Shareholder versus Stakeholder Capitalism

[vetteman9368]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Maybe the fact BP/Exxon/Whomever made Billions of dollars in profit and people in this country are homeless is a non sequitur. I dunno.

Oil companies make 4% on a gallon of gas, the government makes ~15% off that same gallon. They make billions of dollars in profit based on volume, not profit margin.

[NB2K]

Originally Posted by LarsAtTheBeach

try it sometime...

it WILL change your perspective on business.

You have fukktime employees or subs?

-I left the misspelling in there-LOL

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Originally Posted by LarsAtTheBeach

Thomas, posts like above is what earns you the liberal label.

See post below:

Maybe the fact BP/Exxon/Whomever made Billions of dollars in profit and people in this country are homeless is a non sequitur. I dunno.

Perhaps I'm painting with too broad of brush. That was my point.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Thomas

For the record, I don't know what you do with your charitable dollar and it's none of my business. I have gotten the impression from your posts you're very much a bottom line kinda guy and perhaps didn't support things of this nature because of it.

There are 2 completely separate aspects of that. In business... it is the bottom line. Period. As an investor, the ONLY thing I care about is whether there is a red arrow or a green one. My investment into a company is not to help a community, it is for my own gain and nothing more.

That is in no way related to my personal life, charities, or anything of that nature. Being bottom line in a business sense is not mutually exclusive to being a philanthropist in your personal life.

Look at Bill Gates as an example. From a business perspective, there might not be anyone more ruthless with the competition, ever. Yet, he has donated a reported $28 Billion (with a B) to charities in his life. They are 2 completely different things.

Originally Posted by Thomas

When I see BP or Exxon post BILLION dollar profits and people in THIS COUNTRY are sleeping in boxes, THAT bothers me. (Although I don't quite know what the solution is. The solution is NOT to FORCE BP to fix it however)

How is that related? Yes, I don't like that we have people sleeping in boxes, but it is not at all related to a company's profit.

I am not rolling in money. FAR FAR from it. I am upside down on a house, and many other things that I am really not going to get into on a forum but it isn't the fault of the CEO of a company or any other millionaire. My goal is not to bring them down... it is to bring myself up.

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Maybe the fact BP/Exxon/Whomever made Billions of dollars in profit and people in this country are homeless is a non sequitur. I dunno.

The oil industry also provided jobs and billions in profit to people who could use that money to support charities in any fashion they desire.

Homeless people recycle cardboard boxes.

[RedLS1GTO]

As for the oil companies and pretty much every other Billion dollar corporation out there... they turn their profits for a reason. Somebody had an idea. Somebody made it happen. Somebody took a risk. Somebody invested, etc, etc. They WON. Good for them! I wish it was me, and maybe if I keep trying, one of these days it will be.

...and as I said before, those Billion dollar companies DO benefit the communities and the nation as a whole, simply by existing. The more they profit, the more everyone benefits. More jobs, more income, more tax dollars, more related business opportunities, more infrastructure, more EVERYTHING.

The fact that people see successful companies as "evil" because they make a profit absolutely baffles me.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Thomas

So lets ask him. Joecoool, do you think think businesses exist to benefit the community, that they are some sort of a social enterprise.

It's a yes or no question.

That is the role of the government.

What I have a problem with is the fact that since the 1970's, corporations no longer have any sense of obligation to the employees that work for them. In days past, companies were not forced to make decisions based on what put the most money in investors pockets, but could act on what was best for the company and the people who work there.

I've seen it first hand. Years ago I was involved with a company that was purchased by a holding company. We had 250 people working in factories in two different states. Everyone was nervous when they were bought but were assured that things would remain the same.

And they did. For about six months. I remember the meeting where we were told that we really didn't need to have our accounting department anymore because the holding company had another one that was under utilized. So they merged the departments. By merged, I mean they came in, took the books and fired all the people in our accounting department. Few weeks later, the same thing happened to marketing. Then engineering. Then we were told of a huge new building that was being built in Mexico but it was only a storage facility, no manufacturing would be done there. Then we were told that they were going to move some of our manufacturing equipment there because we were going to be getting new equipment at the US factory. Two months later all the factory workers got laid off and all the manufacturing went to Mexico.

The sales staff was the last to go but only after new hires were brought in to train under the guise that they were expanding the sales force. In actuality they were replacing the sales force with non commissioned sales reps working for about a third of what the people who had been with the company were making.

No one got any severance.

250 Americans with their families were now out of work and the only ones that got wealthy were the investors who are already very wealthy.

You tell me, is this the kind of America you want? Is this really the kind of predator capitalism that you think is good for this country? This is the kind of shit that has decimated the middle class. Had we any type of a union at the time, we could have saved these people's jobs. We were profitable when we were purchased. We had a strong civic presance. Our employees contributed tens of millions of dollars to the local economies. All of that was lost in 18 months. Not one single employee was with the company 24 months after the purchase.

I still talk to many of the people that got canned and several of them never recovered. Some lost their homes and their lives savings. A lot of people got divorced. Many were forced to go on welfare. So you can see my disgust when I hear assholes like Romney who built his fortune destroying lives, bitch about poor people living off welfare. It was he and his ilk that put many of these people in the positions they now find themselves in.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Why? Yes, I don't like that we have people sleeping in boxes, but it is not at all related to a company's profit.

I tried to clear that comment up in the next post. One has nothing to do with the other. HOWEVER, Billion dollar companies are POSITIONED to help the communities they serve and do business in.

My goal is not to bring them down... it is to bring myself up

I agree. Personal responsibility, I feel the same.

Look guys. I don't EXPECT Fortune 500 companies to solve the homeless problem for instance. But I wish more of them were a little more civically minded.

As I stated earlier, I don't think life is all about the almighty dollar.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Guys, I gotta run. My wife needs a new laptop.

Good debate, more later.

RedLS1GTO sorry if I pissed you off or offended you. That wasnt my intent.

Peace bitches.

[NB2K]

Originally Posted by Thomas

As I stated earlier, I don't think life is all about the almighty dollar.

Life isn't, but business has to be. (in a broad sense)

[LATB]

Originally Posted by NB2K

You have fukktime employees or subs?

-I left the misspelling in there-LOL

Subs. However, in the past I have had employees.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

That is the role of the government.

spoken like a true commie.

at least you are honest about it.

[vetteman9368]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

That is the role of the government.

What I have a problem with is the fact that since the 1970's, corporations no longer have any sense of obligation to the employees that work for them. In days past, companies were not forced to make decisions based on what put the most money in investors pockets, but could act on what was best for the company and the people who work there.

I've seen it first hand. Years ago I was involved with a company that was purchased by a holding company. We had 250 people working in factories in two different states. Everyone was nervous when they were bought but were assured that things would remain the same.

And they did. For about six months. I remember the meeting where we were told that we really didn't need to have our accounting department anymore because the holding company had another one that was under utilized. So they merged the departments. By merged, I mean they came in, took the books and fired all the people in our accounting department. Few weeks later, the same thing happened to marketing. Then engineering. Then we were told of a huge new building that was being built in Mexico but it was only a storage facility, no manufacturing would be done there. Then we were told that they were going to move some of our manufacturing equipment there because we were going to be getting new equipment at the US factory. Two months later all the factory workers got laid off and all the manufacturing went to Mexico.

The sales staff was the last to go but only after new hires were brought in to train under the guise that they were expanding the sales force. In actuality they were replacing the sales force with non commissioned sales reps working for about a third of what the people who had been with the company were making.

No one got any severance.

250 Americans with their families were now out of work and the only ones that got wealthy were the investors who are already very wealthy.

You tell me, is this the kind of America you want? Is this really the kind of predator capitalism that you think is good for this country? This is the kind of shit that has decimated the middle class. Had we any type of a union at the time, we could have saved these people's jobs. We were profitable when we were purchased. We had a strong civic presance. Our employees contributed tens of millions of dollars to the local economies. All of that was lost in 18 months. Not one single employee was with the company 24 months after the purchase.

I still talk to many of the people that got canned and several of them never recovered. Some lost their homes and their lives savings. A lot of people got divorced. Many were forced to go on welfare. So you can see my disgust when I hear assholes like Romney who built his fortune destroying lives, bitch about poor people living off welfare. It was he and his ilk that put many of these people in the positions they now find themselves in.

What company? Got some proof? That sounds like an extreme case, where people were lied to. That does suck. But a company's obligation to its employees is for a reasonable work environment and to pay for work done. That's it and that's all. Take your socialist bullshit to Europe, or 90 miles south to Cuba.

[RedLS1GTO]

...and my personal favorite is the GE argument that everybody loves to throw out there. GE is the villain to top all villains according to liberals.

Consider that GE currently has ~135,000 American employees and since the beginning of 2009, with almost every single American corporation downsizing, GE has created ~8,000 new jobs in the U.S. and has invested over a billion dollars into American production facilities.

- More products made in America
-135,000 people worth of income taxes collected.
-135,000 people not on unemployment.
-135,000 families not on food stamps, welfare, etc.

People LOVE to point at GE as what is wrong with this country. Looks to me like GE is one of the few corporations actually helping the economy right now.

Proctor and Gamble, Boeing, L-3, Siemens, Hewlett-Packard ... you name it... ALL of them are cutting American jobs. Why? Because it is cheaper and more profitable for them to go elsewhere. If you want jobs to stay here or to be created here you have to make it profitable for companies to do so. It is a very simple concept. The point of business is to make money, and they will go to where that is most likely to happen. Don't blame the companies for leaving. Blame the government and the lawmakers that are forcing them to.


Please explain to me how a company that employs 135,000+ Americans and in turn infuses BILLIONS into the American economy is the bad guy.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Guys, I gotta run. My wife needs a new laptop.

Good debate, more later.

RedLS1GTO sorry if I pissed you off or offended you. That wasnt my intent.

Peace bitches.

we want pics of the wife, in heels, holding new laptop later. TIA.

I gotta run also...work to do at the house...pics later.

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

That is the role of the government.

What I have a problem with is the fact that since the 1970's, corporations no longer have any sense of obligation to the employees that work for them. In days past, companies were not forced to make decisions based on what put the most money in investors pockets, but could act on what was best for the company and the people who work there.

I've seen it first hand. Years ago I was involved with a company that was purchased by a holding company. We had 250 people working in factories in two different states. Everyone was nervous when they were bought but were assured that things would remain the same.

And they did. For about six months. I remember the meeting where we were told that we really didn't need to have our accounting department anymore because the holding company had another one that was under utilized. So they merged the departments. By merged, I mean they came in, took the books and fired all the people in our accounting department. Few weeks later, the same thing happened to marketing. Then engineering. Then we were told of a huge new building that was being built in Mexico but it was only a storage facility, no manufacturing would be done there. Then we were told that they were going to move some of our manufacturing equipment there because we were going to be getting new equipment at the US factory. Two months later all the factory workers got laid off and all the manufacturing went to Mexico.

The sales staff was the last to go but only after new hires were brought in to train under the guise that they were expanding the sales force. In actuality they were replacing the sales force with non commissioned sales reps working for about a third of what the people who had been with the company were making.

No one got any severance.

250 Americans with their families were now out of work and the only ones that got wealthy were the investors who are already very wealthy.

You tell me, is this the kind of America you want? Is this really the kind of predator capitalism that you think is good for this country? This is the kind of shit that has decimated the middle class. Had we any type of a union at the time, we could have saved these people's jobs. We were profitable when we were purchased. We had a strong civic presance. Our employees contributed tens of millions of dollars to the local economies. All of that was lost in 18 months. Not one single employee was with the company 24 months after the purchase.

I still talk to many of the people that got canned and several of them never recovered. Some lost their homes and their lives savings. A lot of people got divorced. Many were forced to go on welfare. So you can see my disgust when I hear assholes like Romney who built his fortune destroying lives, bitch about poor people living off welfare. It was he and his ilk that put many of these people in the positions they now find themselves in.

I can agree with this point.

I would wager that holding companies along with mergers and acquisitions have eliminated more jobs in this country than automation and off shore outsourcing.

I'm not a fan of government oversight, but I believe that if banks were required to only be banks, mortgage companies could only be mortgage companies, and insurance companies only provide insurance, there would be a damn sight more people working in the United States.

It is far too easy for a company to increase profits by acquiring its competitors than by outperforming them and building a better widget. That should be the role of government oversight, to make the marketplace equal for all businesses.

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Originally Posted by vetteman9368

What company? Got some proof? That sounds like an extreme case, where people were lied to. That does suck. But a company's obligation to its employees is for a reasonable work environment and to pay for work done. That's it and that's all. Take your socialist bullshit to Europe, or 90 miles south to Cuba.

Not at all - Look at the banking industry in the last 5 years. Fleet purchased by Chase, Wachovia by Wells Fargo so on and so on.

Just because Phil made the point, doesn't make it factually inaccurate or an isolated case.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by BuckyThreadkiller

I can agree with this point.

I would wager that holding companies along with mergers and acquisitions have eliminated more jobs in this country than automation and off shore outsourcing.

I'm not a fan of government oversight, but I believe that if banks were required to only be banks, mortgage companies could only be mortgage companies, and insurance companies only provide insurance, there would be a damn sight more people working in the United States.

It is far too easy for a company to increase profits by acquiring its competitors than by outperforming them and building a better widget. That should be the role of government oversight, to make the marketplace equal for all businesses.

[VatorMan]

I've stayed out of this until now. JC, why in the F*CK woul you want the most inefficient people (.gov) to be the charity ? I work for the Gov't so I know first hand how it works.

You start a new department that hires a bunch of managers and submanagers. Then come the workers that need payroll and and HR division. Now you need an IT division to take care of all the new programs that have been bought. Department needs a new building so need a few million for that. By the time the first dollar is placed into someone's hands, .gov has spent 1 billion to do it.

You want to save money ? Flat tax ( reduces IRS) Get rid of Homeland Security Get rid of the Dept. of Education. Put the responsibility of education back in the states hands.

[repo]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

What I have a problem with is the fact that since the 1970's, corporations no longer have any sense of obligation to the employees that work for them.

Did they get paid every week? Do employees have obligation when they call in fake sick, fake injuries, or jump to anther company in a heart beat?