They wanted change. They got it:
Not surprisingly, companies’ take on the issue is that the proposals, if passed, would raise their cost of operations and put them at a disadvantage when competing against overseas rivals based in countries with lower corporate tax rates, according to SiliconValley.com. Silicon Valley companies will be among those lobbying against the proposals. Said Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group:
On a Richter scale of 1 to 10, this is about a 20.
So ye sow, so shall ye reap.
We’ll see what this does to his approval ratings in Silicon Valley.
Nah, not so far, I think. Most techies are very unhappy about competing with offshore talent that asks for far less in wages, so while management is pissed about this kind of stuff, the workers will secretly cheer.
I think you’re right, Rand, that The O’s support among the geek squad is based on false premises (that he’s one of them) and susceptible to sudden collapse. If it does so, I’m going to guess in comes in the context of something like a new Fairness Doctrine that applies to the Web, which O and his intellectual Stalinist friends in academia, civil service and old media (who really are his friends) would love, but the techies would hate with a passion. Another possibility is support for DRM in the context of
paying offsupporting the entertainment industry. I would have said stuff, like SOX, that make entrepreneurship harder, but I’m not convinced most modern young techies are entrepreneurs any more. I think that phase has come and gone with an earlier generation, at least in programming (biotech is different).Actually, this is a shareholders rights issue as much as anything else. If a company isn’t repatriating income, then, it’s not showing earnings for the shareholders and not paying dividends. I don’t invest in HP so they can squat on billions overseas, I want earnings and I want dividends.
Managemeent likes these overseas slush funds because they can steal the money.
Not showing earnings for the shareholders, jack? So the fact that the share price might be, say, climbing 20% a year doesn’t mean squat, if you’re not getting a dividend? Never heard of capital gains?
Or do you imagine the share price climbs on the news that a company will be paying whopping bigger taxes?
Doofus.
You’ve got to ask yourself why would the O do this if he wanted to be re-elected. Either he is dumber than a post or he does not think there will be another election.
I am afraid it will be recorded in history the US voted itself out of existence on 11-04-2008.
paul, no need to revist the “final election” conspiracy theories of the Bush era. Incompetence explains this nicely.
Karl, as I recall those theories where promoted by the left.
I will continue to hope we wake up in time, however.
if the money isn’t repatriated, you can’t show it as earnings.
if the earnings don’t grow the stock price doesn’t grow.
money in bermuda doesn’t do “ME” any good.
Re: Paul’s theory, I don’t think the democrat (ICK) party would survive an simple suspension of elections. It runs too contrary to their rhetoric of power in the hands of the people. But I doubt they’d survive an honest election either given the corruption they’ve been up to, not facing an informed electorate. So the question becomes what they might do to rig the election.
I think you’re over generalizing about Silicon Valley. The guys who run the companies will howl, but most of them are so far removed from the realities of your average worker here it’s almost unthinkable.
Workers here have been laid off, outsourced to India, and insourced (companies import foreign workers on H-1B visas, driving down wages and displacing native workers). Wages are relatively high, but living expenses are outrageous. Many miss out on the whole stock options bonanza.
Could this move accelerate job losses? Maybe. But, it’s already being done for all sorts of reasons, with no pangs of conscience about it.
Those at the top in Silicon Valley? Ridiculously overcompensated and more than able to bear the financial burden.
Read Yahoo’s recent SEC filings. It’s a company that laid off 2,500 employees last year (and another 700 last week). It lost money in the fourth quarter. Its stock sank to under $10 at one point. And salaries have been frozen for this year.
Did this affect top execs any? Not really. They still got paid millions for lousy results. The CFO got a $50,000 raise three weeks after the first layoffs last February. After only nine months on the job. He got a $275,000 bonus on top of his $500,000 salary for his work last year. Total compensation for 2008: $2.3 million. He’s leaving the company soon.
The president, who was not promoted to the top job and left the company? Fifteen million in total compensation for a crappy year, including more than a $600,000 bonus.
The people who run Silicon Valley…they will howl and scream and lobby…but if it happens, they’ll just continue doing what they’re already doing and getting rich no matter how many people suffer.
Careful Joe, you might get accused of class warfare there.
Well, if you define class warfare as expecting executives to forego large pay increases and bonuses when they’re busy laying off thousands of people and freezing everyone else’s salaries, then by all means, declare war.
When you’re not willing to share the consequences of a down time, when the worst thing that happens is that you walk away with millions…it’s difficult to have any sympathy for you.