I don't think you can look at the replay and not realize the mistake. I think had the game been in GB rather than in Seattle they would have reversed the call. They probably felt they'd have a riot on their hands had they done so there, and they probably would have. And Pete Carroll would have been howling along with the rest of them.

Time to put an end to this nonsense.

Of course you go to the game knuckle-head! *friendly smile* Make a banner "I support the Packers, not the NFL' s keystone cop refs" :-) Just a thought! Of course if you have an empty seat.....take me! ;)

You could do what some are proposing and leave at halftime. ;)

Don't buy any concessions, etc.

Imagine the media circus if people walked out at halftime. lol

I grew up in the 70's and 80's. None of my friends went to daycare, as a matter of fact I didn't even know it existed. I look at my friends who all are anti union now. They had fathers who were either in unions, or worked in union shops or in civil service. Today, you need 2 people working to make ends meet. And we wonder why our kids are screwed up, depressed, etc.

Steve:

Even you have to realize that requiring a 20 DAY workweek is an unfair labor practice...

;-)

Twenty days per week sounds pretty hard-working to me. LOL

Unions have been declining for decades and are at their lowest since the early 20th century.

http://www.epi.org/blog/union-decline-rising-inequality-charts/

And their "insane" demands are they want 0.05% of the NFL's $9,000,000,000 revenue to go to their retirement. That is how little NFL management thinks of the integrity of the game and it's fans. Five hundreds of a percent.

What percentage of that $9,000,000,000 revenue does Peyton Manning earn?

What a company does in sales has nothing to do with it. The unions use this to get their sticky fingers on more and more. Making $75K-$200K for 20ish days of work. Teachers think they are so important, ask them if they would be OK with $200K for 20 days of labor.

That does seem to be a pretty common practice by those on the Left--they howl about huge company revenues, but fail to address the fact that almost all of those revenues are used to cover the costs of running the business and don't necessarily translate into huge profit margins for the owner.

Steve,So now it's ok to have slaves. That may be an exageration but that is the way you make it sound! The revenue the NFL brings in does depend on consumers does it not? So in essence it has everything to do with comany sales. Would you work for a company that gives you only a pit of it's peach? Oh that's right you are Packers owner, you don't work for peaches you work for the consumer- don't forget that!

Wendy:

Where are you getting that Steve is advocating for slavery? Are you calling $200k in earnings for 20 days of work slave labor rates? Even Steve's $75k figure isn't bad for 20 days work...

People tend to be paid according to the value of their work, not according to the total revenues of their employer.

Wendy. A rookie ref makes $75 K for about 20 days of work per year. Please explain to me how that is slavery. Please I'm really interested in being enlightened.

@Steve ® -

They're making fun of you because of a typo - in your initial comment, you stated "You work 20 days per week," which is impossible as there are only 7 days in a week. Clearly, you meant to say 'year,' as opposed to 'week.'

Speaking of cowdung... "the fact that almost all of those revenues are used to cover the costs of running the business"

Do you know what the words "fact" and "almost all" mean?

I think that Peyton Manning earns around 0.2%, but I'm no mathlete.

"People tend to be paid according to the value of their work, not according to the total revenues of their employer."

Which is the problem, employers and employees went from being partners to what we have now. Is it slavery or serfdom? No, but it's closer to that than it is to a partnership.

If you truly believe that the people with the most resources have the right to make the rules then I probably don't have much to talk to you about and America is ideologically opposed to you.

As a producer I can work enough and create a 20 day week. I think they are just lazy government program recipients.

@Steve ® -

Never doubted that for a minute! ;-)

"As a producer I can work enough and create a 20 day week. I think they are just lazy government program recipients."

You're a shining example of the 53%. The American dream, 160 hour work weeks. SUCK IT LABOR PEONS WITH YOUR SISSY ASS WEEKENDS!

Hey, when you're working 160 hour weeks when will you find time to watch the Pack?

"Teachers think they are so important..."

This implies that you don't. Most people think they are.

JoSCh:

What is the typical net profit margin for a business? Most businesses seem to operate around the 5-10% range. That means that 90-95% of the revenues are spent on running the business--perhaps in your world things are different, but that seems pretty close to 'almost all' to me...

If you think that revenues determine wage levels, you must believe that a cashier working at Walmart, Home Depot or McDonald's (large revenue companies) should earn more than a cashier working at Winkie's or some other small revenue retail business. I'm not sure who else in America would be ideologically opposed to earning a wage that is in accordance to the job one is doing rather than the revenues of the company...

So you support using percentages for figuring profits but not for figuring salaries... how convenient.

Just say that you believe that the people with the most get to make up the rules, it's what you support, why not just say it plainly.

I'll gladly say that I believe that every employee of every company deserves profit sharing. That doing the same job for a more successful company means higher pay. I'm not a fiscal socialist.

JoSCh:

I use percentages for profits and not for salaries because individual salaries aren't usually expressed as a percentage of revenues, while profits are. If you use dollar amounts, the results come out the same. If a company makes $100,000 in revenues, they will typically pay $90,000 in costs and enjoy a $10,000 profit. It doesn't change the fact that almost all of the revenue goes toward paying the cost of doing business.

What about companies that lose money in a given year? Should the employees have to go without their paychecks or have to pay money to the company when revenues are down?

If the employees deserve to share in the profits, then shouldn't they also 'deserve' to share in the losses as well? That's what true business owners do...

HAAA, Steve you've been quoted by the enemy.
http://redmond.patch.com/articles/wisconsin-patchers-react-what-cheeseheads-are-saying-about-the-seahawks-win

Just say that you believe that the people with the most get to make up the rules, it's what you support, why not just say it plainly? That is the reason that "individual salaries aren't usually expressed as a percentage of revenues, while profits are."

The business owner deserves a larger percentage of the profits of their business than the workers because they invest more initially and assume more risk. 40 times higher than the average worker seems fair. 4 or 500 times doesn't. It would be nice if the "job creators" would "trickle down" to the producers but we have 50 years of data that says generally speaking they won't.

@JoSCh -

So you want the government to limit how successful a person can become based upon some arbitrary notion of fairness. You also demand that all corporations share their profits with their employees, but don't expect the employees to have to absorb any of the potential losses. It also sounds as if you support re-distribution.

And yet you claim not to be socialist?!?!

JoSCh:

It isn't necessarily the 'people with the most' that get to make the rules. I firmly believe that the people that take the risk and spend the time and money to start a business are the ones that deserve to make the rules.

Why isn't it fair for a business owner to make 500 times what their workers earn? Why draw the line at 40 times? The worker takes little to no risk financially. If the company falters and revenues are down, they still expect to get their usual paycheck. The business owner doesn't. For this reason, a business owner's share should be proportional to the profits of the company, just as when revenues are down, the owner has to come up with the money to make payroll for the employees.

When the employees are willing to give up their paycheck when revenues are down, I'll agree that they deserve to get extra pay when revenues are up.

Fairness is not an arbitrary notion. And no, they can become as successful as they care to, but they should compensate the people who help them succeed, whether that be the public or their employees.

Employees of a failed business lose their job. That is a loss they take. Smaller bet, smaller loss.

Re-distribution is a dog whistle pejorative to you but you don't know why. Yes, I support progressive taxation; the people with the most money can most afford it and they gain or have gained and retained the most from society.

CowDung was advocating for businesses to "collectively bargain" the value of a worker; effectively a maximum wage while I advocate for each business to participate in a free market for their employees.

I am on some level a socialist. So are most people; anybody that participates in the stock market for instance, or anybody that buys food from a grocery store. That you consider it also to be a pejorative and not an economic system is pretty telling.

Just as when revenues are down, the owner has to come up with the money to make payroll for the employees.

How do you explain unemployment being over 8%?

JoSCh:

Business owners do indeed compensate the people that help them succeed--they pay them the wages that were agreed upon when they were hired. If the business owner wants to increase their wage, or pay them bonus or profit sharing, I have no issue with that. My point is that it is the business owner, not the employee or the government that gets to make that decision.

I'm not seeing where I advocate that a business 'collectively bargain' the value of an employee. The business owner should be the one that determines the value of an employee's work, and set the wages accordingly. Workers then decide if they wish to work at the level of compensation offered them by the company.

As for your question about unemployment, that of course, is the other option that a business owner has. It's usually a matter of how long revenues are expected to be down. In the short term, owners usually keep workers on the payroll and expect revenues to return to normal. If revenues don't return to normal levels, then the owner would typically cut staff.

@JoSCh -

So if fairness isn't an arbitrary and ambiguous concept, then it must be absolute, right? In reality, Hoffa doesn't think you'll find the universal consensus that you're presuming!

And the stock market and a grocery store are examples of socialism?!?!

WOW - this guy is so far off in left field and he doesn't even realize it! Things must be getting pretty scary in South Carolina!

The business owner, not the employee... that gets to make that decision.

In your proposed system all the power lies with those will the resources; the workers take what is given to them or they starve. I don't care to go back to a feudal system. I'm progressive that way.

Hoffa, that you can't understand that the stock market and grocery stores are forms of socialism is no more surprising than the fact that things must be defined as absolute for you. You only have insults and dog whistles and I only have facts and opinions backed by fact that you won't accept. I don't see much point in continuing this "conversation" with you. Try foxnation, they have exactly the type of poster you're looking for.

The system where the business owner determines the wages they pay seems to be working just fine. If employees feel that they aren't getting proper compensation for their work, then maybe they should try their hand at running a business. They would then be free to pay themselves as much as they choose--assuming that their business is profitable...

@JoSCh -

"I don't see much point in continuing this "conversation" with you. Try foxnation, they have exactly the type of poster you're looking for."

In other words, JoSCh can't refute Hoffa's logic, analysis, and conclusions because the facts don't support him, so he's going back to South Carolina.

Patch loves quoting Steve ®

But those cheaters forgot my ® symbol. Time to get that corrected.

How twisted is our society to have a relative, neighbor, friend, or stranger in a union and when the company tries to turn the screws to them people don't care. But for our beloved Packers, "Oh the horror!" People get a life! There are real issues you should concern yourself with, not this crap. And to think a ref only works 20 day a year is crazy. I doubt they review film, review rules, or have any training including physical training for the supposed 20 games a year they ref. Too bad ignorance isn't painful.

The system where the business owner determines the wages they pay seems to be working just fine.

You really think so? I'll post this again.

http://www.epi.org/blog/union-decline-rising-inequality-charts/

If you think that regressing towards massive wealth inequality is ok there probably isn't anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

JoSCh can't refute Hoffa's logic, analysis, and conclusions because the facts don't support him...

I haven't seen any logic, analysis or conclusions from you, and certainly not any facts. I've seen some insults and some rhetoric, but not anything relevant that was true. The facts DO support me, you're a bigot and you won't consider information that challenges what you've been told. No point in me trading insults with you, especially when CowDung is actually participating in a compelling discussion. He's still wrong, :) but at least he's not posting dog whistles and insults.

As I said before JoSCh, if you think that you aren't being paid what your work is worth, you can either sell your work to a different employer or become your own employer.

The other choice is to take some steps to increase the value of one's work--go to school, get certifications, etc. One of the unfortunate effects of a global economy is that we have billions of people able and willing to do the same jobs that many Americans have been doing for far less money. If we don't elevate our skill levels to where we cannot be replaced by cheap overseas labor, we will likely have difficulty keeping a job in the long term. If we allow workers to dictate and/or demand wages that are out of line with the value of the work, we will again likely have difficulty keeping a job in the long term. Businesses will not succeed if they cannot compete with other businesses that have significantly lower labor costs. If businesses don't succeed, neither do the employees.

All interesting points and I generally agree with them (other than we all need to become more skilled, some people need to produce stuff and often times that doesn't take "skills", we can't all be cable tv installers) they don't address the growing wealth gap. The business owners are taking a larger percent of the profits and keeping them. That you continue to ignore that fundamental premise of my argument, that we're regressing towards massive wealth inequality, then you're proving that there isn't anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

We might end up at a point where 'producing stuff' will require specialized skills. People in China and India are 'producing stuff' too. Workers need to differentiate ourselves and provide work of a higher value if they want to keep their jobs in this country and earn a higher wage.

Where we differ is that you seem to want to have the government step in to 'readjust' things to reduce or eliminate the inequity. I don't believe that to be the best course of action. Those that run successful businesses should have the right to keep the profits they earn. Just as they bear the risk of financial ruin, they deserve to reap the rewards of financial success.

If you are upset about the inequity, then start your own business and get your piece of the pie. Compete with the high earners rather than calling for someone to step in and take away their earnings.

You can't provide value competing head to head with China or India unless you want to live like China or India. I'm sure that isn't what you're suggesting.

Yes, I believe that because the American people were sold "trickle down" economics in exchange for historically low tax rates and the "job creators" failed to live up to their end of the bargain, that the government needs to intervene. They tried an experiment, it failed and continues failing for a huge majority of Americans.

I work for a great place that pays higher than average wages because we make higher than average profits. We have profit sharing, bonuses, about as good as benefits get in SC, etc. These people are living up to their end of the bargain, treating their people ethically and are still very, very rich. Quit implying that I'm progressive because I don't have enough, I'm fine. The 47% of people who no longer qualify to even pay income tax aren't though, they're the ones who aren't being paid fairly by people recording increasingly massive profits.

This reply string is getting too long--I'm going to reply to your comment with a new post at the bottom of the page.

Correction - the referees on the field make the call after review. The review booth only signals to the refs to review the call. These refs made mistakes all night - and admittedly their mistakes were against both teams. If there has been a slant in who benefits from the bad calls, I do see a tendency to give any benefit of the doubt to the home team.

Last night, the worst blown calls were in the most important time of the game, and against the Packers. Apparently the new NFL rule book (which we can probably call Calvinball at this point) allows for an offensive player to make a catch by catching the guy who caught the ball. It also seems to call pass interference on defensive backs, going for the ball, whose faces and helmets get in the way of the offensive player's hands.

Okay to clarify. Those in the booth- the replay officials are not replacement officials.
If there were any attempt to not tarnish the NFL, those in the booth should have made the right call crystal clear.
http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/replacement-officials-replay-booth/

Beth: It is not a whine- it is bitching. Totally different, I would think you should know that.

The refs did not see something we didn't see. They were wrong, and everyone who has a brain knows it.

Even the Seattle fans know they were given one. Nobody stole anything. Well, maybe NFL management stole something.

I think that the majority of football fans would agree that your comment is plain stupid.

The Packers scored 12 points, while Seattle scored 7- yet Seattle won the game.
There are two halfs to a game dumbass.

You do realize that they created the 'challenge' system because the 'skilled' refs were blowing lots of calls, don't you? They even changed the way they do the coin toss because a ref missed the correct call of 'tails' and gave possession to the wrong team.

The truth is that even the 'real' refs make bad calls...

And your excuse is? Kinda stupid to point out hypocrisy in the same post where you criticize others for "wasting time on this ridiculous "issue".

Fitting name: amb ASS ador(er).

Keep In Mind: The NFL’s Booth Review Officials Aren’t Replacements.

I would think that a true Ravens fan and season ticket holder would know the correct spelling for Pittsburgh...

Nothing worse than you pot smoking leftist liberal spelling Police. In goosestep with the other West Coast assholes.

Hey Ambassador: the word English is a proper noun and as such requires capitalization. If you're going to criticize someones spelling, punctuation or grammar you should probably proofread your own post or run the risk of being a hypocrite. :)

So kinda is only kinda a word? Thanks for the help, without you really educated people this world would just not be the same. In the future I'm going to put a lot more things in "quotes" and I am thinking about returning to school so I can type in "caps" TOO.

Ambassador is from Georgia, as is JoSCh.

I thought JoSCh was from South Carolina...

Georgia?! You mean he has only three toofeses?
That 'splains a lot!

"Hey" Ambassador: Is the second sentence, in your original (kinda stupid) post, a question? Not to be an education SNOB, but shouldn't there be a question mark (this one "?") instead of a period?
We're still waiting for your excuse.

@CowDung -

You are correct - they are both from South Carolina. Hoffa mistakenly looked at the Editor's bio.

1 tooth then?

I'm not from GA nor have I ever lived there, but is how is that relevant to this thread and particularly Ambassadors poor attempt at correcting an internet persons spelling? Is being from Georgia code for something?

I think 'being from Georgia' is code for someone that is living in Georgia.

You didn't seem to notice that Hoffa corrected himself as it seems that you both are from South Carolina rather than Georgia.

I love it when people cherry pick, I really love it when they do it over inconsequential crap like this.

How is being from GA relevant to this thread and particularly Ambassadors poor attempt at correcting an internet persons spelling?

It's not, but oh well.

Hey are you guys using that "from Georgia" code thing again? I thought we all agreed not to go there anymore....

@McBride -

You're right, Hoffa forgot! We all agreed to go back to using the code word 'Chicago' to refer to 'those people.'

My bad.

Agreed.

True...unless it is unskilled labor- then they are a dime a dozen.
(Steve, I beat you to it)

That said, who didn't enjoy Keanu Reeves in "The Replacements?"

Whoa!

Please replace "kinda stupid" with "REALLY STUPID".

Suffering from Low T there ambASSadorknob?

Douch.ollad: Dual possession means both have possession, clearly that was not the case- unless you call dual possession reaching around another persons body to hold the ball.
Duel possession has not been around since the 1600's. Go play woith your balls you douche.

Dochollad, they didn't have joint possession.

Period. Try responding with some substance, not an inaccurate, rude comment that just makes you look unable to discuss the topic.

I've never understood why Republicans consider community organizer to be a pejorative. I imagine it's because they don't know what it means.

@JoSCh -

You're logic is highly flawed in that you're working off of an erroneous assumption, that wealth is finite, when in fact just the opposite is true - that's why Nixon took us off the gold standard. Ever since going off the gold standard, wealth is now infinitely available to those who create value. And nothing is stopping anyone from creating their own value. The more value a person creates, the more they are financially rewarded.

And Hoffa is getting sick about hearing about trickle down! Ever since the Fed started imposing artificial ultra low interest rates, we've essentially switched to a trickle up economy as opposed to trickle down. And look at how the masses screwed that up royally - defaulting in record numbers on their low interest loans and thereby effectively tanking the economy into a recession!

Good call on moving down.

We can't make developing countries conform to our standards so I think our best option is to make American products competitive in America. India also has an enormous wealth disparity, even greater than ours if I'm not mistaken. Most of the people there live in abject poverty, and living pretty well there relative to here is comparing apples to spacecraft.

The high US tax rates aren't effective and most companies pay far under the rates you're citing, GE is one of the more infamous of these. There are lots of really rich guys that pay 15% or less in income tax and they pay a lower percentage than most for the other federal taxes. FWIW, I've paid just under 10% the last decade or so, I'm not sure what % I paid before I bought a house.

Define good jobs and decent living. The context that I view them in is including everybody, including the job creators. That being the case, a small percentage of us have outstanding compensation upwards of 400 times average, a decreasing percentage of us earn a living wage, and nearly half of us require some kind of government support.

I did lose my job, did take another job, and then moved on, twice actually, before arriving at my current job.

The profitability of a business is what should contribute to some degree the value of ones work, not only the minimum amount management decides they can get away with. Management CAN'T reasonably be expected to find a fair wage, it takes from their profit.

India's economy has been growing at a tremendous pace over the past several years. More and more people are entering the workforce and are earning good livings--and living well there is quite comparable to living well here.

Not sure how "GE" ends up being the same as "most companies". People seem to hold GE up as an example claiming that 'most companies' never pay taxes, but fail to acknowledge that GE and companies like GE do indeed pay taxes most years, and have paid billions of dollars in taxes over the past few years. Factors that create these years of no tax liability are situations where the company loses money instead of making a profit. Another factor is the relatively high corporate tax rate in the US. It created a financially advantageous situation where a company saves money by paying their taxes to other countries instead of the US (yet another advantage of moving jobs overseas).

Income taxes are taxes on income, not wealth. If a 'really rich guy' has no earnings, then he has no tax liability. Raising taxes on the rich will just decrease the amounts they choose to earn as income, it won't bring more money into the Federal Treasury, nor will it 'redistribute' wealth.

The nature and responsibilities of the job is what defines the value of one's work, not the profitability of the company. Doing one's job effectively and efficiently can increase the value of the worker, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the company is profitable.

...and I'm not sure why a company cannot be 'reasonably expected' to pay a fair wage. You stated that your company pays you well. I think that I am compensated fairly. I think it is a very reasonable expectation for a company to pay a fair wage.

Interesting and accurate post for once Hoffa ;) At least the first paragraph. A problem is that there is often little incentive for an employer to reward an employee relative to the value they provide the company, and there are lots of obstacles to starting your own brand even if you do have an outstanding product. Pie in the sky capitalist utopia is just as improbable as a communist utopia.

I can't even wrap my head around "living well there is quite comparable to living well here" it's so completely at odds with the truth.

GE didn't become "most companies" I used it as an infamous example. Did you read what I wrote, or are you just responding to dog whistles? Are you disputing that effective taxes paid are far lower than the advertised tax rate?

I know, I said income, not tax on wealth.

Lowering taxes on the rich hasn't created jobs, the point of lowering their taxes. If it had then unemployment wouldn't be over 8%. The Obama tax cuts prove that.

"The nature and responsibilities of the job is what defines the value of one's work, not the profitability of the company." The point of work is profit, if profit doesn't define the value of the work then what does? What management thinks? They have incentive to devalue their workers.

I'm not sure why a company cannot be 'reasonably expected' to pay a fair wage.

Because most companies are greedy if left to their own devices, and the proof that this has already happened is the increasing wealth disparity. Wages go down or stagnate, corporate profits and executive compensation go up.

That I work for a progressive company certainly isn't proof that companies are fair. That you consider yourself fairly paid isn't either. Do you believe that executive compensation at 500 times the average worker is fair? If you do then we're going to have to agree to disagree, but you have to understand that what you're supporting is a regressive feudal system.

500 times??? Do the math.

If an executive/CEO has 500 times the responsibility as the low level employees, I see nothing wrong with the CEO getting 500 times the compensation.

What is acting to move us 'backward' is employees that expect compensation packages that are beyond the value of the work being done. This would include the idea that an employee is somehow 'entitled' to receive more money when a company is profitable, yet doesn't have to make any sacrifice or wage concession when a company is losing money.

Many workers do make sacrifices, up to and including furlough or lay offs. And I just will never agree to your assertion that only management is entitled (no quotes needed, it's not a pejorative, it's just a word that means what it means) to receive more money when a company is profitable. They aren't the only reason the company is more profitable.

If an executive/CEO has 500 times the responsibility as the low level employees, I see nothing wrong with the CEO getting 500 times the compensation.

Do you believe that that is even possible? Considering that mid 20th century they made about 40 times the average employee, not low level by the way. You keep trying, but I won't let you... Was management so much less responsible then?

Yes, CEOs were responsible for much less back then. Companies tended to be smaller and less complex. The big companies now have global presence and often are made up of conglomerations of the previous companies. For example, years ago, we had Exxon and Mobil operating separately. Now we have Exxon-Mobil operating as one. Look at the global presence of corporations these days as compared to years ago--companies are far more complex in their operations.

It makes even more sense for retail stores. Walmart used to be a couple of stores in Arkansas. Now it is the largest single employer in the US, with stores all over the world, and annual revenues in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Is is really a stretch to think that the CEO has 500 times more responsibility than the average Walmart employee (which is likely not much higher than the cashier level).

You have got to show me where these executive positions are, even at 40 times the average that is $1,360,000.

Even the anti-corporate AFL-CEO website doesn't claim the 500 times figure. Their number is 380.

http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-the-99

Even the anti-corporate AFL-CEO website doesn't claim the 500 times figure. Their number is 380.

I'm getting pretty tired of having to point out you deliberately skewing numbers and changing words. 380 is average according to your source. I said upward of 400 and 500, clearly not all CEOs make 380, some make more, some less.

FWIW, I trust WaPo before I trust Forbes and particularly that opinion writer. His stuff is obviously editorial, but it never says such, so gullible people think it's "news".

Anyway, two days of this and it's pretty clear that you won't be swayed from your beliefs and I won't stop thinking that people deserve to be fairly compensated and that nobody is provides 500 times, or even 380 times more value than another. Way to not post a bunch of insults.

All of the fancy numbers about executive compensation are based on very limited groupings. Most use "The largest 500 companies" or "299 CEOs from Fortune 500 companies". These numbers do not represent the majority of executives out there and they are numbers that aren't even worth quoting.

If you know that income tax is based on income, why are you so concerned about what the 'really rich' guys are paying? You should be more concerned with what 'high earners' are paying in taxes.

What 'Obama tax cuts' are you referring to that are supposedly failing to keep unemployment low? You do realize that there are many more factors besides tax rates that can affect employment rates. The big issue the US is facing is that manufacturing can be done far cheaper overseas. There is little to no incentive for companies to keep manufacturing in the US--particularly if overseas operations can provide a way to help avoid paying the relatively high corporate tax rates.

Management really doesn't have incentive to devalue their workers. Devalued workers tend to leave the company and work someplace where they are more valued. It costs money to find that train new employees. It is in the company's best interest to retain good employees. Fair/generous compensation packages are a great way to keep good employees, and most companies recognize that fact.

I have, I spent 5 days in and around Mumbai. I also have several Indian friends that travel back there for weddings fairly often.

An example, not the. Its the dog whistle effect, isn't it. You hear a tone, you react. Here is an article on WaPo that says your link is wrong, and that Exxon was talking about all taxes, not just corporate income. It says they paid 17% federal income tax.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-much-do-oil-companies-really-pay-in-taxes/2011/05/11/AF7UNutG_story.html

I'm fine with the 25% number, that seems reasonable to me and it's a number I've seen from a number of sources. It doesn't reconcile your statement "The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world." of course. And it doesn't excuse so many profitable companies from paying even lower tax rates or laying off workers when executive compensation increases.

High earners are really rich guys.

The Obama tax cuts. They are the extension of the Bush tax cuts. He extended them in hopes that the job creators would respond positively; the jobs embargo continues.

I do realize that other factors affect employment, and I agree that keeping jobs here is a big issue. Lowering taxes and deregulating American companies, giving them free rein to move manufacturing offshore, wasn't a very effective way to keep American jobs here. We can't force the third world and China to increase their standard of living, so an obvious choice is to provide incentives to American companies to keep Americans employed.

They shouldn't, but in the current job market they do. The proof of this is lower or stagnating compensation. Or are you saying that compensation is up?

Try visiting Bangalore. Mumbai has issues with population density and infrastructure that they need to resolve in order to catch up with the growth going on in other areas.

As for your article--who do you trust more about financial issues, a financial magazine, or a newspaper? Note that the Post cites the Center for American Progress (a liberal think tank) as the source for their data. Forbes used the SEC filings for the companies for their information (without passing it through the liberal, anti-oil company filter) .

If the practice of corporate non-payment of taxes is so widespread, why does GE seem to be the only company that is brought up as an example? When the same example is brought up over and over again, it becomes THE example...