General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Much Is Enough Profit?
First of all, let me just say that there is a lot I don't understand about the economy. I've never taken a class in economics. I've just been having some ideas lately about the economy and I'm curious about what y'all think about them.
When a company is doing well, it is common for the union (if the employees have a union) to negotiate for higher wages and better benefits. After all, a company's success is due in large part to the skill and ethic of its workers. If the union is successful, a greater portion of the company's profits go to the workers. After that, the company usually tries to find ways to make up for that lost profit. The management might decide to raise the price of its product. They also might decide to spend less on materials to make their product. There are other ways to make up for that greater share of profit given to the workers, but usually the product is made a little less attractive to the consumer, either because the product costs more or the product isn't quite up to the standard that it was before.
When sales of the product decline, the employees are often the first to blame. Management will say that the workers became greedy and that the company had to make up for the lost profits given to the workers by raising the price or making an inferior product. But why doesn't anyone ever question how much profit is required by the company's investors? The idea that made the union negotiate for higher wages/benefits was that the workers were doing a good job for the company and therefore deserved a greater share of the profits. Why did the company not accept a little less in profits rather than make a product that was less appealing to the consumer? Doesn't the management know that they're hurting the company by making up for the lost profit by decreasing the market share for its product?
It seems that our economy is in a downward spiral. Companies are continuously looking for cheaper labor and making more inferior products so that they can increase their profits. Our system isn't healthy; capitalism is supposed to encourage competition and in so doing, make better products for the consumer. But because corporations can't accept a little less in profit so that they can make a good product and pay their workers fair wages, the consumer is getting screwed. If the economy isn't benefiting the consumer, then we should put something better in place.
The Affordable Care Act mandates that health insurance companies spend a certain percentage of their dollars (I think 80%) on health care and allows for a certain amount for profit. That amount of profit is probably too low for most businesses, but I wonder if it would benefit us all if companies were required to spend a certain amount on wages and a certain amount on their products. Do you think it would help the workers and consumers to put such regulations in place?
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Take away the investors and in some cases the companies cease to exist. If investors can get a higher and safer return elsewhere they'll do that
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)I'm just trying to think of a way to increase quality rather than quantity. If I were going to invest in a company, I'd be happy with 40% profit. Even if I was given a choice between a company that makes 40% or one that makes 80%, I would look at the quality of the products produced before I made my decision. A better product usually makes a more stable company. I'd rather make 40% profit from a company with a long life than 80% profit from a company that could fold at any time. I guess I'm just not much of a gambler.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Day-um! Where can I find this magic 40% return? What kind of time frame are we talking about?
I'll go on a ramen noodle diet, move in with some friends, and stick every penny I can get my hands on if you can show me a safe, secure, consistent 40% profit.
On reflection, maybe I shouldn't. Investors are rat bag assholes - people should work for their money, not have their money work for them.
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)It doesn't seem fair sometimes that some people can live off their investments, but I wouldn't change it. Capitalism isn't always just, but it can work for us all right if we regulate it well enough.
safeinOhio
(32,688 posts)Make laws that only help long term investors profit along with those that invest in the U.S..
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)there is no tax on dividends and / or interest in the USA ?
safeinOhio
(32,688 posts)Move that back to 5 years.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)If you're referring to actual shares that would be a capital gains issue : not dividends or interest.
Mopar151
(9,989 posts)The emphasis on short-term performance and stock price makes a mockery of many sound business and investment strategies. We need a paradigim shift in accounting rules and performance measures to place our economy back on a rational footing.
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)My idea has some flaws, but it might be something that could be taken and tweaked a bit. You're right, we definitely need a paradigm shift.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)The fiduciary responsibility to enriching "shareholder value" basically originated from this decision. While it is pertinent with respect to Michigan state law, it is important to note that with the exception of one state in the Union, the legal precedent behind this famous court case has not essentially been challenged or rejected by any other state within the United States.
Other notable court cases are Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad (1886), the US Supreme Court case often cited as giving 14th Amendment protections to corporations under national law, and Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the US Supreme Court case that says spending money to influence a federal or state election is constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment.
This likely underpinned the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United that says corporations can spend unlimited amounts of cash broadcasting an opinion or attacking an opposing opinion in the context of an election.
It's a HUGE part of the problem. Unfortunately, short-term economic thinking is also a pervasive problem with a lot of modern economic thought. It may be the great fault of Keynesianism - the concentration on spending over saving at times, and making profit out of debt rather than equity.
malthaussen
(17,204 posts)Rather the reverse in fact, since corporations can be sued if they don't maximize profits.
In equity... well, that's a much more tricky question, isn't it?
-- Mal
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)would work just as well.