"Trickle Up" ~ Major Corporations Losing Money Out the Wazoo

[eridani]

Looks like they forgot that the workers whose pay and benefits they keep slashing are also their customers.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/25/1339064/--Trickle-Up-Major-Corporations-Losing-Money-Out-the-Wazoo

I see this as The Revenge of Trickle Down (a.k.a. Trickle Up). American consumers are not buying their cheap crap and poison, not because there is no demand, but because Americans have no money. The 1% has sucked the well dry.

Amazon

Amazon posted its third quarter earnings results today and they were not pretty: the company said it had a operating loss of $544 million, more than twenty times what was lost for the same period in 2013. Its revenues grew to $20.84 billion, an increase of 20 percent over the same period last year, but less than what investors were expecting. In its projections for next quarter, Amazon said it expects the red ink to keep spreading, with losses growing to $570 million.

Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. WMT +0.17% cut its earnings guidance for the year after it posted its seventh straight quarterly decline in U.S. store traffic and said growth in online sales would slow. It cited sluggish consumer spending and higher costs associated with building new smaller-format stores, increased health-care expenses, and greater investments in its e-commerce operations.

McDonalds

Fast food behemoth McDonald’s is struggling to remain relevant.

It reported a larger-than-expected drop in profits Tuesday morning. Net income for the third quarter fell 30% to $1.07 billion ($1.09 per share) from $1.52 billion ($1.52 per share) a year ago.

Coca Cola

As domestic sales slip and sparkling beverages fail to grow Coca-Cola knows it has a problem and has even come up with a solution. Yet as shares sink lower, investors seem unconvinced the beverage behemoth’s plan is good enough.

The Coca-Cola Company reported $12 billion in third quarter revenue, flat from the same period last year. Combined with sales declines in the first two quarters of the year the company’s year-to-date revenue is down 2%. Net income for the quarter came in at $2.1 billion, down a whopping 14% from last year.

[liberal N proud]

1. Been predicting this moment for years

When the outsourcing started, when the union busting began and when no one was getting a raise while prices continued to climb.

[99Forever]

4. Yessir, it was inevitable.

It's surprising it took so long, actually.

[Warpy]

45. Credit cards and home appreciation kept the game going a full 2 decades longer

than it should have. Now all the bills are coming due and it's either struggle to pay them and forget all spending on consumer toys or go bankrupt and have no money for consumer toys.

They killed the geese that were laying all their golden eggs. Greedy bastards do it every single time if they start buying politicians. We've been here before.

[exboyfil]

46. Retirement savings are also a piggy bank

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/your-money/401ks-and-similar-plans/combating-a-flood-of-early-401-k-withdrawals.html?_r=0

“It’s not a system of retirement accounts,” said Stephen P. Utkus, the director of retirement research at Vanguard. “In effect, they have become dual-purpose systems for retirement and short-term consumption needs.”

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

83. When my brother lost his job and didn't get another for well over a year

He ran through his 401K real fast.

[CanonRay]

85. +1

I was just going to point this out...they're getting the last rotten apple out of the barrel. As Lincoln said, "the bottom is out of the tub"

[LiberalEsto]

102. I like your logo, fellow UU

[CanonRay]

110. Same to you!

[Warpy]

100. Only because the house is under water and the credit cards have been canceled

Now people are using up any retirement investments/savings they have after they turn 55 (in some cases, 45) and look at all those years before they turn 62 and can get early Social Security.

It's terrifying and it's business as usual, older people forced to take marginal jobs away from teenagers just to survive day to day.

This country has become a horror for working people.

[KingCharlemagne]

106. It would be a pretty simple matter to fix it, if the right Democratic leadership made the case for

a Guaranteed Annual Income irrespective of age or employment status to be financed by raising the marginal tax rates on the top 10% of wage earners. (Think of it as making Social Security universal and no longer age-dependent). Of course, this would mean re-knitting the social safety net, anathema to the libertarian and crypto-Puritan crowd in charge right now.

There are various Keynesian arguments why a GAI would be a net positive for the U.S. economy, most of them having to do with ensuring a reliable floor for demand for goods and services. The only negative I can see is that a GAI might unleash some inflationary pressures, certainly nothing to fear right now when there is so much slack in demand in the underlying economy.

[yeoman6987]

11. I don't like seeing this at all!

Pink slips will follow. I know that some think that working at these places must be hell, but not having a job is worse.

[liberal N proud]

47. Which is exactly how we got here in the first place

It is exactly the wrong response, but it is exactly how they will respond.

[rhett o rick]

54. This is the end game of unregulated capitalism. It is an unsustainable system.

If the wealth isn't shared, millions will die. It's time to move away from the pyramid scheme of gross materialism.

Society has an obligation to defend itself from the predator capitalists as much as terrorists.

The idea that a piece of bread is better than starving is the meme from the 0.01% Oligarchs. Of course "It Could Be Worse".

Support a progressive Democratic candidate in 2016.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

76. That's the problem with 'perfect being the enemy of the good' rhetoric.

The two choices we're told are the 'only possible endproducts' are no loaf or one slice, while we keep getting told the 'half loaf' can never win, and that if we try for the 'half loaf', we will wind up with the nothing.

But you can't live through the week on one slice. Half the loaf is not 'the perfect', it's the bare minimum needed for sustaining life.

[canoeist52]

82. Thank you. This is a very important response

as so much bad legislation is sold to us using the 'perfect being the enemy of the good' meme.

This deserves it's own O.P.

[mountain grammy]

104. Years ago, union organizers were beaten, thrown in jail and even murdered

for trying to organize people for better pay and working conditions. Without the courage and commitment of these early union men and women who understood "united we bargain, divided we beg" we would never have had a middle class in America to lose.

Not having a job is a terrible thing, but slave labor is not a job, and full time work that doesn't pay a living wage is slave labor. People have more power than they could ever realize; union!

[KingCharlemagne]

111. With all due respecct, 'full time work that doesn't pay a living wage' is NOT slave labor. If one

wants, one can call it 'wage slavery.' But it is certainly not 'chattel slavery' where the actual workers themselves became commodities to be sold and traded.

[mountain grammy]

112. Good point.

[tblue37]

123. Henry Ford was in most ways a reactionary, but at least he was smart enough to

realize that paying his workers enough money so that they could afford to buy his cars was simply good business.

[liberal N proud]

131. There you go!

[libdem4life]

2. There's not a one up there that we can not live without or that actually make our lives better.

[RiverLover]

120. X2 That's for sure!

[CJCRANE]

3. We need a new concept of "circulate around" economics

or even "Pay It Forward" economics as per Henry Ford's idea of paying his workers a good wage so that they could afford to buy his cars.

(So in a sense it's not a new concept).

[brush]

12. Ford was not the nicest person but . . .

he knew that basic economic fact — people need to make decent money to buy products.

These job exporters like Rmoney have been so busy stuffing their pockets with short-sighted profits from outsourcing they ignored that basic piece of common sense — and they're running companies for God's sake.

[Beartracks]

117. Yes: WEALTH may be a personal goal, but INCOMES drive the economy.

I'm no economist, but that kind of math makes more sense than trickle-down. Wasn't called "voodoo economics" for nothing.

===================

[delete_bush]

86. His doing so workers could afford to buy a car

seems to be for the most part a myth. The prime motivator for Ford was to reduce turnover.

Historians agree that generosity was hardly Ford’s only or even main motive in increasing wages so dramatically. Rather, he was troubled by high rates of absenteeism and turnover at his plant in Highland Park. Daily absenteeism ran at 10% of the workforce and turnover required the company to constantly replenish its workforce with new hires.

The $5 Day changed all that. Daily absenteeism dropped from 10% to under 1%. Replacement hiring dropped from 53,000 in 1913 to just 2,000 by 1915, even though Ford’s workforce had grown substantially by then. And production in many departments soared by 50% or more. Henry Ford himself later called the $5 Day “the greatest cost-cutting move I ever made.”

There were also strings attached to the $5/day.

“The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees’ homes to ensure that they were doing things the “American way.” They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become “Americanized.” Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.

[mountain grammy]

105. Ford did it because it was the right thing to do, for himself..

The fucking Walton family won't even do it for their own bottom line.

[rurallib]

5. no doubt their answer will be to cut worker pay

it's only logical - at least to them.
Meanwhile Costco continues to thrive. I am sure there are more companies that pay decently with benefits that are doing well. Kind of refreshing to see Mcd's and Walmart et al. get back what they dish out.

[cstanleytech]

22. Dont forget Publix and Whole Foods. Both of them treat their employees better and pay

them decently as well.
Not as high a pay as it should be when adjusted for inflation true but its a damn sight better than Walmart or Mcdonalds do.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

25. Publix also has a generous profit sharing/retirement plan.

A lot of people, even below store manager position have retired with 7 figures from it.

[cstanleytech]

35. Yup my brother just got hired on as a part timer with publix after his last employer

(Bi-LO) fired him and a bunch of other fulltimers to hire cheaper part timers who they cap at 24 hours a week.
Hopefully Publix will work out for him in the end but what hurt the most is the 3 dollar an hour pay cut he had to take even though he has decades of experience as an assistant department manager with Bi-Lo.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

37. It will be worth it in the long run.

They promote from within and dependable/capable workers can advance in a reasonable amount of time. GL to him.

[Voice for Peace]

59. whatever else may be wrong with Whole Foods

I have always been impressed by their customer service
and what seems to be satisfied employees. You don't
usually get that quality unless employees are well paid

[Arugula Latte]

65. WinCo is a good company, too.

It is only in the western USA so far, though.

Their grocery prices are GREAT, and they treat their employees well.

[cstanleytech]

73. Nice to here that. Here in the south or atleast in the area I am currently residing in

the grocery stores for the most part like Food Lion, Walmart, Bi-Lo and even the IGAs are going into the toilet because they treat their employees so badly and dont get me started on Krogers, you would think a large chain like they would run cleaner stores but I have been in barns that looked and smelled cleaner.
Only decent chains atm are Publix and Whole Foods.

Edit: Well there is one worse store than Krogers actually its the IGA down in Wrens Ga, I'm still at a loss on why the health department hasnt closed them.

[Fawke Em]

81. Must be your regional management

The Kroger's where I live are clean and unionized.

[cstanleytech]

108. Could very well be. Heck one of them is in a pretty affluent neighborhood

and ever time I have been in there it smells of either mold and or mildew and it looks pretty run down.

[Control-Z]

119. What is IGA?

I've never heard of it, that I know of.

[Hestia]

128. It used to be a co-op, like Affiliated Foods who went under. At least it was co-op.

[cstanleytech]

130. Small grocery chain kinda run like a franchise in a way. nt

[yeoman6987]

107. I love Publix

But they are incredibly expensive. I go about once a week and thank goodness I can afford it. Most cannot.

[cstanleytech]

109. Ya my mother when she was alive loved shopping there as they treated her well

but once we moved to our new place here it was to far to drive her to take her shopping as often as she would have wanted to go sadly.

[JDPriestly]

44. Trader Joe's. Love to shop there.

[belzabubba333]

63. doesnt the fact that costco thrives kindof ruin the doom and gloom reasoning seen here

[riqster]

93. Nope. It validates it.

Econ 101.

[belzabubba333]

97. well i didnt take e101 but as i understand this post people are out of cash so

they cant shop at walmart but costco is thriving because they CAN shop there? surely youre not suggesting that costco is thriving solely on their employees?

[riqster]

98. Nope. Costco does not cater to the same market as WalMart.

The lower you are on the ladder, the more severely you are impacted. Those who are thus impacted must shop at retailers who cater to them.

People who are higher on the ladder can afford to shop elsewhere, because they have not taken as big of a hit as yet.

[belzabubba333]

101. i see what youre saying

[BlueJazz]

6. I think every DUer on this forum has said/thought/post at one time:..

"Without wages going up, sometime in the near future, the corporation's profits will go down because of a 2nd grade question...who is going to buy the products"

[ProfessorGAC]

136. Geez, Henry Ford Said It In the 1920's, or Earlier

The other industrialists thought he was insane to pay his workers so much, but his logic was that he wanted his workers to be able to buy the cars they built.

How nobody listens to this advice anymore is baffling.

[brewens]

7. I'm okay but things are tight because I'm helping keep my girlfriends business going.

She makes money but just not quite enough. Consequently, I've cut back here and there. I'd guesstimate that I would have spent about $500 bucks the last three months on clothes and other stuff but am holding back to see how things shake out.

[a kennedy]

50. My husband and I are both on fixed incomes, Social Security with a tiny pension.....and we KEEP

cutting here and there just to keep pace with what little SS increases we receive. I think they projected less then 20.00 again for the SS increase next year. Oh yah, we keep cutting back.

[freebrew]

57. $22, I think they said...

meanwhile health insurance went up $35 and the deductible tripled. What good is it, really?

[SheilaT]

67. Your Medicare Part B payment is not going up.

If you have health insurance outside Medicare it may go up. My Advantage Plan is not.

[freebrew]

132. Insurance through my wife's job...

not really insurance, though, they just collect money. I'm not yet 65, so no medicare.
The ACA has a 'nice' little exclusion for profiteers that work the system. They can charge as much as they want as long as they provide 'coverage' to their employees.
As I said: our monthly charge went up $35 and the deductible tripled. Not much help. Due for a stress test but the bill would be more than I make in 2 months. Let's see, go to the doctor or pay the mortgage? Nice choices we have, eh?

[SheilaT]

133. Sorry. I interpreted what you said as referring to Medicare.

When you say what you have through your wife's job is not really insurance, what do you mean? I don't really expect you to answer in detail, but there is some sort of basic coverage that must be provided, or you are free to go out on the open market. I don't honestly know a lot of details here, as I haven't had to do so, but back when the ACA was coming, I went on-line to see what I'd pay if I hadn't already had good coverage through my then job, and was quite pleasantly surprised at what was available to me here in New Mexico. And no, I wasn't eligible for Medicaid, although this is a state that expanded Medicaid.

I know a lot of basic care is required to be covered under the ACA, and that's going to apply to insurance through your company. In your case would the stress test be basic care? I honestly have no idea here. But you might want to see if you can get outside coverage through the ACA more cheaply. Just because your wife's company provides family coverage, often that coverage is remarkably expensive, and I don't believe you are required to take it, especially if you can do better elsewhere. I also did a quick google search about the cost of stress tests, and apparently there are lots of different ones out there, and the range of costs is huge, so you might want to see if a less expensive one could be helpful.

Hope something good can happen for you.

[freebrew]

134. No problem, just my soapbox...

our 'insurance' is a self-funded equity account. In other words, the school system(spouse's employer) collects the money and a hired benefits administrator shells out the dough. But recent events have put the account in the hole, or so we're being told. When I lost my job we had to go to her employer for insurance.

The initial payment was 350/month, now in the last 2 years is 415. Deductible was 500 now at 1500, same for presrips, no more 3 month deals, everything is 30 days even BP meds.
As for the market, if we had access to the supplements would be great. Since the employer offers coverage, no supplement. So the insurance would be out of our reach. Missouri has not accepted the Medicaid expansion due to too many idiots here voting against their best interests.

Thanks, we're working on stuff every day. This state is in trouble and there doesn't seem to be much help coming from the party. No one is running as a Dem here.

[SheilaT]

137. I will blithely say you should move, although I understand completely

that moving is not an option for very many people. So I am actually being ironic, rather than offering a serious suggestion.

Are you sure that as a spouse you are obligated to take the coverage through your wife? I'm single (divorced) so that's not something I have to bother with, but I thought there was an option there. Too bad you can't just hibernate until Medicare kicks in. That's my coverage now, with an Advantage plan that is wonderful. The two meds I take I get a three month supply and no copay, although it was only 4 bucks a month before. Why we need Medicare for all.

Again, sincere wishes that you can figure things out.

[freebrew]

138. As for moving...

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 07:45 PM - Edit history (2)

I've lived in several states throughout my life. Keep coming back here. No where else I've been has the countryside like this(I live in the Ozarks). Cost of living makes it almost possible to live here on what SS pays.

There are many sacrifices, though, and we're evaluating the situation. Problem here is too many outside influences in state government. The speaker of the house is Canadian, I guess they threw him out. There seems to be an influx of TPers from Illinois moving here as this used to be a Dem state years ago. So, we ARE considering at least moving to St Louis area, but that has its own unique problems and state government HATES St Louis.

I haven't checked into Medicare yet, but no supplement as long as coverage is available through her work, yes, me too.

I have a nice Passat wagon for sale, just kidding.

Thanks.

[SheilaT]

66. It's a 1.7% increase,

so just how much more you get will depend on how much you're getting now.

[CANDO]

80. And...

Isn't it tied to inflation or CPI? SS is a retirement augment system. It was never meant to be someone's only retirement source. For those who only have SS, I feel for them, but they should understand it's not meant to be lavish or a complete replacement for what someone earned during their working years.

[aquart]

87. Time to face reality. For most, it IS the sole old age income.

Kindly recall we were also faithfully promised our Social Security numbers would never be used as general ID. Usage causes evolution.

[SheilaT]

113. It is tied to inflation, which has been quite low

in recent years, although the way it's calculated doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of how seniors spend their money.

As you've noted, it was never intended to be the only income in retirement, but in the past generation or so, the ability to save for retirement has diminished. People here will often read a statement like that and then scream loudly about how it is impossible to save anything at all, but it's truly a matter of priorities. You can always find someone who is living on a few thousand dollars a year less than you are, maybe even many thousands of dollars less. I see people driving SUV's that they honestly don't need to drive, then complain about the cost of gas, or the cost of replacing it. Even the daily Starbucks really does add up.

I know, saving two or three thousand dollars a year for twenty years probably won't make you a millionaire, but it will give you a cushion you won't have if you save nothing.

[Dirty Socialist]

8. Dem Politicians should HAMMER This Home

It's good paying JOBS, stupid! Hammer this point home at every turn! Get it into the media!

[CJCRANE]

9. I also think that reducing government expenditure is part of the problem.

That spare cash that was going round the system is no longer there, so there's a reduction in demand.

[brush]

16. Correct.

One of the main repug talking points has always been cut, cut, cut.

Neoliberalism/austerity doesn't work, especially when you couple it with job off-shoring and low paying service jobs here.

[calimary]

29. It's not just simplistically cutting. Those cuts usually mean people's jobs.

It's people's JOBS that are being cut, which means they can't go buy stuff for their homes and families. And they can't pay taxes back into the system so the water table drops yet again. It's usually about laying people off, defunding departments, making sure they're so hobbled that they can't possibly do a fully decent job. And then it's easy to point at them and say - "see? Government doesn't work! I told you so. Cut it back some more!" Ebola vaccine anyone?

Penny-wise/Pound-FOOLISH! THANK YOU ronald reagan.

[csziggy]

40. The other part is that cutting jobs in service oriented businesses is stupid

People get fed up with no being able to get decent service. Where my husband works, they have cut the number of employees to the bone. often on weekends, there is only one person in the store - a store with at least five cash registers, two major service areas, a self service area that needs to be checked regularly and where customers rely on getting assistance, and a counter to place future orders.

I've stopped by when my husband was the only person working in the store and there were nine or ten customers lined up at two different areas needing assistance. He didn't even have time to look up and acknowledge that the lines were long or to evaluate who had been waiting longer so he could switch from one area to the other to service all the customers. I've seen people just give up and leave - and I'm pretty sure they will not return to that business to try again.

This is STUPID when your business is service based. There should always be at least two people on duty in that store at all times, given it's size and volume of business.

Where he works is not the only place I've seen this lack of intelligent management. I've walked out of places of business when I could not get service or find what I needed and there was no one to ask.

Corporate executives blame the loss of business on their underpaid overworked understaffed employees, not on their own bad decisions.

[calimary]

43. That's a HUGE contribution to what ails the economy now.

Sinfully-shortsighted management. CRIMINALLY shortsighted, almost. They're so busy trying to do everything on the cheap for their own cheapskate benefit that they can't see what might benefit their customer base, instead. Which, ironically, is a fabulous way to put more money in their pockets. You'd think they'd understand that. I know of many local businesses that might charge exorbitant prices, but the service is just beyond compare. Yeah you pay more but they treat you like family, like visiting royalty, like they're seriously delighted to see you come through the door and want to make you feel welcome. It puts more money in their pockets. Shit. Customer loyalty is EVERYTHING. A MAJOR key to business success. You skimp on customer service and the customers start skimping on YOU.

Sadly, my old industry, radio, is witnessing that now. They gluttonized themselves after fucking ronnie reagan and friends started deregulating broadcasting in the late 80s, and overbought stations to build big empires and drive out the little guy. And now they're loaded with crushing debt they can't pay back. So they're all too busy "saving money" by cutting, cutting, cutting. Forcing what's left of the workforce work harder for less. And the listeners can TELL. When stations all over the place are piping in the same damn Ryan Seacrest-type syndicated programming from New York or someplace corporate because it's cheaper than hiring (or keeping) local talent to go live and local and serve the community and connect with the listeners. And the listeners are voting with their feet. RUINING the industry I used to work in and be so proud of.

[csziggy]

64. Customer service with a smile is all I ask!

But when the employees are so overloaded, they don't have the energy to smile.

My husband had planned to work until he was 65 and then retire. Last year he told me he does not want to work another holiday season, it's gotten so bad. Today and tomorrow I'll be going through the info to see about getting health insurance through the ACA. Once we know how that will work, he'll turn in his resignation. He has about one week of sick leave, and two of vacation time. I want him to call in sick for a week, then turn in his resignation with two weeks notice and take his vacation time for those two weeks.

Why should he train his replacement?! In fact, one of the reasons the situation is so bad is that even when employees give plenty of notice, corporate won't let the manager even look for a replacement until the old employee is gone. Then it takes a month to advertise, interview, and get clearance from corporate to hire the new person. After all of that, more than one new employee has turned down the job when they find out that the erratic scheduling does not let them reliably take classes (a lot of their best prospects are university students) or work another job. So then it's another MONTH before another new face shows up - or not - and my husband is usually the one training them. On the job when there is not enough time to do the basics, much less any extras.

No wonder my husband wants out. And I want him to have the energy to smile again. We'll take a hit financially but I don't care. He was mostly working so we could have insurance. Now we will be able to get it with a subsidy so the main reason he was working is gone.

Radio - yeah most stations aren't worth listening to. Remember the WKRP episode where Venus was offered a job at a different station and the whole thing was computerized? That was prescient!

[calimary]

88. I am so amazed at what customer service people have to deal with.

It falls back on the customer, too, being rude, thoughtless, unsympathetic. These poor folks who are running their legs ragged trying to serve the customer base - especially when they're now doing the job of three or four people because their cheapskate management saw fit to make staffing cuts - means NO ONE is well-served. And people like your husband (and my daughter, too) want to run for cover, even if means they take a financial hit. My daughter wants to bail out before the Christmas rush starts, too, and she's already given notice. I don't blame her. It's not like the staff is gonna get much extra pay for that extra workload. Heck, in some cases, seems like they deserve combat pay.

[csziggy]

90. Customer service people get all kinds of crap

Sometimes they might deserve it, most times not. I know I couldn't do what my husband does - I wouldn't last one day. I just can't deal with arrogance and stupidity. On the other hand, my husband is very capable of dealing with stupidity - and he HAS to handle arrogance or he wouldn't have stayed with me! What bugs me is that they give the workers a hard time about overtime. The only times he works overtime is when they ask him to or when he can't un-engage from customers at his clock out time.

Last night he was alone and was supposed to close the store at 9 PM. At quarter to 9 a woman came in and wanted a job done that would take at least 40 minutes, then a couple came in to use the photo kiosk and was printing pictures right up to the point he had to ask them to leave. He turned down the 40 minute job and asked the woman to return this morning - but she needed the job delivered first thing this morning. I suspect she went and found a shop open 24 hours and had them do it! With customers in the store until 9 he couldn't clock out until after 9:30 because he had to close down the registers and set things up for this morning. When he goes back to work on Wednesday, his manager will probably complain to him - and if the woman he turned down called corporate to complain, there's a black mark on his record.

SOOOOO - today we sat down for a few hours and looked at the HealthCare.gov site - got an account set up so we're ready to apply when we make the decision as to what date he'll retire. He has to log on to the HR site from work and find out what happens with his vacation and sick leave - he might get cashed out for those hours, which would be nice.

We did go ahead and do the enrollment for the insurance through his job for 2015 - partly because I wanted to compare prices and coverage. What's interesting is that the vision and dental are NOT a deal through his job. We can get the same coverage for about the same price, maybe lower privately, which is a relief. I've gotten used to not having to pay out of pocket for glasses and preventative dental care and it makes it easier to keep up with those. In addition, his work vision coverage had changed to a policy that does not cover the provider we'd been using and we can go back to VSP and the eye doctors we like.

See - Obama was right - the ACA lets you keep the doctors you like (even if your employer provided insurance won't let you do that)!

[Drahthaardogs]

10. They killed the goose. No more golden eggs.

Henry Ford knew that it was good for business if your employees can afford
your product.

[Cirque du So-What]

13. The world economy reflects this too

At the moment, the US economy is merely the best-looking horse in the glue factory.

[Rod Beauvex]

34. *clap clap clap*

That is one of the best posts I've seen here in awhile.

[RiverLover]

121. Seriously!!

[marym625]

14. Unfortunately

To get the red ink out, they'll do something more to hurt employees and the American people. Walmart is already making employees purchase their uniforms. From Walmart if course

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

15. Amazon: Its revenues grew to $20.84 billion...

Its revenues grew to $20.84 billion, an increase of 20 percent over the same period last year, but less than what investors were expecting.


I there an accountant in the house? I'd like to celebrate their $21 billion, or 20%!!!, increase in revenue as something terrible for the company.

[Gore1FL]

19. Amazon's biggest issue is that they keep investing in bizarre things

They are losing because they are spending so much on pipe-dreams, drones being the most memorable.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

24. OK, that makes sense. With respect to Amazon, then, Daily Kos got it wrong.

I stopped reading after that.

[KeepItReal]

26. Yeah. Plus Amazon's CEO ain't chasing dollars for the sake of it.

A loss is never good news for investors, even investors as sanguine as Amazon's. Without naming the source or author, Bezos quotes Matthew Yglesias' admiring characterization of Amazon as a "charitable organization being run by elements of the investment community for the benefit of consumers."

Bezos doesn't grant the premise, arguing that "long-term thinking squares the circle. Proactively delighting customers earns trust, which earns more business from those customers, even in new business arenas. Take a long-term view, and the interests of customers and shareholders align." Bezos needs to assure investors that he's playing a longer game here, one where money spent on infrastructure and customer loyalty now cements Amazon's position as the universal retailer of first resort for the foreseeable future, a license to print money next year and beyond.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/12/4217794/jeff-bezos-letter-amazon-investors-2012

[KurtNYC]

51. Amazon is trying to find a growth area. They are sinking money into grocery delivery

Their "Fire Phone" was a pricey flop.

They spent $14 bil on warehouses:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-20/amazon-ramps-up-13-9-billion-warehouse-building-spree.html

[awoke_in_2003]

17. when you have a service based economy...

and people can't afford to buy crap, then it is only a matter of time before this happens

[Algernon Moncrieff]

18. To be clear: Except for Amazon, the other three ARE profitable

..they simply are making less money than they were.

All three are trading in a range of 15-23 times earnings. All three are paying dividends better than what you can get in a bank (2.5% for WalMart; just under 3% for Coke, 3.7% for McD's).

Of the three,McDonalds is probably the most fixable. They simply need to stop apologizing for who they are, and stop trying to please everyone. They make burgers, shakes, & fries -- they need to stop messing around with wraps, salads, and pork sandwiches. Look at Five Guys: peanut oil fries, burgers, hot dogs -- that's pretty much it. Also, McDonalds has some weal franchisees right now who are keeping their stores in awful condition. Corporate needs to ride these folks hard to clean up or get out.

Coca Cola has issues because diet soda has become the new cigarettes: it's something a lot of people are giving up. That said, lot's of people still drink Coke and Diet Coke, and I wouldn't look for it to go bust anytime soon.

WalMart still has the advantage of paying cash for most things and making that translate to lower prices. Having said that, I see them has having the worst long term prognosis, as I see them making many of the same mistakes stores like Zayre and K-Mart made. The 24-hour stores are convenient, but often look permanently disheveled. The workers often seem like miserable, minimum wage workers. Contrast that with Target; their workers aren't making that much more, but they get better benefits, and generally seem a lot happier. Target stores just look nicer; ant the clothing is stuff more people would be caught dead wearing. Archer Farms (Target's in-house brand) has products that are generally of higher quality, and in more attractive packaging than the Great Value & Equate brands. Bottom line -- unattractive store with grumpy/unhelpful workers isn't a place I want to shop unless I have to. Yes -- if I need OTC meds at 3 AM, I might go there as opposed to getting gouged by Walgreens or HyVee; then again, I might not.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

36. And with sales up $21 billion in Q32014 over Q42013 (up 20%)

Amazon isn't hurting because people have no money to spend.

This article is stupid.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

62. The thing with Amazon is that it makes tons of revenue, but seems to end up losing money

When it's made profit, it's made very little on a percentage basis, but it's made it on such an astronomical revenue base that it ends up being a pile of cash.

I think the article is a great example of what's wrong with the business culture -- consistently profitable companies get ripped for not making enough money. No that's not to say that an existing business model shouldn't be criticized, and that these businesses could not improve. That said, 3 of the 4 are solid investment options.

[jtuck004]

41. Uh, Mcdonalds

"The McDonald's Corporation is the world's largest chain of hamburger fast food restaurants, serving around 68 million customers daily in 119 countries across 35,000 outlets"

vs 1000 burger stores with 5 guys.



You are probably right on Coke - the country is still addicted to sugar. We get rid of those taxpayer subsidies and market manipulation for sugar (Which ought to be gone now) and watch the price go through the roof, and things might change.

Btw - Walmart doesn't buy and pay cash for many of the things they sell. Much of what they sell belongs to the distributor until it goes across the cash register.
Which further lowers cost.

Just notes.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

60. Growing business vs. stagnant business

That's the point I was trying to make. Chipotle (a one-time McD's holding) -- similar model. They do like 5 things, but they do them very well.

Good point about WalMart -- actually, that aspect is true (and largely unknown to many) for many retailers.

[Initech]

20. Trickle down has failed us. And I hope our corporate overlords realize this.

But they're too stubborn, stuck up, and self centered to realize this.

[closeupready]

33. It's a game of chicken - someone like Walmart will have to blink,

to go all Henry Ford on their 'equals' before people start getting REAL raises.

[Initech]

39. The sad thing is their extreme greed and wealth addiction is sinking us into a new great depression.

And unlike the last great depression, this one may be harder for us to get out of. The Fortune 400 have way too much power and influence over the poor and increasingly poor middle class.

[smirkymonkey]

125. It is all about greed. In my company, even though we are profitable

we have to become even MORE profitable than we were last year. If we aren't then people get let go. So they are still making money, just not ENOUGH! And real people suffer by losing their jobs because of it. It's a sick system.

[Xolodno]

77. Don't think anyone is going to blink...

....if they do, their stock tanks. Instead, they will quietly demand through their lobbyist for Congress to increase the minimum wage and hit them with taxes. That way they are all on equal footing and can continue fighting for the dollars they just lost.

[closeupready]

79. Actually, that would be a very clever way of manipulating public opinion

to your favor - give your paid Congressperson the opportunity to look like "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" (muckraker and renegade 'freedom fighter', ), complain loudly and publicly about a higher minimum wage (with a wink/nod to Mr. Smith), and get further concessions for playing the bad guy.

Sorry to be so cynical but if you'd told me 25 years ago that campaign finance practices which are considered bribery in the entire world outside the US would be legal 25 years hence, I would not have believed you.

[Enthusiast]

49. That's the thing about corporate overlords. They have no sense of empathy.

[Initech]

89. I completely agree with this!

[cstanleytech]

21. Well Doh. Most of these companies only have themselves to blame for this.

Profits will keep going down because the employees dont have the money to spend and are forced to make cuts in what they buy because the companies are shorting them on hours and paying them a pay that really should be far higher when adjusted for inflation plus it has a negative impact on employee morale and thus productivity suffers.
If retailers like Walmart want to see things turn around they are going to have to treat their employees with common decency and give them better pay and hours so they will be more productive.

[Wellstone ruled]

23. Amazon will be around for a bit longer.

Got to remember,Amazon stock is in many of the so called tech ETF's. And as we found out a couple of weeks ago,things with these ETF's aren't doing to well. You can hide financial engineering just so long and then bam,the sell off will come. Don't expect any pressure to come to bear on these blood sucker employers in the near future. The change agent will be if the Dems loose control of the Senate then we head into a big time recession caused by hyper supply side moves by the Rethugs. Our Seniors will take the brunt of this and they tend to vote against there best interest. Whom ever heads the Dem ticket in 2016 will take out the whole Rethug party in one of the biggest landslide since FDR. This is the last stand for the Rethugs and they know it deep down in their little black hearts.

[ReRe]

27. K&R for EXPOSURE

I predicted this back in 1992-93 when they had the big ceremony with all the living Presidents in D.C. When they signed NAFTA and CAFTA, and every year thereafter when the factories shut down and all the jobs disappeared. Common sense. If they get rid of all the jobs, the people won't have the money to buy anything. Duh!

And now, we have austerity, higher food prices.

Cry us a river,
Cry us a river,
We cried a river over you!

[aggiesal]

28. The problem I see is that ...

Corporations don't give a damn about the US economy as long as they have China.

China's middle class exceeds the total US population.
That's right; there are more people in the middle class in China than the US population
of 350 Million.

That's 350+ Million with the money to buy their cheap chinese made junk.
Oh wait, that's home made stuff to them.

[kelliekat44]

30. Think maybe a living wage might be in order?

Low income families spend their limited cash on mortgage/rent, food, medicine, transportation. All the main products these companies sell are items low income families buy when they have cash to spend. McDonald's prices and they shitty food costs too much for large families. The last time I was in McDonalds to buy coffee the only people i saw in there were retired seniors and some truckers.

[The Wizard]

31. The Wall Street (Wal-Mart) model

is focused on the next quarter's bottom line. Upper and middle management bonuses are based on quarterly bottom line profits. There is no long term strategy, thus there is long term failure. People don't plan to fail, they fail to plan.

[moondust]

32. Maybe they need to grab some of those billions in cash

they have parked offshore to avoid paying taxes and use it to buy a whole lot of hamburgers and Cokes and Kindles and other stuff they already have wayyyyy too many of?

Extreme concentration of wealth makes absolutely no sense in an economy trying to survive on consumerism. But that's what corporations and stock markets have delivered.




K/R




Not Buy Anything

[blkmusclmachine]

42. With the promised repeal of Federal Minimum Wage Laws, the GOP will push Americans into fighting one

another for jobs that pay 50 cents per hour with no benefits and no rights and no safety. If you're not the 1%, the GOP wants you DEAD. The sooner, the better...

[Enthusiast]

48. These corporations bought into their own propaganda.

My guess is that every CEO of these corporations believes in adopting austerity measures for the American people. Mostly they believe in raising the retirement age, cutting social security and medicare benefits.

[KurtNYC]

52. the best run companies in the US are privately held

Wall Street is too focused on quarterly numbers to do some of the right things longterm. Wall Street is a shell game where failing stocks get kicked off the DOW so that the number can keep going up.

For Amazon, their numbers mean they have spent more than the $21 bil they took in. Which is good for the economy in general. For example they spent $14 bil on warehouses recently and they are spending heavily to get into the grocery delivery business. That's hiring and construction and investment in communities. Wall Street will punish that because Wall Street is very risk-averse; it just wants to get paid every 90 days meanwhile Amazon is spending like FDR during the New Deal.

As for the junk food businesses, soda sales have been in decline for 8 years. Many theorize that the tight economy and the focus on cooking at home has led to:
- less restaurant revenue
- better value per food dollar
- healthier eating

The standard of living in the US peaked in 1968 (1972 for the UK) and it will continue to decline for the rest of our lives. The trend could only be helped by bringing health care costs in line with what other high income countries pay. The number one reason for bankruptcies is healthcare costs. Detroit moved most of their operation across the borders to Canada (and Mexico) to escape the rising cost of healthcare here (but they still taut their cars as "Imported From Detroit&quot . Some economists predict that once healthcare goes above 20% of GDP the economy of the US will tank harder than it is now because that kind of expense in the USA makes other countries much more attractive for major employers.

[dembotoz]

55. i boycott a number of these privately held companies

[djean111]

53. Like my signature line says - austerity will be inflicted until it trickles up.

The "profits" thing is skeevy - slashing to meet quarterly demands from Wall Street assholes.
Plus - a lot of losses are really "not as much profit as hoped/wanted/demanded."

I used to laugh when telephone companies said they lost money to phone hackers. No, their business model used a profit-per-call basis. A phone hacker could only make them actually lose money if they tied up all the lines so that no paying customers could make a phone call.

Something I noticed too - when the recession first hit, pizza chains did not lower their prices, but it seemed pizzas got more expensive in order to make up for lost volume. Took some a while to realize that all some people can afford now is that $5 hot'n'ready pizza. Or that dollar menu. Not the "starting at a dollar" menu.
I started buying some things at Dollar Tree because I am living on my social security. Now Dollar Tree is my preferred place to shop for some things, and paying more at a different store for the same type of thing just seems stupid. And Walmart has gotten more expensive than Publix. That is not gonna work out for them, methinks.

Now I am afraid we will be bailing out too big to fail corporations, not just fucking banks. With no conditions, like hiring more people.

[KansDem]

56. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of "persons." (nt)

[Orsino]

58. Blame the stock market and predatory executives.

When the economy was strong, any company could squeeze out a few dollars in dividends or bonuses by trimming staff. They figured, quite rightly, that other companies would pay salaries to their customers, and so they proceeded to lay off each other's customers for decades.

Now they act surprised that they have to scramble for customers. They forgot the first duty of corpirations: to employ ad many people ad they can.

[librechik]

61. My husband's company is trying to improve production figures by letting people go

therefore, each remaining worker is automatically more productive. Apparently they're pulling off this magic act due to a current audit. The workers can hire back on later. I still don't get it.

Hubby works for the biggest bakery franchise in the world. We figured that in an economic crisis, his job would be safe, because everybody still needs bread. Fingers crossed!

[CrispyQ]

70. Love your avatar!!

It would make a colorful change to our state flag.

[L0oniX]

68. Trickle down economics ---> my tears for them are trickling down right now.

[CrispyQ]

69. This is what happens when you extend your society credit instead of living wages.

Eventually the credit runs out.

[City Lights]

71. Boo fucking hoo.

These fuckers reap what they've sown.

[workinclasszero]

72. Great Depression 2 is well on the way

The greed which drives capitalism is suicidal in the end if there is no restraint on the greed monsters.

This is well known and why those restraints were put on after the first great depression. The minute they were taken away everything that followed was inevitable.

When the CEO's have stripped the last dime out of the pockets of the 99% then they can sell their over priced garbage to the Chinese workers who made it for 50 cents an hour....

Oh wait....

See you in the food riots folks.

[Brigid]

92. I have heard it said . . .

That any society is about ten meals away from anarchy. See you at the food riots indeed.

[workinclasszero]

126. And I'm sure the militarization of our police forces

has nothing to do with whats coming.

Uh huh, yeah.

[Kablooie]

74. Should we invest in 99¢ stores and Dollartree?

Or maybe Goodwill and Salvation Army stores?

[Takket]

75. hmmmmmmmmm maybe we should cut the minimum wage! that will help them keep more money! lol

[Jack Rabbit]

78. This, my fellow evil DUers, is how to fight back against corporate fascism

Whatever they're selling, don't buy it.

Meanwhile, we can always fight corporate tyranny the way people in Communist countries fought bureaucratic tyranny: We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.

We should do this with a vengeance. After all, it's only our survival that's a t stake.

[adieu]

84. This is why corporations should love to be taxed highly

Two main reasons, both related.

One, if the corporate tax rate is high, the corporation would try to lower the amount paid by reducing its pre-tax net profits. One easy way is to get rid of that profit in the way of salaries and wages. It would induce companies to pay their employees more, which makes them more loyal and better workers and keep down the tax paid out.

Second, if they chose to pay the tax, that revenue to the government goes in and flows through the government's many projects and works and that helps improve infrastructure and other things. Those help companies move their products more efficiently, give more money to more people and they will spend them on these companies' products.

It requires taxation because taxation is across the board. People can't shirk it. If it were volunteered, no one company would be the first, because the others won't follow. Taxation forces everyone to follow.

It's like eminent domain. Without eminent domain, the last private property that has to be purchased to get a new real property project started would cost an astronomical price because that property owner knows he got the buyer by the balls. But with eminent domain, every property owner being bought out will be given fair market price and no more.

[DeSwiss]

91. Don't worry!

They'll get bailed out by..... by our great-great-great-great-grandchildren!

- I hope I added enough greats?!?!

K&R


[center][/center]

[ellie]

94. Too bad, so sad

What the hell did they think was going to happen? That's right, they didn't think.

[movonne]

95. The repugs are taking this country down..low wages, no jobs...and they are doing

it for a reason....

[adirondacker]

96. There are a significant number of companies who are prospering on Corporate Welfare...

This video explains quite a bit....

[colsohlibgal]

99. This Was So Predictable

As has been already pointed out, even an old Nazi Sympathizer like Henry Ford got that indeed, a rising tide lifts all boats.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

103. Ever since Bezos bought The Washongton Post with cash

and we learned more about their treatment of their employees, we cut way back on our orders. Wonder how many others reacted the same way. . .

[livingonearth]

114. The 99% are shrugging.

The Ayn Rand losers have always had it backwards.

[Brigid]

115. The story is told . . .

Of an exchange between UAW president Walter Rutherford and some First bigwig (reputedly Henry Ford II). They were touring Ford plant, and the bigwig proudly showed Ruther the new robots on the plant floor.

" Who will be paying union dues now?" the bigwig asked.

To which Ruther retorted that robots don't buy cars.

[PatrickforO]

116. The true point of this article is between the lines.

Wall Street has run the show for far too long. The pendulum has swung away from worker interests toward shareholders the minute Ronald Reagan entered the White House like a plague bacillus.

The truth is the imbalance.

Profit should NOT be as high as it is. Executive salaries, particularly those of CEOs, have NO business being as high as they are.

The plain fact is that unless the interests of labor are held EQUAL with the interests of shareholders, then our economy stays a house of cards like it is now.

And, yeah I know. Capitalism sucks. No doubt about that. We need some strong government in there creating and enforcing regulation. Let me read you a quote from a soldier who served in the 101st Airborne during WWII. He landed in Normandy, marched through France, Belgium and then into Germany. He also voted the first time in November 1944, when he was 22. Here's what he had to say:

"I had to walk almost 2 miles to cast my ballot, but I would have walked ten, because this was my first vote - I was 22 in June - and I had always wanted to cast it for Roosevelt, the greatest President we had ever had and the only one who ever gave the working man a break. Roosevelt had faced and overcome the two great crises America had ever suffered: the worst depression in history and the world's biggest war. He was a politician, as crafty and conniving as any, for politics is a cesspool of lying lawyers, but his work was greater than the man, and the country was better for it. The rich Republicans hated Roosevelt for helping the working man, encouraging the labor unions to wring a fair day's wage for a fair day's work out of employers who had never heard of such a thing before and for putting into effect fair employment practices that they considered outrageously socialistic..."

Think about that for a minute. After WWII, the New Deal was still in place and we had the greatest time of prosperity the world had ever known - right up until trickle down economics came into the White House and the Congress.

Capitalism, I'm afraid, isn't going to solve some of the problems we all know we have unless it is forced by government legislation, regulation and sound policy. Corporations aren't people. They are not capable of moral behavior because of the profit motive. They are not capable of self-regulating. They have no interest in social, environmental or economic justice.

The only thing that can save us is we ourselves - we have to get active in local politics, keep abreast of the issues and hold the people we elect to represent us accountable for actually representing us instead of corporations. Period.

[smirkymonkey]

118. My company (Fortune 100) is once again gearing up for another huge

round of layoffs. We get these talks about how the company needs to get leaner and meaner and the attitude of management is that we should all be happy and rah rah about it because it's GOOD FOR THE COMPANY! So what if you lose your job, it's all for the good of the shareholders!

We just got e-mails today letting us know that we could take "voluntary separation" and that if they don't get enough takers, then the involuntary layoffs will begin.

Meanwhile, there a plenty of frantic meetings taking place about how people aren't buying enough of our products frequently enough and what can we do to get them to buy more product, more often. HELLO??

Christ, I swear, the most clueless people in the world are running the world's top corporations.

[RiverLover]

135. I hope you make it through without being laid off!

I'm sorry you have to go through this.

I work for a large corp that has gone the mass layoff route twice since 2008. Its incredibly upsetting, and even for those of us who made it through with a larger workload & lowered pay to "maximize efficiencies", its scarred us. We no longer trust our employer and we are on edge for the next round. Gotta keep those stockholders happy after all.

[smirkymonkey]

139. Thank you RiverLover!

I appreciate your kind thoughts!

The thing is, they mess with our heads by letting us know there are going to be layoffs, but nobody knows who it is. So they send out an e-mail asking for voluntary separations, knowing that we will have to choose between getting a package or risk getting laid off with nothing at all. You have to take your chances either way.

I don't know why they just can't just be more straightforward and let us know who is at risk of getting laid off and which of us should opt for the package. It's a complete head f**K.

[RiverLover]

122. Similar article spells out same problem at thinkprogress

Companies Warn That Income Inequality Is Hurting Their Business
Posted on October 15, 2014

"Two thirds of the largest retail companies in the country say falling incomes for their customers threaten their business, according to an analysis of corporate filings by economists at the Center for American Progress (CAP). That is double the proportion that cited slack earnings for the masses among their business risks in 2006. And seven out of every eight major American retail companies “cite weak consumer spending as a risk factor to their stock price,” the authors write.

The report examined formal corporate filings with the Securities Exchange Commission by the 100 largest American retail companies. The analysis is based on filings from 65 of the companies, as the other 35 did not have to file the forms publicly. In the documents, the companies are explicit about tying their future prosperity to earnings for their customers. Burger King’s 10-K mentions “decreased salaries and wage rates…decreasing consumer spending for restaurant dining occasions” as a risk factor. J.C. Penney’s says that “the moderate income consumer, which is our core customer, has been under economic pressure for the past several years.”

...But in political terms, the fact that the largest companies in the business of selling stuff to Americans are saying publicly that their shoppers earn too little money is a significant development. It represents a shift in the narrative within the traditional base of support for right-wing economic policy, as the CAP authors note. “If the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. Chamber [of Commerce], and other proponents of trickle-down economics refuse to believe the overwhelming academic evidence that clearly shows low consumer spending and income growth are holding the economy back, they should listen to corporate America and Wall Street,” the report says."

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/10/15/3580001/retail-middle-out-analysis/

[RiverLover]

124. The Container Store pays its employees about $50,000/yr

They are doing it RIGHT~

"...He told Business Insider that the company gets three times the productivity even while paying two times as much in wages. “You save money, the customers win, and all the employees win because they get to work with someone great,” he said. Plus the company has a 10 percent turnover rate, while the rate for the entire industry is about 75 percent, and turnover is very costly. Tindell credits high wages for the low rate, saying, “Pay is more important than most people realize, particularly if you’re trying to attract and keep really great people.”"

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/10/27/3584699/container-store-wages/

[JEFF9K]

127. Not sure about the accuracy of the article.

The thesis might apply for Walmart, but healthier eating habits seem to be behind the problems of McDonalds and Coca Cola.

[lonestarnot]

129. Kiss our asses fuckers! I hope you rot!

[Initech]

140. This is what happens when you rely on a sales based economy and no one has money to buy your crap!