From Town and Country:
Donald Trump Is Heading to His Bedminster Golf Club This Weekend
It looks like the president will be spending the weekend in New Jersey.
According to a Federal Aviation Administration notice posted online today, there will be a 30-mile temporary flight restriction in the Morristown and Bedminster Township region from Friday to Sunday. The same type of TFR was in place when Trump visited Mar-a-Lago, and a separate TFR announced Monday will go into effect over New York City on Thursday when Trump spends the night in Manhattan.
During the president’s first visit to New York since his inauguration, he is scheduled to meet with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on the U.S.S. Intrepid to commemorate the 75th anniversary of a naval battle involving both countries during World War II.
Trump is also expected to spend time at his Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey on Friday, which is about an hourlong drive from the city.
Mar-a-Lago, which Trump has taken to calling his “Winter White House,” is closing for the season after Mother’s Day, and speculation about where the president will spend his weekends through the summer has been rampant. While he owns other properties in the tri-state area, his Bedminster golf club is the leading contender. The 535-acre club that was once the estate of automaker John DeLorean has already been referred to as the president’s “Camp David North” (Trump has expressed his aversion to the actual Camp David: It’s “very rustic, it’s nice, you’d like it. You know how long you’d like it? For about 30 minutes,” he told a European journalist before taking office.)
…
Bedminster Township has estimated it could cost as much as $302,000 to cover seven Trump family visits to the club each year—that’s the number of trips the president took to Mar-a-Lago since his inauguration. The high cost of security, nj.com reports, is because the 16-member police department responsible for protecting the town of 8,300 is small, so presidential visits will require paying officers overtime.
Good Morning New Jersey
Why exactly do we need the local police to do anything?
OT Jackpot Baby! Cha Ching!
Will N.J. town be reimbursed for Trump security costs?
New Jersey and its municipalities picked up the tab for extra security when Donald Trump, then president-elect, decamped to Bedminster last November to interview potential members of his incoming administration.
Now they will be able to seek reimbursement.
The U.S. Justice Department said it would consider reimbursing New Jersey, New York and Florida for the extra costs of protecting the new president when he visited the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, Trump Tower in Manhattan and Mar-a-Lago in West Palm Beach, Fla., between his election as president in November and taking the oath of office in January.
The government has set aside $7 million to help pay security expenses.
“This is the right and fair course of action for the Department of Justice to be taking,” said Rep. Leonard Lance (R-7th Dist.), whose district includes Bedminster. “Protecting the president, the first family and other dignitaries is an important federal responsibility.
“The excellent law enforcement personnel in New Jersey will assist in these duties and I am pleased the federal government is taking steps to ensure reimbursement so local taxpayers are protected from paying costs associated with this expenditure,” he said.
I dont get the 2004 comparison. The bubble burst in 2006 07. Houses will still be under or even on prices today
JJ says:
April 30, 2017 at 6:22 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonk/housing/overview/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_housing-divide%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Down in DC after my exodus from Wall Street. Looking for some crush valor to screw some chick like a Kennedy.
Posting the no parking signs on Lamington Rd across from Trump National while maintaining the route 206 speed trap is like walking and chewing gum at the same time.
@gabrielsherman
BREAKING:
Two sources inside Fox News say
Bill Shine is out as of this morning
@nytimes
Diana Falzone, a former contributor,
has filed a discrimination lawsuit against Fox News
@nytimes
5 current Fox News employees described the newsroom as being in
a state of shock
after learning of Bill Shine’s exit
Think you both misunderstood his implication in his post.
I understood it perfectly. It’s kinda funny how you reference rent coming in but don’t apply the same thought to a dividend payout. It’s silly to look at something and say you haven’t made any money until you sell when you are earning 20% in dividends on your initial investment. At this rate, and it only shows signs of increasing, the investment pays for itself 3 years from now.
That’s the point. With real estate, when it’s overvalued, there are no good deals to be had. Meanwhile, in the stock market, there are often gems paying good payouts that are undervalued. There’s always something that is down in the dumps that should be higher.
Without dividends why even own a utility stock, VZ, T or MO
Blue Ribbon Teacher says:
May 2, 2017 at 9:13 am
Think you both misunderstood his implication in his post.
I understood it perfectly. It’s kinda funny how you reference rent coming in but don’t apply the same thought to a dividend payout. It’s silly to look at something and say you haven’t made any money until you sell when you are earning 20% in dividends on your initial investment. At this rate, and it only shows signs of increasing, the investment pays for itself 3 years from now.
That’s the point. With real estate, when it’s overvalued, there are no good deals to be had. Meanwhile, in the stock market, there are often gems paying good payouts that are undervalued. There’s always something that is down in the dumps that should be higher.
Blue, I think he was making generalizations about stocks. Don’t think he was specifically talking about the stock you are in, hence, why he referred to the fact that a lot of stocks don’t even pay a dividend. And that’s his main argument and answer to your question of why invest in real estate. He was simply stating how volatile the stock market can be and to not count your money until it’s sold. Real estate if done right, is really difficult to lose anything, never mind everything.
Yes, you are receiving divi payments, but what happens if the stock crashes and goes bankrupt? You are doing a great job right now, but understand why they are paying such high dividends. Everything very well may go right for you, but in a blink of an eye, it could be worthless, leaving you with nothing.
Probably belongs on the prior thread. Apologies if previously posted.
http://11r8i71smg9y1w70b64etqrh.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/RegentAtlantic-Closed-For-Business-Is-NJ-Pushing-Out-Small-and-Medium-Sized-Companies-min.pdf
I believe that the trend (competition for bodies among lower-tiered colleges) undergirding this article was discussed here some years back.
http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/20161212/PRINTEDITION/312089952/ct-college-tuition-breaks-a-cross-state-lure
Yes, you are receiving divi payments, but what happens if the stock crashes and goes bankrupt?
If companies like Proctor and Gamble, Lockheed and Emerson Electric go bankrupt, we have bigger problems to worry about.
Pumpkin Farce,
And you claim to be in the financial field?
Right.
Hmmm maybe I’m ignorant to this (I’m sure you like that admission haters)
But I don’t actually see the difference. Real estate has dividends in the form of rent or if people choose not to rent it out, they can hold it and do nothing until they feel the value will increase (like someone buying a lot of land in a future planned site for development).
Stocks can have dividends, or they can just be held based on the idea that the sell point could be ridiculous. Albeit risky, both can be treated the same IMO.
That generalization about stocks vs real estate was just false.
oh and Good morning folks. I got some confidence to post again.
ChiFI:
Reading yesterday’s comment about Clot at the injection house was pretty depressing. Did you know this person well? I’d feel terrible to see someone in a situation like that and I spoke regularly to them (IRL of course).
How do you think it happened? I ask because I haven’t read the blog long enough to understand how things could get that bad.
Yes, you are receiving divi payments, but what happens if the stock crashes and goes bankrupt? You are doing a great job right now, but understand why they are paying such high dividends. Everything very well may go right for you, but in a blink of an eye, it could be worthless, leaving you with nothing.
It’s not. A solid balance sheet and the only healthy company in a sea of failing ones in the midst of rising coal prices. There’s not a single negative. That’s why it was screaming buy when it yielded 20%. It should have never fallen that much to begin with.
In the blink of an eye? You must be referring to Nates foods, Solyndra, or Theranos. Companies like this can’t go bankrupt in the blink of an eye because they are a solid business that isn’t involved in massive risk taking, massive borrowing and they actually have a real revenue stream based on demand for a product that is essential to the economy.
Then why are they offering such a large dividend? Major risk involved, this is not a normal divi play. You understand the risk, and seem to be doing well with it, good luck and hope you kill it.
“In the blink of an eye? You must be referring to Nates foods, Solyndra, or Theranos. Companies like this can’t go bankrupt in the blink of an eye because they are a solid business that isn’t involved in massive risk taking, massive borrowing and they actually have a real revenue stream based on demand for a product that is essential to the economy.”
BTW, the Civil War was not about slavery, it was about secession. The Emancipation Proclamation came later, and likely served two strategic purposes:
1. A way to thwart England from arming the Rebels through the port of New Orleans as England had already abolished slavery. England couldn’t morally continue to help the South after the EP.
2. in Lincoln’s mind, outside of any humanitarian/anti-slavery impulse within him, was the realization that slavery allowed the Confederacy to fight. If you look at the demographics, it’s 9 million versus 22 million. And of the 9 million around 3.5 million are slaves. What that means is that the CSA needs to shunt as many white men into the army as possible – so, who will do the manual labor, farming, building of fortifications? Slaves. So, with the EP, Lincoln is taking an asset from the CSA, one which is enabling it to stay in this fight despite being vastly outnumbered and out-resourced, and when enlistment of black men into the Union army begins, starts using that resource against the CSA on the battlement.
That statement below was in reference to the specific high yield stock he is in. The income stocks you list below are safe as can be and their yield reflects it.
Fast Eddie says:
May 2, 2017 at 10:31 am
Yes, you are receiving divi payments, but what happens if the stock crashes and goes bankrupt?
If companies like Proctor and Gamble, Lockheed and Emerson Electric go bankrupt, we have bigger problems to worry about.
chfi, yesterday’s thread:
“Shore guy is an operative relatively high up in the Republican Party…..anyone who know better please correct …..”
I met Shore in Kenilworth once about 5 years ago. He was on his way somewhere to do something and had a long drive. Whatever it was, he wasn’t looking forward to it.
I tried to get out of him what he did but he was very cagey, revealed nothing. I jokingly said of it ” if you tell me, you have to kill me, right?”
He said “No. I won’t kill you. Someone else will but not me.”
It was about economics, it’s always about money. Industrialization which could not function under slavery vs an agrarian model based on ownership of labor.
The Original NJ ExPat says:
May 2, 2017 at 11:20 am
BTW, the Civil War was not about slavery, it was about secession.
Miss the days of shore guy and others. Now we have well we have what we have. Surprised grim has not pulled the plug on the blog yet.
He’s messing around. If anything, Clot is drinking heavily right now telling anyone that will listen that it all needs to burned down. Highly intelligent individual that had some very bad breaks in life that turned him into an anarchist.
LurksMcGee says:
May 2, 2017 at 10:50 am
ChiFI:
Reading yesterday’s comment about Clot at the injection house was pretty depressing. Did you know this person well?
Like most wars…the cause of the civil war was probably different depending upon who you asked at the time. But historically, if you had to boil it down to one issue…it was slavery.
You hit the nail on the head. Bottom line, no investment vehicle is king, it’s about just buying whatever investment is a value at the time. Most of all, it’s about knowing what the hell you are invested in. If you don’t understand what you are invested in, how the hell can you find value?
Bottom line when it comes to real estate vs stocks, sometimes it’s real estate that’s a value, sometimes it’s stocks. and sometimes it’s both. Right now I would rather put my money in real estate, I just see more potential at the current moment in real estate, but you can’t go wrong with either one now (even if everyone and their mother is claiming stocks are overvalued). 2020’s should be good for the stock market as the economy feeds off this coming real estate bubble, so if you are long term, you should kill it in the stock market during this coming boom period.
LurksMcGee says:
May 2, 2017 at 10:46 am
Hmmm maybe I’m ignorant to this (I’m sure you like that admission haters)
But I don’t actually see the difference. Real estate has dividends in the form of rent or if people choose not to rent it out, they can hold it and do nothing until they feel the value will increase (like someone buying a lot of land in a future planned site for development).
Stocks can have dividends, or they can just be held based on the idea that the sell point could be ridiculous. Albeit risky, both can be treated the same IMO.
That generalization about stocks vs real estate was just false.
oh and Good morning folks. I got some confidence to post again.
And the winner is…..D-FENS! Well said.
D-FENS says:
May 2, 2017 at 11:56 am
Like most wars…the cause of the civil war was probably different depending upon who you asked at the time. But historically, if you had to boil it down to one issue…it was slavery.
Then why are they offering such a large dividend? Major risk involved, this is not a normal divi play. You understand the risk, and seem to be doing well with it, good luck and hope you kill it.
They crushed earnings. They are going to raise dividends. The stock was mispriced because everyone and their mother mistakenly thought that the world would suddenly stop buying coal. They are quickly discovering that’s not the case. The stock should have never been that low to begin with so there was a window of opportunity to get a great yield. Currently, it’s yielding 8%. They don’t have an balance sheet issues that pose a major risk.
The End Is Nigh (clot Haute Cuisine Edition):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltxLeLGozDk&feature=youtu.be
Pumpkin. One thing to remember on sticks vs real estate is liquidity. If you need the money in a pinch you can always sell. Real estate would take more time. some people like real estate more as an investment as you don’t see the daily ups and downs like the market. So they are not prone to sell at the wrong time like with stocks selling into a market panic.
Trump’s base is starting to turn on him…watch this documentary.
https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/859437833945194500
Bottom line…and this has been the case since 2008. Stocks have had more upside and yielded more. Will that continue, I doubt it, we are due for a big pullback. I think in general the market has been overvalued and this is one of two things that I’ve been buying the past two years. There’s always a gem to be found in the stock market. In real estate, there are times when 100% of it is a waste of time.
Blue, like I said earlier, you seem to know the field well and are doing a great job of profiting from this knowledge. What’s risk to one investor is opportunity to another. Keep up the fine job you are doing with this play, seem to be playing it perfectly.
Blue Ribbon Teacher says:
May 2, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Then why are they offering such a large dividend? Major risk involved, this is not a normal divi play. You understand the risk, and seem to be doing well with it, good luck and hope you kill it.
They crushed earnings. They are going to raise dividends. The stock was mispriced because everyone and their mother mistakenly thought that the world would suddenly stop buying coal. They are quickly discovering that’s not the case. The stock should have never been that low to begin with so there was a window of opportunity to get a great yield. Currently, it’s yielding 8%. They don’t have an balance sheet issues that pose a major risk.
Yes, that’s the crappy part of real estate, and the dangerous part as you get closer to retirement. Closer you are to retirement, riskier it becomes. You don’t want to get stuck holding during a bust period going into your retirement, could very well ruin your retirement if you don’t outlive the bust. Being a landlord becomes very dangerous during a bust, you don’t want to get stuck with tenants that can’t afford rent and get stuck paying for their stay till you can legally get them out. When working, this doesn’t matter, but in retirement, you are on strict budget, and could hurt your quality of life if you have to use personal money to deal with a bad tenant.
Walking bye says:
May 2, 2017 at 12:30 pm
Pumpkin. One thing to remember on sticks vs real estate is liquidity. If you need the money in a pinch you can always sell. Real estate would take more time. some people like real estate more as an investment as you don’t see the daily ups and downs like the market. So they are not prone to sell at the wrong time like with stocks selling into a market panic.
From his posts years back, Clot came off as a good dad and ran a successful RE broker shop. Seems like dealing with fools and shysters during the bubble sapped his last bit of faith in humanity. Can’t fault him for that. Constantly dealing with people dumber than blumpkin would damage anyone.
“One has to marvel at the politics of the estate tax. I generally believe that people don’t care about taxes, as long as someone else is paying them. The estate tax defies that belief. I also generally believe that policies with negligible cost and negligible benefit — especially those that affect almost no one — are unlikely to stir the hearts of the electorate. Which is true. Except for the estate tax.
Why does it get people fired up?
For political points. Democrats spend a great deal of time fulminating about a tax that raises roughly no revenue for the Treasury. This is not the only such inconsequential policy they care about, mind you; President Obama’s obsession with changing the depreciation schedule for corporate jets springs readily to mind. But Obama is a politician, and politicians are always happy when they can find some complete nonissue that sounds like “tax breaks for corporate jets” and prate about it on the stump to an electorate that doesn’t know fancy words like “depreciation schedule” and isn’t going to bother to learn them. Even leftish policy wonks sort of roll their eyes at the sordid necessities of politics, and move on to more important matters. But not with the estate tax. About the estate tax, left-wing wonks care.
Then you have the Republicans. I understand why Republicans are so gung ho to get rid of the estate tax: Simply put, very rich people will donate a lot of money to campaigns that suggest their children ought to be able to inherit their wealth tax-free. What is astonishing to me is how successfully Republicans have been able to rebrand the estate tax as the “death tax,” and persuade 71 percent of voters that inheritance taxes are unfair. Now, if the estate tax were actually widely paid, and stood in the way of ordinary Americans inheriting Grandma’s mint-condition 1984 Cadillac Eldorado, this would not be at all surprising. But only a tiny percentage of estates pay the tax, because you get to pass on more than $5 million tax-free before the government takes a dime (more for couples).”
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-02/why-people-care-about-the-estate-tax
#1 all time post…….if clot could only see it now…..
LurksMcGee says:
May 2, 2017 at 10:50 am
ChiFI:
Reading yesterday’s comment about Clot at the injection house was pretty depressing. Did you know this person well? I’d feel terrible to see someone in a situation like that and I spoke regularly to them (IRL of course).
How do you think it happened? I ask because I haven’t read the blog long enough to understand how things could get that bad.
Chgo clot would make fast work of our multiple personality poster!
Maybe clot lurks here on occasion??
Pumpkin is likely the reason a lot of people left. It’s difficult to talk on the board when he posts five posts in a row ten paragraphs each.
Defens and now has his ummm friend jumping in to back him up.
Clearly I couldn’t see the joke implied with your description of clot. Fair
So Sybil is still talking to herself? Lurks McPumpandcantdump must have some serious issues…I mean other than the ones we already know about.
Hahahahahahahahaha
Don’t mind me, a little rant on economics.
Gotta have balance between labor and profit….right now too much goes to profit to the point where it is hurting growth in the economy. People want goods, but if they don’t have the capital to signal to businesses that they should produce more, you get stagnation in the economy. This is why too much money in too few hands actually hurts economic growth. Too much money going to profit has the equivalent impact of overpaying a min wage worker a 100 dollars an hour…..it hurts the economy.
It’s sad, one group is against overpaying workers on the basis it hurts the economy, but this same group sees no harm in overpaying profit. Shaking my head.
Then those people need to get a life. Are you going to really stop participating on a blog because someone posts things you don’t agree with. Talk about babies.
Admit one thing about most of the regulars that left….they were doom and gloomers, and when they finally realized housing isn’t going to crash into oblivion, they moved on. Why else would you get so mad at Pumpkin for posting positive angles of the economy?
D-FENS says:
May 2, 2017 at 2:56 pm
Pumpkin is likely the reason a lot of people left. It’s difficult to talk on the board when he posts five posts in a row ten paragraphs each.
It’s like you want a circle jerk of people spitting out the same message and everyone agreeing….sorry not going to happen with Pumpkin here.
That’s what made me start posting here; the relentless attacks on real estate and claims of economic calamity. I had no choice but to jump in and show the other side of the story.
I can think of a better choice.
Not with the pumps here as he says. Well soon he might be the only one here!
Add one thing to my rant…..just like wages drive up cost, so does excessive profit. Why people can only see it one way, no idea, but excessive wages has the same impact as excessive profit.
Jesus – Pumpkin must be a real lonely guy. It’s interesting how he says he is married to somebody on his FB page, but his so-called wife makes no such admission on her FB page. “Wife” only has pictures of herself and the kid.
I’ll admit I stopped posting, and generally visiting, because I’m tired of the troll.
TROLL, the below makes you a egotistical jackwagon who apparently felt the need to barge in and ram your poorly worded, often unsupported, and completely spam like opinions down everyone’s throat because of how “wrong” everyone but those who agree with you are.
And then talk about babies and needing to get a life? When you dedicate every spare waking moment to making sure you inundate this random real estate blog consisting of really no more then 15 or so regular posters you’ve never met with your “correct” life theories? Like their dissenting opinions are weighted so heavily that could systematically shift the balance of power and bring down the entire system.
Why don’t you act like an adult and not give a toot about what random strangers on the Internet think of the economy and walk away?
Then those people need to get a life. Are you going to really stop participating on a blog because someone posts things you don’t agree with. Talk about babies.
Oh, and I’m still waiting for your analysis of teacher pensions, troll.
My intention was not to be a jerk. I was legitimately amused. I am sorry it was at your expense……no offense intended……
LurksMcGee says:
May 2, 2017 at 3:09 pm
Clearly I couldn’t see the joke implied with your description of clot. Fair
I e-mailed clot the post and his response was 3 of these….
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/331788697525050309/
I never realized this was an intimate gathering of dissenters. If that’s the case, and you want “your space” back, so be it. I’m a good guy, and will respect your space by not posting.
Btw, give me the data on the teachers pension and I will produce the report. How am I supposed to produce a report with made up numbers? Are you trying to waste my time?
“Why don’t you act like an adult and not give a toot about what random strangers on the Internet think of the economy and walk away?”
I’m a good guy, and will respect your space by not posting.
Fool us once…
(btw, you are a compulsive, dim-witted juvenile – ergo you can never stop. You are a heroin addict and your heroin is trying to justify that you are not a moron. It’s a lifelong quest with no satisfying end for you.)
No offense taken ChiFI. I’m new here. I’ll understand the blog’s personality at some point lol
We are doing a bourbon takeover event at Tavern 5 in Pompton Plains tomorrow from 6-9.
Custom food and drink menu featuring our spirits. Cmon out.
https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari&um=1&ie=UTF-8&fb=1&gl=us&entry=s&sa=X&ftid=0x89c3036930fe4749:0xae3f89d2a00da6c5&gmm=CgIgAQ%3D%3D
Sweet Jesus!!
Lead Story,
I smile when I think that part of Clots property tax bill will end up supporting the Summer WH.
Bedminster and Bernardsville went for Trump in the election, you reap what you sow!
High Five Karma!
I know I said I would not post, but props to someone else out there that actually gets it. This piece even summarizes why I’m called an “idiot” on this blog. Just remember, I didn’t read these ideas anywhere, I thought about the economy and what’s wrong with it, and posted my thoughts on this blog in which I was called an idiot for. I’ll never forget Joyce and others like Ragnar ripping into me claiming “there is no such thing as hoarding you idiot.” Clearly, I’m the not the idiot. This article breaks down why paying workers too little in the name of higher profits does major harm to the economy. I’ll keep my word and not post, but had to share this with the blog.
“One of the big reasons the U.S. economy is so lousy is that big American companies are hoarding cash and “maximizing profits” instead of investing in their people and future projects.
This behavior is contributing to record income inequality in the country and starving the primary engine of U.S. economic growth – the vast American middle class – of purchasing power. (See charts below).
If average Americans don’t get paid living wages, they can’t spend much money buying products and services. And when average Americans can’t buy products and services, the companies that sell products and services to average Americans can’t grow. So the profit obsession of America’s big companies is, ironically, hurting their ability to accelerate revenue growth.
One obvious solution to this problem is for big companies to pay their people more – to share more of the vast wealth that they create with the people who create it.
The companies have record profit margins, so they can certainly afford to do this.
But, unfortunately, over the past three decades, what began as a healthy and necessary effort to make our companies more efficient has evolved into a warped consensus that the only value that companies create is financial (cash) and that the only thing managers and owners should ever worry about is making more of it.
This view is an insult to anyone who has ever dreamed of having a job that is about more than money. And it is a short-sighted and destructive view of capitalism, an economic system that sustains not just this country but most countries in the world.
This view has become deeply entrenched, though.
These days, if you suggest that great companies should serve several constituencies (customers, employees, and shareholders) and that American companies should share more of their wealth with the people who generate it (employees), you get called a “social!st.” You get called a “liberal.” You get told that you “don’t understand economics.” You get accused of promoting “wealth confiscation.” You get told that, in America, people get paid what they deserve to get paid: Anyone who wants more money should go out and “start their own company” or “demand a raise” or “get a better job.”
In other words, you get told that anyone who suggests that great companies should share the value they create with all three constituencies instead of just lining the pockets of shareholders is an idiot.
After all, these folks say, one law of capitalism is that employers pay their employees as little as possible. Employees are just “costs.” You should try to minimize those “costs” whenever and wherever you can.
This view, unfortunately, is not just selfish and demeaning. It’s also economically stupid. Those “costs” you are minimizing (employees) are also current and prospective customers for your company and other companies. And the less money they have, the fewer products and services they are going to buy.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-need-to-pay-people-more-2013-8
I know I said I would not post, but props to someone else out there that actually gets it. This piece even summarizes why I’m called an “idiot” on this blog. Just remember, I didn’t read these ideas anywhere, I thought about the economy and what’s wrong with it, and posted my thoughts on this blog in which I was called an idiot for. I’ll never forget Joyce and others like Ragnar ripping into me claiming “there is no such thing as hoarding you idiot.” Clearly, I’m the not the idiot. This article breaks down why paying workers too little in the name of higher profits does major harm to the economy. I’ll keep my word and not post, but had to share this with the blog.
“One of the big reasons the U.S. economy is so lousy is that big American companies are hoarding cash and “maximizing profits” instead of investing in their people and future projects.
This behavior is contributing to record income inequality in the country and starving the primary engine of U.S. economic growth – the vast American middle class – of purchasing power. (See charts below).
If average Americans don’t get paid living wages, they can’t spend much money buying products and services. And when average Americans can’t buy products and services, the companies that sell products and services to average Americans can’t grow. So the profit obsession of America’s big companies is, ironically, hurting their ability to accelerate revenue growth.
One obvious solution to this problem is for big companies to pay their people more – to share more of the vast wealth that they create with the people who create it.
The companies have record profit margins, so they can certainly afford to do this.
But, unfortunately, over the past three decades, what began as a healthy and necessary effort to make our companies more efficient has evolved into a warped consensus that the only value that companies create is financial (cash) and that the only thing managers and owners should ever worry about is making more of it.
This view is an insult to anyone who has ever dreamed of having a job that is about more than money. And it is a short-sighted and destructive view of capitalism, an economic system that sustains not just this country but most countries in the world.
This view has become deeply entrenched, though.
These days, if you suggest that great companies should serve several constituencies (customers, employees, and shareholders) and that American companies should share more of their wealth with the people who generate it (employees), you get called a “social!st.” You get called a “liberal.” You get told that you “don’t understand economics.” You get accused of promoting “wealth confiscation.” You get told that, in America, people get paid what they deserve to get paid: Anyone who wants more money should go out and “start their own company” or “demand a raise” or “get a better job.”
In other words, you get told that anyone who suggests that great companies should share the value they create with all three constituencies instead of just lining the pockets of shareholders is an idiot.
After all, these folks say, one law of capitalism is that employers pay their employees as little as possible. Employees are just “costs.” You should try to minimize those “costs” whenever and wherever you can.
This view, unfortunately, is not just selfish and demeaning. It’s also economically stupid. Those “costs” you are minimizing (employees) are also current and prospective customers for your company and other companies. And the less money they have, the fewer products and services they are going to buy.”
“One of the big reasons the U.S. economy is so lousy is that big American companies are hoarding cash and “maximizing profits” instead of investing in their people and future projects.
This behavior is contributing to record income inequality in the country and starving the primary engine of U.S. economic growth – the vast American middle class – of purchasing power. (See charts below).
If average Americans don’t get paid living wages, they can’t spend much money buying products and services. And when average Americans can’t buy products and services, the companies that sell products and services to average Americans can’t grow. So the profit obsession of America’s big companies is, ironically, hurting their ability to accelerate revenue growth.
One obvious solution to this problem is for big companies to pay their people more – to share more of the vast wealth that they create with the people who create it.”
Grim,
Spirits rollout in SoJo? Come on, Pomptons an overnight for me.
The companies have record profit margins, so they can certainly afford to do this.
But, unfortunately, over the past three decades, what began as a healthy and necessary effort to make our companies more efficient has evolved into a warped consensus that the only value that companies create is financial (cash) and that the only thing managers and owners should ever worry about is making more of it.
This view is an insult to anyone who has ever dreamed of having a job that is about more than money. And it is a short-sighted and destructive view of capitalism, an economic system that sustains not just this country but most countries in the world.
This view has become deeply entrenched, though.
These days, if you suggest that great companies should serve several constituencies (customers, employees, and shareholders) and that American companies should share more of their wealth with the people who generate it (employees), you get called a “social!st.” You get called a “liberal.” You get told that you “don’t understand economics.” You get accused of promoting “wealth confiscation.” You get told that, in America, people get paid what they deserve to get paid: Anyone who wants more money should go out and “start their own company” or “demand a raise” or “get a better job.”
In other words, you get told that anyone who suggests that great companies should share the value they create with all three constituencies instead of just lining the pockets of shareholders is an idiot.
After all, these folks say, one law of capitalism is that employers pay their employees as little as possible. Employees are just “costs.” You should try to minimize those “costs” whenever and wherever you can.
This view, unfortunately, is not just selfish and demeaning. It’s also economically stupid. Those “costs” you are minimizing (employees) are also current and prospective customers for your company and other companies. And the less money they have, the fewer products and services they are going to buy.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-need-to-pay-people-more-2013-8
Cont.
“The companies have record profit margins, so they can certainly afford to do this.
But, unfortunately, over the past three decades, what began as a healthy and necessary effort to make our companies more efficient has evolved into a warped consensus that the only value that companies create is financial (cash) and that the only thing managers and owners should ever worry about is making more of it.
This view is an insult to anyone who has ever dreamed of having a job that is about more than money. And it is a short-sighted and destructive view of capitalism, an economic system that sustains not just this country but most countries in the world.
This view has become deeply entrenched, though.”
Rory,
Meh. They might not care. I don’t recall a lot of carping from the folks in Hawaii or the Vineyard.
Just more TDS.
The companies have record profit margins, so they can certainly afford to do this.
Cont.
“These days, if you suggest that great companies should serve several constituencies (customers, employees, and shareholders) and that American companies should share more of their wealth with the people who generate it (employees), you get called a “social!st.” You get called a “liberal.” You get told that you “don’t understand economics.” You get accused of promoting “wealth confiscation.” You get told that, in America, people get paid what they deserve to get paid: Anyone who wants more money should go out and “start their own company” or “demand a raise” or “get a better job.”
In other words, you get told that anyone who suggests that great companies should share the value they create with all three constituencies instead of just lining the pockets of shareholders is an idiot.
After all, these folks say, one law of capitalism is that employers pay their employees as little as possible. Employees are just “costs.” You should try to minimize those “costs” whenever and wherever you can.
This view, unfortunately, is not just selfish and demeaning. It’s also economically stupid. Those “costs” you are minimizing (employees) are also current and prospective customers for your company and other companies. And the less money they have, the fewer products and services they are going to buy.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-need-to-pay-people-more-2013-8
“These days, if you suggest that great companies should serve several constituencies (customers, employees, and shareholders) and that American companies should share more of their wealth with the people who generate it (employees), you get called a “social!st.” You get called a “liberal.” You get told that you “don’t understand economics.” You get accused of promoting “wealth confiscation.” You get told that, in America, people get paid what they deserve to get paid: Anyone who wants more money should go out and “start their own company” or “demand a raise” or “get a better job.”
In other words, you get told that anyone who suggests that great companies should share the value they create with all three constituencies instead of just lining the pockets of shareholders is an idiot.
After all, these folks say, one law of capitalism is that employers pay their employees as little as possible. Employees are just “costs.” You should try to minimize those “costs” whenever and wherever you can.
This view, unfortunately, is not just selfish and demeaning. It’s also economically stupid. Those “costs” you are minimizing (employees) are also current and prospective customers for your company and other companies. And the less money they have, the fewer products and services they are going to buy.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-need-to-pay-people-more-2013-8
“These days, if you suggest that great companies should serve several constituencies (customers, employees, and shareholders) and that American companies should share more of their wealth with the people who generate it (employees), you get called a “social!st.” You get called a “liberal.” You get told that you “don’t understand economics.” You get accused of promoting “wealth confiscation.” You get told that, in America, people get paid what they deserve to get paid: Anyone who wants more money should go out and “start their own company” or “demand a raise” or “get a better job.”
In other words, you get told that anyone who suggests that great companies should share the value they create with all three constituencies instead of just lining the pockets of shareholders is an idiot.
After all, these folks say, one law of capitalism is that employers pay their employees as little as possible. Employees are just “costs.” You should try to minimize those “costs” whenever and wherever you can.
This view, unfortunately, is not just selfish and demeaning. It’s also economically stupid. Those “costs” you are minimizing (employees) are also current and prospective customers for your company and other companies. And the less money they have, the fewer products and services they are going to buy.”
“These days, if you suggest that great companies should serve several constituencies (customers, employees, and shareholders) and that American companies should share more of their wealth with the people who generate it (employees), you get called a “social!st.” You get called a “liberal.” You get told that you “don’t understand economics.” You get accused of promoting “wealth confiscation.” You get told that, in America, people get paid what they deserve to get paid: Anyone who wants more money should go out and “start their own company” or “demand a raise” or “get a better job.”
“These days, if you suggest that great companies should serve several constituencies (customers, employees, and shareholders) and that American companies should share more of their wealth with the people who generate it (employees), you get called a “social!st.” You get called a “l!beral.” You get told that you “don’t understand economics.” You get accused of promoting “wealth conf!scation.” You get told that, in America, people get paid what they deserve to get paid: Anyone who wants more money should go out and “start their own company” or “demand a raise” or “get a better job.”
In other words, you get told that anyone who suggests that great companies should share the value they create with all three constituencies instead of just lining the pockets of shareholders is an idiot.
After all, these folks say, one law of capitalism is that employers pay their employees as little as possible. Employees are just “costs.” You should try to minimize those “costs” whenever and wherever you can.
This view, unfortunately, is not just selfish and demeaning. It’s also economically stupid. Those “costs” you are minimizing (employees) are also current and prospective customers for your company and other companies. And the less money they have, the fewer products and services they are going to buy.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-need-to-pay-people-more-2013-8
“These days, if you suggest that great companies should serve several constituencies (customers, employe3s, and shareh0lders) and that American companies should share more of their wealth with the people who generate it (employ3es), you get called a “social!st.” You get called a “l!beral.” You get told that you “don’t understand economics.” You get accused of promoting “wealth conf!scation.” You get told that, in America, people get paid what they deserve to get paid: Anyone who wants more money should go out and “start their own company” or “demand a raise” or “get a better job.”
In other words, you get told that anyone who suggests that great companies should share the value they create with all three constituencies instead of just lining the pockets of shareholders is an idiot.
After all, these folks say, one law of capitalism is that employers pay their employees as little as possible. Employees are just “costs.” You should try to minimize those “costs” whenever and wherever you can.
This view, unfortunately, is not just selfish and demeaning. It’s also economically stupid. Those “costs” you are minimizing (employees) are also current and prospective customers for your company and other companies. And the less money they have, the fewer products and services they are going to buy.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-need-to-pay-people-more-2013-8
Impossible to post the best paragraph of the article, keeps going into moderation. Will just leave it out. Click on the link to read it to understand why I wanted to post this.
“In other words, you get told that anyone who suggests that great companies should share the value they create with all three constituencies instead of just lining the pockets of shareholders is an idiot.
After all, these folks say, one law of capitalism is that employers pay their employees as little as possible. Employees are just “costs.” You should try to minimize those “costs” whenever and wherever you can.
This view, unfortunately, is not just selfish and demeaning. It’s also economically stupid. Those “costs” you are minimizing (employees) are also current and prospective customers for your company and other companies. And the less money they have, the fewer products and services they are going to buy.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-need-to-pay-people-more-2013-8
I know I said I would not post…but I’m a liar and a social misfit. I learned it from my criminal deported father. The apple doesn’t far fall from the tree and in my case, brain damage was instantaneous.
Eddie Ray,
Hawaii and the Vineyard didn’t get it every weekend. Family in Palm Beach report that they are glad to be seeing the back of him.
Interesting article for the Financial and Legal wonks, this is a long time watch.
https://thefinanser.com/2017/05/americas-troubled-regulatory-regime-laid-bare-occ.html/
Rory,
This article is right in my other wheelhouse. I think it may be overstating the dustup on this issue but the regulatory morass is real enough. I’ve loads of experience dealing with OCC and state regulators and that territorial tension is quite real, based in the principles of American federalism (you’re not a fan, I know) and dating back to the founding of the republic.