Live data from Hacker News

Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

nytimes.com

141–150 of 412 posts

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#141
post #104
post #88

The US is out of demand. Workers are spent out. Thus, there's no need to increase output, because nobody has the money to buy it. The US has huge excess manufacturing capacity, thousands of malls which could handle more traffic ("there's always parking at Sears", a rather pathetic ad), and services which could handle more business. There's a glut of capital, plenty of available unemployed or underemployed workers, no…

> The US is out of demand How is the US out of demand? Peak consumption years of population are between twenties and fifties and the biggest cohort of US demographics - the millennials - is just getting started. They crossed over the Boomers last year and now are the largest group. Behind them the younger (Gen Z) equally large in size is ready to backfill in another 15 years. It is true that demand from Boomers is do…

> Peak consumption years of population are between twenties and fifties and the biggest cohort of US demographics - the millennials - is just getting started.

They have no money to spend and little to spend it on. This has a ripple effect.

Many of them don't want to buy cars--Uber/Lyft allows them to dodge that (for now). Lots of them aren't getting married--this then drops spending of the household since they don't have children which sucks up vast amounts of resources. etc.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CEO of WarMart has mentioned this So a business model of screwing every penny out of your staff and suppliers can result in customers too poor to buy your merchandise? Who could have forseen this?

How much do you want to pay for goods in order for that cashier to make 40K?

No more than I do now. I want the wage increase to come from lowering the company's profitability. And it is... In 2016 Walmart is spending $1.2bn more on wages, and in 2017 it'll spend $1.5bn more. That's without putting prices up. The 2014 wage hike hit the share price quite hard, but Walmart has the cash to do it and I imagine the shares will bounce back. I hope other businesses follow their lead.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/14/walmart-prof...

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#143
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what good is a large population of people in their peak consumption years if they have no money with which to consume? So long as you have a low-paid workforce who have to save their money (either themselves or via insurance companies) in case they get an infected tooth or need to see a doctor for an antibiotic prescription, you'll have low consumption spending and low growth.

even medium to highly paid workforce members aren't entirely capable of spending en masse these days. I'd love to stop paying $3500/month in rent, but any property to buy around here has a median price of $1.2 million. Unless we all move to rural Indiana, housing + healthcare is designed to eat 100% of your after-tax income with no room for further growth. (of course, that's assuming you're just a putz serial employe…

There is a lot of middle ground between the valley and rural Indiana. Depending on how you drove to get there, the northern route would take you through Salt Lake City, just north of Denver, Omaha, Des Moines, and just south of Chicago. A southern route would take you north of Phoenix, Albuquerque, Oklahoma City, just east of St. Louis, and possibly through Indianapolis. I would bet every one of those cities would have multiple opportunities for medium-highly paid workforce members while also providing affordable housing.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CEO of WarMart has mentioned this So a business model of screwing every penny out of your staff and suppliers can result in customers too poor to buy your merchandise? Who could have forseen this?

How much do you want to pay for goods in order for that cashier to make 40K?

Sadly, what we'll see happen is more automation, self checkout, etc. Technology will ensure low skilled workers price themselves out of the economy. This, js likely, to some degree, part of the force resulting in net negative low skills worker immigration.

Too few skills (reading, maths) and now automation is coming to agriculture even fast food restaurants, and at $15 min wage, you can hire a high school dropout, if you really need manual labor.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#145
post #109
post #98

According to this Bloomberg article, companies have $2.1 trillion sitting offshore for tax reasons [1]. They're probably waiting for Congress to let them bring home the cash, tax-free. However, the last time that happened (2004), it was done to encourage companies to create jobs. Instead, they spent it buying company stock. [2] 1 - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/u-s-compan... 2 - http://www.theguar…

As far as I know the US taxes the income of its citizens even when they live outside the US. So why can't the US just tax the offshore income of the companies?

It depends; if you are paying taxes to the government of the country you reside in (say, Australia), the US has a reciprocal agreement with them, and you are not charged tax two different times on your income.

On a company level, this seems to translate into "we have super low local tax rates, build companies and campuses here to boost our local economy!" (see: Ireland).

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#146

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the geopolitical advantages of hoarding cash. A big pile of untaxed, uninvested cash represents a significant political bargaining chip for the corporation in control of it. Apple can extract more from negotiations with the US government, for example, when it's holding $100b USD offshore. Quite simply, that money is leverage. Over the next several decades we will see the decline of…

Also leverage against other companies who might challenge their position. No one is going to take on Walmart knowing that Walmart has the cash to undercut them while operating at a loss indefinitely while they drive the upstart out of the market.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#147
post #88

The US is out of demand. Workers are spent out. Thus, there's no need to increase output, because nobody has the money to buy it. The US has huge excess manufacturing capacity, thousands of malls which could handle more traffic ("there's always parking at Sears", a rather pathetic ad), and services which could handle more business. There's a glut of capital, plenty of available unemployed or underemployed workers, no…

Not in my neighborhood. The few malls are packed, have to search for a space anywhere. Commercial real estate is going crazy! 10s of thousands of apartments going up all over. Any place decent to eat has a wait. Demand is rocking in Midtown Atlanta!

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CEO of WarMart has mentioned this So a business model of screwing every penny out of your staff and suppliers can result in customers too poor to buy your merchandise? Who could have forseen this?

How much do you want to pay for goods in order for that cashier to make 40K?

"One leading hypothesis is that firms employing low-wage workers—such as fast-food chains—have significant monopsony power in the labor market; that is, they are the principal purchasers of low-wage labor in a particular job market. And a monopsonist facing a price floor doesn’t necessarily buy less, just as a monopolist facing a price ceiling doesn’t necessarily sell less and may sell more."

- Krugman, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/12/17/robert-reich-chal...

"The employment effect of the minimum wage is one of the most studied topics in all of economics. This report examines the most recent wave of this research – roughly since 2000 – to determine the best current estimates of the impact of increases in the minimum wage on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The weight of that evidence points to little or no employment response to modest increases in the minimum wage."

Schmitt, https://cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#149
post #88

The US is out of demand. Workers are spent out. Thus, there's no need to increase output, because nobody has the money to buy it. The US has huge excess manufacturing capacity, thousands of malls which could handle more traffic ("there's always parking at Sears", a rather pathetic ad), and services which could handle more business. There's a glut of capital, plenty of available unemployed or underemployed workers, no…

Not in my neighborhood. The few malls are packed, have to search for a space anywhere. Commercial real estate is going crazy! 10s of thousands of apartments going up all over. Any place decent to eat has a wait. Demand is rocking in Midtown Atlanta!

That reflects more a demographics shift. For every gentrifying neighborhood in the inner city there are several rotting and dying small towns.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not "trickle down" economics, which is not actually a real thing at all. That's a nonsensical political term that the Democrats seized upon during Reagan's "supply side" economic policy; which has beginnings much earlier than Reagan, and likely older than Jean-Baptiste Say's formulation. There isn't an idea that alone "capital drives growth," that's an idea that Keynes came up with by misreading Jean-Baptiste…

There is a school of economics, sometimes called the "freshwater school" (from the Chicago School and Milton Friedman) which claims you can't run out of demand. This is a classic position. But productivity is now so good that we can run out of demand. Classically, countries ran out of land, labor, capital, or management before they ran out of demand. There were occasional recessions, but that wasn't a permanent condi…

> But pumping capital into a capital glut doesn't do much.

I believe this is a phenomenon captured by the term "Pushing on a string."

Post reply on HN