class jobs to the lowest bidder.

 

[wizards8507]

Paying workers below a living wage and poverty are also correlated. The people who work in those jobs overseas live and work in deplorable conditions. I understand the economics, but at what point does this become a morality issue? If there was no minimum wage in this country, many workers would be in the same boat as the kids who are sewing our Nikes together in Korea. If the $20 an hour job that was shipped overseas comes back as a $1.50 an hour job, what is the point? The only people who profit from that are corporate executives and investors. At some point, we have to recognize that this is more than simply an economic input ... we are talking about people. Certainly there are things that we can do as a nation to prevent corporations from shopping our middle class jobs to the lowest bidder.

You clearly don't understand the economics. Let's use your $20 figure as the hypothetical "living wage." If sneakers were made at $20 labor, this is what would happen:

Manufacturers would raise prices so much that the people supposedly benefiting from the $20 wage find that, after inflation sets in, $20 no longer is a living wage. They have a higher nominal salary, but their purchasing power (i.e. their salary in real dollars) is unchanged. Going from $30,000 a year to $50,000 a year isn't a victory if it means that everything you buy is now 50% more expensive. Because prices are sticky (i.e. it takes them some time to catch up with rising aggregate demand), in the mean time no teenager or low-skilled worker will ever find a job again as investment dollars shift to automation.

A low-paying job is better than NO job, which is what the minimum wage creates. You're at least earning something and developing skills that will translate to more gainful employment in the future.

 

[kmoose]

I agree with the historical perspective, but how do we just "bring back the jobs" that have been removed from our economy? It's not enough to simply lament the passing of the good old days. We have to come to grips with how we got to this place, and take steps to remedy the problems. Ultimately, what needs to be addressed is a corporation's ability to "shop" US jobs to the lowest bidder overseas. Because this was allowed to happen over the past 40 years, corporations have in effect, bargained away much of the nation's middle class.

You bring back the jobs by "penalizing" companies that move jobs overseas, and incentivizing companies that move jobs back to the US. Maybe you create a special tax bracket for companies that have more than X% of jobs outside of the US. Maybe you introduce special tariffs for US companies that manufacture overseas, then try to bring those goods into the US. What doesn't do your economy any good is to just mandate wages that are unreasonable for the job being done.

In the meantime, the problem that you described above is a real one for this country and its working class. With fewer and fewer jobs available that can realistically sustain a family, people turn to the service sector jobs to try to make it. While this may not be what these jobs have been historically, it is what they are now. We can't just shrug our shoulders and point to a point 40 years ago and say "sorry, those jobs aren't supposed to pay enough to support yourself or a family." People who are working should make enough to support themselves and to feed, clothe and shelter their families without making choices between paying their electric bill and eating.

A Vespa is a scooter. If people suddenly start buying Vespas instead of motorcycles, that doesn't make a Vespa a motorcycle. Those service industry jobs are NOT living wage jobs. They never have been, and a company's business model is structured with that in mind. So why should the government mandate that they turn into that? I work in the service industry, and I make $60,000 a year. But I have a skill(electronics) and an industry(security screening) that warrant those wages. I'm not a college graduate. I got my skill in the military, and made good career choices once I got out. I don't earn those wages simply by being an American citizen who has a job.

We are the wealthiest country in the world, and the corporations are doing better than they have ever done, if the stock markets are any indication. Corporate greed is crushing people.

I disagree. I think what is crushing people is PERSONAL GREED. There are so many people playing the stock market these days not for their retirement, but as a primary source of income. The influx of people playing the market to pay their everyday bills has put TREMENDOUS pressure on CEOs to keep their stock prices rising. That's not corporate greed; that's an executive trying to keep his job. Companies can do more, but don't fall into that trap of blaming some faceless corporation. That's exactly the kind of thinking that produces people like those assholes in France.

Until we actually "bring back the jobs" that paid living wages, something needs to be done to help people make it in the world that we live in today. Perhaps $15 is too much, but I think we can all agree that $7.25 is not a realistic bottom for wages for American workers.

I don't think anyone is realistically arguing against ANY raise in the minimum wage. But the "living wage" argument just doesn't hold water.

 

[GoIrish41]

You clearly don't understand the economics. Let's use your $20 figure as the hypothetical "living wage." If sneakers were made at $20 labor, this is what would happen:

Manufacturers would raise prices so much that the people supposedly benefiting from the $20 wage find that, after inflation sets in, $20 no longer is a living wage. They have a higher nominal salary, but their purchasing power (i.e. their salary in real dollars) is unchanged. Going from $30,000 a year to $50,000 a year isn't a victory if it means that everything you buy is now 50% more expensive. Because prices are sticky (i.e. it takes them some time to catch up with rising aggregate demand), in the mean time no teenager or low-skilled worker will ever find a job again as investment dollars shift to automation.

A low-paying job is better than NO job, which is what the minimum wage creates. You're at least earning something and developing skills that will translate to more gainful employment in the future.

So, you are OK with a huge portion of the country living in poverty so you can pay $60 for a pair of sneakers instead of $100? I understand that McDonalds raising their wages is going to translate into more expensive Big Macs. Nothing comes without a price in this world.

The same can be said of seeking the lowest labor costs in the world to manufacture a product. There is a price there, too ... people in this country are suffering because they no longer have jobs, and people overseas are suffering because they now have horrible low paying jobs. But, who isn't suffering? Corporations who set this all in motion.

I don't recall the cost of clothing dropping when textile jobs were shipped from the United States to SE Asia. All that money went into the pockets of the companies who shipped the jobs overseas. And now that profit at any cost has become the standard, we always look to accomodate the rich and powerful at the expense of the working poor.

I am for an inflation-adjusted minimum wage -- one that rises as prices rise. I acknowledge that it is unrealistic to double the minimum wage overnight, but getting to the point that it catches up with the cost of living over time, and keeping it there should be viewed as the cost of doing business. Maybe CEOs shouldn't feel so good about buying yachts and mansions while the people who are toiling in their crummy factories live in poverty. And maybe consumers who understand that their "artificially low" costs for products also have a real, profound human cost. I know a lot of people who would be willing to pay more for a product that wasn't produced in some sweatshop.

Do you think that Nike is going to stop producing sneakers because they can no longer make $60 on each pair that's sold? I don't. I think they would come to grips with the new reality that maybe they can only get $20 profit on each pair. So, there would be movement on both ends -- prices would rise, and profits would drop. It's not one thing or the other. Moreover, I think that Nike would sell more sneakers because now more people have money in their pockets to buy them.

 

[NDohio]

On the "living wage" debate:

One thing that all of the candidates seem to be completely missing, or maybe just dismissing, is that the root cause of the "living wage" issue is the lack of manufacturing in the United States. How many of us over 40 can remember when jobs like fast food and delivering newspapers were almost exclusively done by teenagers just looking for beer money? How many of you have teenaged paperboys? I bet not many, because adults have been forced into those jobs now. Those jobs were never intended to provide a living wage. They were traditionally used to give teenagers a chance to put a little money in their pocket, while teaching them some of the basics about work ethic. So now the politicians answer to the problem is to artificially value those jobs, instead of bringing back the jobs that actually were meant to provide support for families and be done by heads of families. I'm sympathetic to someone trying to earn a living at McDonalds, but at the same time......... that's not what a fast food job is supposed to be.

Bring back the jobs that produce durable goods, and pay a living wage, and let these other jobs revert back to teenagers who can benefit from them.

What is this newspaper you speak of?

I agree completely.

 

[wizards8507]

So, you are OK with a huge portion of the country living in poverty so you can pay $60 for a pair of sneakers instead of $100?

It has nothing to do with whether I'm okay with it or not. It will always be the case that a zero-skill worker is poor, whether I'm okay with it or you're okay with it. They could make $100K a year, and prices would adjust such that $100K a year is poor. The real value (i.e. purchasing power) of one unit of zero-skilled labor is minuscule because zero-skilled labor can be replaced easily. I take the world as it is, not as I'd like it to be.

I understand that McDonalds raising their wages is going to translate into more expensive Big Macs. Nothing comes without a price in this world.

But you're ignoring the fact that the workers and the consumers are the same people. I can afford higher prices at Walmart and McDonald's because I'm not a zero-skill worker. The people who can't afford higher prices at Walmart and McDonald's are the workers at Walmart and McDonald's. The same people you intend to help are the ones who are hurt the most because inflation is a hidden regressive tax.

Finally, I still maintain that it's impossible to be "stuck" in a minimum wage job unless you have a legitimate physical or mental disability (which is a debate to be had separately). Like Kmoose, my father is a veteran with no college education earning a decent middle-class living by showing up to work on time and doing his job well. It's a $60K base manufacturing job with all kinds of overtime and shift premiums for guys who work overnight. In your worldview, there should be a bazillion applicants for a job like this and simply not enough positions to go around, but it's exactly the opposite. The company can't keep $70K manufacturing jobs filled because of a lack of qualified candidates. They hire people who skip work, drink at work, show up hungover, call out to get high, fall asleep on the job because they were playing video games all night, etc. I worked at McDonald's in high school and would have had a $40,000 assistant store manager job when I graduated if I wasn't off to Notre Dame. That's not rich, but it's enough to raise a family. And that opportunity was available to every single person, but 80%+ of the people I worked with were drug abusers and dropouts. Those people choose to be poor and I have no pity for them.

 

[pkt77242]

That's absolutely wrong, because you're conflating two different issues. Domestic wages and outsourcing are positively correlated. In other words, the way jobs return to the United States is with falling wages. That's why the minimum wage is so destructive. When you set an artificial price floor on labor, those jobs are going to go to where labor is more in line with market rates. You can't raise wages and encourage companies to bring jobs back to America. Those are the exact opposite of one another.

I disagree removing the floor on wages might bring back jobs but at what price? Are you expecting Americans to work for similar wages to people in India? Bangladesh? etc.

I agree with your economic point that removing the minimum wage might bring back jobs (it also might not as you have to find people who will work for a lower number) but how does that help get people a living wage?

Also the market rate for a country like India is significantly lower than in the U.S. but the cost of living is also lower, so you are expecting us to compete on wages but we still have a significantly higher cost of living than many of the countries that "our" jobs have gone too.

 

[connor_in]

Judicial Watch: Email Reveals Top Aide Huma Abedin Warning State Department Staffer That Hillary Clinton Is “Often Confused�

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEW Huma Email: Hillary 'Often Confused' <a href="https://t.co/G1gXNXDRve">https://t.co/G1gXNXDRve</a> <a href="https://t.co/RFjXINDg38">pic.twitter.com/RFjXINDg38</a></p>— The Weekly Standard (@weeklystandard) <a href="https://twitter.com/weeklystandard/status/666292767388225536">November 16, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[wizards8507]

I disagree removing the floor on wages might bring back jobs but at what price? Are you expecting Americans to work for similar wages to people in India? Bangladesh? etc.

That's the beauty of the free exhange of services. Let's say you're an unemployed American. If wages drop and jobs return, you choose whether the wage offered is something you're willing to work for. If not, you're unemployed and no worse off than you are if the job just doesn't exist in the first place.

I agree with your economic point that removing the minimum wage might bring back jobs (it also might not as you have to find people who will work for a lower number) but how does that help get people a living wage?

As I said in other posts, these ultra-low-wage, low-skill jobs are not supposed to provide living wages. They're supposed to provide basic job skills so that you can move on and out of those low-skill jobs in the long run. A 16 year old working the drive-thru isn't supposed to stay there for forty years. He's supposed to learn how to show up for work on time, interact with other people, balance a checkbook, and move on to better things.

Also the market rate for a country like India is significantly lower than in the U.S. but the cost of living is also lower, so you are expecting us to compete on wages but we still have a significantly higher cost of living than many of the countries that "our" jobs have gone too.

I don't have exact figures, but competing on wages with foreign countries isn't 1:1. The logistics of shipping something from Deluth is much simpler and cheaper than shipping something from Taiwan. There's also synergistic benefits of having your employees under one roof. In other words, maybe you outsource a $20 domestic worker for a $5 foreign worker, but if the gap was closer you'd rather keep the work here even if the nominal wage is somewhat higher.

 

[potownhero]

I agree with the historical perspective, but how do we just "bring back the jobs" that have been removed from our economy? It's not enough to simply lament the passing of the good old days. We have to come to grips with how we got to this place, and take steps to remedy the problems. Ultimately, what needs to be addressed is a corporation's ability to "shop" US jobs to the lowest bidder overseas. Because this was allowed to happen over the past 40 years, corporations have in effect, bargained away much of the nation's middle class.

In the meantime, the problem that you described above is a real one for this country and its working class. With fewer and fewer jobs available that can realistically sustain a family, people turn to the service sector jobs to try to make it. While this may not be what these jobs have been historically, it is what they are now. We can't just shrug our shoulders and point to a point 40 years ago and say "sorry, those jobs aren't supposed to pay enough to support yourself or a family." People who are working should make enough to support themselves and to feed, clothe and shelter their families without making choices between paying their electric bill and eating. We are the wealthiest country in the world, and the corporations are doing better than they have ever done, if the stock markets are any indication. Corporate greed is crushing people.

Until we actually "bring back the jobs" that paid living wages, something needs to be done to help people make it in the world that we live in today. Perhaps $15 is too much, but I think we can all agree that $7.25 is not a realistic bottom for wages for American workers.

1. One Idea to help bring back the jobs is to reduce the burden/cost of Regulations on US companies...The Cost Of Government Regulation: $1.75 Trillion.
The Cost Of Government Regulation: $1.75 Trillion | Zero Hedge

As stated in post: "the cost of complying with these regulations is substantially higher than the total of corporate profits is a stark illustration of the end result of economic intervention."

In addition to the huge financial burden regulations place on the private sector, it also favors larger companies over smaller companies. This is inhibiting "capitalism" by creating barriers to entry and burdens on smaller corporate organizations to compete.

2. A second idea is to change the US corporate tax code to encourage companies to invest and build "manufacturing" facilities here. Our tax rates are among the most onerous of all the developed world.

Is there any doubt that these actions would create more domestic jobs? I agree with all that manufacturing jobs are sorely needed - specifically to "create wealth" in this country. But they need to be created organically because they make sense economically (from the business efficiency perspective) - not by government fiat. That way they can and will be here long term.

 

[MJ12666]

In fairness, advertising and marketing are not exactly the same thing -- although they are certainly tied together. I'm sure there are a number of expenses in the "marketing" budget that are not paying someone to run an ad on television or in a magazine -- Sales force, lobbying, campaign contributions, printed materials, conferences/displays, travel, promotional videos, legal fees, etc., etc. I can't speak to the accuracy of the chart I posted. I had a vague notion from some memory in my past that marketing budgets generally were greater than R&D budgets and that is the first info that popped up when I googled the topic, so I wasn't really "shopping" for supporting documentation of my point. But your advice is good, in general. However, I will say that your suggestion of looking to the financial reports of the organizations in question seems a bit like taking a leap of faith that they did not shuffle expenses around to be the most favorable to them.

[/B]

Actually if you grabbed the first article that popped up and it met your criteria, shopping is exactly what you did.

It is not a "leap of faith". Having been involved in the preparation of the published financial statements I can assure you that SEC does not look to kindly on "shuffling" expenses. I have seen people lose there jobs over this issue.

 

[pkt77242]

That's the beauty of the free exhange of services. Let's say you're an unemployed American. If wages drop and jobs return, you choose whether the wage offered is something you're willing to work for. If not, you're unemployed and no worse off than you are if the job just doesn't exist in the first place.


As I said in other posts, these ultra-low-wage, low-skill jobs are not supposed to provide living wages. They're supposed to provide basic job skills so that you can move on and out of those low-skill jobs in the long run. A 16 year old working the drive-thru isn't supposed to stay there for forty years. He's supposed to learn how to show up for work on time, interact with other people, balance a checkbook, and move on to better things.


I don't have exact figures, but competing on wages with foreign countries isn't 1:1. The logistics of shipping something from Deluth is much simpler and cheaper than shipping something from Taiwan. There's also synergistic benefits of having your employees under one roof. In other words, maybe you outsource a $20 domestic worker for a $5 foreign worker, but if the gap was closer you'd rather keep the work here even if the nominal wage is somewhat higher.

I agree that it isn't 1:1 but in many of the countries the people work for such low wages that it bringing back manufacturing jobs on a competitive pay rate won't bring back "good" jobs. Lets take a look at India, in 2010 the average job in manufacturing there was about $1.50 US per hour. Since it has been a few years lets say it is $2 an hour now. Once you include shipping, the ability to closely manage operations, etc. into the cost, lets say that a competitive rate in the U.S. would be $10 an hour. How does that bring back good jobs? How is that a "living" wage?

I think that the idea of bringing back manufacturing jobs at living wages just isn't possible at this time (not that that was your point but it was Kmoose's point that started this discussion).

 

[connor_in]

[/B]
[/B]

Actually if you grabbed the first article that popped up and it met your criteria, shopping is exactly what you did.

It is not a "leap of faith". Having been involved in the preparation of the published financial statements I can assure you that SEC does not look to kindly on "shuffling" expenses. I have seen people lose there jobs over this issue.

In fairness, advertising and marketing are not exactly the same thing -- although they are certainly tied together. I'm sure there are a number of expenses in the "marketing" budget that are not paying someone to run an ad on television or in a magazine -- Sales force, lobbying, campaign contributions, printed materials, conferences/displays, travel, promotional videos, legal fees, etc., etc. I can't speak to the accuracy of the chart I posted. I had a vague notion from some memory in my past that marketing budgets generally were greater than R&D budgets and that is the first info that popped up when I googled the topic, so I wasn't really "shopping" for supporting documentation of my point. But your advice is good, in general. However, I will say that your suggestion of looking to the financial reports of the organizations in question seems a bit like taking a leap of faith that they did not shuffle expenses around to be the most favorable to them.

Actually...unless you wiped out your cookies and cache, then you did "shop" google as google uses logarithms of past preferences to narrow your search results.

 

[GoIrish41]

1. One Idea to help bring back the jobs is to reduce the burden/cost of Regulations on US companies...The Cost Of Government Regulation: $1.75 Trillion.
The Cost Of Government Regulation: $1.75 Trillion | Zero Hedge

As stated in post: "the cost of complying with these regulations is substantially higher than the total of corporate profits is a stark illustration of the end result of economic intervention."

In addition to the huge financial burden regulations place on the private sector, it also favors larger companies over smaller companies. This is inhibiting "capitalism" by creating barriers to entry and burdens on smaller corporate organizations to compete.

2. A second idea is to change the US corporate tax code to encourage companies to invest and build "manufacturing" facilities here. Our tax rates are among the most onerous of all the developed world.

Is there any doubt that these actions would create more domestic jobs? I agree with all that manufacturing jobs are sorely needed - specifically to "create wealth" in this country. But they need to be created organically because they make sense economically (from the business efficiency perspective) - not by government fiat. That way they can and will be here long term.

If I were king for a day, I'd tax the heck out of incoming products and price these corporations out of the American market. I'm not a big fan of any of the free trade agreements this country has signed because they are the mechanisms that have allowed alot of the drain of manufacturing jobs from this country to cheap labor countries.

I'm not opposed to taking a look at regulations, so long as it does not result in a detriment to the safety, consumer protection or working conditions of American workers. Let's face it, these regulations didn't just materialize out of thin air -- they were put in place for a reason ... people getting ripped off, businesses polluting the environment, workers put in unsafe situations, etc. Getting rid of them for the sake of allowing companies to make more money kind of ignores the fact that much good has come as a result of regulation.

It wasn't too long ago (5 or 10 years maybe) that I would have agreed with you about the tax policies. And while I'm still simpathetic to lowering the corporate taxes on those who build facilities in the United States, I don't think corporations have given me any reason to trust that they would suddenly re-invest all the money they are hiding overseas in the growth of this country. Those higher taxes on companies "doing business overseas" is just another way of saying they are the companies who decided to pull the jobs out of the US and put them in places with lower wage workers. These taxes were meant to be a obstacle to them moving jobs from the United States, and we are in a stalemate as to whether we should reduce the rate and "invite the flood of new investment" or "continue to pressure companies to stop the practice that is gutting our middle class. I don't think we should reward the very companies who shipped our middle class to Asia, so I'm not on the side of corporations here. As I said, I'm more inclined to making it more costly for them to reach the largest consumer market in the world than trusting their "trickle down" BS anymore.

Companies who hide their cash overseas, aren't likely to suddently just start building new factories all over the country if the rate is lowered. These are the same folks who are in their most profitable period in American history stripping benefits away from American workers and arguing for removing the minimum wage. They are the same folks who want to cut away the social safety net because they are tired of paying for it. Not a lot of faith that they will suddenly grow a heart and do what's right by American workers.