Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on Nov 7, 2015 7:32:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Nov 7, 2015 7:46:50 GMT -8
I am not a lawyer and can't parse what BYD is claiming but from the article, I quote, I would hope this is resolved quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Apple II+ on Nov 7, 2015 8:31:38 GMT -8
I don't care about the politics, that's usually just a bunch of heat without light. Rather I look at it this way - can 62.4% of the [eligible] working population support 100% of the total population? Can 60%? Can 55%? Can 50%? That's the question that needs to be asked. Logically, there has to be a point at which it isn't possible in a macroeconomic sense. It has in the past. www.stlouisfed.org/legacy_assets/publications/re/2013/d/images/labor_force.png
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on Nov 7, 2015 9:35:55 GMT -8
4 days we closed above the 200 SMA - I think market is testing the ground before moving to new range. Just need S&P to cooperate
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Nov 7, 2015 14:37:21 GMT -8
I don't care about the politics, that's usually just a bunch of heat without light. Rather I look at it this way - can 62.4% of the [eligible] working population support 100% of the total population? Can 60%? Can 55%? Can 50%? That's the question that needs to be asked. Logically, there has to be a point at which it isn't possible in a macroeconomic sense. It has in the past. www.stlouisfed.org/legacy_assets/publications/re/2013/d/images/labor_force.pngI personally think it would be nice to return to the labor participation rates of the 1960s. Perhaps if higher management was not so greedy we could return to a more rational ratio of the highest paid employee to the lowest paid employee, then we could allow more households to have one wage-earner. Because it sounds like historically-speaking there should be a lower labor participation rate. Can I assume that this is the rational analysis that the right wing wants?
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Nov 7, 2015 17:09:06 GMT -8
I came across a tribute to Steve Jobs, written by Jean-Louis Gassée on October 12, 2015, which I believe others on the forum would enjoy reading. I apologize in advance if the link has already been posted but I want to make sure it's available to those that are interested. It contains some very nice comments about Steve from Jean-Louis and others, comments about Tim and about Apple and enough links to other related articles to keep an AAPL Finance Board member busy for an hour or so. I'm putting it in the Apple Fundamentals section for an easy be-back and to make the link available for new members. aaplfinance.proboards.com/thread/1272/steve-jobs-memories-legacy-louisThis is the last paragraph of the article which speaks directly to how WS views Apple Inc. So far, Apple has been viewed and valued by Wall Street as a kind of Hollywood studio: It’s too dependent on its next hit – or miss. Hence, for the same amount of profit, Apple gets a lower valuation than Google or Amazon. These companies are said to have built a “moat” around their business, they collect, in Horace Dediu’s words, “monopoly rents” from their well-protected businesses, just like Microsoft once did with its Windows-Office franchise. No such fortress for Apple – or so says the current lore. But, if you read Apple’s words, carefully vetted by attorneys and accountants, a fortress is precisely what the company is building with a functional organization singularly focused on its ecosystem.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by mark on Nov 7, 2015 18:29:19 GMT -8
I personally think it would be nice to return to the labor participation rates of the 1960s. Perhaps if higher management was not so greedy we could return to a more rational ratio of the highest paid employee to the lowest paid employee, then we could allow more households to have one wage-earner. Because it sounds like historically-speaking there should be a lower labor participation rate. Can I assume that this is the rational analysis that the right wing wants? It's not that simple. In the 50's and 60s, there were many more non-adults percentage wise (the baby boomers, including me) than there are today. And there were fewer singles and fewer single-parent families. So, the average household size was larger. Today we have much smaller households, lots more single people, lots more single parents, and fewer children percentage wise. A household uses one abode (one [smaller] house, one apartment, one car back then, one phone line, etc). Today the household size is smaller, yet still requires an abode (much larger than in the 60s), and a car, and even usually two or even more cars, and multiple phone lines, etc. So you cannot simply "return" to the way it was back then because society isn't structured in the way it was back then. This has nothing to do with one's politics, it has to do with reality. A very large number of households already DO have one-earner, because a very large number of households contain only one adult.
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Nov 7, 2015 18:44:46 GMT -8
I personally think it would be nice to return to the labor participation rates of the 1960s. Perhaps if higher management was not so greedy we could return to a more rational ratio of the highest paid employee to the lowest paid employee, then we could allow more households to have one wage-earner. Because it sounds like historically-speaking there should be a lower labor participation rate. Can I assume that this is the rational analysis that the right wing wants? It's not that simple. In the 50's and 60s, there were many more non-adults percentage wise (the baby boomers, including me) than there are today. And there were fewer singles and fewer single-parent families. So, the average household size was larger. Today we have much smaller households, lots more single people, lots more single parents, and fewer children percentage wise. A household uses one abode (one [smaller] house, one apartment, one car back then, one phone line, etc). Today the household size is smaller, yet still requires an abode (much larger than in the 60s), and a car, and even usually two or even more cars, and multiple phone lines, etc. So you cannot simply "return" to the way it was back then because society isn't structured in the way it was back then. This has nothing to do with one's politics, it has to do with reality. A very large number of households already DO have one-earner, because a very large number of households contain only one adult. Good point.
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Nov 8, 2015 5:25:32 GMT -8
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on Nov 8, 2015 13:23:47 GMT -8
This was a good listen, very positive; thanks for posting, Rob. After studying Apple's recent 10-K, Neil feels Apple was buying back shares as fast as possible in August, Sept. & Oct. 115-120 is seen by Apple as a bargain - esp. since they know what's coming, he surmises.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,181
|
Post by JDSoCal on Nov 8, 2015 18:09:40 GMT -8
I personally think it would be nice to return to the labor participation rates of the 1960s. Perhaps if higher management was not so greedy we could return to a more rational ratio of the highest paid employee to the lowest paid employee, then we could allow more households to have one wage-earner. Because it sounds like historically-speaking there should be a lower labor participation rate. Can I assume that this is the rational analysis that the right wing wants? No, because how much McDonalds' CEO makes is irrelevant to how much the retail worker makes. McDonald's has 420,000 employees. Its CEO makes $1.1M/yr. Even if he worked for free, that would be less than $3 per YEAR extra for each employee. And CEOs don't work for free (except Jobs, but he was already a billionaire from Apple stock). The CEO-vs-worker pay canard completely lacks any basis in math, like most liberal ideas. Funny how on Friday, you were telling us how all these labor non-participators like your wife & Incorrigible were doing great because of the awesome Obama economy, voluntary leaving the workforce with their piles of gold. But today, people don't work because of income inequality? Which is it? Does Obama only get credit for the good stuff, but those mean capitalists get the blame for the bad stuff? I mean this drop in labor participation did happen on his watch, so maybe all this class warfare and envy and attacking the productive & investor classes doesn't really work as intended? Just sayin'.
|
|
ono
Member
compensation
Posts: 537
|
Post by ono on Nov 8, 2015 18:57:59 GMT -8
"After studying Apple's recent 10-K, Neil feels Apple was buying back shares as fast as possible in August, Sept. & Oct. 115-120 is seen by Apple as a bargain - esp. since they know what's coming, he surmises."
Thanks, nice quick summary. I then went to listen to the podcast; it was good. Your summary captured it.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by mark on Nov 8, 2015 21:21:41 GMT -8
"After studying Apple's recent 10-K, Neil feels Apple was buying back shares as fast as possible in August, Sept. & Oct. 115-120 is seen by Apple as a bargain - esp. since they know what's coming, he surmises." Thanks, nice quick summary. I then went to listen to the podcast; it was good. Your summary captured it. How does he know about October? Probably meant to say "July, August, and September".
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Nov 9, 2015 9:39:52 GMT -8
I personally think it would be nice to return to the labor participation rates of the 1960s. Perhaps if higher management was not so greedy we could return to a more rational ratio of the highest paid employee to the lowest paid employee, then we could allow more households to have one wage-earner. Because it sounds like historically-speaking there should be a lower labor participation rate. Can I assume that this is the rational analysis that the right wing wants? No, because how much McDonalds' CEO makes is irrelevant to how much the retail worker makes. McDonald's has 420,000 employees. Its CEO makes $1.1M/yr. Even if he worked for free, that would be less than $3 per YEAR extra for each employee. And CEOs don't work for free (except Jobs, but he was already a billionaire from Apple stock). The CEO-vs-worker pay canard completely lacks any basis in math, like most liberal ideas. Funny how on Friday, you were telling us how all these labor non-participators like your wife & Incorrigible were doing great because of the awesome Obama economy, voluntary leaving the workforce with their piles of gold. But today, people don't work because of income inequality? Which is it? Does Obama only get credit for the good stuff, but those mean capitalists get the blame for the bad stuff? I mean this drop in labor participation did happen on his watch, so maybe all this class warfare and envy and attacking the productive & investor classes doesn't really work as intended? Just sayin'. I'm just waitin' for you to give credit to President Obama for the good stuff ... AND to stop presenting the brainless 94.5 million people statistic completely out of context.
|
|