patrick.net

I don't care if these idiots go into debt to maintain the expected/demanded 'standard of living'. What's the standard? 2, 60" TVs, $160 cable bill, 4 iPhones, 2 iPads, 2-3 cars? Boo-fuckin'-hoo.

I make more than the 'average' American (but not 'that' much more), yet live within my means, and there's a good chance that this is below the American's expected 'standard of living'. If people realize that if they were able to reign in the retarted spending habits, and transferred their credit card payments to an investment acct (Roth, etc), and invested in a dozen blue-chip companies, they would create unexpected wealth .... I've got no time nor sympathy for dummies.

AverageBear says

I don't care if these idiots go into debt to maintain the expected/demanded 'standard of living'. What's the standard? 2, 60" TVs, $160 cable bill, 4 iPhones, 2 iPads, 2-3 cars? Boo-fuckin'-hoo.

I think for most people it's just food and shelter. Payday loans that are flourishing everywhere aren't usually taken out for frivolous stuff.

It's kind of scary to see how many pay day loan places there are in our neighborhood now. It wasn't like that before. This place was never rich, but it wasn't that bad.

It's probably going to get worse, I see the pattern. Working class is forced to compete with cheap overseas labor, or often an army of mexican day laborers... so working people just have worsening living standards to look for with declining wages. Race to the bottom.

Paradox of Thrift, people, Paradox of Thrift. If everybody started saving their disposable income, those blue chip companies would see revenue collapse from lack of consumer spending.

thunderlips11 says

Paradox of Thrift, people, Paradox of Thrift. If everybody started saving their disposable income, those blue chip companies would see revenue collapse from lack of consumer spending.

Paradox of thrift: if all those blue chip companies pay their employees poorly they will see consumer spending collapse.

thunderlips11 says

If everybody started saving their disposable income

Ah, but everyone does not have to save all at the same time. People are in different stages of life. The savings of one person becomes the college tuition or mortgage of another person or the seed money for a new business. Savings are not evil. Stampedes are.

What's the key to stopping stampedes? Negative feedback loops.

Dan8267 says

The savings of one person becomes the college tuition or mortgage of another person or the seed money for a new business

This smells like one age cohort easing the funding for another. As the critics of BenghaziCare have told us repeatedly, that's exactly like Hitler with a generous helping of Stalin thrown in!

sbh says

With corporate profits at all time highs, blue chips know all they have left to increase share value is to squeeze wages further and buy back shares. Who really needs to make a good wage if his stock portfolio is so fat? Just live off of capital.

perhaps you need to look at top line revenue growth for your answer... so what happens when you over hire and revenues fail to grow and fall... Ouch! very painful.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2013/04/28/first-quarter-earnings-revenue/2116147/

The corporate profit machine may be churning out better-than-expected results, but investors are getting increasingly bothered by companies' inability to find real growth.

At a quick glance, the first-quarter earnings season appears to be a banner one, now that more than half, 271, in the Standard & Poor's 500 have reported first-quarter results. These companies are reporting 3.6% earnings growth so far, a big upside surprise, given that on April 1, analysts were predicting earnings would rise 0.5%, says S&P Capital.

FortWayne says

Race to the bottom.

The Stock Market Is 'Shrinking'

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/michael-santoli/the-stock-market-is--shrinking---despite-record-high-indexes-171141756.html

A steep downtrend

The total number of U.S. exchange-listed companies peaked near 8,800 in 1997 and has since sunk to 4,900 as of year-end 2012, according to data furnished by Strategas Group. The ranks of public companies declined slowly into the 2000 market peak and then entered a steep downtrend in the early- and mid-2000s. De-listings of failed uncompetitive technology stocks, another M&A surge in the mid-2000s and a relative shortage of initial stock offerings all contributed.

The enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, mandating enhanced disclosure and corporate-governance practices, raised the burden on being public. The growth of buyout funds devoted to buying out smaller companies also drove companies that might traditionally access the public markets to sell to a private buyer.

Still, the depopulation of smaller companies hasn’t really lifted the average market value of stocks in the lower reaches of the size spectrum. Money has flowed into large- and mid-cap stocks – and to the upper tier of those characterized as small-caps. But below the largest several-hundred issues is a wide expanse of stunted market values.

The Wilshire 5000 is the oldest index that seeks to replicate the entire U.S. market. It never had exactly 5,000 stocks (that was just a marketing-driven estimate) but it often came close. Today, it contains just over 3,600 name.

thunderlips11 says

Paradox of Thrift, people, Paradox of Thrift. If everybody started saving their disposable income, those blue chip companies would see revenue collapse from lack of consumer spending.

---------------------
Well, most blue-chip companies make their money from consumers who buy their products that are necessities, not necessarily disposable income. Diapers, toilet paper, soap, shampoo, payroll services, gasoline/plastics, etc doesn't fall within the realm of disposable income. These are necessities.

Proctor and Gamble, Clorox, Colgate-Polmolive, Coca-Cola, Unilever, ADP, Chevron are blue-chips that will never collapse. Philip Morris, McDonalds, Diageo though not necessities, are products that are viewed as necessities... If these companies go down, then our society has pretty much collapsed.

sbh says

With corporate profits at all time highs, blue chips know all they have left to increase share value is to squeeze wages further and buy back shares. Who really needs to make a good wage if his stock portfolio is so fat? Just live off of capital. A reduction in minimum wage would help this dynamic, and soon most working stiffs could retire comfortably or become job creators themselves. Truthfully, every American should ask for his wages to be slashed and for CEO compensation to increase. A tax cut for the 1% is also a patriotic duty.

------------------------------
Sarcasm duly noted. However, I find it better to own corporations, and have them pay you (in dividends), then they own you. It's right in front of everyone's eyes, but nobody seems to notice. TV/media want to distract you on this....Do what the rich, trust-funders do. The easy part is realizing what to invest in. The hard part is to stop buying shit that you can't afford (and will waste your time), instead of putting that $$ to work for you.

the US government which continues to run a deficit year after year continues to accumulate debt

if "the 1%" are on the hook for this debt, this debt is not on the middle class's balance sheet per se.

It's also getting time the top 5% disgorge around $2T over the next 20-30 years, to pay off the SSTF bonds that are finally coming due (as the baby boom hits retirement).

Baby boom is age 50 to 68 this year.

+$100B/yr in tax revenue would be raising the 1%'s tax rate from 23% to 30%, or the top 5%'s tax rate from 21% to 24%.

(we'll also need to raise FICA 300-500 bps over the next 20 years, to adequately fund Gen Y's retirement burden, which is going to be much larger than the boomers, since they will live longer in a much more inflated economy.)

sbh says

No, all one needs to look at is this:

not unusual to see, its called streamlining the corporate bureaucracy, its been going
on even in places like HP which removed middle managers. They wrote books about this back in 80s... In Search of Excellence.. So yes, fewer employees especially managers. So yes you see lower salaries on average.

sbh says

Irrelevant distraction. Follow the money.

Very relevant if your talking about career mobility... opportunities are shrinking.

Else what do you propose... outright confiscation ? Come on who you BSing.

sbh says

AverageBear says

Well, most blue-chip companies make their money from consumers who buy their products that are necessities, not necessarily disposable income.

I generally agree, but unlike the economies of the past the wages of consumers at large no longer count in the business model of executives. It's always someone else's corporation that should be fair to their workers. Just look at Twong's nonsense: you have to fire people in order to stay viable enough to hire them in the first place because they already make too much and are ruining the companies they work for.

When you have a society that demonizes corporations, you will eventually have none left. And there goes your backbone of the economy. Whats left.. Govt ?

sbh says

these companies will finally kill their customers by treating them as bad as they do their workers;

As if that is even true ? Last I check the employee benefits are very generous...

Why dont you go work for a corporation and figure what its all about...

Bellingham Bill says

the US government which continues to run a deficit year after year continues to accumulate debt

if "the 1%" are on the hook for this debt, this debt is not on the middle class's balance sheet per se.

It's also getting time the top 5% disgorge around $2T over the next 20-30 years, to pay off the SSTF bonds that are finally coming due (as the baby boom hits retirement).

Baby boom is age 50 to 68 this year.

+$100B/yr in tax revenue would be raising the 1%'s tax rate from 23% to 30%, or the top 5%'s tax rate from 21% to 24%.

(we'll also need to raise FICA 300-500 bps over the next 20 years, to adequately fund Gen Y's retirement burden, which is going to be much larger than the boomers, since they will live longer in a much more inflated economy.)

In times of cash flow negativity, the SS trust fund deficit is funded by UST's. So. the Federal Reserve, foreign governments, pension funds, etc. buy the UST's. I find your statement about the top 5% paying off the trust fund bonds to be illogical and inconsistent with the facts.

sbh says

thomaswong.1986 says

Why dont you go work for a corporation and figure what its all about...

No thanks, sadsack, I prefer entrepreneurship. I started my first of three corporations in my twenties , and had two partnerships and a sole proprietorship thereafter. I bet you're just some anonymous corporate wage slut banging his meat in a cubicle and spouting lip service to a life of conservative economic execution I have lived for decades. I've employed sixty workers and treated them very well, unlike the systems you advocate, and done so without a college degree or a single fucking loan.

Lol! im in Silicon Valley ... have been for the last 3 decades.. Its obvious we have benefited from the tide raising all boats... so your rant doesnt apply to us or me. I doubt you ever worked for such complex organizations hiring, managing to achieve a common goal .

sbh says

thomaswong.1986 says

even in places like HP which removed middle managers

Yeah, workers are costs. Fire them and them blubber about taxes while profits hit all time highs.

No, workers are teams without the need for expensive ego centric leaders.. so productivity increases. Your seeing the end of middle managers. Enjoy it...

sbh says

thomaswong.1986 says

When you have a society that demonizes corporations...

...you have a society of consumers who have better treatment from corporations. Don't be a sap. If you starve your customer you starve your business. How can you be so stupid that you refuse to see this.

Liberals have already starved the consumer by eliminating manufacturing jobs...
No factory jobs gets you No dirty air and no dirty water ! You failed the people.

sbh says

homaswong.1986 says

you will eventually have none left. And there goes your backbone of the economy

No, you'll have better wages and less wealth disparity and greater consumer demand for goods and services in an economy as we had decades ago.

Decades ago.. Bill Clinton "Those jobs are not coming back"... you seemed to missed what he said back in 2012.. You can thank him !

sbh says

I've employed sixty workers and treated them very well,

This is what every business owner says about their workers. How do you measure the difference, did you pay them extremely well or had grand benefits? Also, if your business was in need of some low(est)-skills workers, did you just pay them double the minimum wage? I'm not denying that significant differences do exist, but I have never heard anybody say anything else than that they treat(ed) their workers well.

sbh says

Compensation is low, so demand is low, and corporations suppress wages and wonder why demand is so low

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP/

meanwhile the top 5% -- one out of twenty -- is collecting one out of three income dollars.

Actually it's worse than that since millionaires have millions of ways to keep their income from even hitting their AGI.

sbh says

Pffft: you're a wage slut jerking off in his cubicle. You've never created a single job that required commercial/personal risk.

lots of start ups started here with lots of personal risk.

sbh says

thomaswong.1986 says

productivity increases. Your seeing the end of middle managers

productivity increases because workers are fired and outsourced to toxic cesspools like China, a place you love and think we should imitate.

You can once again thank Democrats for that one.. as they imposed additional EPA rules over industries. Even Steve Jobs stated this to Obama. If you cant hear if from your own side, clearly your side has deep problems understanding economics/business.

sbh says

You think the EPA has destroyed manufacturing jobs because it refused to let factories turn the US into a toxic shithole like China. Read your own propaganda: regulation is just passed on to the consumer. The jobs were outsourced because American corporations would rather cannibalize labor than form long term relationships.

Nope... in addition to EPA rules, we had lots of Product Dumping by the Japanese since the 60s. Isnt the irony that USA and Europe economies were negatively impacted by Dumping polices of Japan. But once again it was the Liberal courts which disallowed US firms from suing Japanese companies over dumping.

sbh says

With corporate profits at all time highs,

You need to research more..

http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2012/04/about-those-reports-regarding-record-profits/

It is a fact that the S&P 500 reported a combined $1.6 trillion in profits in 2011, the highest profits in 50 years, adjusted for inflation. It is also a fact that unemployment remains above 8%. Advocates for higher taxes add these two facts together to refute the notion that lower taxes stimulate job creation.

But there are a couple of other facts to consider when evaluating the implications of those first two - first, there are 2.5 million corporations in the United States, and those 50-year record profits are what was reported by 500 of them for a single year. A record amount of profit posted by .02% of our corporations does not tell us anything meaningful about the profitability of the other 99.98%.

Next, only 21 million Americans work for a Fortune 500 firm, out of the 130 million or so who work. With something like 15 million Americans unemployed or underemployed, the Fortune 500 companies would have to collectively increase their workforce by 71% to put everyone back to work. Not gonna happen.

And finally, perhaps most importantly, 52% of the profits of the Fortune 500 in 2011 were earned overseas. When overseas profits are removed from corporate earnings reports, 2011 was a quite ordinary year in comparison to the previous 49.

Jobs are being added by the Fortune 500; they are being added overseas. Corporate taxes are being reduced abroad, profits are being earned abroad and jobs are being created abroad; taken in their entirely, the facts contained in earnings reports of the Fortune 500 do not refute the supply-side theory of the tax-hawks, they support it.

adding:

The rationale for taxing corporate income (profit) is that the exchanges which generate profit for the stockholders are facilitated by the infrastructure - physical and legal - that allow businesses to flourish. No argument there; businesses need a playing field that is both even and mowed and a safe investment environment costs money to maintain.

But when Apple builds an iPhone in China and sells it in Thailand, what is the legitimate claim of the U.S. Government on the profit of that transaction? What American infrastructure was depleted? Why should Apple pay taxes in China, pay taxes in Thailand, and then pay still more taxes here in the U.S. where nothing was built and nothing was sold?

sbh says

You're a neutered rat in a maze of crucibles lost in a fantasy leg-humping caricatures of Gordon Gecko.

Gecko ? a caricature created by a Socialist Hollywood Producer.

sbh says

We have standards in this country that protect health, freedom and the environment.

the same standards, which would prevent factories from producing many

well know products like Silicon Wafers in Silicon Valley... Forbidden in

California.

Great going... the only reason Detroit had saved their industry was due to

union payoffs going to the Democrats.

sbh says

ou advocate worker abuse in toxic shithole workplace environments to allow a handfull of mega-rich CEOs

to outsource more labor in order to get richer. You want them to get rich by destroying jobs. You're disgusting.

Your party since Clinton is the one destroying the USA economic machine..
Economic Axis of Evil....Environmentalist, Unions, and Educational system.

http://www.businessinsider.com/president-obamas-lack-of-resolve-frustrated-steve-jobs-2011-10

Jobs said the Obama administration was not business-friendly and said it was impossible to build a factory in the United States due to regulations and unnecessary costs. Apple had 700,000 factory workers employed in China, where it was much easier to build and run a factory, Jobs said. He said Obama was "headed for a one-term presidency" if the administration didn't improve.

Jobs also said the American education system was "hopelessly antiquated" and crippled by teachers' unions. Apple's factories, for example, needed 30,000 skilled engineers — something the U.S. education system was not producing. He suggested the President completely overhaul the system and proposed an 11-month school year with days that lasted until 6 p.m.

"You can't find that many in America to hire," he said. "If you could educate these engineers, we could move more manufacturing plants here."

thomaswong.1986 says

Jobs said the Obama administration was not business-friendly and said it was impossible to build a factory in the United States due to regulations and unnecessary costs.

It was complete BS then as it is now. He built factories in China because he could pay them slave wages. Period.

It had absolutely nothing to do with environmental regulations.

tatupu70 says

It was complete BS then as it is now. He built factories in China because he could pay them slave wages. Period.

It had absolutely nothing to do with environmental regulations.

PERIOD .

sbh says

You're such an ignorant turd. All you need to see is:

Show us top level revenues.... are you saying our GDP is booming...
or is it flat...

http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2012/04/about-those-reports-regarding-record-profits/

It is a fact that the S&P 500 reported a combined $1.6 trillion in profits in 2011, the highest profits in 50 years, adjusted for inflation. It is also a fact that unemployment remains above 8%. Advocates for higher taxes add these two facts together to refute the notion that lower taxes stimulate job creation.

But there are a couple of other facts to consider when evaluating the implications of those first two - first, there are 2.5 million corporations in the United States, and those 50-year record profits are what was reported by 500 of them for a single year. A record amount of profit posted by .02% of our corporations does not tell us anything meaningful about the profitability of the other 99.98%.

Next, only 21 million Americans work for a Fortune 500 firm, out of the 130 million or so who work. With something like 15 million Americans unemployed or underemployed, the Fortune 500 companies would have to collectively increase their workforce by 71% to put everyone back to work. Not gonna happen.

And finally, perhaps most importantly, 52% of the profits of the Fortune 500 in 2011 were earned overseas. When overseas profits are removed from corporate earnings reports, 2011 was a quite ordinary year in comparison to the previous 49.

Jobs are being added by the Fortune 500; they are being added overseas. Corporate taxes are being reduced abroad, profits are being earned abroad and jobs are being created abroad; taken in their entirely, the facts contained in earnings reports of the Fortune 500 do not refute the supply-side theory of the tax-hawks, they support it.

The rationale for taxing corporate income (profit) is that the exchanges which generate profit for the stockholders are facilitated by the infrastructure - physical and legal - that allow businesses to flourish. No argument there; businesses need a playing field that is both even and mowed and a safe investment environment costs money to maintain.

But when Apple builds an iPhone in China and sells it in Thailand, what is the legitimate claim of the U.S. Government on the profit of that transaction? What American infrastructure was depleted? Why should Apple pay taxes in China, pay taxes in Thailand, and then pay still more taxes here in the U.S. where nothing was built and nothing was sold?

thomaswong.1986 says

But there are a couple of other facts to consider when evaluating the implications of those first two - first, there are 2.5 million corporations in the United States, and those 50-year record profits are what was reported by 500 of them for a single year. A record amount of profit posted by .02% of our corporations does not tell us anything meaningful about the profitability of the other 99.98%.

As usual you either resort to massive ignorance or even more massive bullshit. The fortune 500 produces 75% of the GDP. Most of the rest of the GDP is government. The millions of small corporations don't mean anything. Even more important the fortune 500 only employes 8% of the workers. The word you are searching for to describe the situation is oligarchy.

thomaswong.1986 says

But when Apple builds an iPhone in China and sells it in Thailand, what is the legitimate claim of the U.S. Government on the profit of that transaction? What American infrastructure was depleted? Why should Apple pay taxes in China, pay taxes in Thailand, and then pay still more taxes here in the U.S. where nothing was built and nothing was sold?

You are really going to stand by your claim of being an executive in accounting and finance. Your ignorance of the subject seems to know no bounds. Apple pays taxes in China for the right to do business there. Apple pays taxes in Thailand for the right to do business there. Apple pays taxes in the US for the right to do business in the US.

The legitimate claim of the US government is that Apple has decided to base it's corporation in the US. If Apple wants make use of all the advantages of locating it's business in the US then it has to pay taxes. Apple uses plenty of US services every day for the people managing the production in China and the sales in Thailand. For all the crying and wailing by major corporations about paying taxes in the US almost none choose to move to where the grass is supposed to be greener.

bob2356 says

You are really going to stand by your claim of being an executive in accounting and finance. Your ignorance of the subject seems to know no bounds. Apple pays taxes in China for the right to do business there. Apple pays taxes in Thailand for the right to do business there. Apple pays taxes in the US for the right to do business in the US.

its well know to many that the US IRS reg dont tax on same already taxed revenues.. there is no double taxation on overseas profits, however shortfall to US rates is payable. Deferred and Due..

You keep on beating the same drum to tax the same profit twice...

bob2356 says

Apple uses plenty of US services every day for the people managing the production in China and the sales in Thailand.

LOL! no they dont.. had you worked in any one of the large US companies, you know you would be wrong. They are all separate legal entities and cover their own costs.

sbh says

I'm saying you hate American workers and want them always to be paid less; the only difference is you want always to be paid more. You'd destroy the environment in America and pleasantly watch workers die, poisoned in chemical sludge pits, or burned to death chained to an assembly line in a factory fire. You think immigrants are dogs who should be flogged and spat upon.

Funny i thought I was a Catholic.. anyway, i rather have US workers making an income than foreign or immigrants.. You think they care about US at all ... not all all..

Sounds like your defending outsourcing...so let the US citizens starve... oh thats rich!

sbh says

Corporations HAVE NEVER HAD SO MUCH MONEY, EVER. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend?

LIttle you know of the Treasury function of many corporations, as with $100B in apple cash.. only $4-5B is in checking account ready to be spent on salary and vendors. The other 95% is held in Treasury papers... SO NO the GOVT has all the money ! The Corps are just left with an IOUs.

sbh says

I'm saying American business doesn't give a shit about America or American workers, and they are eating their seed corn.

You mentioned this before and how you treated your workers much better. Today's work ethic in my sector is mostly atrocious and it looks a lot like workers don't give a shit about America (either). Close to the point where I would like to relegate from "management" and why I am aiming to become self-employed trading with maybe one partner but without employees, unless they are hot girls of course ;) I seriously challenge the notion that worker's rights/environments have been hollowed, IMO they have improved steadily whereas ethic/morale has gone down the shitter.

mell says

Today's work ethic in my sector is mostly atrocious and it looks a lot like workers don't give a shit about America (either).

Doesn't take long in urban California that when hiring, 80 percent of the people applying for jobs regard employment as nothing more than a springboard for workman's comp, unemployment, disability, or a lawsuit because they come pre-pimped by their local sleazy lawyer.

Take a course in employment law, the instructors tell you that CA is one of the worst two states to be an employer, everything is about documentation and countermeasures and liability traps. You can't say or do nearly anything to your so called employees without setting yourself up. What happened to the simple idea of paying money to just get a job done?

mell says

sbh says

I'm saying American business doesn't give a shit about America or American workers, and they are eating their seed corn.

You mentioned this before and how you treated your workers much better. Today's work ethic in my sector is mostly atrocious and it looks a lot like workers don't give a shit about America (either). Close to the point where I would like to relegate from "management" and why I am aiming to become self-employed trading with maybe one partner but without employees, unless they are hot girls of course ;) I seriously challenge the notion that worker's rights/environments have been hollowed, IMO they have improved steadily whereas ethic/morale has gone down the shitter.

How exactly have they improved? Are jobs more secure? Have we returned to the 40 hour workweek?

I was just talking with my sister in law who told me her husband's boss used to schedule mandatory in person 7 AM meetings. My brother in law had to leave at 5 AM to get there on time (yes he has a 2 hr commute) and the boss wouldn't even show up. It was just the bosses way of testing the work ethic of his employees.

AF, you should write a book on management - with pictures, or at least instructive diagrams.

Also, a diet book.

I'm tired of the usual airport terminal bookstore boredom. If you publish, I will personally request your books at every store. The two volume set will be the perfect accessory for early boarding. The diet book should have a chapter on "infants fly free", with recipes.

thomaswong.1986 says

The Stock Market Is 'Shrinking'

Is it shrinking globally too?

New Renter says

How exactly have they improved? Are jobs more secure? Have we returned to the 40 hour workweek?

As Ceffer mentioned, at least here in CA jobs are more secure in the sense that any firing due to employee performance can lead to a lawsuit so that employers usually cite "business reasons" which can be hard to prove if they are doing grand. Also, if you feel harassed in any way, even if it's just a coworker telling you to do your job, you may have a lawsuit. Throughout the years I hardly met anybody who worked 40 hours, most worked around 30, some 20-25. It used to be more common during the tech boom to stay late in a startup manner and even work weekends and late nights. Today making somebody work on a weekend is pretty much "frowned upon". People "work from home" regularly which is a great concept but brutally abused because most don't do anything or put in 2 hours of work max. Sick days are hardly ever booked in the time system, neither a couple of hours of vacation because you have to run an errand. Nobody stays late to make up for anything. It's ok to show up at 11 or noon and leave at 5. That's mostly for the tech sector where companies are desperate to find people who have talent and good work ethic so they settle with either one. In the teacher sector you can hardly fire anybody, the process is ultra lengthy and if you know how to work the system you cannot get fired. I have had tough jobs even in tech throughout the years where I pulled all nighters and weekend work, bosses yell at me because a fucking demo wasn't working and demanding to stay overnight to make it work. Most of this has completely disappeared and a swift "business related" layoff is the only chance bosses have because pep talks can lead to lawsuits and HR trouble. Which is not good for either because often the worker may want to keep their job and a short honest talk could resolve issues and make the worker and the company more productive.

New Renter says

I was just talking with my sister in law who told me her husband's boss used to schedule mandatory in person 7 AM meetings. My brother in law had to leave at 5 AM to get there on time (yes he has a 2 hr commute) and the boss wouldn't even show up. It was just the bosses way of testing the work ethic of his employees.

That sucks and sounds "dick-ish" but why not comply and be done at 4pm with work, have less commute, and find another job if this is a problem? By the way I am not saying that it's all the worker's fault, but often high ranking executives fare better to give a shit about the company and exit with a golden parachute when it's over instead of trying to right the ship and that may be an explanation why performance has gone down the drain for workers and management. I am by no means excluding management here.

sbh says

I was wondering if you would actually respond to my tale of being an employer.

Sorry, I was busy working my two jobs, trading and the full time day job, but I was planning on getting back eventually.
sbh says

See, I'm not a categorical liberal: many, many workers are simple scammers, and I saw many of them who weren't originally scammers turn into scammers when they chose hourly compensation over piece-work compensation. The outcome of the employer-employee dynamic really comes down to the moral character of the players.

Agreed.

sbh says

If you choose to become self-employed then I salute you. Make sure you have your shit together and that you know how to manage money. Then prepare to grow a very thick skin. The potential to abuse your fellow man is greater than one would hope. I wish you well.

Thanks, I am planing to eventually join a very small and lean investing shop where each of the handful of employees has skin in the game as part-owner, and focus on medical research if possible. Maybe do contracting tech gigs on the side.

mell says

New Renter says

How exactly have they improved? Are jobs more secure? Have we returned to the 40 hour workweek?

As Ceffer mentioned, at least here in CA jobs are more secure in the sense that any firing due to employee performance can lead to a lawsuit so that employers usually cite "business reasons" which can be hard to prove if they are doing grand. Also, if you feel harassed in any way, even if it's just a coworker telling you to do your job, you may have a lawsuit. Throughout the years I hardly met anybody who worked 40 hours, most worked around 30, some 20-25.

HOOOOLY crap are we even living on the same planet?

Just what workers paradise sector are you in? Can I get in?

In my world I have had CEOs who spend their evenings combing the logs of the company's Barracuda web filter to keep tabs on who's been naughty and who's been nice. I have coworkers telling me of former employers HR departments paying headhunters to get feedback on employees who dared float their resumes - if discovered the employee is terminated, yes terminated, no bullshit. I have friends with many years of experience who have had to take entry level jobs with entry level pay because employers haven't been hiring. My wife has been putting in 50 hr weeks in crunch times including weekends, now finally she is back to 45, not including the few hours here and there she has to work evenings and weekends from home and YES she does actually do work from home.

Yet in your world its the employees with their dicks hanging out? Really?

New Renter says

Yet in your world its the employees with their dicks hanging out? Really?

That's what I have seen in the tech world, yes. I love work from home but I say less than 50% are honest about it. I usually work from home extra hours only but would love to have the option if everybody would play by the rules (not up to me to decide).
New Renter says

In my world I have had CEOs who spend their evenings combing the logs of the company's Barracuda web filter to keep tabs on who's been naughty and who's been nice.

I have heard of those but never worked for a company that did that. In the open office environment you can pretty much see anyways what your coworker next to you is browsing. I always ask in interviews about that though and tell them upfront that I may be doing some trades and occasionally browsing the web otherwise and if they would react harshly I don't take that job but that has never happened because I tell them that the work will get done and that's all they care about usually.

New Renter says

I have coworkers telling me of former employers HR departments paying headhunters to get feedback on employees who dared float their resumes - if discovered the employee is terminated, yes terminated, no bullshit.

Again, my experience is that this rather gets management worried if this is a good worker and they will try to keep them. This may be a difference in industries where in your case there are plenty of equally-skilled people ready to take their place, otherwise the company would shoot itself in the foot, ramp-up and benefits etc. will take their toll.

New Renter says

I have friends with many years of experience who have had to take entry level jobs with entry level pay because employers haven't been hiring.

Yeah, I am not disputing that for other sectors, but this is not happening in the tech (HW/SW) sector where companies are so desperate for talent that sign-in and retainment bonuses are back like ARMs and jumbo mortgages.