Articles on: Alter Summit-Network Held a Strategy Conference; 4th Congress of the European Left Party; Democratizing the State Apparatus; An Alternative Welcome at the University of Athens and more.
We hear disturbing reports this year from southern Israel. The government proposes to relocate some 70,000 Palestinian Bedouins from their present homes to government-approved townships. This is called the Prawer Plan, and Israel's parliament approved it by a three-vote majority in June. The Prawer Plan would destroy 35 Bedouin villages in the Negev region and extinguish Bedouin claims to land seized from them after the foundation of Israel.
What's missing from the discussion is that Elizabeth May's pandering marks the official end of choice when it comes to Canada's relationship with what Stephen Harper recently called "that light of freedom and democracy in what is otherwise a region of darkness," Israel. Not one political party that is technically capable of wining a majority in Canada's parliament is -- as of now -- willing to put up any resistance to Israel's military occupation, belligerence, or ongoing campaign of dispossession against the Palestinians.
The Indigenous Nationhood Movement (INM) is a peoples' movement for Indigenous nationhood, resurgence, and decolonization. We are a vast circle of people connected through commitments to principled action supporting Indigenous nations in advancing, articulating, reclaiming, expressing, and asserting our nationhood, raising up traditional governments, and reclaiming and reoccupying our homelands.
Saying no to the expansion of the Toronto Island Airport and introduction of jet aircrafts is the economical, ecological and socially responsible thing to do. At present, Pearson Airport can accommodate some 33 million passengers per year with room for an additional capacity of 7 million. That would still leave Pearson with a future capacity to accommodate twenty million more passengers, that's room for 63 per cent growth if need be.
Please join us in raising start-up funds to grow the Two Row Times, a Weekly Newspaper Publication from Six Nations. Serving all of Ontario and Upstate New York.
The American people like car salespeople better than Congress. A new Economist/YouGov.com poll shows that six percent of people approve of Congress.
As the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard notes, a December 2012 Gallup poll compared what people thought of Congress to what they thought of other occupations. The answers were that 8 percent of people approved car salespersons, while 10 percent approved of Congress.
52 percent of people dislike Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. 54 percent dislike his Republican counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, according to the Economist/YouGov poll.
The disapproval crosses partisan lines. A do-nothing Congress is not winning over the American people.Related Stories
We are not giving up despite these harsh weather conditions, sacrificing time with our families, our jobs, our homes, not only to protect land, water and people but to ensure a brighter future for the next 7 generations. We are asking for more support, through road blocks to be in solidarity.
COAST SALISH TERRITORY - Activists blocked access to the federal Port of Vancouver for an hour early this morning as part of an International Day of Action in Support of Elsipogtog Land Defenders in New Brunswick.
Access to the Port at the foot of Clark Drive was blocked for an hour. Traffic was backed up as far as as the eye could see. The adhoc coalition of activists blocked the road with a banner reading Solidarity with Elsipogtog and #ShutDownCanada. The group said it condemns fracking for poisoning water and boosting carbon emissions and decries "the brutality of the RCMP response, and their ongoing collusion with corporate interests."
"We stand in solidarity with Land Defenders everywhere - from the Mi’kmaq in New Brunswick to the Unis’tot’en in British Columbia - who are fighting rampant and reckless resource extraction, which is the face of modern colonialism. We denounce the assertion that this destruction and the associated corruption, deceit, and violence are necessary. And today we shut down a key piece of the infrastructure of this ideological machine."
The Mi’kmaq Territory encampment, which saw standoff’s between Mi’kmaq peoples protecting water and RCMP protecting corporate interests, requested the global support. More support actions are planned in BC today including rallies in Vancouver and Victoria.
Could drones be at your doorstep in a few years? Amazon’s Jeff Bezos says yes.
In a 60 Minutes interview broadcast last night, the CEO of Amazon unveiled a plan to use drones to deliver packages to Americans. Bezos said the drones, called “octocopters,” can carry up to five pounds within a 10-mile radius of Amazon sites. Bezos said the drones, guided by GPS, would be able to drop a package off within 30 minutes of an order.
But aircraft regulations would have to be changed before the plan goes into effect. The Federal Aviation Authority does not currently have detailed regulations concerning drones, though they’re working on them. Currently, only police forces and individuals not looking to make a profit can use drones in airspace. In 2012, Congress instructed the FAA to craft rules for commercial unmanned aircraft.
Amazon says the new technology could be ready by 2015.
Drones are associated with surveillance and military airstrikes, and their use has caused controversy around the world for causing civilian casualties in Yemen and Pakistan. If Amazon uses unmanned aircraft in a few years, drones will be used for two of America’s favorite pastimes: capitalism and militarism.
If the minimum wage had grown at the same rate as the earnings of the top one percent of Americans the federal wage floor would be more than triple the current hourly minimum of $7.25. Instead, the minimum wage has been lower than a poverty wage ever since 1982.
The New York Times compiled those and other basic facts about the minimum wage into an infographic. Together with demographic data about who actually holds minimum-wage jobs — less than a quarter of the minimum-wage workforce are teenagers, and nearly four in ten are over the age of 30 — the graphic makes the fundamental case for fighting inequality and economic hardship by raising the minimum wage. The horizontal red line in the Times graphic indicates the hourly wage necessary for a single parent working full-time with one child to avoid poverty:
One puzzle piece missing in the graphic is race. Since racial minorities are over-represented among the minimum wage workforce, raising the minimum wage to just $10.10 would lift3.5 million people of color out of poverty.
The stagnation and collapse of minimum wage purchasing power has helped drive the divergence between the wealthiest and poorest segments of the U.S. workforce. As minimum-wage jobs have provided less and less stable economic footing for working people, the wealthiest sliver of the country has seen astronomical gains in their compensation. If instead the federal minimum wage had grown at the same rate as one-percenter earnings, it would sit at $22.62 per hour today — 212 percent higher than the current wage floor.
A 212 percent raise may seem outlandish, but previous research indicates American workers have just about earned it. Worker productivity has more than doubled since 1968, and if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity gains it would have been $21.72 last year. From 2000 to 2012 alone workers boosted their productivity by 25 percent yet saw their earnings fall rather than rise, leading some economists to label the early 21st century a lost decade for American workers.
It’s no wonder, then, that low-wage workers have been agitating for pay increases this year. Strikes and protests at fast food and retail chains spread from New York City to another 60 cities all across this country this summer. Walmart workers have gone on strike in at leastnine cities in the past several weeks. Service employees at federally-owned buildings in Washington, D.C., have walked off the job multiple times to call attention to the role of government contracts in subsidizing poverty wages for millions of working people.
While some federal policy figures have tried to introduce a minimum wage hike — progressive Democrats have introduced bills to bring the wage floor in line with inflation, and President Obama recently came out in favor of a $10 minimum wage after calling for a less ambitious hike earlier this year — the action seems to have shifted to the local level.Voters have approved wage hikes in New Jersey and in the town that hosts the Seattle-Tacoma international airport. Lawmakers are pushing for higher wages in Massachusetts andWashington, D.C.. Activists are campaigning for hikes in states like Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, and South Dakota.
But most Americans probably don't know that the 2nd most unequal "rich" country is the close ally and client state of Israel, whose own oligarchs own a significant slice of the Israeli economy.Many Israeli citizens--like their American counterparts--are withering under the weight of the high cost of living. For other, more marginalized citizens, unemployment and poverty are the most pressing concerns. About 21 percent of Israelis live in poverty, the highest among developed countries that are part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
And the Israeli people’s anger is increasingly being directed at the Israeli tycoons that hold an immense amount of wealth. Ordinary Israelis see the oligarchs as a testament to the vast gulf between the very rich and the rest of Israel. For many, inequality is the main economic issue in the country. But the Israeli economy didn’t always have such striking inequality. The country was a lot more equal when it was operating on a more social democratic model—at least for Jews—in the decades after 1948.
Today, about 20 Israeli families control a disproportionate amount of the Israeli economy. The families, whose holdings span the gamut of the Israeli economy, lay claim to about half the Israeli stock market and own one in four Israeli firms, according to the Financial Times. In 2010, a parliamentary report found that 10 business groups, most of them owned by wealthy families, control 30 percent of the market value of public companies. The families have holdings in real estate, financial services, supermarkets, the airline industry, telecommunications and more.
Tycoons like Yitzhak Tshuva and Shari Arison are cases in point. Tshuva owns Delek Group, one of Israel’s biggest companies. It has investments in energy, infrastructure, insurance and financial companies. Tshuva is also a chairman at the El-Ad Group, a major real estate company. Arison is the owner of Bank Hapoalim, but also is involved in real estate and water.
The tycoons’ fingerprints can be found on much of what makes Israel tick. What it all adds up to is an oligarchy, a system where a tiny slice of Israelis maintain a stranglehold over much of the Israeli economy.
These facts are no shock to Israelis. They live it everyday, made all the more apparent by the high cost of housing. The government has taken a keen interest in the problem, particularly since massive protests sparked by the high cost of living and inequality. They’ve convened committees, like the Knesset committee on economic concentration, established in 2010.
A report from that committee singled out business groups that control both financial and non-financial companies. In November 2013, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized the high level of concentration in the economy. “The primary factor in the lack of competition in Israel is economic concentration fostered by cartels or the monopolistic behavior of wealthy individuals,” Netanyahu told the Israel Democracy Institute. The OECD has also singled out Israel’s concentration of wealth as a problem to be addressed.
Despite the high-level handwringing, the Israeli economy has yet to undergo the radical changes some activists and analysts say are needed to break the hold the small number of business groups and families have on the economy.
The Dankners--and especially the scion, Nochi Dankner--is one such powerful family.
The family made its money in the salt industry. Most of the family couldn’t keep up their financial success, though, bedeviled by internal squabbles and failed investments. The exception was Nochi Dankner, whose net worth is $1 billion, according to Forbes. For many years, he was the chairman of the IDB Group, which has stakes in the insurance, biotech and finance industries.
In 2012, Israeli journalist Asher Schechter explained how Dankner came to own IDB. “He managed to purchase IDB despute lacking the actual finances to do so,” wrote Schechter. “The incredible deal secured him $250 million in funding, part of which was lent to him by the former owners of IDB. At the time, Dankner was called a genius for orchestrating a series of complex loan agreements.” Other sources of cash for the deal came from the wealthy Livnat family and Mivtachim, a pension fund run by Histadrut, Israel’s organization of trade unions.
IDB controls a number of different companies: Super-Sol, the country’s largest supermarket chain; Golf and Co., a big fashion and homeware chain; Cellcom, Israel’s largest mobile phone company; Netvision, an Internet provider; the travel agency Diesenhaus; and Nesher, Israel’s only cement producer.
Now, Nochi Dankner has run into some trouble. He’s under investigation for securities fraud. IDB Group is in debt to the tune of $514 million. Still, Dankner is trying to hold on to the company by proposing partnerships with others in order to retain some control over IDB Group.
“If anyone is a symbol of everything that went wrong in Israel’s economy in the past 20 years, it’s Nochi Dankner,” Schechter said in an interview.
The oligarchs' immense power, and the inequality that accompanies their economic might, stands in sharp contrast to what some Americans believe about the Israeli economy. In the American imagination, Israel’s economy is a high-tech paradise. Books like Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle have cemented that image.
The tech sector in Israel only employs 10% of Israelis, though. “We have two economies in Israel,” Schechter, who writes for Haaretz, told AlterNet. “One is the start-up nation, the dream being sold abroad. And the other is the real economy, which is quite different.”
The 2011 Social Protests
The control people like Dankner exercise over the Israeli economy, along with the wider issue of inequality and the high cost of living, became a hot issue in the summer of 2011.
On July 14, film editor Daphni Leef was told she had to vacate her apartment in Tel Aviv. She was forced to look for apartments in the city, but they had become prohibitively expensive, in line with prices in Manhattan and London. So she pitched a tent on Rothschild Boulevard, a main street in the heart of Tel Aviv. Her action was the spark that lead to tent cities throughout the country. The massive and unprecedented protests during the summer shifted the national conversation decidedly toward economic issues.
Hundreds of thousands of Israelis from all walks of life took to the streets to demand social justice. The protesters called for government action to decrease housing prices, enact rent control, end privatization, raise the minimum wage and reduce the value-added tax. They also wanted an end to economic concentration and a return to the social democratic model Israel was under when the country was created. While the movement petered out without enacting significant change on the Israeli economy, it has brought more attention to economic issues.
Like many of the other social justice movements of 2011--in Egypt, Tunisia, Europe and the U.S.--the movement was started by the people whom the economic system was supposed to serve. Leef and the others who sparked the protests were mostly middle-class Ashkenazi (European) Jews. When the system broke down for them, they revolted. But they struck a nerve that reverberated throughout the country, and lit a fire underneath other social groups in Israel. Soon enough, the Mizrahi Jews, or Jews with roots in the Arab world, joined in, along with Palestinian citizens and other marginalized sectors. There was a simple reason the movement spread: the message of economic justice was one that the people most shut out of the center of Israeli life could get behind.
While the Ashkenazi middle class is now being hit hard by an economy that doesn’t serve them, the Israeli system never served many non-Ashkenazi groups. The Israeli economic and social system operates on a totem pole. At the bottom lie African migrants, fleeing persecution only to arrive in Israel where many can't legally work. Instead, African migrants are rounded up and put in detention.
The Bedouin Arab citizens of Israel, who lived in unrecognized villages unconnected to water and electricity systems, come next. Palestinian citizens of Israel who do live in villages and cities connected to the grid don’t fare much better. They are beset by poverty and unemployment in a country whose very definition as a Jewish state excludes them. And even though the Mizrahim are also Jewish, they too are not fully integrated into Israel’s power structure.
Statistics compiled by the Adva Center for their 2012 social report tell the story of how Israel operates on an ethnic totem pole. In 2011, the average monthly salary of Ashkenazi Jews was 33% above the average, whereas the monthly salary for urban Palestinian citizens was the exact opposite: 33% below the average. Mizrahi Jews had a monthly salary 7% above the average. Palestinian citizens' poverty rate is also strikingly high: nearly 54%. Ultra-Orthodox Jews—who don't work and are fully subsidized by the state as they study Torah—have a similar poverty rate.
Israel's gaping inequality is also manifested in housing policy. When the state was founded on the ruins of Palestinian villages, new towns were created in the periphery of Israel, and they came to be populated mostly by Mizrahi Jews. While the Mizrahi Jews served an important purpose for the state in building a demographic buffer between the Palestinians and Israeli Jews, they were also condemned to poverty by being far away from the center of Israel, where most of the jobs were.
Inequality was fueled by structural changes in the Israeli economy following economic crises in the mid-1980s, which included very high inflation. The government took advantage of the crisis by pushing measures that liberalized the economy and privatized state businesses—which boosted the people who came to be the tycoons of the country.
Yet another factor contributing to Israeli inequality is the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, which began in 1967. A small slice of Israelis profit from the occupation industry by building the components that the fourth largest military in the world uses. The settlement project in the West Bank also functions as a social welfare program for some Jews. They can get a better deal on housing if they move to the state-subsidized settlements in the West Bank. But Israel's expenditures to maintain the occupation also drain funds away from projects that could be used for social spending.
“No country spends more on security and the military as a proportion of their budget,” said Shir Hever, the author of The Political Economy of Israel's Occupation: Repression Beyond Exploitation. “And whatever remains to try to address the social problems in Israel is really a paltry sum.”
Amid disputes between developed and developing countries, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP19) in Warsaw, Poland are set to conclude November 23rd with little in the way of progress. Environmental groups and trade unions walked out of the conference last Thursday, just after developing nations had staged a dramatic exit of Wednesday morning's session.
By Monday morning, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, the sci-fi adventure thriller starring Jennifer Lawrence, will have taken close to half a billion dollars in global ticket sales. A female-led blockbuster is rare in any year, and all the more so in one marked by box-office disappointments and industry turmoil.
Nevertheless the film's success is likely to intensify rather than diminish calls for greater sexual equality in film. For despite the success of women-led films such as The Hunger Games and Cate Blanchett's Oscar-tipped performance in Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine, or directors like Kathryn Bigelow and writers such as Lena Dunham – and most recently the taboo-busting French lesbian romance Blue Is the Warmest Colour – Hollywood remains stubbornly set in its ways regarding sexual equality.
The New York Film Academy has published a remarkably comprehensive study that demonstrates just that: enduring disparities are revealed in the number of speaking parts given to men and women; the relative number of roles requiring full or partial nudity also shows a stark difference; and the sexual divide in offscreen jobs and the gulf in earnings between male and female actors is laid bare.
In publishing the survey, the academy called for a discussion about why, when women comprise half of ticket-buyers and nearly half of directors entered at this year's Sundance Film Festival, their numbers fall away dramatically at the top end of the industry. "By shedding light on genderinequality in film, we hope to start a discussion about what can be done to increase women's exposure and power in big-budget films," its publishers state.
Examining the top 500 films from 2007 to 2012, the survey found one third of speaking parts are filled by women and only 10% of films are equally balanced in terms of roles. The average ratio of male to female actors is 2.25 to 1.
"Like in any big industry, change takes time," points out Dr Martha M Lauzen, executive director, Centre for the Study of Women in Television, Film & New Media at San Diego state university, California, whose research forms the basis of the academy study. "The film industrydoesn't exist in a bubble. It's part of a larger society that tends to have biases and prejudices."
According to Lauzen, women comprised 18% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinema- tographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films in 2012 – an improvement of only 1% since 1998. Counting directors alone, women accounted for only 9% – the same figure as in 1998. Lauzen says it is relevant to compare the number of women in positions of power in film, onscreen or off, to the number of women in leadership positions in Fortune 500 companies. "All of these are highly coveted, high-status positions – and when you're talking about those kinds of positions, they remain dominated by men."
The most surprising thing, Lauzen says, is the apparent lack of change. "A filmgoer might reference Hunger Games and think things must be OK. It's easy to be misled by a few high-profile cases. But you have to do the count; and the numbers show we're not seeing any change." According to Forbes, the 10 highest-paid actresses made a collective $181m (£110m) versus $465m made by the top 10 male actors. At last year's Academy Awards, 140 men were nominated compared with 35 women. There were no female nominees in directing, cinematography, writing or in several other categories.
When it comes to the silver screen itself the results of Lauzen's research are even more stark: 29% of women in the top 500 films wore sexually revealing clothes compared with only 7% of men; 26% of actresses appear partially naked, compared with 9% of men, and the percentage of teenage females depicted with some nudity has risen by a third since 2007. While those figures may be skewed by one film alone (Harmony Korine's hit teenage skin celebration Spring Breakers) the overall pattern of sex bias is unmistakable.
The casting of 50 Shades of Grey has been dogged by the reluctance among a series of potential male leads (including British hunk Charlie Hunnam, who accepted the part before dropping out over "scheduling conflicts") to get their kit off in a three-movie deal. At the same time, Adèle Exarchopoulos and Léa Seydoux, the stars of Blue Is the Warmest Colour, who were jointly awarded the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, have spoken of their embarrassment at the excessive attention paid to the 20 minutes of sex in the three-hour movie. New York Timescritic Manohla Dargis likened director Abdellatif Kechiche's filming to pornography. "Women tend be younger and are still expected to adhere to a higher standard of appearance," says Lauzen, whose studies have found filmgoers are more likely to know the marital status of a female character and occupation of a male. All of this feeds into stereotypes about the important parts of identity. For women, that is to be very young and look a certain way."
In her acceptance speech for an award for excellence in film, at Women in Film LA's annual Crystal+Lucy awards in June, actress Laura Linney witheringly described the overwhelmingly male ambience in the US film industry. When she first started, she said, she was astonished at the "enormous amount of time" men spent discussing the colour of her hair – a process that became "absurd and a complete waste of time".
"I soon realised that for the most part I was surrounded by men. As an actress in film, it is very easy to become isolated just due to the ratio of gender inequality that exists. Rarely do you have a scene with other women, very few women are on the crew, and what few female executives arrive tend to keep to themselves."
The success of individual women in film, whether Jennifer Lawrence in The Hunger Games, Cate Blanchett or Kathryn Bigelow, is often treated as a sign of progress, when, according to Lauzen and other critics, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. "The Hunger Games is just one film," says Lauzen. "The same thing happened when Bridesmaids came out, or when Kathryn Bigelow won her Oscar. People start talking about a 'Bridesmaids effect' or a 'Bigelow effect' – that these high-profile successes would radiate an effect to other women in the business."
But, she says, that's not the case. "Kathryn Bigelow's success may have helped her, but it didn't change the world because attitudes about gender or race or age are held on a very deep level. Old habits die hard. One of the reasons we haven't seen much change, is that it's not seen as a problem by people in positions of power – even by some women. Unless you perceive something as a problem you're not going to fix it."Related Stories
We already pay dearly for energy, medicine, banking, and telecommunications services. But a little research reveals that we're paying more -- much more -- in a variety of ways that our business-friendly mainstream media won't talk about.
1. Drug Companies: The Body Snatchers
A report by Battelle Memorial Institute determined that the $4 billion government-funded Human Genome Project (HGP) will generate economic activity of about $140 for every dollar spent. Although that estimate iscontroversial, drug industry executives say it's just a matter of time before the profits roll in.
Big business is quickly making its move. Celera Genomics was first, as the company initiated a private version of the genome project, incorporating the public data into their work, but forbidding the public effort to use Celera data. Abbott Labs is developing products based on the HGP. Merck's automated biotechnology facility was made possible by the HGP. Two-thirds of the products at Bristol-Myers Squibb have been impacted by the HGP. Pfizer is starting to make big profits from its genome-based cancer treatments.
But the industry is going beyond profits, to the actual privatization of our bodies. One-fifth of the human genome is privately owned through patents. Strains of influenza and hepatitis have been claimed by corporate and university labs, preventing researchers from using the patented life forms to perform cancer research.
As if to mock us while taking over our public research, some of the largest drug companies haven't been paying much in taxes. Pfizer had 40% of its 2011-12 revenues in the U.S., but declared almost $7 billion in U.S. losses to go along with $31 billion in foreign profits. Abbott Labs had 42% of its sales in the U.S., but declared a loss in the U.S. along with $12 billion in foreign profits.
2. Oil Companies: Ripping Up the Country, Ripping Off the Taxpayers
In the past year the U.S. has become a net exporter of oil, putting us in a position, according to the International Energy Agency, to be almost energy self-sufficient by 2035. Just five years ago we were spending $341 billion on crude oil imports. In 2012 we exported $117 billion worth of processed oil products.
How have the big oil companies reimbursed America for our oil and natural gas supplies, and for theirpollution and the environmental degradation of mining and fracking? Exxon, with 70-90% of its productive oil and gas wells in the U.S., declares only 15% of its income as earned here, and pays only 2.2% of its total income in U.S. taxes. Chevron has about 75% of its oil and gas wells and 90% of its pipeline mileage are in the United States, yet the company claims only 20% of its income in the U.S., and pays only 3.8% of its total income in U.S. taxes.
3. Telecommunications: We're Paying Them to Spy on Us
The CIA and NSA have been using our tax money to pay AT&T and Google and other companies to access its data - our data - for surveillance purposes. With almost no transparency or oversight, the CIA has been paying AT&T to monitor our overseas phone calls. Hundreds of dollars per customer per month goes toVerizon for similar snooping. The NSA compensated Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook for penalties accrued in the secretive Prism surveillance program.
As with the oil companies, tax avoidance by the telecommunications firms further insults middle-class Americans. AT&T paid almost no federal income taxes in 2011-12; Verizon paid about 2 percent; Google is notorious for its tax avoidance schemes.
4. Banks: Almost 40% of Our 401(k)s Lost in Fees
Based on the 6% historical stock market return, an individual investing $1,000 a year for 30 years in a non-fee fund and then holding the accumulated sum for another 20 years would end up with $269,000. Imposing theindustry average 1.3% fee would reduce the final total to $165,000, a 39% reduction.
In other words, almost $2 of every $5 in potential 401(k) earnings is lost because of bank fees.
The importance of preserving Social Security becomes even more apparent in light of this 401(k) exploitation. Since 1983, the number of private sector workers depending on a 401(k) instead of a company pension hasincreased from 12 percent to 68 percent.
5. Banks II: Revenue Here, Profits Overseas
Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan once lamented that nobody understood "how much good" his employees do. But his company, despite making a whopping 82% of its 2011-12 revenue in the U.S., declared a $10 billion profit in foreign countries -- and $7 billion in U.S. losses.
Citigroup isn't much better. The company had 42% of its 2011-12 revenue in North America (almost all U.S.) but declared a $28 billion profit in foreign countries, and a $5 billion U.S. loss.
Congress' response to all this? They would like SNAP and Social Security recipients to go find a job. Even though all the industries above, with the exception of oil and gas, have been among the leaders in cutting jobs.Related Stories