Quote:
Frankly, I don't give a shit about Trump's interpersonal style, as you seem to be (re?)focusing on above. Here's our discussion for your review. Maybe this will help you understand. Chickie said: Quote:
Then you responded: Quote:
However, the Marketwatch article has lots of issues (dare I say fake news). Here's what CNBC says: Apple said it's opening a new campus in the U.S. as part of a plan to pour billions of dollars into the domestic economy. "The company plans to establish an Apple campus in a new location, which will initially house technical support for customers," Apple said in a statement Wednesday. "The location of this new facility will be announced later in the year." The tech giant said more broadly that it plans to contribute $350 billion to the U.S. economy over the next five years. Apple just finished $5 billion of renovations to its headquarters in Cupertino, California, and is now gearing up to expand its reach and its workforce. So, contrary to Marketwatch, CNBC states that the jobs created will - either in full or in part - staff their new campus which has yet to be built but WILL be located in the US. You said that all of this was simply "yet another example of a corporate CEO's blowing smoke up Trump's ass so that he'll have a favorable impression of them as in the Carrier deal." You said it, I didn't. Whatever I think, or you think, about Trump's interpersonal communications, you're suggesting that Tim Cook and company are willing to spend billions to avoid having Trump mad at them. Sorry, the world isn't populated by snowflakes (like you?) who cringe and cower at the thought of someone saying mean things to them. |
Quote:
Bank of America’s bonuses will cost the bank $145 million in 2018, or about 5 percent of the nearly $2.7 billion in savings it is expected to reap in 2018 from a lower, 21 percent corporate tax rate. Apple’s bonuses will cost $300 million, a fraction of the $40 billion, at least, that the tech giant is saving from a single provision in the law, which allows it to return earnings held overseas at less than half the rate it would have paid under the old system. And two days before Walmart snagged glowing headlines for handing out $400 million in bonuses and lifting its minimum wage at a cost of $300 million, the nation’s largest retailer by sales unveiled a plan to buy back company-issued debt. The cost of the buyback: $4 billion. The gap between what companies are saving and how they are, so far, rewarding workers, doesn’t mean that the new law won’t eventually lead to substantial wage increases. Economists across the political spectrum agree it’s simply too soon to tell whether — and to what degree — that will happen. The flurry of high-profile bonus announcements “are hard to interpret,” said Mihir Desai, an economist at Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School whose research supports the idea that corporate tax cuts lead to at least modest wage increases. “They may well be evidence for these gains, but just as well may be an example of savvy public relations. The reality is we’ll have to wait for a few years and good empirical work to really know the answer.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/u...mp-impact.html |
We effectively handed regulation and policy over to folks who will benefit from manipulating both for their own purposes. What does a reasonable person expect from that, other than a severe screwing when they bail before their house of cards collapses.
|
'No, Apple Is Not Creating 20,000 Jobs Because of the Tax Bill'
https://slate.com/business/2018/01/n...-tax-bill.html |
Quote:
|
Hedge fund billionaire Howard Marks is throwing cold water on the GOP tax law
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hedge...211040536.html “So call it a gift to the corporate sector if you want, but I think it's unlikely to be much of a job-creator or long-term boon for the American middle class” "We've seen a number of companies give raises or bonuses following the enactment of the tax law, but I doubt it was done out of generosity," Marks wrote. He says there's every reason to believe that most of the corporate tax benefit will be used to "enhance credit ratings, fatten dividend payments, and finance stock buybacks." All of that is fine and well, but those weren't the rationales Republicans gave for passing the tax plan, according to Marks. "Instead, it was billed as a job-creator," he wrote. "With unemployment already below average, many CEOs tell me they're hamstrung by a scarcity of qualified workers. So who will fill the new jobs if corporations expand in the US? And if workers aren't available, will new plants (and jobs) really be created?" |
Quote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/17/appl...r-5-years.html |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And, to me, its HILARIOUS to see high workforce utilization / lowering unemployment to be spun as if its going an issue that will be worsened by a corporate tax cut, as if additional job opportunities and economic growth was some kind of "problem". :rolleyes: |
Quote:
Do you believe in the tooth fairy too? :cool: |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.