If that's all you gathered from the article I feel sorry for you. Laughable depends on the reader and his/her agenda and his/her lack of knowledge on how companies operate. I know Tom, he's a good writer. But he has his own agenda and his viewpoints are often colored so don't pretend there's not another side to his opinion. Of course for some there isn't. Sad.

Hellcats is right. Many points made in the National Review article are laughable. What's sad (your word) is that so many people continue to defend business practices that have contributed to the decline of the middle class.

People keep on missing the forest for the trees.

Profits uber alles is the name of the malady that has weakened our middle class.

Profits uber alles is the name of the malady that has weakened our middle class.

 

If one is running a business expectations for operating legally, safely and marketing high quality goods or services is a given. Then it is a matter of those who can do that and make the most profit get the big rewards. If the company is better off by outsourcing labor because of costs, unions, risk, etc. then why not? There is no logic or rational thinking taking place if one believes that we can continue to increase the cost and risk of hiring people, raise wages arbitrarily (which also increases costs of goods), increase payroll tax burdens, and then lambast those who are acting rationally for moving a process (or automating) where it can be done just as well and at a lower cost.

If one is running a business expectations for operating legally, safely and marketing high quality goods or services is a given. Then it is a matter of those who can do that and make the most profit get the big rewards. If the company is better off by outsourcing labor because of costs, unions, risk, etc. then why not? There is no logic or rational thinking taking place if one believes that we can continue to increase the cost and risk of hiring people, raise wages arbitrarily (which also increases costs of goods), increase payroll tax burdens, and then lambast those who are acting rationally for moving a process (or automating) where it can be done just as well and at a lower cost.

I love reading all these Profit 101 lectures. When Company X closes its plant in Kentucky and sends the manufacturing jobs to China, that weakens the American middle class. Not a difficult concept to comprehend.

I love reading all these Profit 101 lectures. When Company X closes its plant in Kentucky and sends the manufacturing jobs to China, that weakens the American middle class. Not a difficult concept to comprehend.

Yeah, like the reason that sends the jobs across the ocean, not too hard to understand.

Yeah, like the reason that sends the jobs across the ocean, not too hard to understand.

I know ... if only American workers would be "less greedy" and "more productive" (and embrace trickle-down economics), then all would be well with the American economy. It's all about the American worker. Has nothing to do with changing business practices of the past 30 years.

I know ... if only American workers would be "less greedy" and "more productive" (and embrace trickle-down economics), then all would be well with the American economy. It's all about the American worker. Has nothing to do with changing business practices of the past 30 years.

 

Many companies that have not changed their business practices are now just memories. That doesn't do much for the American middle class.

I'm afraid I may get another lecture here, but are we seriously thinking that Americans are going to sock this "overtime" money away? I'm pretty confident a good portion of this money will get right back into circulation.

I love reading all these Profit 101 lectures. When Company X closes its plant in Kentucky and sends the manufacturing jobs to China, that weakens the American middle class. Not a difficult concept to comprehend.

 

The challenge is getting those who "maybe" comprehend the concept to understand that the impact of the government is driving business elsewhere as it becomes more costly and prohibitive to hire people domestically. Is this a graduate-level concept that can't be understood?

The challenge is getting those who "maybe" comprehend the concept to understand that the impact of the government is driving business elsewhere as it becomes more costly and prohibitive to hire people domestically. Is this a graduate-level concept that can't be understood?

Let's take Sarbanes-Oxley as an example of a current government regulation that has come under attack in recent years. Why did Sarbanes-Oxley come into being? Was it because companies were acting responsibly? Or was it because companies were acting irresponsibly? The answer is (b). "Impacts of government" don't come about for willy-nilly reasons. When businesses cook their books, laws such as Sarbanes-Oxley go on the books. Don't like Sarbanes-Oxley? Then blame Enron et al.

Sarbanes Oxley would have been unnecessary had public accounting firms maintained their independence, but that is a flaw in the system because they are under contract with the people that they are auditing. However, that is not really germane to my point...our costs of hiring and maintaining employees is going up and up for reasons not associated with productivity gains...taxes and benefits specifically. If a company can get the same job done for 1/5 or even much less of the cost aren't they poor managers for not doing this? Additionally, if the profit is also shifted to...China for example...the profit is taxed at a considerably lower rate than in the US.

Let's take Sarbanes-Oxley as an example of a current government regulation that has come under attack in recent years. Why did Sarbanes-Oxley come into being? Was it because companies were acting responsibly? Or was it because companies were acting irresponsibly? The answer is (b). "Impacts of government" don't come about for willy-nilly reasons. When businesses cook their books, laws such as Sarbanes-Oxley go on the books. Don't like Sarbanes-Oxley? Then blame Enron et al.

Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) is a perfect example of when the government overreaches with its regulations. As someone who has worked with SOX I have witnessed its overreach. No doubt that some companies were/are totally corrupt. However, while the intentions of SOX may have been good (and maybe not) the cost of compliance for the companies is like another tax on the system.

What about salaried retail managers that receive bonuses based on performance each year. Do they qualify or not?

I haven't read the new requirement, but I know in my company when we do well everyone can get a bonus. Salaried non-exempt qualify for less.