Obama: "Profits have to be shared by workers" ... Idiodic Statements for $500 please!

"If we're fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line," President Obama told the Chamber of Commerce on Monday morning.

RealClearPolitics Video

This is the kind of moronic statement that only makes sense to the minimum wage and the stupid.

Every time you get a paycheck they're "sharing" their profits with you. And here's a hint:

Any company that produces a product (of ANY kind) will expand their production base (i.e. hire more workers) if it will increase their profits. They will give raises to the people that increase the effecience and hence the profit margin of that production.

There is only ONE case where this is not true: Unionized Labor. In these specific cases where Labor Unions get to determine workers' pay - those evil corporate fat cats are not allowed to individually reward people for harder work and better productivity.

A job is not a right - it's a privilege. And you can only expect to enjoy that privilege so long as you make more money than you cost your bosses. This is a very simple concept. But it seems even our uber-educated president is clueless about how the world actually works outside of government.

Before you rant into your socialistic diatribe: When you get a raise at work ... do you immediately go out and pay your waitresses more money on a tip? What about for movie rentals? Do you volunteer to pay more for each film? How about gas? Do you give the gas attendant more for each gallon now that you're making more?

Then why should a private corporation? If you want more money from your company - ask for it. If they refuse, leave. If they want you bad enough - they'll offer more.

If you don't work in a field where you can ever get more - maybe it's time to change fields of work.

Ambition is not expecting more money for the same job - Ambition is a willingness to work harder for more.

He said more accurately, "Benefits have to be shared by workers". There's a difference. He is saying that when you change tax laws and imports, you need to look at the whole picture for Americans.

No, it makes perfect sense.
This is Union speak/language.

To Socialism we march.

Only statement I can disagree with is "Look for a new field of work." So many of our jobs have been outsourced to cheaper labor countries that it's getting very difficult to find new avenues of work that you don't have to go back to school for. I don't have the money to provide for my family, be unemployed AND pay to learn for a new skill. That's how they keep us trapped in one job, a slave to their system. That however is a marginal disagreement with an otherwise very astute observation.

As for minimum wage, Jesus. Don't get me started. You bump min. wage from 5 bucks to 7 (rounded for the sake of clarity). My wage at 15 dollars an hour doesn't go to 17. Now, I want to buy a Big Mac. The price has gone up from 3 dollars to 5 dollars to cover for the new minimum wage. So the folks that got the raise see no difference, the people that have so much money it doesn't matter, well, the hike doesn't matter. But me, the one that is above minimum wage, well, I just lost the ability to buy as many Big Macs as I once could. That's the death of the middle class at work.

He's simply saying that companies can't save decent wages for those at the very top while relegating most of the others to near poverty. And he's probably saying this because most corporations these days are too stupid to get that screwing their workers over = screwing their customers over.

That is all well and good, but looking at population growth compared to the pace in which manufacturing is being deconstructed and shipped away, everyone is going to have to learn Chinese, get an MBA, become a cop, a doctor or a nurse. Not that those professions are bad, but the job market is unarguably crap right now and those jobs are not coming back. This "get a job and work your way up" paradigm is dying fast and will be replaced with "grow your own food or starve" at the rate things are declining. Of course, I have a feeling the government will be happy to step in and place the last few shackles around our arms and legs.

Obama is talking sense.

Profits should be shared between all workers. Normally the hardest workers will get the least amount of pay, while doing the #test jobs, while the directors of the companys get massively inflated wages and bonuses for just being in a position of power. The directors will normally (not always) come from privileged backgrounds and would have had a head start in life. The reason there is such a massive gap in America between the rich and the poor is because of ignorance like the OPs. This is not Socialism, it is just capping Capitalism something that should have been done many, many years ago.

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
He's simply saying that companies can't save decent wages for those at the very top while relegating most of the others to near poverty. And he's probably saying this because most corporations these days are too stupid to get that screwing their workers over = screwing their customers over.

Near poverty? In America? Even the minimum wage worker in America is living better than 80% of the world's population.

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
He's simply saying that companies can't save decent wages for those at the very top while relegating most of the others to near poverty. And he's probably saying this because most corporations these days are too stupid to get that screwing their workers over = screwing their customers over.

This is where you're all mixed up though. The companies that act as you suggest are out of business VERY quickly... or they get big fat bailouts

Look at the top preforming companies in America... now look at the list of best companies to work for... you'll see some AMAZING coincidences.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
That is all well and good, but looking at population growth compared to the pace in which manufacturing is being deconstructed and shipped away, everyone is going to have to learn Chinese, get an MBA, become a cop, a doctor or a nurse. Not that those professions are bad, but the job market is unarguably crap right now and those jobs are not coming back. This "get a job and work your way up" paradigm is dying fast and will be replaced with "grow your own food or starve" at the rate things are declining. Of course, I have a feeling the government will be happy to step in and place the last few shackles around our arms and legs.

Look, as a high school kid coming out and picking a major in college - if you're still expecting the car factory job mom and dad had to be what gets you through you're being stupid.

People need to look at what jobs WILL be available and move themselves towards them. Just because you don't want to, or because you were too short sighted to take these steps does NOT mean we need to regulate companies to essentially subsidize your choice with artificially higher wages.

Like I said - the idea that corporations will take tax breaks and just sit on a pile of money and laugh manically is ludicrous. They'll re-invest that money into something they think will produce more profits.

Guess what - that's where you need to be - where they think there will be more profits. Not trying to squeeze out a couple more drops of juice from the same old turnip.

Lots of companies, both union and non-union, both large and small, throughout history have shared profits with workers beyond the paycheck. Do some reading and thinking about why. What's the damage here?

Originally posted by lilsmurf
Obama is talking sense.

Profits should be shared between all workers. Normally the hardest workers will get the least amount of pay, while doing the #test jobs, while the directors of the companys get massively inflated wages and bonuses for just being in a position of power. The directors will normally (not always) come from privileged backgrounds and would have had a head start in life. The reason there is such a massive gap in America between the rich and the poor is because of ignorance like the OPs. This is not Socialism, it is just capping Capitalism something that should have been done many, many years ago.

Where have you worked... ever.. that's done this? I can tell you now that I'm one of my top performers at my job - and if they paid me the "least amount of pay" I'd quit and go work for their competitor that would pay me more because I now give them an advantage since I'm a top performer.

You're using socialist text book logic that simply doesn't play out in reality.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Lots of companies, both union and non-union, both large and small, throughout history have shared profits with workers beyond the paycheck. Do some reading and thinking about why. What's the damage here?

edit on 2/7/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

When they do it by choice (i.e Christmas Bonus, Profit sharing bonus...) it's a perk that attracts highly qualified workers to the company and increases moral/efficiency of existing employees.

When it's regulated it is a cost increasing measure equal to taxes that take the companies ability to pay their people more on a merit base and reduce their ability to expand business.

How about we let the business managers - who's jobs are on the line - decide how best to expand their business.

If you worry about off-shoring... then let's make it more profitable to keep the jobs in America instead of allowing Chinese slave labor to be the best option.

Treat the problem, not the symptom.

I agree with the OP completely, even though my husband is a living example of someone who is being kept from full-time work because he out-worked everyone who worked the same position.

He works in repair, and there is a company goal regarding turn-around time. My husband reached and has maintained a rate that is three times better or more. The company goal was for a full-time position, my husband works part-time hours. He's stayed caught up at a high-quality level........so why promote him to full-time with more pay and benefits? It's in any company's interest to maintain a part-time status where possible, and he's doing the work. So no promotion, no good benefits......no advancement either. If he were to slow down to their goal rate, he'll be working obviously much slower. No one is going to want someone who was doing the job at one rate suddenly not producing as he's proven he can.
The place he worked for 32 years was restructuring and he was given a very generous buy-out. Now we both wish we had stayed. He keeps gettting told they "want" him full-time and they call him in to work many departments......but still make sure he isn't getting too many hours.
So work hard, but no harder than they expect you to? That's not right either.

Originally posted by gncnew
Where have you worked... ever.. that's done this? I can tell you now that I'm one of my top performers at my job - and if they paid me the "least amount of pay" I'd quit and go work for their competitor that would pay me more because I now give them an advantage since I'm a top performer.

You're using socialist text book logic that simply doesn't play out in reality.

British Airways who i worked for did this and the current railway i work for also does this. If you took 20% of profits made and share it equally between all workers, while also making sure no worker can earn more than 200% more than any other worker the world would be alot fairer place.

You seem to be afraid of socialist logic even though out of control Captilism logic is tearing the world apart.

reply to post by gncnew


I don't know what Obama is trying to say with the statement, but what I Do know is that our prestigious chamber of commerce have now eyes on foreign investors, they are all for free trade and killing the US production in favor of foreign one and that they are laundering money from foreign nations doantions for campaign money.

Specially money for Republican candidates.

reply to post by gncnew

My point, which I clearly failed to make, was that he merely said this was something to consider. It's not going to be a mandate. He's intelligent enough to know this. Methinks people either don't understand his language or just want to pick on everything this man says, or maybe both. And it's getting really tedious.

Originally posted by stars15k
I agree with the OP completely, even though my husband is a living example of someone who is being kept from full-time work because he out-worked everyone who worked the same position.

He works in repair, and there is a company goal regarding turn-around time. My husband reached and has maintained a rate that is three times better or more. The company goal was for a full-time position, my husband works part-time hours. He's stayed caught up at a high-quality level........so why promote him to full-time with more pay and benefits? It's in any company's interest to maintain a part-time status where possible, and he's doing the work. So no promotion, no good benefits......no advancement either. If he were to slow down to their goal rate, he'll be working obviously much slower. No one is going to want someone who was doing the job at one rate suddenly not producing as he's proven he can.
The place he worked for 32 years was restructuring and he was given a very generous buy-out. Now we both wish we had stayed. He keeps gettting told they "want" him full-time and they call him in to work many departments......but still make sure he isn't getting too many hours.
So work hard, but no harder than they expect you to? That's not right either.

To me this is where your husband has to make the ultimatum. Find another job offer, and then tell his currently employers either they retain his obviously valuable services and give him full-time employment, or he's going to take his valued skill set to a place that will give him full time employment.

We often forget that WE demand the wage and benefits that we work for. What they pay is what they value your services at. If you disagree with their valuation system, then terminate the contract and find someone who does agree with your valuation.

If you can't find ANYONE who agrees with your valuation - then you probably need to either adjust your measure of fair pay for that service, or find another service that does pay what you're looking for.

People keep confusing "fair pay" with "what I want to get paid".

Originally posted by lilsmurf

Originally posted by gncnew
Where have you worked... ever.. that's done this? I can tell you now that I'm one of my top performers at my job - and if they paid me the "least amount of pay" I'd quit and go work for their competitor that would pay me more because I now give them an advantage since I'm a top performer.

You're using socialist text book logic that simply doesn't play out in reality.

British Airways who i worked for did this and the current railway i work for also does this. If you took 20% of profits made and share it equally between all workers, while also making sure no worker can earn more than 200% more than any other worker the world would be alot fairer place.

You seem to be afraid of socialist logic even though out of control Captilism logic is tearing the world apart.

edit on 7-2-2011 by lilsmurf because: (no reason given)

So let's be clear: You worked for British Airways, and they actually took their top performers and gave them crappy jobs and paid them less than sub-par performers....

And those top performers stayed why? No seriously - I think you're just using the "I got bad pay and crap assignments because my boss hated me" excuse that so many non-performers use all the time.

You CANNOT mandate what a "fair" wage is ... and you CANNOT mandate what a salary "cap" is. If I want to make more than everyone else in my field, I will work harder and smarter than all of them... but if there is a cap on it... why should I? What if I reach that cap - but I could still do a better job? What is my motivation to improve the efficiency or innovation of my position?

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by gncnew

 

I don't know what Obama is trying to say with the statement, but what I Do know is that our prestigious chamber of commerce have now eyes on foreign investors, they are all for free trade and killing the US production in favor of foreign one and that they are laundering money from foreign nations doantions for campaign money.

Specially money for Republican candidates.

Hmm, methinks you are blinded by political bias... Democrats are also receiving political donations from laundered foreign sources... that is one issue that is truly bi-partisan in Washington.