@CowDung It has been reported that American corporations are sitting on atleast 1.8 trillion dollars in cash. Heck, they can't afford to hire anyone or give anyone a decent raise. Now they feel that they deserve further tax cuts. C'mon!

I think Nick also wants to ignore what Obama said to Joe the Plumber.

@Greg...Sounds like you are you saying that the NO.1 responsibility of the CEO is to the shareholder, not the employee?

Close--the #1 responsibility of all employees is to the company.

Without the company, there would be no employees...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKNeFHBPgRo

Jay,
That is correct, but it is more complicated than it sounds. Employees can be an important and valuable asset. Therefore, part of the #1 responsibility is to maintain those assets. It is a balancing act, a business that is not profitable is no better for the shareholders than it is for the employees.

@Mike
That is a short sighted answer.

If you or any other employee had no stock in making the company better, but rather had a 'get mine' attitude; companies would fail. In fact, is it not in your best interest to make the company better and therefore increasing its customer base/market share thus increasing your own pay check? So in turn, making the company more profitable is actually in the best interest of your family.

JB, I don't think Mike's being short-sighted. I think he's emphasizing his main reason for working. I think most employees think along those lines. Inherent in that belief is also the assumption (which I doubt Mike would argue with) that, while at work, he does what's expected of him and performs in a fashion that will, ultimately, result in retention of his job at the very least and, possibly, better pay in return for his work and possible promotion - which again, would result in better pay for him. The factors that determine the parameters for measuring his performance should be determined by management in a fashion that assures a level of profitability. if Mike performs his job successfully, there should be no concern on his part about profits (unless he's in a position where that is, in fact, a direct, stated part of his job responsibilities) beyond how the company is doing as a whole and how the relates to other job opportunities he may have.

@Bob
I don't completely disagree with your statement; however, the best companies exist because they have people willing to push the limits of their job description in order to help the company. They create an attitude and atmosphere (not really possible to include in a simple job description) that sets them apart from their competition. The employees that work only to the level of their job description tend move slowly up the corporate ladder if at all.

I think Mike maybe confusing on the job production with a quality work/family balance. Those are to separate subjects. At his job, does family truly come first; maybe for emergencies, but otherwise he focus is his job and the more his focus the better for his company and family. While vice versa at home he rarely thinks about work.

JB, I think he's just saying if it comes to a point where a company puts demands on him to a degree where it starts to significantly effect his family life under the stated objective of increasing their profitability, he's going to default to what's best for his family.

We shouldn't expect loyalty beyond what an employee gets in return for his efforts anymore than we expect loyalty on the part of companies beyond what they're willing to offer in exchange for those efforts. That's the baseline agreement. If an employee is ambitious and wishes to move up the ladder and that opportunity is available to him, great. Similarly, if a company wants its employees to be actively involved or, at the very least, aware of how their efforts effect profitability beyond the scope of actually performing their jobs successfully, the can include as a part of compensation profit sharing based on exceeding certain job expectations. Expecting either party to do something simply out of the goodness of their hearts isn't truly, nor should it be, a part of the employee/employer relationship.

Each job has its qualifications. Any company with management that's assuming that, as a part of its profitability, the guy who's loading a truck (for instance) is keeping a keen eye on that profitability while performing his job functions, w/o providing an incentive to do so, is derelict in its own management responsibilities.

This is a very interesting discussion. I have been studying the impact of those "left behind" after layoffs, job cuts, downsizing, especially after a sustained period. David Sirota, Ph.D., has written an excellent article on this subject, which brings up several good points. Is an employee an investment? Is management treating the employee as if he/she is, or as someone who should simply be grateful for a job and do the work of multiple people and be quiet about it? I have observed some of the "opportunity costs" mentioned in the article in the form of lost productivity, etc., due to employee stress/exhaustion. Have also observed numerous "lateral moves" in the field, implying that dealing with the "new normal" at a new company/competitor, at the expense of seniority, etc., is considered more emotionally healthful than sticking it out at a company that isn't treating employees with sensitivity. That's a lot of knowledge and training walking out the door.

http://www.sirota.com/pdfs/The_Impact_of_Layoffs_0309_Final.pdf

So what's the solution? Fairness and sensitivity are key.

Just watch the video that Hoffa linked to - it explains everything!

@JRH -- Never mind the fact that Japanese men die of stress-induced heart attacks at a shocking rate, and never mind the fact that it's a movie, there has to be some assurance that working longer and harder for no extra pay will be rewarded in the end.

I'm quite willing to give my all to a job, but not if it's only to pay off the CEO and the stockholders and I end up laid off anyway.

@Randy1949 -

"I'm quite willing to give my all to a job, but not if it's only to pay off the CEO and the stockholders and I end up laid off anyway."

Ah, so like Nick, you blame the CEO and the stockholders for getting laid-off.

What about blaming your neighbor for buying the product of the competitor to the business your work for, who exploits overseas labor, government, and environmental conditions so that they can offer the product at a lower cost than the business you work for? After all, it's your neighbor that's causing a demand for the lower priced product, is it not? And yet, you blame the CEO and the shareholder, accusing them of being greedy. Why isn't your neighbor just as greedy if not more so, as without the demand that your neighbor creates for low priced products, the CEO's and shareholder's wouldn't be making any money at all?

In reality, the American consumer is the American worker's own worst enemy - and more often than not there is a rather significant overlap.

Where are your shoes made? Hoffa has only ever purchased made in the USA with USA sourced material shoes. The high price and limited availability sometimes makes it rather difficult, and also means that Hoffa has less purchasing power for other goods and services, but at least Hoffa is providing Americans with jobs. The barriers also never prevent Hoffa from walking his talk. Can you honestly say the same?

@ JRH...With all do respect sir, I admire your dedication to buying "American"...However, My perseption of "American" products has slowly changed over the last few years for two reasons...1) I work in a "closed" shop where the union tries to "rule the roost" as far as how the company does business and what it's expected of it's employees. I'll discuss this more in a sec...and 2) The bailout, overseas ownership/merging had done NOTHING to improve the quality of the vehicles when i used to go out of my way to "buy American" over the years...until this year. I recently unloaded my Dodge Grand Caravan for a Honda because I have grown tired of the constant nagging issues with nearly every "American" vehicle that I have purchased...the most recent issues being the powertrain using 2.5 qts of oil between every oil change at 65k miles...shameful...considering I have an accord in my driveway that has 200K+ miles on it and still runs perfect w no oil usage.

As far as the employee as an asset or not is conserned...it is none of my business what a CEO thinks is fair to put in his/her pocket. Yes, I hope that ever owner feels that they have a moral obligation to caring for the employees that work for them, but in my opinion, that is bread out of a sense of entitlement. The way I look at myself is as that of a rental car, the business owns me for a time during the day to be as productive as possible for forwarding the businesses agenda, whether i agree with it or not, and hopefully if i perform/add value to the business, they will maybe "buy/rent" me for another day. If I don't like how the CEO or anyone else is "running" the business, I can take my chances back out in the field and hope to land on my feet somewhere else. The company doesn't owe me anything other than what they pay me every wk/by-wkly, whatever. If i agree to work for a certain wage then I shuldn't feel "slighted" because of a business decision to operate differently. It's their company...not mine...they own me for whatever hours i agree to work (or not)...after that...i have zero obligation to the company and 100% obligation to my family...

I have worked a long time in an entitlement atmosphere that sickens me, where if u ask a long time union member to simply change a part of a process that improves quality, they cry "foul" as a safety violation or some other misconstrued way of not having to change to better the product...but if you ask a flexible worker to do the same job with the change, they have no issue operating how the company needs to in order to improve the product...with no detriment to their health or well being...it is this type of "entitlement" that really makes/gives the "American" workforce a bad name...no wonder so many companies are looking overseas for better ways to do business (outside of monetary gain)...

It wasn't the greed of corporations and their owners that killed our domestic industrial workforce - it was the greed of consumers who shifted away from purchasing American made goods to goods made cheaper thanks to the exploitation of labor, the environment, foreign governments, etc., all so that the average/typical American consumer could have even more possessions throughout their lifetimes.

If you purchase crap made overseas, you're even more guilty for our demise than the corporations that you blame!

SHAME ON YOU!!!

Hoffa just bought a new pair of shoes - New Balance model 587. Made in the USA by American workers with domestically sourced materials.

http://www.newbalance.com/New-Balance-587/M587,default,pd.html?dwvar_M587_color=Navy&start=15&cgid=101000

That's the way that Hoffa always consumes! Can you honestly say the same?

Where were your shoes made Nick? What brand/model of car do you own/drive?

Are you a part of the problem, or the solution?

Either honestly come clean about your own consumerist habits or drop your commie bull!

If I want anyone to "have a shot", I'll give it to them directly. I don't need uncle middleman to do it for me.

@JB -

You forget that Nick gives in ways that is difficult for us to comprehend. He fills the young impressionable minds of those he teaches with a progressive ideology, thereby bettering the future of our nation as a whole!

We should be thanking Mr. Poulus for the work that we pay him to do, not denigrating him! The returns in progressive human capital that he and other patriots like him provide to our country is far greater than anything that you or I could place a dollar amount on.

Yes my friend, when it comes down to it, Nick actually puts Romney to shame several times over.

Maybe it's time Nick gets a raise, what do you say?

Four more years for George Kaiser and Solyndra? Obama and Biden have done more to line the pockets of the uber-wealthy than any administration in history. But they are good at hiding behind the class warfare smoke screen. and yet they have followers stupid enough to think that they stand with the "people". This is one more reason that Obama is worse than Carter, at least Carter walked the walk.

Nick's repetition of his talking points is suggestive of a very closed and limited mind. The truly enlightened would have at least found a different way in which to say the same thing as opposed to practically cutting an pasting!

@Greg -

You're absolutely right - Carter was light-years better than Obama is turning out to be!

Ryan is an atheist like Obama is a Muslim.

If you support Obama you support abortion. Free will is a B.S. excuse.

@Nick
You have only continued to prove yourself a fraud. The man whom you support for president is a part of party that had to force God back into its platform against the will of the delegates.

Then boast about your childhood as a 1%'er having made the world better; while I am sure you agree with Brian Carlson and Lyle Ruble as they continue to break down the idea of American Exceptionalism based on the evils we have perpetrated on the globe. That goes contrary to what you have felt you had down.

All the while the man you support for president is handing out billions to failing companies and allowing large companies to pay nothing in taxes in order to fulfill owners pipe dream.

Lastly, as we struggle to control our national spending; we see Romney and Ryan telling the American people that we need to change course for the long term benefit of nation. However, our president is willing to extend all welfare programs for immediate gratification and unwilling to propose a serious budget because he is self-centered and self-aggrandizing.

It's funny how Nick is either unwilling or unable to address Hoffa's thesis and come clean about his own consumerist habits, which runs contrary to his commie bs, isn't it?

I'm thinking that the latter definitely applies!

Hoffa - 1
Poulos - 0

And Obama is a disciple of Bill Ayers, a terrorist? And Jeremiah Wright, an anti-American bigot?
I did not deny "free will", I recognized it as an excuse.

@Bren -

You must not be that familiar with the story of Robin Hood. But you're probably right - Obama's 'redistribution' will mirror the activity done by the Sheriff of Nottingham in the story - taking from the poor and middle class and keeping for his own pet projects, much more than it will mirror the actions of Robin Hood!

Remember Obama's promise of not raising taxes on the middle class? Well, that's exactly what Obamacare does, just as Hoffa has been saying all along. But seeing as how you're incapable of analyzing and thinking for yourself, I'll provide you with a third party link that concurs in this assessment, from a lefty liberal source so that you won't claim right-wing bias:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/obamacare-cbo-report_n_1898370.html

And that's another reason why Hoffa never trusts the CBO to get it right - they're constantly changing their story, much like Obama in regards to his broken promises!

So how is it that you're supporting Obama again? ;-)

@Randy1949 Did you know that during the Irish potato famine of the 1840's there was plenty of food besides potatoes in Ireland. The English shipped it out of Ireland and onto the free market to maximize their profits. Mass starvation followed in Ireland, but the English could care less. Heck, they were only Irish!

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I've heard stories of loaded wagons with grain and vegetables -- cash crops -- driving past starving bodies at the roadside.

@Randy 1949 -

You're comparing apples to oranges again. The lords and kings are government. The CEO's that you attempt to denigrate here are private sector.

If you don't like the CEO's making what they make, then don't purchase any consumer product. Start growing your own food or only ever purchasing your food from the farmers market, only be sure that the farmers you're patronizing don't make too much money from their crops. You'll also have to start growing your own cotton and producing your own clothes. And driving a car is no more for you, unless you're extracting and refining your own fossil fuels. And if you use CNG for heating or cooking purposes, that will have to stop immediately - you'll have to switch to burning wood or something similar. No electricity for you either, unless you can create your own generation without any part purchases from those evil corporations that overpay their CEO's.

The choice is yours to make, but Hoffa doesn't see you living like the Amish, otherwise you wouldn't be using the internet, as however you're accessing the internet is making some CEO somewhere very wealthy.

By purchasing from the outside world, you're supporting and contributing to the people that you're now denigrating.

Come on Randy, you're better than being a hypocrite!

Randy is confused by his lack of details. "In an effort to shine a light on CEO pay, the AFL-CIO examined chief executive salaries at 299 firms traded on the S&P 500".
Then they took these hand picked numbers and compared that to the average pay of all workers in the U.S. You can't have it both ways, either you use the average of ALL CEOs in the U.S. or you use the average pay of the employees under the selected CEOs. Creative math is a tool that is eaten up by fools.

So let's see -- Greg blames statistics while Hoffa blames the people who buy cheap shoes and underwear made in China. Are CEOs taking the bus and struggling to make the mortgage on a 2000 sq. foot house while being forced to send those jobs off to China?

I don't blame anything. I think CEOs deserve their pay. I also understand math. If you think that the average "job-creator", that pays his employees $60K/year, makes over $20 million/year, it's pretty sad that you are sitting around moaning about a mortgage instead of creating a few jobs.

@Randy1949 -

Demand is far more powerful than supply. Let's say that the only thing that existed in the marketplace was Chinese made underwear. Let's also presume that because our nation is so patriotic, we all refuse to buy the Chinese made underwear, and instead all fashion our own underwear like the Amish, simply for the lack of a mass produced domestic alternative. Where's the CEOs and shareholders getting wealthy in this hypo? There aren't any, because despite the infinite supply of underwear from China, nobody here demands it. All that Chinese underwear is essentially worthless, and those who produced it are busted and out of businesses.

Demand is far more powerful than supply. The only control that the CEO and shareholders have any power over is supply. They can't force you to buy a product, that is, not until Obamacare came along anyway. Consumers create the demand.

Ergo, doesn't it make logical sense to blame the consumers for the perceived injustices that you see first and foremost, before blaming the CEOs and shareholders?

If Hoffa has it wrong, he's more than willing to listen to your case. But in all reality, even you know that Hoffa is right.

@pull my string Keith Best....C'mon, you can't be serious with this talking point. Is this the new line coming from Priebus? We can do better with Romney/Ryan! Prove it!

@Lyle
It is nearly impossible to do any worse. So even if Romney/Ryan accomplish nothing it will merely a wash.

@Lyle -

Would you be doing better with more of your own money in your pocket, to spend as you see fit, or would you be better off paying more in taxes and having less money to spend as you please?

Admittedly, that may have been a stupid question to ask you ;-)

As to Mr. Best's point, Romney was a successful church leader, businessman, Republican Governor in a traditionally Democratic state, and saved the Salt Lake Winter Olympics from disaster.

Prior to running for public office, Obama was successful at... well, if you really want to count community organizing, Hoffa guesses that you could say that he was good at that.

Even in the early day of his political career though, Obama voted present more often than naught instead of actually taking a stance and doing what he was elected to do, showing what poor leadership skills he actually possesses. Eastwood's empty chair was spot on!

@JRH....You're right, that wasn't the best question you've ever asked. As far as Mr. Romney's accomplishments, I don't deny he has been overwhelmingly successful in his endeavors. I do question his success as governor of Massachusetts, he left it in worse condition than when he entered. That being aside, he appears to be very risk aversive. He almost let Staples slip through his fingers because he was slow to move and then had to beg to provide the equity capital. Risk aversion has given him the political reputation of being a "flip flopper". The office of the president can't afford someone who is slow to act when conditions require quick decisive actions.

As far as Ryan is concerned, he hasn't the life experience to be running for high office at this time.

@Nick -

According to your self-indulged line of crap, people are only truly thinking when they arrive at the conclusion that you have.

That's called brain-washing, propagandizing, etc - basically, the exact opposite of thinking for ones self.

The fact that so many different conclusions are on display here suggests quite the opposite of your comment - people are indeed thinking for themselves. You just don't like it when they arrive at a differing conclusion than the one that you've chosen to stand by.

Hoffa sees right through you!

Cont...

But it is the indiual "freewill" that placed you in the situation you are in. At least that was the case until this President. I'm sure the CEO of Solyndra made far and above what the assemblers made. I'm also sure that those executives walked off with that half-billion dollar loan from the Obama Administration, while the assemblers got a whopping unemployment check. Same could be said about GM execs, who took billions in federal aid and then gave big fat raises to themselves while closing locally owned dealerships. I know that if I go out of business, there will be no bailout. I'm not looking for one either as it was my "freewill" to invest all my time, talents and finances into my business.

The good thing is, because we are in a free society, you are never forced to stay in the position you chose, and are free to change at anytime. That is the good news.

If you are unhappy in your status in life, you are free to leave at anytime. If you chose to stay, it is not my responsibility to subsidize your life because of your "freewill."
...

@Brian Dey.... This is off the subject of the post and string, but there are many philosophical problems with how you are using the principle of free will. Where your argument is vulnerable is the structural limitations placed on individuals. Another vulnerability is that your notion does not account for the element of chance.
In relation to your argument, you know that most large corporate CEOs have never been entrepreneurs. Mitt Romney falls directly into this category, since the skids have been greased for him since his birth. But, the idea that someone whose successful in a business doesn't mean that they would be successful in other endeavors. Paul Ryan has been on the government teat every since he reached the age of majority after completing college. He doesn't even have the experience as an entrepreneur or a business manager. Team Romney/Ryan are a very risky choice.
Your statement concerning MBAs is about as worthless as the teats on a bore. Most MBAs have been granted by diploma mills and those that are granted by the better "B" schools don't necessarily lead to success unless you're going into finance on Wall Street. Many of the economic problems we are experiencing are the result of people coming out of Wharton, Harvard, Chicago, etc. Sometimes it means more to think things through and analyze the world from different perspectives. To be honest, I have more respect for you than all the Fortune 500 CEOs put together. You did it in spite of your beginnings.

@Lyle -

Very nice response!

Although I'm not so sure what you mean by "structural limitations placed on individuals," Hoffa is otherwise in full agreement with you here - especially about the overinflated value of having paper behind your name.

And before you rip on Hoffa for having plenty of paper behind his name, need I remind you that Hoffa is a just a player in the game - we hate the game, not the players that are forced into it!

@JRH....I don't care how much paper one has behind their names either. When I was referring to limitations, I was speaking to the attributes and debilities we are born with. There can be and are environmental elements that prevent certain opportunities to be pursued. It's is like climbing the ladder of success and upward mobility. If you start at the bottom and are only able to make a couple of steps, that is more of an accomplishment than those start near the top and reach the top. Currently we spend too much time celebrating those who've grabbed the brass ring and not enough time celebrating those who are working everyday just to get on the merry go round. A person's worth is not determined by their bank account; but generosity of his heart.

Lyle- I too am unsure of your choice of structural limitations. The only limits are those placed on themselves. The government and society has no limits put on an individual.

Definition of FREE WILL
1: voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

I think that free will fits my explanation.

I think Obama/Biden is a risky choice unless you firmly believe in "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't". And it was even riskier to have voted for Obama in the first place as Hillary Clinton was a far better choice for the Republicans. Obama has absolutely no leadership skills as demonstrated by his first term. His one big claim to victory he actually passed off to Congress in Obamacare. His foreign policy has had very mixed results. He argued against torture, yet he is okay with assassination at his own discretion. He has no problem overturning duly passed law without going to Congress, and is relentless in using government to pursue his own revenge.

And MBA's of Fortune 500 are usually brought forth by recruiters and I know someone in that field. They know the difference between legit and and paperwalkers.

Not sure how to take that last statement, but I am assuming you meant it as a compliment.

@Brian Dey....Philosophically speaking free will has several other competing trains of thought; Hard Determinism, Soft Determinism and Chance. I won't bore you with a long explanation, but, Hard Determinism is where there is no free will and everything is determined by cause and effect. Soft Determinism also claims that all is is determined but we have the illusion of free will. Chance is something that is not subject to the laws of cause and effect, therefore Hard and Soft Determinism cannot exist. But total free will also doesn't explain much of human behavior.

You can't exercise free will unless you have the ability to exercise it. My favorite example is the person who says they are going to walk to the moon even though they can't walk and it is physically impossible to walk to the moon. That is an environmental and structural limitations on free will.

What you are defining as free will is what is commonly thought to be such exercise, but it is not entirely free will.

Paper hangers aside, I've worked with enough head hunters and it's not the MBA they're selling but actual experience and skills. Yes it was meant as a compliment.

@Lyle,

Putting aside the fact that your understanding of "free will" is wrong, I must say that your understanding of "entrepreneur" is also wrong.

A CEO is an entrepreneur if he/she has done what Romeny has done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneur

@Nick -

Prove it to us. Where were your shoes made? What brand/make of car do you drive? Where were your jeans made?

You can't just claim that Hoffa is wrong about you without answering his questions and provide us the insight that we need to effectively and fairly judge!

@Nick -

Hoffa will assume that you're referring to 'Mr. Magoo,' seeing as how that's his catchphrase.

So glad that Hoffa could provide you with a laugh - the truth often tends to be quite funny when you first discover it after years of brainwashed indoctrination ;-)

I think this is Nick's way of saying he's got his beer goggles on.

After reading this blog, I'd say that Mr. McGoo's vision is 20/20 in comparison to Nick's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNF-0QsQOE

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4

@Nick -

Romney - 57 point plan that exemplifies American principles and greatness.

Obama - No real plan except to raise taxes and increase government spending.

Obviously, to any logical, rational, and thinking individual, Romney/Ryan have been much more revealing than the President. Not to mention that one needs to remember that what Obama says in his campaign speeches and what he does when he actually has power are two completely different things. Obama has LIED to the people about so much, it isn't even funny anymore as a crooked politician joke. So even that which Obama reveals can't really be trusted.

Why do you treat other people like they're stupid, inferior, and incapable of making their own decisions for themselves?