Are the Democrats really for the Poor?

One of the big debates over fiscal policy is the discussion of "priorities." Government, is going to spend, it is merely a question in what areas, we are told. In that debate we are told that Democrats (or liberals of any political party) are for the "poor," while conservatives are for the "rich." We often hear about "rich Republicans" and "poor Democrats," but how does this line up with reality?

In the last Presidential election, the only two serious contenders on the Democrats side were Barack Obama (who eventually won) and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Both used very populist rhetoric and to varying degrees, both sounded as thought they were pulling chapters out of the works of Karl Marx. Yet there is a cloud that hang over these "poor Democrats." That is the political realities that financially drove both of their political campaigns.

Personal income is a strong indicator of ones relationship to the constituents they represent. Barack Obama made ten times more than Sen. John McCain (who became the Republican nominee in the last year) accounted, with over $4 million in income. Meanwhile his wife cries poverty over having to have to make "outrageous" student loan payments to their old schools -- Princeton, Columbia, and Harvard (where's the violin music when you need it?).

In the same vein, Sen. Hillary Clinton, made an impressive five times more than Obama at approximately $20 million. My mathematical skills suggests I refrain from attempting to calculate the difference between McCain and her.

But personal wealth is only the beginning, there is also the lessons we learn from those who supported their campaigns. From the media we would have to assume that McCain certainly received much more from his rich Republican buddies than either (or even both) of the Democrats. The reality could not be further from the truth, Sen. John McCain raised a fraction of what Obama raised (who broke a presidential campaign record) and during the primaries, he could not keep pace with Clinton.

The debate about wealth, poverty, and politics, is really quite cloudy. I sincerely doubt that homeless and other poor people (the alleged beneficiaries of Democrat policies) are fueling their Presidential campaigns. In fact, a Fortune Magazine article implied that business was voting for Hillary. What kind of business? The big corporations that can actually afford liberal and big government policies and see such as a way of keeping smaller competitors at bay. We saw from the so-called stimulus packages (designed by Democrats in Congress, yet supported by both parties) in September of 2008 and again in the early days of the Obama Administration, that some of the biggest beneficiaries were the largest corporations in the United States.

The truth of the matter is that the mega rich support liberals over conservatives. In fact, Obama's support was 3 to 1 in that category. The reasons the rich supports liberal candidates might be quite cynical. Major corporations know they can absorb the regulations, tax requirements, and other obligations that come with being large. They also know such laws could put their aspiring competition -- the rising enterprises often driven by the middle class -- out of existence. Americans need to get serious about this issue and start by asking the question, what type of policies actually help the poor?

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Can't Find a Job? Check Out this List

So you can't find a job. Well, Fortune Magazine has just released a list of the 100 top companies to work for and many of those companies are actively hiring at this time. The benefits these companies offer are unheard of and they provide such because they want to keep their employees. They remain hungry for those employees they consider to be the best and the brightest.

Altogether there are 100 companies listed, I want to focus on the top ten.

1. NetApp replaces Google as the number one company to work for. Rising up from 14 last year, this company actually enjoyed an increase in job growth. The average salary employee makes is over $133,000 and the typical hourly employee make over $80,000 (the example was an "executive assistant"). The company provides a fitness center, compressed work week, five paid days for volunteer work, and telecommuting.
   
   
2. Edward Jones bucks a trend among Wall Street firms, rising to number 2 from number 4 last year. Average salaried employees make well over $70,00 and hourly employees make well over $30,000. The company offers paid sabbaticals, subsidized gym membership, and telecommuting.


3. The Boston Consulting Group rose from number 11 to 3 in the last year. Again, this company enjoyed job growth and the average salaried employee makes over $140,000 a year, while hourly employees make over $60,000. Hundred percent health coverage, paid sabbaticals, and a compressed workweek are among the reasons this company is so highly rated.


4. Dropping from number 1 is Google, which has been forced to drop some of the things that has made its work place famous, but is still considered one of the best companies in the country to work for. There was no provision by Google as far as salaries go, but the company is famous for its onsite childcare, onsite fitness center, telecommuting, and more.


5. Wegmans Food Mart chimes in at number five (dropping from number 3). It is unusual for a grocery store to land in such a high position. The employee incomes are among the highest in the industry, with salaried employees making over $50,000 a year and hourly income employees making close to $30,00, on average. Compressed work weeks and job sharing are among the unique characteristics of this company.


6. Cisco Systems stays the same rank as last year. Income for employees are very high, with salaried employees making over $130,000 a year and hourly ones enjoying close to $60,000 on average (the latter being for an Administrative Assistant). Onsite child care, onsite fitness center, and telecommuting are among the reasons it is in the top ten.
   
7. Genetech drops from number 5, but still maintains among the best work environments in a country (biotech) that has been hit fairly hard. Employees enjoy high incomes (over $112,000 for salaried and close to $70,000 for hourly), plus paid sabbaticals, onsite childcare, telecommuting and much more.
   
8. Methodist Hospital System. Methodist (up from ten) is part of the largest medical center in the world (Houston, Texas) and a leader in offering excellent jobs. The gap between salaried and hourly incomes is surprisingly small with the former making over $88,000 and the later making over $80,000. Furthermore, the company offers an excellent onsite fitness facility, job sharing, and a compressed work week.


9. Goldman Sachs turns up at nine (the same as last year) in spite of being a part of all the turmoil that hit Wall Street in September. The company did not provide information on hourly wages, but salaried employees make over $140,000 a year. Onsite childcare, compressed work week, and job sharing are among the reasons people love to work here.


10. Nugget Market (rose up from 12), rounds up the list at number 10. This grocery store offers very high incomes of over $116,000 for those on salary and well over $30,000 for those being paid hourly. One hundred percent health care coverage makes this company unique in an industry not noted for its benefits.
    

It is good to know that, even in a weak economy like the one we are in, that there are still excellent companies trying to make work a great place to go to.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Can Charlie Black's Statements be Defended?

Charlie Black has a reputation of dirty politics and anyone who has been in politics as many years as he has will find it hard to stay "Mr. Clean." Considered a favorite of moderate Republicans running for office, Black knows a great deal about his trade and how to get people elected.

Black, the strategist for the John McCain campaign, recently told Fortune Magazine that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto last year was an "unfortunate event." "But his (McCain's) knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." In an equally candid moment of honesty, Black discussed the possibility of another terrorist attack on US soil and discussed how it would effect John McCain's Presidential aspirations. "Certainly," he said, "it would be a big advantage to him," said Black.

These comments have, some how, created a shock wave in both media and politics. Black was attacked for his cynicism by Barack Obama and his own boss, Senator McCain, has disavowed the comments and said they were not reflective of his own views. My questions is, shouldn't they be?

Honestly, which party and candidate do people want when it comes to security -- McCain and Republicans or Obama and Democrats? Yesterday, Investors Business Daily published a summary of opinions among our enemies regarding the upcoming Presidential campaign. North Korea's Kim Jong-il has said "We will see a better relationship between the U.S. and the Korean Peninsula with Obama, who sternly criticizes Bush and who would meet the leader of Chosun without preconditions." Libya's Moammar Gadhafi has said that Obama should "be proud of himself as a black and feel that all Africa is behind him." Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega is arguing that Obama is "laying the foundations for a revolutionary change" in the United States. Finally, Cuba's Fidel Castro is stating that Obama is "the man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency." Such comments should have a chilling effect on voters.

Maybe it was impolite. It was certainly politically incorrect. However, the statements by Charlie Black seem to be fairly reasonable in the eyes of many and are quietly being spoken by individuals around the water coolers where people congregate to solve our nation's problems.

Tired of the plain old business news? Ready for practical information to change your business and even your life? Visit HoustonBusinessReview.com and sign up for this important weekly ezine.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Rich Republicans and Poor Democrats

How many times have you heard about "rich Republicans" and "poor Democrats"? I am sure the answer is often; but I am also sure you are confused about what is going on in the political market place today.

First, let's look at the incomes of the two major Democrats and the presumptive nominee of the Republicans.

* Sen. John McCain made approximately $400,000 in 2007. Certainly an impressive income and not one that would make you cry "poverty".

How about the "poor" Democrats?

* Sen. Barack Obama made ten times more than McCain in '07 with over $4 million in income. Meanwhile his wife cries poverty over having to have to make "outrageous" student loan payments to their old schools -- Princeton, Columbia, and Harvard (where's the violin music when you need it?).

* Sen. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, made a whopping five times more than Obama at approximately $20 million. I won't even try to calculate that difference with McCain.

But how much candidates make isn't the only point, is it? It is about the level of financial support they get. Surely McCain receives much more from his rich Republican buddies than either (or even both) of the Democrats? The reality is the exact opposite, McCain has raised a fraction of the $40 million that Obama raised last month or any month for a long time and Clinton consistently raises significantly more than McCain.

The debate about wealth, poverty, and politics, is really quite cloudy. I sincerely doubt that homeless and other poor people (the alleged beneficiaries of Democrat policies) are fueling their Presidential campaigns. In fact, a Fortune Magazine article implied that business was voting for Hillary. What kind of business? The big corporations that can actually afford liberal and big government policies and see such as a way of keeping smaller competitors at bay.

If people do just a little homework, their views of "rich" and "poor", "Republican" and "Democrat" could actually change.

For a copy of the free report, "Why Your Marketing Isn't Working," email Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com and put "marketing" in the subject line.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Sprint Cuts Jobs and Stores

Recently I wrote a post critical of Sprint's creepy TV commercial showing individuals with several "mini mes" designed to get things done. Those little helpers were due to the great resources people get from their Sprint phone. I'm beginning to feel bad for my comments, considering the news I saw regarding Sprints current circumstances.

According to Mediabistro:

Fortune is reporting that Sprint plans to cut 4,000 jobs and shut down 125 retail locations this year:

"The news keeps getting worse at Sprint. The struggling wireless telco suffered its worst quarter yet for customer defections, saying a staggering 683,000 post-paid users headed for the door in the fourth quarter. Sprint's churn, reflecting the rate of monthly subscriber loss, rose to 2.3 percent, which is more than double the rates recently posted at the fastest-growing big carrier, Verizon Wireless."

Sprint is the nation's third largest carrier, with approximately 54 million subscribers. AT&T and Verizon are neck and neck, with 66 and 64 million respectively. T-Mobile brings up the rear (of the four major carriers) with 28 million customers.

I doubt seriously that the "creepy ad" I referred to in a recent post played any role. But I'm also sure that their weak campaigns have done little in winning the defections war. Of the big four, I think Verizon has the most effective commercials and the only theme that is memorable. With their long term use of "can you hear me now?," we know exactly what they are talking about and the message resonates. Yet they have been clever enough to tie it to different themes to prevent us getting bored.

I know that personal stories are less than reliable, but there seemed to be a time when virtually everyone I knew used Sprint. Those days seems to be long gone.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Relocating a Business to Houston

I'm asked often by friends all over the country why they keep hearing about business relocating to Houston. Some facts showcased on the Greater Houston Partnership website might provide the best summary to such a phenomenon:

Number 1

Lowest cost of living among 24 largest metropolitan areas (ACCRA Cost of Living Index).

Fastest growing companies (Forbes Magazine).

Job Growth (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).

Number of building permits (Demographia).

Number 2

Most popular city with movers (U-Haul National Migration Trend Report).

Texas –– Best Business Climate in the Nation (Site Selection).

Number 3

Fortune 500 Companies (Fortune Magazine).

Best Metros for Business (Forbes Magazine).

US Metros for Business and Careers (Forbes Magazine).

The list goes on and I encourage readers to check it out. Houston is great for business which is exactly why we are attracting companies, entrepreneurs, and individuals looking for opportunity both nation wide and around the world.

The above video, produced by Houston Business Show Advisor Andy Valadez of Marketing Dynamics, is of Mayor Bill White's comments at a recent Houston Networking News event on why there is so much economic growth in Houston. To keep informed of the best in best news and information, subscribe to the Houston Business Review newsletter.

Changes at Business Week

There is a cliché that “style is not as important as substance, but people won’t notice your substance if you lack style.” Business Week magazine has undergone a very serious style change this month – the first in four years. I know why magazines are doing such these days, they are trying to figure out how to compete against the Internet, they like the buzz (even if it is bad, I presume) that any change brings, and there are often substantive reasons for a change in format.

The magazine contends that the changes are intended to make the publication easier to navigate and better to read. Furthermore, the change is also in content with a shift from executive lifestyle to more hard business news. I assume that those changes are fostered by the invasion of the Wall Street Journal Weekend Edition and the heavy emphasis placed by magazines such as Forbes and Fortune in this arena. Furthermore, I always liked Business Week for being focused on the real world of business and am glad to see it return to its roots. It is among the reasons it is one of my favorite business publications.

When I first saw the magazine’s new design I noticed the McGraw-Hill label prominently displayed. When I think of McGraw-Hill, I think of textbooks. This publication is decades old and has always been owned by the book publisher, but I had no idea. Historically, it has been about the content, not the content provider. Those days are gone and now every company is doing everything it can to promote its brand and that would include McGraw-Hill.

That label, the slightly larger size, and the wider margins gave the publication a dramatically different look. It provided a look that I have to describe as some what “academic.” Unfortunately, most of us gave up publications with an academic look when we were in college. Some even ceremoniously burned the books used that final semester to put the whole experience behind them, though I won’t mention any names.

It is too early to say I don’t like the changes. I need to spend a little more time with them. The truth is, however, I will get most of my Business Week content online like I have for the last several years. I hope they don’t take an academic approach there. Those university web sites seem very complicated.

Order Kevin Price's audio program The Accumulators, which explains the impact that the Internet is having on marketing and consumer behavior. It is available online here for only $10 plus p and h. Receive the Houston Business Review e-zine free each week by clicking here.

TV Lovers Simply Don't Get It

For quite some time the rumor has been that TV is in trouble because of the rise of the Internet. The theory is that, with the rapid expansion of more portable devices, the growth of bandwidth in Internet connections, and the 24/7 availability of entertaining content, will make the TV increasingly obsolete. Geoff Colvin of Fortune Magazine begs to differ and believes that either in spite of the Web or because of it, more people are watching more TV than ever. Colvin argues that since (according to polls) the average American is spending over four hours a day watching TV, the box has nothing to worry about. He couldn't be more wrong.

Americans are already spending a significant amount of time watching DVDs on TV. Others are watching TV programs online, making the distinction between TV and computer time quite blurry (e.g., the average age of nightly news viewers is 60, younger viewers are getting their stories online and when they want it). In my opinion, people only spend time watching TV because the link between the computer and TV hasn't become more simplified (although it is getting there). When people begin to instantly pull what they want from the Web to their TVs, individuals will become their own program directors and will largely ignore what is being offered by broadcast or cable.

Sure, some shows and their networks will survive, but the television landscape will be changing forever. Colvin is right that the boxes and screens that we are watching today will continue to survive (and even improve), but the content that goes into them will be increasingly driven by the Web and not by the networks. And all the more the Web is driven by users. I believe the best proof of this is YouTube, which I call the first major TV network of the 21st century that happens to be on the Internet. Google knew exactly what it was doing when it purchased that site for over $1.6 billion. They know that the future of the programming you will want to watch will be driven, not surprisingly, by you.

I Want to Play -- Er, Work -- at Google

Fortune Magazine's annual list of the best companies to work at was topped by Google and the difference between this generous company and others (even those on the list) is huge The following is a short list of some of the great things about life (and work) at the search engine giant:

* free gourmet meals from several different restaurants

* the ability to do your laundry, at no cost

* a place to drop off your dry cleaning

* one can get an oil change and get a massage all onsite

* one can enjoy a huge game room

* work is such a comfortable place that it is sometimes difficult to get Google employees to leave the office

This last item is a plus for the company and the "payoff" to Google for its generosity. The company has employees who don't have to be told to work over time, they are glad to do it in order to meet the company's objectives. Not only are employees pleased to work there, thousands are eager to get hired (with 1,300 applications coming in daily to chase down about that number of jobs available each year). People are well aware of the fact they have a really good thing.

I think Google is a great place a work and an excellent example to businesses around the world. They choose to do it, not merely for altruism, but to make it one of the most competitive companies in the world.