What Wall Street Protesters make them really angry: Charts

Here I present a webpage with interesting charts, I copy some:

Corporate profits just hit another all-time high.
http://static5.businessinsider.com/...te-profits-just-hit-another-all-time-high.jpg

Corporate profits as a percent of the economy are near a record all-time high. With the exception of a brief happy period in 2007 (just before the crash), profits are higher than they've been since the 1950s. And they are VASTLY higher than they've been for most of the intervening half-century.



CEO pay is now 350X the average worker's, up from 50X from 1960-1985.



The most intersting part: CEO pay has skyrocketed 300% since 1990. Corporate profits have doubled. Average "production worker" pay has increased 4%. The minimum wage has dropped. (All numbers adjusted for inflation).




After adjusting for inflation, average hourly earnings haven't increased in 50 years.


Inequality: Index of Giny. Position 93

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

 

What would you expect after recovering from laying off a ton of workers?

Profits are always record highs during recovery.

And profits means jobs, thats GOOD, for the "bottom 99%".

Also it's to be expected that the wage of the same job hasn't changed barring inflation. Because that is how we calculate inflation! lol.

 

Those days are LONG gone. Right now, it is much more profitable for businesses to invest in t-bills than it is to hire people or buy equipment. There's something wrong with the entire picture.

 

Really? Because I just made 10% profit in my own stocks in the past 2 months?

After looking at all these charts that show record profits, you're going to tell me it's not profitable for businesses to expand their workforce? Take a business 101 class, you'll learn the only thing a business can or should do with high profits is expand.

 

Maybe your business 101 class needs to be updated to more current criteria, instead of leftover ideas from the industrial revolution. What worked 50 years ago may not be the best avenue to go today.

Big money needs to be removed from the "system", completely and absolutely. It IS the cause of most of our ills in society today.

Remove the cancer before if destroys the host entirely.

 

So you're saying a business which has $1 million dollars overhead and $10 million dollars revenue. Should not expand it's overhead to $2 million dollars and $20 million dollars revenue?

Math never goes out of date, sorry liberals.

 

I think that you should take some classes of economy, well, better said of history.

 

You realize in those charts, after every shaded region (recession) there is record profits?

Yea, that's history. And it's not arguing your case either.

 

They don't do that, analyze the graphs.

 

That's the theory, but it doesn't seem to be working out.

 

If they didn't do that the business would be overrun by competitors, win-win for the 99%. It seems you don't have any idea what you're actually arguing. That businesses are (conspiracy theory incoming) banding together and not seeking expansion.

So a corporation doesn't offer you a job, your solution is to politically dismantle them? Have fun with a world without computers should you succeed.

 

You have te results of the graphs, and the history. The history has taught us that the neoliberal theory is wrong, and they won't create jobs, and less better wages.

Only they will create jobs, if it is necessary, to earn more money. But with very low jobs. As you've observed, the Giny Index shows the inequality and USA is one of the countries with more inequality, under India or China.

Yes, it is probable that corporations hire more, but with what conditions. Normally offering less, and more if there is a lot of unemployment. USA has a real unemployment of 17%.

 

You have te results of the graphs, and the history. The history has taught us that the neoliberal theory is wrong, and they won't create jobs, and less better wages.

Only they will create jobs, if it is necessary, to earn more money. But with very low jobs. As you've observed, the Giny Index shows the inequality and USA is one of the countries with more inequality, under India or China.

Yes, it is probable that corporations hire more, but with what conditions. Normally offering less, and more if there is a lot of unemployment. USA has a real unemployment of 17%.

 

Politically dismantle? You mean, object publicly to their business practices? Well, if they can't survive that, then I think my attitude will the same as their attitude toward the people they fired: them's the breaks.

And the companies that are still good to their people? They'll survive. And make computers. And if not, actually, I'm pretty sure I could make my own computer. I've always wanted to, maybe this will be my big chance.

 

Absolutely not! I think they should keep "expanding" until every last resource is spent and every last dollar has been extracted. No limits. Only MORE. There can NEVER be enough for the Nero worshippers.

The sky is the limit! Take by God, take! When you have enough...TAKE MORE! (crapitalism 101).



Greed isn't good....it's GRRRRRRRRREEAT!!!

 

If that's what you believe, what in the world are you doing paying these people to "rob" the earth of resources?

And the only resource that is ever "spent" is energy. But there are plenty of forms of energy on this planet to last us billions of years. So you should probably pick up a scientific journal every once in a while.

 

T-Bills are a TERRIBLE investment.

 

I wonder who's creating all of this inflation?

 

I've been a businessman for many, many years, sonny. If what you say is true (which it ain't), business wouldn't be sitting on $2,000,000,000,000. And there wouldn't be a 9.1% unemployment rate. Get out of the library, fire your economics teacher, and get a job.

 

I really don't know what you are trying to say. Want to buy a comma?

 

What does the pay of the CEO, or any other executive, have to do with the pay of the workers?

 

Frightening isn't it.

 

I bought ERTS at $21 and now it's $23.8, why is this so hard to believe? Go look their charts up if you want.

Businesses aren't sitting on $2 trillion dollars. They fired workers to make up for lower consumption of the recession, when the recovery hits they make profits....wait to see if they hold...then hire and expand.

If you believe a business isn't hiring when it sits on record profits, you believe they aren't trying to make a profit. If you can't understand the question you have no business talking about business. No pun intended.

Where did I ever mention CEO pay?

And it has alot to do with it. The CEO pays himself and his core overhead first, then he decides if he has enough left over to hire or even whether he should fire some of the workforce.

 

I'm not sure what the OP is trying to say.

Are profits bad?

Is it bad to pay CEOs millions of dollars?

Is it bad for corporations to even exist?

What's the point of this thread?

 

Apologies, that wasn't meant to be directed at you. I'll repost the question to Kilgram.