Corporate Profits vs Hiring

[NorthSideSox72]

So I had this idea spring into my head (because my life is a blissful journey along a glittering path of excitement), didn't know where to share it, so here goes...

 

I hear a lot of people pointing to increased corporate profits the past few years, contrasted against slow gains in jobs, and extolling their thoughts as to the "why". Some people think corporations are holding onto more cash due to uncertainty over regulations and government funding, thanks to an historically inept Congress. Others think it is a simple matter of corporations not having to take any responsibility for their communities, and taking as much money as they can. Yet others blame specific policies or regulations supported by one party or the other for encouraging it. The list goes on.

 

Whatever you think the reason is, I think it boils down to a question - if businesses are not being good "citizens", is there a way to change that? Or for that matter, SHOULD there even be an effort to change it? If you are heavily on the free market side, the answer is likely either "it doesn't need changing, that isn't a corporation's job" or "the free markets will sort this out themselves by (fill in the blank)". If you are a believer in heavier regulations, you can do things like change tax codes, provide hiring incentives, use government contract choice as leverage, or in the extreme, even do things to specifically curtail or slice off profits.

 

But here is a thought... What if there was a way to do this using consumer choice? A way to do this at minimal material cost?

 

I'd suggest all you need is some simple data. If, for publically traded companies (and this could also apply to large private firms to, potentially), you had the following data (some of which is already available) for a given quarter or year: net profit, gross profit, total hires, total fires/quits/layoffs, total salary+material benefits of each of hires and fires/quits/layoffs, and average raise values across the firm gross and per employee... you could create an index that showed a ratio of profits vs total value of jobs contributions to the economy. You could break it down by net hire/fire, net value of hire/fire, adjusted or unadjusted for tax breaks (gross vs net), and any number of other ways, but the bottom line is that you could produce a number (or a few numbers) that indicated in basic terms how good a company is at turning profits into positive job market impact.

 

With this information, consumers can CHOOSE to do business with firms that do better at this than others. Or they can not. But it is a powerful tool of information for people. And its cost to implement would be very, very small. Some of those numbers are already reported, or can be derived from required reporting. Other information, these companies already have, and getting a few data points added up in a spreadsheet would not be at all burdensome. Then, with those numbers out, anyone from random bloggers to major analysis firms (i.e. Challenger and Christmas, or Gallup, or the like) can create indices from this data and churn it out as a key evaluative number.

 

In any case, mandating these few new reporting numbers costs businesses very little, the analysis can be left to the public or other firms to do at no cost to the government or the companies being reported on, and you get huge consumer value. IF people then use that information, they can mold their consumer choices, thus giving both them and the businesses true CHOICE in the matter.

 

It isn't a perfect measure of how firms treat their employees (future or current) at all - just a general measure. But... what do people think of this idea?

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I think you run into the same problem you do with people trying to buy more environmentally conscious products or any other social-cause driven purchasing. I might be able to afford to spend a few extra dollars on the fancy free range chicken or grass-fed beef, but many more people can't. People shop at Walmart because it's cheap and its what they can afford, even if it's all part of a horrible self-damaging cycle (offshoring->stagnant or falling domestic wages->consumers driven to find ever-cheaper prices because of restrictive budgets->more offshoring->more falling wages etc.)

 

You'd be placing an awful lot of burden on consumers, a burden most consumers won't undertake. You'll get some more affluent shoppers who will follow that sort of information, but I don't see it making that much of a difference now. I think the biggest hurdle is that thanks to industrialization and globalization, we are so far removed from the production of the goods we consume that it's all "out of sight and out of mind." We don't see the deplorable conditions in clothing factories, we don't really see how sausage literally gets made, we don't see the precious metal mines and the pollution rampant in China. Economic impacts are even more abstract, so even if its directly impacting your community, it's not exactly easy to see how or why.

 

And then we still get back to the problem of people having to choose some social goal over their own budget/family. The mom shopping for her family of five might like the idea of that free range chicken that's produced by an employee-owned co-operative that provides good jobs to some people in her community, but Perdue's $3.99 a pound and that stuff is $8.99.

 

Without getting too deep into it, you're ultimately trying to push back against the essential nature of capitalism here. You need to do one hell of a good job convincing people to put social conscious above personal budget in order to have any sort of counterbalance to global capital and the pressure to seek ever-larger profits and personal fortunes.

[DukeNukeEm]

Look outside publically traded companies for work. Seriously, nothing good can come of working for one. But people are stupid/unqualified/generally useless enough to go flip burgers at McDonalds or bag consumer electronics at Wal Mart as a career and then go on b****ing about how they're not living up to some civic responsibility. Are you honestly shocked that these companies that merely exist as investment portfolio stuffers dont give a f*** about anything?

 

The solution is not to stop shopping at them. That's impossible because it goes against our interests, but maybe if the reliable retards who are as low as to even apply at a Wal Mart would stop doing that they'd die off and we'd get some options in here.

[Jake]

If you don't have enough money, you can't act rationally and be a part of a market correction. The vast majority of people don't have the means to make the choices that the free market system demands of them

[Jake]

Why don't unemployed people go get jobs?

 

Don't apply at Wal-Mart!!!

 

If you give them unemployment benefits until they get a good job, they'll never look for a job!! Maybe they should lower their standards.

 

But don't apply to places like Wal-Mart, one of the largest employers in the USA

 

It would be heresy to raise the minimum wage also

 

----> working economy

[StrangeSox]

Why don't unemployed people go get jobs?

 

Don't apply at Wal-Mart!!!

 

If you give them unemployment benefits until they get a good job, they'll never look for a job!! Maybe they should lower their standards.

 

But don't apply to places like Wal-Mart, one of the largest employers in the USA

 

It would be heresy to raise the minimum wage also

 

----> working economy

 

I'm unsure as to how the entire population of the working poor starving to death would lead to positive outcomes for anyone.

[StrangeSox]

A counter-point to the OP would be that we already are given "made in" information on most products we buy, yet an overwhelming majority of our stuff still comes from overseas because people generally don't care or can't afford to care. You see "Buy American" or "Buy Union-Made" campaigns every now and then, but they just aren't all that effective.

 

I think about the proposal the same way I do about buying seafood. It's not directly about jobs or hiring, but the logic is pretty similar. We've ravaged many of our fisheries, we're doing enormous environmental damage with others, and it really does look like the world's oceans are on the edge of ecological collapse. There's lots of good information about what types of fish are fished sustainably and don't result in lots of environmental destruction (e.g. cutting down mangroves for shrimp farms), but keeping track of all of that and then finding the right things at the supermarket is a pain in the ass, so I generally just don't buy seafood. People don't want to sit down and look over spreadsheets of financial data or social responsibility ratings just to know what gallon of milk or what sweatshirt to buy. You can have supplier-side tagging, but as we've seen with the organic labeling and the sustainable fishery labeling, absent strong and enforced regulations, these labels can be bought for a donation or may be general or vague enough that consumers still don't really know what they're getting.

 

You also run into ideological problems. If you want to give consumers one simple, easy number for each company or brand, then the ratings agency is going to need to make a lot of subjective determinations. Some will argue that NAFTA and more free trade in general is a rising tide that lifts all boats and boosts both domestic and foreign employment and wealth, while others would strongly disagree. Whose ideology and whose economic model is going to go behind these ratings? Is that even more information I'm going to have to dig into and validate before picking which rating system I'll use?

 

I've yet to read the whole thing, but Tom Slee wrote a book called "No One Makes You Shop At Walmart" several years back that really pushes back against the perceived power of consumer choice.

[DukeNukeEm]

I'm unsure as to how the entire population of the working poor starving to death would lead to positive outcomes for anyone.

When I said "they die off" I was actually talking about Wal Mart and their ilk that rely heavily on desperate/dumb enough to work for them. No employees, no Wally World.

 

As a general rule I won't work for any company that has a marketing department. Ever.

[EvilMonkey]

When I said "they die off" I was actually talking about Wal Mart and their ilk that rely heavily on desperate/dumb enough to work for them. No employees, no Wally World.

 

As a general rule I won't work for any company that has a marketing department. Ever.

Then those companies won't be around long. Even if it is just the owner wearing another hat, you have to have marketing.

[DukeNukeEm]

Then those companies won't be around long. Even if it is just the owner wearing another hat, you have to have marketing.

I work for a company who's marketing department is the dude who puts the logo on trailers. We do just fine. Maybe that's because shippers aren't going to be brainwashed into spending twice the money on an identical product by TV. Marketing, aside from government, is the biggest f***ing waste of money I've ever seen and I do my best to avoid companies I see on TV and in ads because I know the cost of trying to trick me into buying their product is built in to the price of the crap I'm trying to buy.

 

I still sometimes have to eat McDonalds or buy some crap at Target due to major geographic and parking (76 feet long don't park good) limitations but I'm generally proud of the job I do avoiding that crap.

 

If it were a matter of "we charge more because we pay our employees money" I'd be a lot more receptive to buying the s***.

 

 

[bigruss]

I work for a company who's marketing department is the dude who puts the logo on trailers. We do just fine. Maybe that's because shippers aren't going to be brainwashed into spending twice the money on an identical product by TV. Marketing, aside from government, is the biggest f***ing waste of money I've ever seen and I do my best to avoid companies I see on TV and in ads because I know the cost of trying to trick me into buying their product is built in to the price of the crap I'm trying to buy.

 

I still sometimes have to eat McDonalds or buy some crap at Target due to major geographic and parking (76 feet long don't park good) limitations but I'm generally proud of the job I do avoiding that crap.

 

If it were a matter of "we charge more because we pay our employees money" I'd be a lot more receptive to buying the s***.

What about companies who sell marketed products but pay employees more?

Edited January 3, 2014 by bigruss22

[Jake]

What about companies who sell marketed products but pay customers more?

 

If they pay customers, I'm buying.

[Jenksismyhero]

I work for a company who's marketing department is the dude who puts the logo on trailers. We do just fine. Maybe that's because shippers aren't going to be brainwashed into spending twice the money on an identical product by TV. Marketing, aside from government, is the biggest f***ing waste of money I've ever seen and I do my best to avoid companies I see on TV and in ads because I know the cost of trying to trick me into buying their product is built in to the price of the crap I'm trying to buy.

 

I still sometimes have to eat McDonalds or buy some crap at Target due to major geographic and parking (76 feet long don't park good) limitations but I'm generally proud of the job I do avoiding that crap.

 

If it were a matter of "we charge more because we pay our employees money" I'd be a lot more receptive to buying the s***.

 

Marketing is essential in our society. Why else would we consume so many products that aren't necessary and/or are bad for us?

[DukeNukeEm]

What about companies who sell marketed products but pay customers more?

My brain is full of f***.

[bigruss]

If they pay customers, I'm buying.

It's part of the reason why I try to shop at Costco.

[DukeNukeEm]

It's part of the reason why I try to shop at Costco.

Wait, I've only been in a Costco to take a dump after I realized you need some membership thing to buy stuff. Do they actually pay the customer? Like, how does that work? How much longer are they going to remain in business?

 

I'm guessing you meant employees but now I'm not so sure.

[StrangeSox]

I don't know about Costco but rei is a co-op, so if you're a member you're part owner and get a refund/dividend each year.

[bigruss]

Wait, I've only been in a Costco to take a dump after I realized you need some membership thing to buy stuff. Do they actually pay the customer? Like, how does that work? How much longer are they going to remain in business?

 

I'm guessing you meant employees but now I'm not so sure.

Yup just a typo, long day at work.

[kapkomet]

Hmm, a socio-economic reason for any business, and the dollars and sense, er cents, of it all.

 

Social responsibility and the accounting therein is going to be interesting in the future - the accounting standards are trying to figure out a real way to do this.

 

I could write quite a bit on this one, but much like the ... um, what the hell was that again, uh... oh yea, the crap I was supposed to type out two years ago about the whole reason behind fair market value and why the markets crashed, why would I start now with any kind of detailed post?

 

[StrangeSox]

Hmm, a socio-economic reason for any business, and the dollars and sense, er cents, of it all.

 

Social responsibility and the accounting therein is going to be interesting in the future - the accounting standards are trying to figure out a real way to do this.

 

I could write quite a bit on this one, but much like the ... um, what the hell was that again, uh... oh yea, the crap I was supposed to type out two years ago about the whole reason behind fair market value and why the markets crashed, why would I start now with any kind of detailed post?

 

Your m2m post is at least three years overdue at this point

[mr_genius]

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/g...g-protest/?_r=0

 

an interesting story i have been following a little.

[StrangeSox]

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/g...g-protest/?_r=0

 

an interesting story i have been following a little.

 

 

Tim Draper, a leading venture capitalist, released a plan late Thursday to create the separate state of Silicon Valley. It is part of his notion to break California into six states. The idea already has a website, although it seems to only have one page.

 

According to Mr. Draper’s proposal, which was first published on TechCrunch, the state of Silicon Valley would stretch from Monterey in the south through San Francisco to Contra Costa County in the East Bay. The other states are centered on Los Angeles, San Diego, the Central Valley and the north, which would be divided in two.

 

Why do so many people think this is something that doesn't make them look loony?

 

Back in April, the main substation that powers Silicon Valley was vandalized, but vandalized isn't really the right word because it was a very precise and deliberate attack by people who knew what they were doing. The assumed target was Silicon Valley, but nobody's been caught and there isn't a real motive out there yet.

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23036583/sho...-silicon-valley

[mr_genius]

Why do so many people think this is something that doesn't make them look loony?

 

Silicon Valley / San Francisco / Oakland start-up guys have some of the most douchey quotes and loony ideas i've ever seen. Peter Thiel is supposedly building a giant boat/island off the coast that will have no worker regulations and such, his own personal "slave ship" as it is lovingly referred.

 

[StrangeSox]

Silicon Valley / San Francisco / Oakland start-up guys have some of the most douchey quotes and loony ideas i've ever seen. Peter Thiel is supposedly building a giant boat/island off the coast that will have no worker regulations and such, his own personal "slave ship" as it is lovingly referred.

It's pretty chock-full of brogrammer libertarians who have massively inflated egos.

[mr_genius]

It's pretty chock-full of brogrammer libertarians who have massively inflated egos.

 

i haven't seen an actual brogrammer in a while. those guys seem to be in software sales or project managers now-a-days. i don't think they could pass the programming tests tech companies use in modern days.

 

actually, i guess the founders of most of these startups are likely former brogrammers, so you are probably right.

Edited January 3, 2014 by mr_genius