+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 33 to 40 of 40
  1. #33
    StefanM is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by DLer View Post
    So let me see if I follow your reasoning. R&D in the US has not increased to your satisfaction because the Federal Government is not handing out enough incentives. That is your concept of free enterprise? I'll invest in R&D if the Fed incentivises me to do it..... and if they don't I won't invest in R&D? Wow. Really? Wow
    You have to look at it from the perspective of the business. The business will invest in a way that maximizes profit. If incentivized, it will pursue certain tracks to do so. If not, it will find other ways to invest, including in foreign ventures.

    If it takes incentive to keep business in America, I'm all for it. I will not sacrifice the American worker for a Chinese worker on the altar of the free market.


    Again there is nothing to suggest that companies (especially those that are currently hoarding cash) will suddenly open up their purse strings and hire AMERICANS if the corporate tax rate is reduced. Nothing.
    I completely agree. The only way to expect business to invest in America is to have an environment conducive to hiring Americans. Sometimes this can be accomplished with a laissez-faire approach. However, with globalization, simply having businesses expand will not necessarily lead to increased employment, especially when expansion can occur overseas.

    "Awesome! Our tax rate went down. Now, what were we going to do with that plant in India again?"

  2. #34
    friendorfoe is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    The River Styx
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by DLer View Post
    So let me see if I follow your reasoning. R&D in the US has not increased to your satisfaction because the Federal Government is not handing out enough incentives. That is your concept of free enterprise? I'll invest in R&D if the Fed incentivises me to do it..... and if they don't I won't invest in R&D? Wow. Really? Wow




    Again there is nothing to suggest that companies (especially those that are currently hoarding cash) will suddenly open up their purse strings and hire AMERICANS if the corporate tax rate is reduced. Nothing.
    No you misunderstood me, the government should get out of the way of business altogether not incentivize certain kinds of spending and discourage others, especially with domestic R&D. But yes, R&D is not growing domestically. From 1998 to 1999 for example R&D spending was growing at about 7%+. Compared to now which is just over 2%+ for a reduction of 5%. Last time R&D grew so little was from 1985 to 1995 (before the dot com boom). R&D is critical because the US is moving away from manufacturing and commoditized skills and towards knowledge based work and innovation. In fact we have been uncontested leaders in R&D globally for about 50+ years, but now maturing overseas markets are emerging with the sole intention of swinging that strength abroad. Take for example an Indian company who produces a palm sized personal computer, gains the lion's share of the market with IBM like strength and soon we are buying a product that is foreign owned, produced, supported, etc. If we're lucky, we might be able to align investment interests to own portions of the company through open market trading to contribute to our own GDP. If not, well, we as a nation lose and run larger trade deficits. (This is a hypothetical at this point).

    As for corporations hoarding cash...of course they are. Corporations are very organic in their behavior. If there is fear or uncertainty the build liquid capital (like a savings account). If they feel good and optimistic they spend in order to grow (as all organizations that do not grow are thus in decline). This is organizational behavior 101 stuff.

    Sorry forgot to source data: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsn...2/research.cfm
    This space for rent.

  3. #35
    friendorfoe is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    The River Styx
    Posts
    2,095
    Stefan, you’re a good guy and I think your replies are in earnest and not meant to be blindly argumentative so I’ll take some time to reply in total…but in bite sized chunks since I think we’re getting somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by StefanM View Post
    Corporations, no. They would dramatically reduce costs and reap greater profits.
    I just attended a management symposium at a country club (normally I don’t roll like that but this was a rare opportunity) and the theme of the meeting? We cannot cut costs further. Basically picture this, medium and large sized business management bemoaning the fact that their organizational growth has halted. They have returned to their core competencies and cut costs to such an extent that it has begun to have an adverse impact on revenue and/or market share. In other words, they only spend where they know they can reap rewards and they have squeezed so much capacity out of their labor and infrastructure that they cannot “cut cost” anymore. On the economies of scale curve they have reached peak efficiency and cannot produce or grow further without investments in labor and infrastructure. This leaves 2 alternatives, develop domestically or outsource.

    Quote Originally Posted by StefanM View Post

    Workers? Absolutely. If someone else can do the same job more cheaply, then you will either have to take lower wages or miss the opportunity. That's a basic truth of the labor market. In America, you won't find many people willing to do technical, skilled jobs for the salary levels paid overseas.
    Guess what the speaker at the symposium recommended? Outsourcing commoditized skills whenever possible and retain knowledge workers and innovators. In other words in today’s economy we either innovate or become a competency center. The UK are in a similar situation and made significant inroads in replacing Germany as the financial competency center of Europe. This type of specialization in skilled labor complements innovation and works in concert ultimately compounding segment growth.

    This means that American workers need to get out of the production and manufacturing mindset and move towards a skilled labor force. This is why every President since Clinton has harped on the need for more and more higher education opportunity as essential to the economic progress of our nation.

    Quote Originally Posted by StefanM View Post
    Before regulations came along, we had a host of other problems with workplace safety, product safety, etc. I'm fine with taking out excessive regulation, but I really doubt that 50% is an accurate number. I'm sure you were exaggerating.

    Innovation isn't the problem, but let's be realistic: only a small portion of the American workforce is going to innovate. What happens to the rest? Some of them could work for the American company, but what is to stop the company from just hiring foreign workers for lower wages? The owners and the innovators win, but the rest of the population loses.
    Actually I think 50% is a conservative guess. Corporate taxes are 30 to 40% on average, thus baselining costs at that percentage higher in order to return a yield on investment. Add to that the 20 to 30% of consumer taxes (those who purchase the corporations outputs) and 30 to 40% of taxes on earnings made through investments (those who own the corporation or otherwise invest in it) then tack on regulatory fees, legal fees, accounting and taxation services fees, audit fees, fees associated with OSHA, the EPA, etc. and I think we quickly approach the $.50 on the dollar mark for regulatory overhead and taxation .

    By the way “owners” and “innovators” are the majority of the population. If you have a 401K, IRA or other retirement or investment account you are a part owner/investor whether you know it or not. Maybe a better term would be “stakeholder” in that anyone who has a vested financial interest whether employee, consumer, investor, etc. will benefit from the health and wellbeing of a given company. There is no “us vs. them” class warfare stuff going on. There’s just “us”.

    Quote Originally Posted by StefanM View Post
    It's a delicate balance to be sure, but if you look at the Chinese economy, you see what a protectionist policy can do. They are eating our lunch in exports because they artificially devalue their currency. Of course, it's not sustainable, but the alternative of failure is often not sustainable either.
    The Chinese are a conundrum for sure. They do not play by “the rules”. They attempt to shame the US into the Kyoto Accords for example while they themselves are the earths premier polluter. Why? Because they know regulatory overhead puts us at a strategic disadvantage. The Chinese are also no respecter of labor in that they will take 1 million farmers and turn them into miners at the drop of a hat, using force if necessary.

    Lastly the Chinese made massive investments in production assets before there were any manufacturing customers and mitigated risk by confiscating the wealth of the populace to do so. In other words the factory workers were the labor used to produce in the very factory their tax dollars built. It’s a perversion of capitalism and government at work. That said the Chinese birth control policies are also prematurely aging out their economy, meaning they have a narrow window to become consumerist rather than exporter. Personally I think the Chinese model will ultimately fail unless they allow for free market innovation by incentivizing personal, individual wealth. Otherwise they’ll have to satisfy themselves with manufacturing the crap the rest of the world dreams up for them but even then, they will have diminished production capacity without significant reinvestment. If they invest instead in R&D but with no personal incentives…well you can put that together.

    As for devaluing their currency? Yeah we have done plenty of that too. What do you think will be the end game results of all of these stimulus bills? That’s right…inflation or devaluation of our currency. This hurts us in commodities but helps us in manufacturing and globalized trading. It also better enables us to pay down our deficits but makes our capital holdings worth less. It’s a double edged sword.

    Quote Originally Posted by StefanM View Post
    It's not about a government picking winners or losers necessarily but is rather about encouraging investment in the American economy. We can't innovate our way out of this. If anything, innovation in greater technology could actually reduce the number of jobs by replacing workers with technology.

    If the jobs our "job creators" are creating exist in China and India, how does this help average Americans?
    Actually I’m starting to believe that the government is pretty poor at incentivizing anything…but they are terrific at getting in the way. They really need to just move out of the way whenever possible. I know that’s very un-Keynesian of me and both the GOP and Democratic parties would disagree, but that’s the beauty of free thought.


    As for innovating our way out of this, all industry experts, economists and politicians agree on the importance of the US leading innovation. This is true of Forrester, Gartner, the Federal Reserve reports, the White House, etc. Nobody disagrees that it needs to happen, we only disagree on how that needs to happen. Saying technology will “reduce jobs” is wrong in two ways. First it assumes that if we do not adopt innovation or develop new methodologies of building widgets, nobody else will either. If this were true we’d all be Amish. The fact is if we are beat to the punch we are at a massive disadvantage economically. Secondly history has proven that as technology grows so do opportunities for employment. Sure robots may replace assembly line workers but then they open doors for those who design , build, maintain and improve the robots. Imagine for example where we would be today had we turned our backs on the Internet, would we be better off or worse? If we do not innovate the “job creators” really will be in China and that would help Americans in no way that I can see.
    This space for rent.

  4. Advertisement

  5. #36
    StefanM is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by friendorfoe View Post
    Stefan, you’re a good guy and I think your replies are in earnest and not meant to be blindly argumentative so I’ll take some time to reply in total…but in bite sized chunks since I think we’re getting somewhere.
    Thank you for responding in kind. I enjoy discussion.

    I just attended a management symposium at a country club (normally I don’t roll like that but this was a rare opportunity) and the theme of the meeting? We cannot cut costs further. Basically picture this, medium and large sized business management bemoaning the fact that their organizational growth has halted. They have returned to their core competencies and cut costs to such an extent that it has begun to have an adverse impact on revenue and/or market share. In other words, they only spend where they know they can reap rewards and they have squeezed so much capacity out of their labor and infrastructure that they cannot “cut cost” anymore. On the economies of scale curve they have reached peak efficiency and cannot produce or grow further without investments in labor and infrastructure. This leaves 2 alternatives, develop domestically or outsource.
    I agree. My reference to cost cutting is through outsourcing.


    Guess what the speaker at the symposium recommended? Outsourcing commoditized skills whenever possible and retain knowledge workers and innovators. In other words in today’s economy we either innovate or become a competency center. The UK are in a similar situation and made significant inroads in replacing Germany as the financial competency center of Europe. This type of specialization in skilled labor complements innovation and works in concert ultimately compounding segment growth.

    This means that American workers need to get out of the production and manufacturing mindset and move towards a skilled labor force. This is why every President since Clinton has harped on the need for more and more higher education opportunity as essential to the economic progress of our nation.
    I generally agree with this, but I don't think our higher education system is getting it done. I'm seeing large number of individuals getting degrees without learning much of anything.

    Actually I think 50% is a conservative guess. Corporate taxes are 30 to 40% on average, thus baselining costs at that percentage higher in order to return a yield on investment. Add to that the 20 to 30% of consumer taxes (those who purchase the corporations outputs) and 30 to 40% of taxes on earnings made through investments (those who own the corporation or otherwise invest in it) then tack on regulatory fees, legal fees, accounting and taxation services fees, audit fees, fees associated with OSHA, the EPA, etc. and I think we quickly approach the $.50 on the dollar mark for regulatory overhead and taxation.
    Well, the corporate taxes are contigent on profit, so the actual realized percentage on investment is lower, and the actual rate depends on the company's expenses.

    On consumer taxes, I'm not sure it's appropriate to count this as a cost to the company. It's a cost on the consumer, for sure, and if not required, then the consumer would have more to spend, but it is also likely that a good portion of that would be eaten up in no-longer-provided-by-the-government services that consumers would then need to purchase.

    And 30-40% is a bit high on earnings from investments. Capital gains are not taxed that highly.

    I do think that some regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley were well-intentioned but complex. They could be refined; I agree. If I had to guess, we could probably reduce regulation costs by a third if we really wanted to, and we probably should.

    By the way “owners” and “innovators” are the majority of the population. If you have a 401K, IRA or other retirement or investment account you are a part owner/investor whether you know it or not. Maybe a better term would be “stakeholder” in that anyone who has a vested financial interest whether employee, consumer, investor, etc. will benefit from the health and wellbeing of a given company. There is no “us vs. them” class warfare stuff going on. There’s just “us”.
    That's not true. My investments (limited as they are) in my retirement account are entirely and utterly contingent on my employment. If I am not employed, I do not contribute, and I will probably bleed it dry if I am unemployed long.

    When I mentioned "Owners" I meant those who derive their income primarily from capital gains. My owning one share and their owning 50,000 shares is a major difference. Sure, we both benefit when the company benefits, but the other guy REALLY benefits. And if the company laid me off to gain those benefits, I still have a net loss because I lose my income, even if I have a few extra dollars in the retirement account.

    I don't necessarily have a problem with the owner making money off of capital gains, but I don't pretend that we have the same interests in mind. Of course, that also doesn't take into account how some investors are looking for short-term returns, some long-term returns, and some medium-term returns. Even owners of equal amounts of shares don't always agree on the direction of the company.


    The Chinese are a conundrum for sure. They do not play by “the rules”. They attempt to shame the US into the Kyoto Accords for example while they themselves are the earths premier polluter. Why? Because they know regulatory overhead puts us at a strategic disadvantage. The Chinese are also no respecter of labor in that they will take 1 million farmers and turn them into miners at the drop of a hat, using force if necessary.

    Lastly the Chinese made massive investments in production assets before there were any manufacturing customers and mitigated risk by confiscating the wealth of the populace to do so. In other words the factory workers were the labor used to produce in the very factory their tax dollars built. It’s a perversion of capitalism and government at work. That said the Chinese birth control policies are also prematurely aging out their economy, meaning they have a narrow window to become consumerist rather than exporter. Personally I think the Chinese model will ultimately fail unless they allow for free market innovation by incentivizing personal, individual wealth. Otherwise they’ll have to satisfy themselves with manufacturing the crap the rest of the world dreams up for them but even then, they will have diminished production capacity without significant reinvestment. If they invest instead in R&D but with no personal incentives…well you can put that together.
    No objections here. The Chinese are playing dirty by our standards.

    As for devaluing their currency? Yeah we have done plenty of that too. What do you think will be the end game results of all of these stimulus bills? That’s right…inflation or devaluation of our currency. This hurts us in commodities but helps us in manufacturing and globalized trading. It also better enables us to pay down our deficits but makes our capital holdings worth less. It’s a double edged sword.
    True, but the US hasn't done it intentionally to preserve a trade imbalance.


    Actually I’m starting to believe that the government is pretty poor at incentivizing anything…but they are terrific at getting in the way. They really need to just move out of the way whenever possible. I know that’s very un-Keynesian of me and both the GOP and Democratic parties would disagree, but that’s the beauty of free thought.
    As a Keynesian, I actually agree that our government has been historically bad at doing this. Why? Instead of providing the best incentives, the government has provided what is most politically advantageous. These things are not always the same.

    As for innovating our way out of this, all industry experts, economists and politicians agree on the importance of the US leading innovation. This is true of Forrester, Gartner, the Federal Reserve reports, the White House, etc. Nobody disagrees that it needs to happen, we only disagree on how that needs .......(SNIPPED TO SAVE POST SPACE).....the robots. Imagine for example where we would be today had we turned our backs on the Internet, would we be better off or worse? If we do not innovate the “job creators” really will be in China and that would help Americans in no way that I can see.
    I'm by no means a Luddite, but this is a difficult reality of technology. Sure, it creates high-tech jobs, but often not as many of them, and so it's still a net labor loss when this occurs. But we can't resist technology either. I just don't think that innovation will automatically solve our labor problem. It might keep us afloat, though.

    I think the problem we are facing is actually due to the fact that we really don't NEED economically as many jobs are demanded demographically. This problem is only going to get worse as populations increase (especially worldwide). I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I do think we are going to be in for a wild ride over the next few decades. I do worry for my children (and myself, but to a lesser extent).

    In some respects, I think that no matter what we do we are simply slapping some Neosporin and a bandaid on cancer.

    In summation, I have no problem with people getting rich or with corporations cutting costs (or taxes, if it will truly help). I'm just worried about the systemic problems that are starting to raise their ugly heads. In the end, I'm sure the market will find equilibrium, but I'm not sure 90% of us are going to enjoy that equilibrium very much.

  6. #37
    StefanM is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,373
    And, as a side note, I just wanted to thank friendorfoe for civility in discussion. It's so easy to get into namecalling and insulting, but I'm glad that we have been able to discuss things civilly, even when we disagree.

    Thanks!

  7. #38
    Kizmet is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    between the devil and the deep blue sea
    Posts
    15,150
    Part of the problem that I have with this general issue is that often times it seems that corporations simply continue to say that they need "just one more advantage" before they can do the right thing. Then they get that advantage and turn around and say, "If we only had one more favor..." and all the while their executives are making millions of dollars per year. People accepting millions of dollars in bonuses while their companies fail. I suppose that an argument could be made that they are good at their jobs but to me it seems that they're also con men who really have their own personal interests as the top priority and don't care about anyone else.
    Last edited by Kizmet; 12-23-2011 at 09:38 PM.
    American College of Sports Medicine

  8. #39
    DLer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    126
    I suppose that an argument could be made that they are good at their jobs but to me it seems that they're also con men who really have their own personal interests as the top priority and don't care about anyone else.
    At least one billionaire agrees with you and argues that lowering corporate taxes will NOT automatically result in hiring American workers.

    My Views on Corporations & Taxes « blog maverick

  9. #40
    friendorfoe is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    The River Styx
    Posts
    2,095
    Stefan, outsourcing is not necessarily a bad thing but even using this as a cost cutting measure carries inherent risks. The more complex the outsourced work the greater the risk. Software development firms are learning this the hard way and have started to shy from overseas development for complex application builds, it just doesn’t work well. That said I think most U.S. firms have outsourced about as much as they can, future outsourcing in most markets will continue in some industries but as a whole I think we’ve plateau’d. This is what I mean when I said business managers lament the fact that cutting costs further results in prohibitive consequences.

    Also technology may produce fewer jobs in a given industry or market segment but my point was that technology opens up entirely new industries and markets that heretofore were not possible. For example there was no work for Web Design back in 1975 but you could be an auto worker. Technology allowed for the automation of much auto work but also opened up new markets and fields. There is a time to adoption within the workforce however. For example, my company cannot seem to find qualified distributed application java developers to save our lives. We’re even to the point of offering $5,000 bounties. The trouble is the labor pool and in my opinion, higher education are not keeping up with the demands within the markets. People need to view their skills as tools and diversify whenever possible. One should continually “sharpen the axe” or otherwise be learning new skills or expanding upon currently utilized skills, especially if you are a knowledge worker. I am from a blue collar background and I have more blue collar friends and relatives than I can count. I love the blue collar work ethic of “just getting it done” that seems to be missing in many knowledge workers today, that said the blue collar viewpoint on maintaining and developing in demand skills is lacking. We need to get out of what I call the “blue collar” mindset as sooner rather than later the majority of Americans will need to become knowledge workers, especially as we begin to identify competency centers within the U.S. (like Silicone Valley for example).

    We need to realize as voters, employees and consumers that businesses are not monolithic in nature. They do not act uniformly nor do they react to stimulus uniformly. Even still there are certain things that you can count on them doing sooner or later in the interests of self-preservation and that includes hiring to keep up with market demands. Now our politicians are demanding they create new jobs, they are also threatening taxes on “bad” corporations and markets while promising the moon to what they consider “good” corporations and markets and therein lies the biggest problem, government involvement. The government should not play goalie when it comes to natural market occurrences. For example they should not remove risks inherent to low grade mortgages. Secondly public-private partnerships of all types should dissolve with perhaps the exception of the military industrial complex. I say the military industrial complex should remain not because I’m a GOP playbook kind of guy, but because of the secretive nature of their work and because of the high levels of complexity. For example in software development, highly complex projects require extensive and constant customer collaboration. The same can be said for making missiles, warplanes and ships…but even here politicians need to but out and let the generals and private sector work together sans their input.

    Anytime the government tries to pick winners and losers we all lose. The government needs to set a stable tax policy (low or high whatever, just stable) and then butt out. We also need to change our tone in the U.S. away from class warfare rhetoric. Profit is not bad despite the tone of the current administration.

    Lastly Stefan, the capital gains tax rate is in 2 blocks, short term and long term. Short term tax rates are aimed at speculation and are taxed between 30 and 40% generally. Long term capital gains are taxed between 15 and 20% (like 401K earnings) though expect this rate to increase as baby boomers suck SS dry.
    This space for rent.

Similar Threads

  1. Please Explain This Smiley
    By mattbrent in forum Off-Topic Discussions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-20-2012, 08:05 PM
  2. Can someone explain the Capstone to me?
    By LoraJ in forum General Distance Learning Discussions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 02:55 AM
  3. Taxes
    By Khan in forum Off-Topic Discussions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-17-2004, 08:50 AM
  4. Taxes (In Canada)
    By RFValve in forum General Distance Learning Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-02-2003, 12:03 AM
  5. please explain terms
    By geckoz in forum General Distance Learning Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-06-2001, 06:12 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178