US corporations flush with profits

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Since the last 70's, the stardard of living for the average working guy (i.e. not college educated; not blue collar) and either drifted downward or remained static ... with the exception of a few years towards the end of the Clinton adminstration.

Not quite. Our standard of living has increased by about 50% since the 1970s, but only because we now have two income families. The average wage (which includes guys like Trump and Gates) has dropped 10% since 1973. During Clinton's second term, real wages had actually increased for the first time in 20 years, but we lost it all after 9/11.

The Fed still seems more interested in keeping wages down than anything else, so it may be sometime before the rest of America sees something good come of our masters' wealth.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by DanS
Here's the WSJ's take, which focuses more on the short-term and quarterly numbers.

It's amazing how the Clinton years looked like a big corporate give-away compared to the Reagan/Bush I years.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

This is good news for ordinary workers because it indicates that hefty raises and hiring are around the corner.

only if the profits are being made in america and not abroad. (are these figures from companies operating IN america, or american companies operating in america and abroad)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Odin


Ah, yes, Walmart ... employees are getting so much money from thier non-existant investments.

If they participate in the stock program provided by management, they might.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Since the last 70's, the stardard of living for the average working guy (i.e. not college educated; not blue collar) and either drifted downward or remained static ... with the exception of a few years towards the end of the Clinton adminstration.

Not quite. Our standard of living has increased by about 50% since the 1970s, but only because we now have two income families. The average wage (which includes guys like Trump and Gates) has dropped 10% since 1973. During Clinton's second term, real wages had actually increased for the first time in 20 years, but we lost it all after 9/11.

The Fed still seems more interested in keeping wages down than anything else, so it may be sometime before the rest of America sees something good come of our masters' wealth.

You're talking of the average standard of living, which includes the Trumps, etc. I'm talking about the standard of living for non-college educated guys.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey, these non-college educated guys voted for Bush again in 2004. They deserve a lesser standard of living as a result of his policies.

[Ramo]

The corollary to high corporate profits as a percentage of the economy:

Meanwhile, the share of national income going to wage and salary workers has fallen to 56.9%. Except for a brief period in 1997, that's the lowest share for labor income since 1966.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BC4257910%2D8351%2D437A%2D8C00%2DE4CF3B782091%7D&siteid=google&dist=

Let the good times roll.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Hasn't that been the theme for the last 5-6 years? John Kerry's two Americas. The 1/3 who are college educated and have marketable skills and the other 2/3 who aren't and who have been watching their standard of living fall.

This trend is the result of the rising developmen in the rest of the world. No politician's economic policies are going to be able to alter this. Perhaps its time for those other 2/3's to value education a bit more.

How do I unbold this??

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hey, these non-college educated guys voted for Bush again in 2004. They deserve a lesser standard of living as a result of his policies.

These is true. They should sleep in the bed they made for themselves.

[VetLegion]

What I'd like to know about that chart in the opening post, is what happened before 1929. Was corporate profits' share of the GDP larger prior to stronger government intervention? If I recall my US history, the first antitrust laws were introduced already in 1911, which is when politicians started to think companies are getting out of hand. After WWI we're already in the phase of capitalism where the state is a strong player. What I'd like to know for comparison, is how the things looked around 1900.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by pchang


This trend is the result of the rising developmen in the rest of the world. No politician's economic policies are going to be able to alter this. Perhaps its time for those other 2/3's to value education a bit more.

How do I unbold this??

You can't. You've been botted.

[Kidlicious]

Companies don't hire like they used to just because profits are high. When profits are high there's a threat of competition. Companies fight hard to keep costs low to prepare for the upcoming environment. They try hard not to give raises and expand too much, so that they can either lower their costs or exit the industry.

The question really is how much bargaining power to employees have and how much are they willing to spend. It seems to me that employess do have more bargaining power in some job markets, but I don't think consumer confidence will stay high because of the housing market. Then of course there's the rising interest rates and fuel costs this summer. So I don't really think these profit numbers mean much.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If they participate in the stock program provided by management, they might.

[DinoDoc]

What's so funny? They kept bugging me to sign up for the employee stock plan when I was hired.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What's so funny? They kept bugging me to sign up for the employee stock plan when I was hired.

That's just a moral booster.

edit: booster, not buster.