Anyone who honestly believes big business will give any authority to regular shareholders on pay or for that matter, pay executives on results like everyone else, is simply kidding themselves. Not going to happen on its own. Ever. The only way this will change is complete collapse of the economic system (which is also unlikely) or Congress steps in and changes things. As it stands today, business receives too much encouragement to play games like this. It's all there in the existing tax code which even goes as far as allowing business to pay the taxes of these overpaid executives.
Fair is fair and what we have today is unfair. Let's see how well America's corporate leadership does when they have to live by the rules for everyone else. Considering how poorly they are doing today, why should they receive all of the gifts without any of the risk? We used to be a country that sought a level playing field and it's high time we get back to that traditional value. Obviously there are benefits for the select few but for the greater good of both the businesses and America, the benefits are hard to find.
Just when you thought you heard it all, you see this. The Green Zone as the hot new attraction with posh hotels, luxury shopping and an amusement park for the entire family. I'm sure the pro-war crowd is just lining up to get in on the action. Forget about jobs and feeding families, get in now and make cash from chaos. Hooray for the shining beacon of freedom and democracy! Oh look, is that the al-Sadr roller coaster over there?
Forget the rocket attacks, concrete blast walls and lack of a sewer system. Now try to imagine luxury hotels, a shopping center and even condos in the heart of Baghdad.
That's all part of a five-year development "dream list" — or what some dub an improbable fantasy — to transform the U.S.-protected Green Zone from a walled fortress into a centerpiece for Baghdad's future.
Pathetic. This is really supposed to be news...for the better? If you listened to Republicans talk you would think they actually liked the free market but if you believed them, you would be sadly mistaken.
Qwest Communications International Inc. on Thursday introduced DSL plans with faster download speeds, including one that is the fastest DSL service from a major U.S. phone company.
Qwest is charging $104.99 per month for a download speed of 20 megabits per second. For 12 mbps, it is charging $51.99 per month. The prices are $5 lower when combined with local phone service.
Compare this "great" offer to what I just signed in France, which we all know hates choice and hates the free market, according to the GOP. For €53 per month I receive a 100 mbps internet connection plus phone calls throughout Europe and North America plus TV channels. In local terms for local buyers one euro is one dollar but even with the terrible exchange rate this is a steal compared to the business friendly market in the US. The Republicans only care about giving business everything they want, always at the expense of consumers. It's hard to believe the GOP could do so much damage to the previously competitive US market.
The problems in the airline industry just keep getting worse. Two weeks ago I spent almost 30 minutes circling before landing so news like this is a major concern. Where were all of the business leaders a few years ago when the GOP was busy making fun of energy conservationists and telling everyone to consume as much as they like? If we had a serious policy a few years ago - including during the Clinton years - we might not have such deep problems both for consumers and business.
As cash-strapped airlines pack more passengers on flights into ever-busier airports, pilots are filing internal complaints warning that airline cost-cutting on fuel supplies could be creating a major safety risk.
The complaints, compiled by msnbc.com and NBC News from a database of safety incident reports maintained on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration, reveal wide-ranging concern among pilots that airlines are compelling them to fly with too little fuel.
The GOP Congress and Bush years will be looked back on for years by big business as the best of times. Competition was frowned upon, government regulation was changed to self regulation, war profiteering seemed to become patriotic to the GOP, taxes were cut and companies were allowed to easily move beyond the US borders in the name of free enterprise and now, the proof is there that big business is held to another standard in terms of taxes. We have problems ranging from banks begging for cash around the world, food crisis in terms of quality and quantity, higher cost of living and stagnant pay and now small business being punished while the big guys get another free ride. The best democracy money can buy.
The tax audit rates of the largest companies are less than half what they were 20 years ago while more small and mid-size businesses are coming under scrutiny, according to an organization that monitors the Internal Revenue Service.
Obama and Hillary are both chiming in and sure, giving shareholders some say is an OK start, but it's non-binding. It's more than what is there today, but pretty useless. The problem runs much deeper than a vote, but is directly connected to the chummy board members who take care of their friends regardless of performance. This is yet another issue that the GOP will never address yet many GOP voters are just as angry about this as Democrats. It cuts through party lines, especially when the economy is going belly up.
I have no issue with executives getting paid a ton of money provided the rest of the employees are seeing benefits rise on par with their own position. This doesn't mean that everyone in the company should get the same pay as the GOP spin will like to suggest, but it's about time we see growth through businesses and not just as the top. Anyone who thinks the current mindset can't be altered via taxes - increases and decreases - is kidding themselves. It would be nice to see candidates exploring options that might make a serious difference with this problem. And to those who say the government can't control such costs, nonsense. The tax code is littered with perks available to the select few so they're already getting a helping hand but the rest of us schmucks just aren't in that league.
The news of Europe allowing mobile phones on flights is painful news for frequent fliers. Cramming so many people into a small space (and giving individuals less and less space) and then throwing phones in to the mix is a recipe for disaster. The trains in France offer phone and phone-free zones and in general it works pretty well. The Eurostar between Paris and London is generally terrible with every bumpkin who gets on finding the need to broadcast "the train is leaving" or their sordid personal escapades at screaming level. We all use our mobile phones from time to time but most of us have the common courtesy to leave others in peace and head to the end of the train or speak quietly. Obviously some can't manage such a difficult task and force the trains (and soon planes) to issue strict guidelines.
Mobile phone rage, coming to the skies soon so the airlines can figure out a way to generate revenue since generating revenue from their core business seems to be asking too much.
To say that Americans detest the airline industry would be a mild understatement. Remember that it was the GOP who bailed this lovely bunch out with billions in taxpayer dollars only a few years ago and what did the US receive for it's investment? Massive executive salaries, salary cutbacks from everyone else, less on time, higher costs to fly, increasingly cramped spaces and an industry that doesn't really give a damn about what consumers think.
As we bail out the newest bunch of freeloading money wasters on Wall Street, think about the airline bailout. Just as business always asks "what's in it for me?" it's high time we ask the same question to business. The bailout model really needs to change.
It never ends for the insanity and proves for the millionth time that no matter how badly you fail in corporate America, you will still be handsomely rewarded. All of the so-called pay for performance talk is nothing more than bull. Corporate America continues to slash benefits not to mention trash jobs for employees but they always take care of themselves.
Worse still is that Bank of America will receive massive tax write-offs for buying the lousy company so BoA will get a nice free ride too boot. Best business environment money can buy. No wonder the US economy has been growing at a slower pace than Europe during the Bush years. It's just like a stinking third world country any more.
Did any of the big accounting firms learn anything from Enron/Andersen and other big scandals? Apparently not and this time it's even linked to the failed subprime mortgage firm New Century. Obviously the regulations and penalties are not quite harsh enough so hopefully Washington is watching and can correct this mistake. If this report is proven, it's time to lower the boom on this industry. Allowing shenanigans like this to go on is killing the investments of Americans, many of whom will rely on honest information for their retirement plans. Is asking for the truth really so difficult?
The Olympic spirit is clearly dead in China so let's just cut our losses and move on. Do people really want to travel to Beijing and be spied on everywhere, including in your hotel room? Sally Jenkins of the Post has a great article today that's really worth reading, in full. What a sorry state of affairs that the business sponsors are all running for the hills to avoid upsetting Beijing, surely out of fear of later retribution. Despite providing 70% of the money for the IOC, somehow they just can't do anything though when it was South Africa, it was possible. When Greece was behind schedule, the threats were everywhere and alternative cities were kicked around. In 2008, world leaders, corporations and the IOC all show just what cowards they are by accepting such disgraceful actions. By attending and giving money, they're all endorsing the Beijing regime. Pathetic.
Looks like Starbucks is going to have to figure out how to squeeze money from someone else. If they're treating their US employees like this, one can only imagine how poorly they treat the poor coffee growers. At least it's easier to see how they managed such high profits for such overpriced and burnt (well beyond fantastic dark roasted coffee of Italy) coffee.
A week after Starbucks was ordered to refund more than $100 million to baristas in California over a tip pool controversy, the coffee giant was hit Tuesday with a similar lawsuit in Massachusetts.
And a Boston lawyer said more lawsuits could be filed in Washington, New York and Minnesota over whether shift supervisors can share baristas' tips.
A nice article about farmers who participate in the Fairtrade program and what it means to them. When it's possible I try to buy Fairtrade products. A few years back I visited some coffee plantations around the old US base at Khe Sanh and heard that coffee workers there made roughly $1/day, which at the time was the mandated minimum wage in Vietnam. Not long after I visited a coffee plantation along the Guatemala-Honduras border where workers received about $2/day but they were unable to compete so jobs were bleeding. The business was struggling to survive due to competition from Vietnam. The Honduran coffee workers had such a limited future and of course, other possible jobs such as garment factories were also disappearing due to overseas competition as well. Once the hotspot for US factories, that too had been abandoned for riches in China.
When local opportunity disappears in places like this, these workers head north to America or Europe, just as many of our forefathers did in the past. Many of these workers would not be leaving their home countries where they have friends and family if they had opportunities. Fairtrade is about helping build opportunity for people to live. If the people who complain the most about illegal workers did something to help people earn a decent wage (we are not talking about striking gold, but just a livable wage) we would have much less of a problem. Read on and hear from a few Fairtrade participants.
Woo hoo. Aren't they speedy in their reaction to a serious health problem? It's not as though dangerous toys are relevant for Toys R Us or anything. Yes, once again industry shows just how well it can self-regulate. Maybe a few consumers will get lost in the shuffle but is the well-being of children really that important when we're talking about making millions and billions of dollars? Isn't corporate profit more important? They have shareholders you know and those shareholders want profit, or else.
Why is Big Oil still receiving tax breaks? I'm fine with giving tax incentives to help create green energy (except not for ethanol) but for the life of me, I can't figure out why the oil industry is still receiving welfare from Americans. As the industry sets historical profits, there should be no reason whatsoever to give them a penny. When oil was $10/barrel and Congress was too stupid to think about the future, perhaps. But today? Are you kidding me? The same GOP Congress that never believed in helping individual Americans during times of need and the same people who now want rebate checks for wealthy Americans can surely appreciate this issue, right? While it may make sense to help an industry during troubled times, oil is now setting new records quarter after quarter and can surely function on their own. If they can't, they may need to get out of that business and shut the doors.
Moving forward, Congress and our next President should look closer at how we can help businesses that are building the energy for the future. If we can afford to give Big Oil handouts, we surely can find money for green energy. Besides helping the country move away from oil, this will be a fast growing sector that will add jobs. The GOP should put aside the silly argument over the reality of global warming and just understand that this is an emerging market. Growing this industry means new jobs, new business and new money for everyone. All of this is dependent on the US getting started now, not in 10 years when the market is already set. Is that such a hard thing to understand?
As long as you have a political pension and benefits for life like Gordon Brown and others who talk up free trade. It's all fine and good to talk about the evils of protectionism but you have to be able to address the valid concerns of working people who watch their jobs go overseas or pay decline rapidly. Global trade can offer many plenty of positive benefits but to just wing it and open everything (think NAFTA) without restrictions isn't the answer either. Can a worker in France, for example, really compete with someone in Bulgaria for the same job but at a fraction of the pay? We see this struggle over and over on both sides of the Atlantic.
These are problems that Western Europe and the US are facing and neither extreme position is the right answer. Even when we do set up so-called free trade, all too often it only means free for local special interests and not-so-free for everyone else. Many in the emerging markets would like less dumping by First World countries and greater ability to sell their own products overseas. As the British economy heads downhill, how many regular families are going to want to dive in to the unrestricted free market? Moving in that direction over time is one thing, but the well being of families is at stake, so no need to rush overnight.
Because of the credit crunch and housing crash, fewer Americans are able to take home equity loans so they have been reaching for their credit cards. We've already heard about the need for many to use credit this winter to cover heating expenses, so the November jump is a very bad start to the season. At this point, it's still difficult to say if the cards are being used to live above their income or just to cover (increasing) expenses, such as gas, electricity and food.
Banks are much less forgiving these days with delays in credit card payments, taking a much harder line against even slightly late payments. This may have something to do with talk in Congress about cracking down on the credit card industry, but either way, this is not the time that anyone wants to be adding personal debt, if they can avoid it.
What would the second largest insurance company know anyway? They're only a business that pays out (in theory, at least) after natural disasters.
There were 950 natural catastrophes in 2007 compared with 850 in 2006, the highest number since the group started compiling its closely watched annual report in 1974.
The total cost of disasters in 2007 was 75 billion dollars (51.5 billion euros), while the bill for 2006 was 50 billion dollars.
Considering the failures in the banking and real estate sectors, 2008 might cough up a few more lottery-like payouts. What stands out is the effort to spin away the massive numbers and distance them from the word "severance." Call it whatever you want, but when someone such as Nardelli of Home Depot walks away with $209 million after being a failure is amazing. Absolutely amazing.
Of course, take a look at O'Neil of Merrill Lynch. They still have yet to reach the bottom of write-downs, already in the billions, and yet he was given a comfortable $159 million. If these people want to dissect the names (severance or stock or whatever) to make some committee feel better and avoid that nasty "severance" word in public, they must think that people are stupid and maybe they're right. Why did O'Neil even receive so many shares of ML stock that is part of his compensation plan? Because he had record numbers, based on fluff. You know, the junk that they are writing down which has forced the company to beg for billions in foreign investment. To untie the two is ridiculous. Merrill has had to write down this rubbish, though O'Neil only has to write down his signature for his new mansion. A list of jumbo payouts and more after the jump. What stands out to me is that there is no link between honest performance and payout. Many of these people were in the twilight of their career or can at least walk away and retire with these packages. What is the incentive to do the right thing? If you can find it, help me out because I can't see it. Someone like O'Neil can just say "hey, that business just didn't go well" and that is that. (It will be interesting to see if he gets dragged in on any of the lawsuits that are flying around.) These people are still in the same social circles with all of the trimmings. No shame or threat of paying back stock based on performance, that was all junk. They go to the same country clubs, the same yacht clubs, same season tickets to the opera, sitting on other corporate boards and probably now have more time to spend with their alma mater. Lucky them.
What's the downside here? Oh sure, they probably don't like the hits to their ego in such a public forum but other than that, there's little change. They can rely on a friendly media who provides some cover by telling us all that "that mega payout is not really severance, it's what was owed." Are they serious? Companies will continue to separate the links between all of this money as long as they can get away with it. Just as they re-package bad debt and sold it, they are re-packaging severance and calling it something else.
A large part of this issue is because we have executive payouts thrown in our face day after day. At the same time, we look at our own benefits shrink and our own pay not keeping up with the growth at the top. People in the boardrooms obviously have a lot of responsibility and yes, they can be fired quickly due to their high profile. But of course, people below aren't exactly sitting on solid ground either. Just what does it take to force this dysfunctional system to change?
The system that we are creating in the US is what I have seen so many times in the developing world, where the divide between rich and poor and enormous and the middle class is an afterthought due to it's small size. Fortunately our own middle class is larger though we can't continue to batter the middle class if we expect to have a properly functioning society. Rewarding someone for great work makes all the sense in the world. Rewarding someone for rubbish is rubbish. It's time to take a step back and modernize.
And this is who some in Washington want to protect. Thanks for making the case on why we need competition. The family of Comcast founder Roberts will continue to receive his salary ($1.8 million/year) for five years after he dies. They already sit on the board of directors but that is just not enough. His wife will receive health and "welfare" benefits for life. Hmmm, I somehow can't recall my mother receiving anything like that after my father died. Like millions of Americans, she had to find her own insurance since the old plan was canceled after my father died. She also lost his pension money, like many American spouses.
Tell me again why this company is coddled? I don't know a single person outside of greedy politicians who like Comcast. They offer terrible service at high prices because politicians are desperate for campaign contributions. One could argue that sure, Roberts founded the company and can do as he pleases. Perhaps, if Comcast remained a private company, but this is a publicly traded business, not a personal empire. I didn't think I could find Comcast any more despicable, but they managed to do it yet again.
