• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Apple and other mega-corporations and the U.S. economy

Status
Not open for further replies.
other than "american pride" or some self indulgent illusion of 'fairness'....... is there any logical reason that a company whose sole purpose is to make as much profit as possible to not seek out the most profitable labor force (assuming said labor force can do the job equally)

Here is your choice, pick one.

A) Make tons of money, more than you could ever spend in dozens of lifetimes. But to do this you have to outsource jobs and evade taxes, with consequent effects on your country.

B) Make lots of money, more than enough to keep you in luxury for life, in the top 2% (> $250,000 year). But do it by employing your fellow citizens and paying taxes, strengthening your country.
 
other than "american pride" or some self indulgent illusion of 'fairness'....... is there any logical reason that a company whose sole purpose is to make as much profit as possible to not seek out the most profitable labor force (assuming said labor force can do the job equally)

Simple. They are damaging the US economy by sending the money elsewhere. They likely wouldn't survive without US sales, yet they don't want to pay US taxes. I say put a stop to it.
 
Here is your choice, pick one.

A) Make tons of money, more than you could ever spend in dozens of lifetimes. But to do this you have to outsource jobs and evade taxes, with consequent effects on your country.

B) Make lots of money, more than enough to keep you in luxury for life, in the top 2% (> $250,000 year). But do it by employing your fellow citizens and paying taxes, strengthening your country.

Apparently this = class envy to some people... I just don't see it.
 
Here is your choice, pick one.

A) Make tons of money, more than you could ever spend in dozens of lifetimes. But to do this you have to outsource jobs and evade taxes, with consequent effects on your country.

B) Make lots of money, more than enough to keep you in luxury for life, in the top 2% (> $250,000 year). But do it by employing your fellow citizens and paying taxes, strengthening your country.


Both are foolish questions. Are you saying Apple cheats? I suppose you never owned stock before. Apple does what it does, and it does it we.. Stop saying Apple cheats or is bad, because you absolutely do not know.
 
Both are foolish questions. Are you saying Apple cheats? I suppose you never owned stock before. Apple does what it does, and it does it we.. Stop saying Apple cheats or is bad, because you absolutely do not know.

Try reading my post. The name "Apple" does not appear in it anywhere. Nor is there any reference to "good" or "bad".

Answer the question or explain why "both are foolish questions". So far the only thing foolish is your response.
 
Both are foolish questions. Are you saying Apple cheats? I suppose you never owned stock before. Apple does what it does, and it does it we.. Stop saying Apple cheats or is bad, because you absolutely do not know.

He isn't talking about Apple. He is talking about companies that evade taxes and outsource. I am sure Apple falls under those to some degree (outsourcing for certain).
 
Here is your choice, pick one.

A) Make tons of money, more than you could ever spend in dozens of lifetimes. But to do this you have to outsource jobs and evade taxes, with consequent effects on your country.

B) Make lots of money, more than enough to keep you in luxury for life, in the top 2% (> $250,000 year). But do it by employing your fellow citizens and paying taxes, strengthening your country.

The problem is you're assuming these are American companies. They're not. Apple, Microsoft, IBM, GM, etc..... are all multi-national companies. They may be headquartered in America, but they are very much international companies. Patriotism does not pay the bills. As a stockholder I would be pissed beyond belief if company I was investing in chose to make less money in order to be "patriotic". I would be extremely pissed. I'd pull my money out so fast it would make my head spin. It defies all economic sense and logic to make something here in the US because it's "patriotic" instead of making something overseas where it is cheaper.
 
The problem is you're assuming these are American companies. They're not. Apple, Microsoft, IBM, GM, etc..... are all multi-national companies. They may be headquartered in America, but they are very much international companies. Patriotism does not pay the bills. As a stockholder I would be pissed beyond belief if company I was investing in chose to make less money in order to be "patriotic". I would be extremely pissed. I'd pull my money out so fast it would make my head spin. It defies all economic sense and logic to make something here in the US because it's "patriotic" instead of making something overseas where it is cheaper.

If these were American companies ... these ARE Americans companies. Founded, run and owned by Americans, headquartered on US soil. How could GM be the recipient of Federal bailout money if it wasn't a US company?

"A multinational corporation or enterprise is a corporation or an enterprise that manages production or delivers services in more than one country." WIKI

But the real "beauty" of your post is the blatant contradiction.

First you claim that prominent Americans companies aren't (ostensibly to defend their behavior and justify your support for them), then you demand profitability at any cost - including the welfare of your own country.

You rant and rave about illegal immigrants stealing jobs and not paying taxes, decimating the economy, but defend corporate America outsourcing jobs and dodging taxes, decimating the economy.
 
If these were American companies ... these ARE Americans companies. Founded, run and owned by Americans, headquartered on US soil. How could GM be the recipient of Federal bailout money if it wasn't a US company?

"A multinational corporation or enterprise is a corporation or an enterprise that manages production or delivers services in more than one country." WIKI

But the real "beauty" of your post is the blatant contradiction.

First you claim that prominent Americans companies aren't (ostensibly to defend their behavior and justify your support for them), then you demand profitability at any cost - including the welfare of your own country.

You rant and rave about illegal immigrants stealing jobs and not paying taxes, decimating the economy, but defend corporate America outsourcing jobs and dodging taxes, decimating the economy.

First of all, if that is the definition of a multinational company that you're going with then Apple, Microsoft, IBM, GM, etc..... all fall under that category. What would you say about a company like Sony? They've got a headquarters in the US as well. They also outsource production elsewhere. Or does that not count because they've also got a headquarters in Asia? That's the thing. These companies ARE multinational companies. All of them manage production and deliver services in more than one country.

Second of all, NO ONE goes into business to be patriotic. That's a silly reason to do business. People go into business because they want to provide a quality good or service to their customers and they'd like to make a profit while doing so. As a stock holder who would like to retire some day, this is what I want the companies I invest in to do. I want them to make as much profit as they legally can. That is what is in my best interest. Doing things like outsourcing and exploiting tax loopholes is what is in the corporations best interest. You seem to expect that corporations will happily give 30-40% of their profits or more in taxes and be thrilled at the opportunity to do so because they're "giving back". The concept is laughable, but forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you.

Third of all, where did I rant about illegal immigrants stealing jobs and decimating the economy? I certainly don't recall ranting about that here or anywhere else. If I am wrong, please link me to my post where I made said rant. Otherwise, please don't put words in my mouth. It's hard enough for me with my foot in there half the time.

Fourth of all, it's a stretch to claim that outsourcing and tax dodging by corporations is the reason the economy is in the hole. Corporations were doing the exact same thing during the economic boom under Clinton and no one said a word. Our economy is in the hole because we (corporations, governments and individuals alike) have built on debt for so long and it's all falling in on us. It has nothing to do with outsourcing and tax dodging.
 
Simple. They are damaging the US economy by sending the money elsewhere. They likely wouldn't survive without US sales, yet they don't want to pay US taxes. I say put a stop to it.

They've been doing that for decades though and the US is fine. The thing that is being ignored here is that it is in the corporations best interest to not pay taxes and keep operating costs low. Corporations don't want to pay taxes anywhere. It's not in their best interests to do so. You can't fault a corporation for acting in it's best interests and in the best interests of it's employees and stockholders can you?
 
Here is your choice, pick one.

A) Make tons of money, more than you could ever spend in dozens of lifetimes. But to do this you have to outsource jobs and evade taxes, with consequent effects on your country.

B) Make lots of money, more than enough to keep you in luxury for life, in the top 2% (> $250,000 year). But do it by employing your fellow citizens and paying taxes, strengthening your country.

What good does it do the bring work back the US, pay more in taxes to "strengthen your country" when those behaviors will make your business un-competitive and cost you sales and quite possibly put you out of business? Then those workers will be out of a job as well as those that were here to begin with.
 
Try reading my post. The name "Apple" does not appear in it anywhere. Nor is there any reference to "good" or "bad".

Answer the question or explain why "both are foolish questions". So far the only thing foolish is your response.

You indeed did not mention Apple specifically. You did comment on them in the past and I forgot this thred title changed.
 
Fourth of all, it's a stretch to claim that outsourcing and tax dodging by corporations is the reason the economy is in the hole. Corporations were doing the exact same thing during the economic boom under Clinton and no one said a word. Our economy is in the hole because we (corporations, governments and individuals alike) have built on debt for so long and it's all falling in on us. It has nothing to do with outsourcing and tax dodging.

Corporate subsidies are only part of the reason the economy is in the hole. Outsourcing - killing American jobs (reducing tax revenue, local non-government spending, and local business demand and activity) has direct negative effects on the US economy.

The US military is a huge drain on the economy. It is the single largest sector of the economy, upwards of $1 trillion in spending not including war costs. The US spends more than 50% of all the money spent on all the militaries around the world, and more than the next 30 largest countries combined.

Tax cuts are a form of spending. The 2003 Bush tax cuts were accompanied by a bill raising the debt ceiling - they were passed on the same day. Giving away $350 billion in tax revenue (annually, for decades!) required raising the debt limit so we could borrow money to replace lost revenue.

It should be noted that the "savings" - money NOT paid into taxes - was largely invested overseas in tax free strategies, further reducing US tax revenue and increasing the debt. This spending created jobs - in China, Malaysia, Vietnam, etc.

Regulatory failure has led to multiple financial collapses and massive Federal bailouts at taxpayer expense. Other spending issues are exacerbated by the failure to collect tax revenue.

Medicare and social security are not unfunded liabilities. They are bedrock programs funded by every working American to pay for some small degree of care at the end of life. There is fraud in Medicare, but much of it is institutionalized and corporate, i.e. the Medicare Drug Plan which fleeces seniors, prohibits low-cost imported drugs, etc. Many of the problems with these programs have to do with privatization and other conservative efforts to destroy them.

You indeed did not mention Apple specifically. You did comment on them in the past and I forgot this thred title changed.

And you still refuse to answer the question posed or explain why it is "foolish". :rolleyes:

What good does it do the bring work back the US, pay more in taxes to "strengthen your country" when those behaviors will make your business un-competitive and cost you sales and quite possibly put you out of business? Then those workers will be out of a job as well as those that were here to begin with.

It's the employed workers who will add revenue by paying taxes, and it would do a lot of good on numerous levels. More tax revenue for the government = reduction of debt. More citizens gainfully employed = more demand for business and services and more economic growth (which leads to more tax revenue and further reduction in debt).

In terms of competition, that's a good thing (especially according to the so-called "free market" that spends so much energy trying to eliminate it). Import duties would easily level the playing field between the difference in labor costs, making competition about product quality rather than labor cost.

Globalization and the elimination of restrictions on trade (and often on taxes as well) has eviscerated numerous economies around the world.

But clearly, maximizing profit is far more important to you than the well being of your country and your fellow citizens. You'd sell them out in a heartbeat for lower prices or a higher dividend.
 
It's the employed workers who will add revenue by paying taxes, and it would do a lot of good on numerous levels. More tax revenue for the government = reduction of debt. More citizens gainfully employed = more demand for business and services and more economic growth (which leads to more tax revenue and further reduction in debt).

I used this example several pages back. I work for a company that does outsourcing. If the companies I worked for decided to hire in house tech support instead of outsourcing, their operating costs would go up considerably. It would cost them $20-25k a year more than what they're paying us plus benefits, plus HR overhead. There are several hundred small businesses just in my town that would be severely strained or would go out of business. They would either increase prices or cut employees. And they would have an IT employee working 40 hours a week that was unproductive most of the time as they don't have the workload to justify that.

But clearly, maximizing profit is far more important to you than the well being of your country and your fellow citizens. You'd sell them out in a heartbeat for lower prices or a higher dividend.

Maximizing profit is what businesses are in business to do. Not sure why I'm failing to communicate that. No one goes into business to look out for the well being of their country or their fellow citizens. Expecting businesses to forsake profits in exchange for patriotism is like expecting a dog to turn down raw hamburger. They could, but that's not what they're their for.
 
Maximizing profit is what businesses are in business to do. Not sure why I'm failing to communicate that. No one goes into business to look out for the well being of their country or their fellow citizens. Expecting businesses to forsake profits in exchange for patriotism is like expecting a dog to turn down raw hamburger. They could, but that's not what they're their for.
So any cost is OK as long as profit is maximized?
 
It's the employed workers who will add revenue by paying taxes, and it would do a lot of good on numerous levels. More tax revenue for the government = reduction of debt. More citizens gainfully employed = more demand for business and services and more economic growth (which leads to more tax revenue and further reduction in debt).

In terms of competition, that's a good thing (especially according to the so-called "free market" that spends so much energy trying to eliminate it). Import duties would easily level the playing field between the difference in labor costs, making competition about product quality rather than labor cost.

Globalization and the elimination of restrictions on trade (and often on taxes as well) has eviscerated numerous economies around the world.

But clearly, maximizing profit is far more important to you than the well being of your country and your fellow citizens. You'd sell them out in a heartbeat for lower prices or a higher dividend.

Have you ever run your own business????

I own / operate a small company, so I am speaking from 20 some years of actual, real world experience. I know my industry, I know my company, I know my employees...

If I were to purposefully raise the cost of doing business (eliminating outsourcing for example), then this what would happen.

1. My profit would shrink - and i'm already running on a very tight margin.
2. I can't raise prices - I would definitely lose business to my competition.
3. My wife would wonder why i didn't get a paycheck.
4. My wife would harass me about being able to pay our bills, including the mortgage.
5. So I would write myself a paycheck.
6. I would miss the mortgage payment on my business.
7. I would bounce paychecks.
8. No one would show up for work
9. The bank would call the loan.

I would be out of work. My employees would be out of work.

And all this would happen about 100 times faster than any so-called benefit to the economy and thus tax revenues. So government revenue would actually go down. And unemployment payouts would go up. More Debt. Less gainfully employed citizens. Less Demand for business and services. Less economic growth.

so yes, i happily admit that maximizing profits is FAR MORE IMPORTANT to me and my family and my employees and their families. That is how it works in the United States.
 
so yes, i happily admit that maximizing profits is FAR MORE IMPORTANT to me and my family and my employees and their families. That is how it works in the United States.

Let's assume that you make a good living. If you could outsource your employees jobs overseas for 5% of their labor cost, would you do it?

FYI, I own and operate a small business.
 
Please define "morally acceptable".

Impossible to define these days.

A self-made millionaire with heady indulgences is immoral, making 500,000.00 per year is immoral, almost any success you have is viewed as immoral, by some people, because no matter what we pay in taxes, some people want more.

To me, a moral businessman is someone that does not break the law. He or she pays taxes as required, and we do not cheat people.

I have no employees and I do OK. I pay taxes and that is enough.

Have you ever run your own business????

I own / operate a small company, so I am speaking from 20 some years of actual, real world experience. I know my industry, I know my company, I know my employees...

If I were to purposefully raise the cost of doing business (eliminating outsourcing for example), then this what would happen.

1. My profit would shrink - and i'm already running on a very tight margin.
2. I can't raise prices - I would definitely lose business to my competition.
3. My wife would wonder why i didn't get a paycheck.
4. My wife would harass me about being able to pay our bills, including the mortgage.
5. So I would write myself a paycheck.
6. I would miss the mortgage payment on my business.
7. I would bounce paychecks.
8. No one would show up for work
9. The bank would call the loan.

I would be out of work. My employees would be out of work.

And all this would happen about 100 times faster than any so-called benefit to the economy and thus tax revenues. So government revenue would actually go down. And unemployment payouts would go up. More Debt. Less gainfully employed citizens. Less Demand for business and services. Less economic growth.

so yes, i happily admit that maximizing profits is FAR MORE IMPORTANT to me and my family and my employees and their families. That is how it works in the United States.

I think the problem is many of those that comment about what the rich should do or how a company should be ran have never run a company. A few wealthy businessmen might add to the economy if their taxes are raised, but for every one business that is forced to pay more, there are hundreds of businesses that barely get by.

When taxes go up, it hurts everyone because there are fewer people hired, less expansion, and less willingness to invest. Those that are laid off might start welfare and that costs us all money. Welfare folks do not buy things like cool phones or new cars or iPads, so salespeople are laid off and so forth.
 
The thing is, BOB, that this discussion is not about the hundreds of bussiness that barely get by. It is about "mega-corporations" with BILLIONS in profits, paying their execs HUNDREDS of MILLIONS. I have run a business for many years, and even in this economy, I am still doing all right. I haven't run a multi billion dollar company, but then again, neither have you. I think a lot of economists would disagree with you about taxes going up hurting everyone. Especially considering, the increased taxes need to go to those execs that "earn" hundreds of millions. Or to the business' that "earn" billions. And by "going up" I mean, getting less welfare.....
 
Let's assume that you make a good living. If you could outsource your employees jobs overseas for 5% of their labor cost, would you do it?

FYI, I own and operate a small business.

Companies are not outsourcing to save just 5% in most cases. In most cases they're saving far more than that. But if I was a business owner I would look at what costs are associated with outsourcing and what the headache is. We had one client who had an in house IT person. That person was making $45k a year plus benefits. He fired that person and hired us at $150 an hour. We do about 3-4 hours a month of work unless they have a big project going on and we are available on a break/fix basis as well. None of their employees have any complaints with the service we provide. Using us (outsourcing) costs him ~$10k a year at the end of year once all the dust has settled and he pays us no benefits. Outsourcing saves his company $35k a year.

Do you think consider it immoral of him to choose saving $35k a year and sending someone to the unemployment line over paying $45k a year for the same quality of service in house?

The thing is, BOB, that this discussion is not about the hundreds of bussiness that barely get by. It is about "mega-corporations" with BILLIONS in profits, paying their execs HUNDREDS of MILLIONS. I have run a business for many years, and even in this economy, I am still doing all right. I haven't run a multi billion dollar company, but then again, neither have you. I think a lot of economists would disagree with you about taxes going up hurting everyone. Especially considering, the increased taxes need to go to those execs that "earn" hundreds of millions. Or to the business' that "earn" billions. And by "going up" I mean, getting less welfare.....

Those mega corporations are a minority. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy.
 
Companies are not outsourcing to save just 5% in most cases. In most cases they're saving far more than that. But if I was a business owner I would look at what costs are associated with outsourcing and what the headache is. We had one client who had an in house IT person. That person was making $45k a year plus benefits. He fired that person and hired us at $150 an hour. We do about 3-4 hours a month of work unless they have a big project going on and we are available on a break/fix basis as well. None of their employees have any complaints with the service we provide. Using us (outsourcing) costs him ~$10k a year at the end of year once all the dust has settled and he pays us no benefits. Outsourcing saves his company $35k a year.

Do you think consider it immoral of him to choose saving $35k a year and sending someone to the unemployment line over paying $45k a year for the same quality of service in house?
The problem with you analogy is the that they outsourced because their "in-house"tech was warranted for 3-4 hours a month. Here is a better example. IF, your company provided 40 hours of work a week, what would be more expensive?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom