141–150 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also can't borrow at negative real interest rates. Only some governments can. And you can't blame the governments for low interest rates. At least in the medium term, interest rates are mostly set by the market, supply and demand for loans. There's not a lot of demand.
Sure they can. AAPL issued bonds in 2015.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gvien the forum we're on, it's worth pointing out that today's white collar laborers are capturing one or two orders of magnitude less of the value they're creating than the blue collar workers of 1990's detroit. 360 billion* divided by 1.2 million = 300000 "per employee". Typical salary to 40,000ish-100,00ish range for laborers/engineers. The disparity in those numbers isn't so bad at all. Conversely, 1 trillion div…
Not only that, but in US salaried status is routinely used to avoid paying overtime, when overtime is a tacit requirement of many jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"today's white collar laborers are capturing one or two orders of magnitude less of the value they're creating than the blue collar workers of 1990's detroit." Which is why the problems associated are much more about the macro-economy than they are about silicon valley. The middle class is being gutted before our very eyes while the elite gobble up more and more of the "created value" through the power of technology.
Wealth isn't zero sum. Creating something of value doesn't take anything away from anyone else.
edit: it depends really too what we mean by wealth. If we define wealth as being employed, good lord wealth is zero sum. The amount of jobs the modern tech sector has created has been pitiful, with poorer compensation than many unskilled fields. If it means by possessing things, its a mixed blessing.Plenty of free or low cost content, though large staple goods like houses or cars are climbing up there.
Also, Martin Ford mentions something called the lights in the tunnel problem. Imagine a tunnel full of lights that represent the wealth of people. In the modern world, a handful of lights shine intensely bright, while increasingly more are dark, dim, or low-intensity. But the tunnel is dark, because a handful of lights can't generate enough light to make it illuminated. He used it in context of automation, but this is modern wealth creation, and eventually it will reach the point where the ones controlling the wealth have done so by dimming so many people that the tunnel goes dark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wealth isn't zero sum. Creating something of value doesn't take anything away from anyone else.
It depends on the business. A lot of businesses create things that do take away from other people. Amazon destroyed the local bookstore, for one. In a sense, wealth is spread through redundancy and waste, and the more efficient people get the less wealth. My home town going from three regional retail chains to a single walmart led to the destruction of plenty of wealth through efficiency. edit: it depends really too…
Take into account the increase in wealth of all the customers (as they get more for their money).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are going to have high market cap per employee in asset rich companies like oil producers and REITs. The value in those cases is primarily the mineral and real estate assets, not the employees, so tying salaries to it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Yes, but in the case of silicon valley, the actual assets aren't that big.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even as a contractor with an hourly rate. The assumption is the rate given is for 40 hours a week. I've had a number of hourly contracts where I was told either work the over time or find a new contract. The lack of care to employees is appalling at times.
I've been on contracts that are flat billed based upon 40 hours / week but no overtime is chargeable. The problems start when more than 40 hours / week is regularly expected to perform assigned tasks to standards of the contract and there's little control you have over the client putting barriers in place that make you less productive making the true hourly rate at least 25% lower.
So many jobs now, over work and expect over 40 hours. With no additional compensation. A majority of my contracts are flat rate. I had one role that paid half of my rate for over time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd flip that around and say that's $70bn saved for people. It's not called a tax break for nothing. Why do you consider the mortgage interest deduction an abomination?
Because it's hugely regressive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the consumption is already taxed in Europe: out of that 4 euros, 80 cents goes to France immediately in the form of VAT.
Then they shouldn't complain about Starbucks paying too little corporate tax. If they want more then raise VAT. It's nigh unavoidable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The private sector unionization rate is around 6.7% in the US so, despite whatever issues unions may have presented in the past, they are certainly not the primary cause of any of our current economic issues.
But the public sector unionization rate is more like 36%, and unions have an outsized economic impact. They aren’t the primary cause of our issues, but they have their share. Whether it’s teacher unions that make sure teachers can’t get promoted for their quality, or construction unions that make sure housing can’t be built without protracted negotiations and significant expense, or transportation unions that make su…
How anyone can argue that working-class people have too much economic power today is just bizarre to me. The decrease in the share of the productivity gains to the working class and the rise in inequality tracks almost exactly with the decrease in unionization.
http://www.epi.org/blog/union-decline-rising-inequality-char...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also can't borrow at negative real interest rates. Only some governments can. And you can't blame the governments for low interest rates. At least in the medium term, interest rates are mostly set by the market, supply and demand for loans. There's not a lot of demand.
Sure they can. AAPL issued bonds in 2015.
Here's what they sold in February 2016, for example (annual inflation was 1.0%):
- $500 million in 1.3% two-year notes issued at a spread of 60 basis points over similar-maturity Treasuries
- $500 million in three-year FRNs (floating rate notes) issued at three-month LIBOR + 82 basis points
- $1.0 billion in 1.3% three-year notes issued at a spread of 60 basis points over similar-maturity Treasuries
- $500 million in five-year FRNs issued at three-month LIBOR + 113 basis points
- $2.25 billion in 1.7% five-year notes issued at a spread of 80 basis points over similar-maturity Treasuries
- $1.5 billion in 2.25% seven-year green notes issued at a spread of 105 basis points over similar-maturity Treasuries
- $2.0 billion in 2.85% ten-year notes issued at a spread of 135 basis points over similar-maturity Treasuries
- $1.25 billion in 3.25% 20-year bonds issued at a spread of 150 basis points over similar-maturity Treasuries
- $2.5 billion in 4.5% 30-year bonds issued at a spread of 190 basis points over similar-maturity Treasuries
http://marketrealist.com/2016/02/investment-grade-corporate-...