Cingular's 2Q profit triples...

2

Comments

  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Of course there is. Stop paying them.

    You've got me there. I have nothing to come back at that with that is logical.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    zstillings wrote:
    You've got me there. I have nothing to come back at that with that is logical.

    You could always just try this:

    http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=654402006

    My favorite part:

    "But he has also said that nationalisation will not mean a complete state takeover, because Bolivia lacks the ability to tap all its natural gas on its own."
  • qtegirl
    qtegirl Posts: 321
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Care to explain why "corporate profits" should rise or fall at the same rate as wages or inflation? If, for example, Cingular's profits had fallen, would you be demanding that every Cingular employee should take a pay cut?

    Seriously?

    When corporate profits fall, no... they don't ask employees to take a paycut, they just lay them off.
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    zstillings wrote:
    100% agree with you here. The problem with oil is that it is a fixed commodity. There is no room for competition in that industry.

    There is room for manipulation of the supply though.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    qtegirl wrote:
    Seriously?

    When corporate profits fall, no... they don't ask employees to take a paycut, they just lay them off.

    But that makes sense, right? Since the argument is that if profits go up, so should pay, it would stand to reason that if profits go down, so should pay. So if profits triple, average pay should triple. If profits are cut by 2/3, then so should average pay, right?

    How come I don't see posts here saying that people should lose their pay or their jobs if profit disappears? But I see tons of them saying that people should get increases when profit rises. Why is that?
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    farfromglorified wrote:
    But that makes sense, right? Since the argument is that if profits go up, so should pay, it would stand to reason that if profits go down, so should pay. So if profits triple, average pay should triple. If profits are cut by 2/3, then so should average pay, right?

    How come I don't see posts here saying that people should lose their pay or their jobs if profit disappears?

    Because that already happens.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    But I see tons of them saying that people should get increases when profit rises. Why is that?

    There is an inefficiency in the system where those that benefit most when profits are up are burdened disproportionately to those that suffer most when profits are down.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    SundaySilence wrote:
    Because that already happens.

    But when it does happen I see those same people complaining, not saying "this is as it should be".
    There is an inefficiency in the system where those that benefit most when profits are up are burdened disproportionately to those that suffer most when profits are down.

    GM lost roughly $10B in 2005. Yet they still continue to employee tens of thousands at exactly the same pay scale they had beforehand. Shouldn't all of those people have been given massive pay cuts so that GM wouldn't have had to lay anyone off?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The cost of a gallon of gas, roughly, is determined by the following thing:

    PRICE OF CRUDE: 40%
    PRICE OF REFINEMENT: 20%
    PRICE OF TAXES: 30%
    OTHER: 10%

    Since 70% of that total is determined in the relative absence of competitive forces, it completely stands to reason that prices will be similar.

    If you want to introduce competition in gas prices, you're going to have to eliminate the taxes and eliminate the conglomerates that control the crude.

    do you have a source for this information...? Not withstanding, I disagree....if companies wanted to compete they would find a way...

    I would think a CEO would not be so quick to give out a free pass....;)

    I do agree with splitting up the current monopoly...I still have to wonder what all was discussed at those Energy Policy back in 2001...
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    farfromglorified wrote:
    But when it does happen I see those same people complaining, not saying "this is as it should be".



    GM lost roughly $10B in 2005. Yet they still continue to employee tens of thousands at exactly the same pay scale they had beforehand. Shouldn't all of those people have been given massive pay cuts so that GM wouldn't have had to lay anyone off?

    GM made roughly $6B in 1999. Their CEO salary was $4.8mil. In 2005 their CEO salary was $8.5mil. 2+2=5 for G Wagoner. This is inefficiency.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    inmytree wrote:
    do you have a source for this information...?

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html

    All of that depends on your nation, region, and time, but the numbers hold roughly true.
    Not withstanding, I disagree....if companies wanted to compete they would find a way...

    Companies don't want to compete. Why would they?
    I would think a CEO would not be so quick to give out a free pass....;)

    A free pass to what?
    I do agree with splitting up the current monopoly...I still have to wonder what all was discussed at those Energy Policy back in 2001...

    Monopoly??? Do you think crude oil prices are set by the oil companies?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    SundaySilence wrote:
    GM made roughly $6B in 1999. Their CEO salary was $4.8mil. In 2005 their CEO salary was $8.5mil. 2+2=5 for G Wagoner. This is inefficiency.

    Yes it is, if you assume that profits and salaries are inextricably linked. In the same year (2005), GM had 335,000 employees and paid out roughly $17,822,000,000 to those employees.

    Now, care to actually answer my questions?
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yes it is, if you assume that profits and salaries are inextricably linked. In the same year (2005), GM had 335,000 employees and paid out roughly $17,822,000,000 to those employees.

    Now, care to actually answer my questions?

    Questions? Your asking GM business decisions.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Companies don't want to compete. Why would they?

    Of course they don't. But capitalism breaks down without competition.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    SundaySilence wrote:
    Questions? Your asking GM business decisions.

    Please answer this:

    GM lost roughly $10B in 2005. Yet they still continue to employee tens of thousands at exactly the same pay scale they had beforehand. Shouldn't all of those people have been given massive pay cuts so that GM wouldn't have had to lay anyone off?
    Of course they don't. But capitalism breaks down without competition.

    How does capitalism "break down" without competition?
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Please answer this:

    GM lost roughly $10B in 2005. Yet they still continue to employee tens of thousands at exactly the same pay scale they had beforehand. Shouldn't all of those people have been given massive pay cuts so that GM wouldn't have had to lay anyone off?

    No
  • kenny olav
    kenny olav Posts: 3,319
    I mean, the geopolitical differences between the oil and celluar service industries are, you know, HUGE... and even if Cingular's profit making wasn't exactly clean, its the least of my concerns. It seems their "fewest dropped calls" and rollover minutes are the main reason they're killing the competition.

    I myself have had Cingular service for 5 years now, and I see no need to change it. The only time I lose connection is when I drive thru what I call "black holes", and I know where most of them are south of Boston. Two of them happen to be at highway intersections - one is where Rt 24 meets Rt 128 and the other is where Rt 3 meets Rt 93 in Braintree. A 3rd is near the Brockton Hospital at the intersection where there's a Good Fella's Pizza and a CVS and Walgreen's right across from each other. Anytime I drive up to one of these spots I say something like: "Sorry I'm going into a black hole, I'll call you when I get out".
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    SundaySilence wrote:
    No

    If their pay should go up when GM is profitable, why should it not go down when GM is unprofitable? Or does that rule only apply to CEOs?

    In 1999, when GM made roughly $6B, the average GM worker made $50.51 / hour. In 2005, when GM lost roughly $10B, the average GM worker made $76/ hour. Isn't this also an "inefficiency", by your standards? Or does that only apply to CEOs?
  • Meatwagon
    Meatwagon Posts: 108
    I finally broke down and bought a phone, and ended up with Cingular. If those asses are making that much money. I want better coverage. Them damn Verizon phones work anywhere!!!! I have a cool phone, but what good is it if all I can do is play games on it. I do like the rollover and free calling within the network. That's about it. I just hate to be tied to a phone!!!
    Axis of justice.com
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    farfromglorified wrote:
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html

    All of that depends on your nation, region, and time, but the numbers hold roughly true.



    Companies don't want to compete. Why would they?



    A free pass to what?



    Monopoly??? Do you think crude oil prices are set by the oil companies?


    ummf...here we go again...as usual points few right over your head...did you feel the breeze...?question: does Opec set prices for refining and marketing and day to day costs...? from my research, I'd say 'no'...while the inital cost of materials may be the same for all 5 major oil companies, I'd be willing to bet costs could be cut somewhere...
  • rightondude
    rightondude Posts: 745
    know1 wrote:
    http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2006/07/17/daily33.html

    "...record quarterly profit..."

    If this were an oil company, there'd be a lot of people crying foul!

    Well I'm not surprised seeing as every 10+ yr old kid now is running around with a cell phone these days. Even 60 minutes did a peice on it. Parents are giving them to their kids as security devices, and they feel safer.

    The oil thing... yeah, it's about oil. Ask any 10 yr old kid with a cell phone that and they'll tell you the same :D
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    inmytree wrote:
    ummf...here we go again...as usual points few right over your head...did you feel the breeze...?

    No.
    question: does Opec set prices for refining and marketing and day to day costs...?

    Not like they used to. They now play a relatively minor role in setting the cost.
    from my research, I'd say 'no'...while the inital cost of materials may be the same for all 5 major oil companies, I'd be willing to bet costs could be cut somewhere...

    Why don't you start with their taxes? That would be a major cut in costs.

    Regardless, this is how oil prices are set:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Pricing

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

    They are not set by the "5 major oil companies".

Categories