Enslavery of the US optical retail continues..............

[Chris Ryser]

Essilor Strengthens US Prescription Laboratory Network


Charenton-le-Pont, France (June 20, 2007 - 6:30 a.m.) - Essilor of America, Essilor International’s US subsidiary, has acquired a majority stake in Sutherlin Optical Company and purchased the assets of Dispensers Optical Service Corp.'s safety prescription division.
Located in Kansas City and Joplin, Missouri, Sutherlin Optical is a prescription laboratory and distributor of the Varilux® brand, with $13 million in revenue and 75 employees.

Its customers are mainly in Missouri and Kansas.

Dispensers Optical Service Corp’s safety prescription division is a leading manufacturer of occupational eyewear. Based in Louisville, Kentucky, it generates $5 million in revenue.

[ELM OPTICAL]

How much?
What do you want they have a budget to spend!

[rbaker]

I believe that it is called "free enterprise." Surely better than some committee of bureaucrats deciding who gets what.

[OPTIDONN]

I don't know if you can call it enslavement when it was an agreed decision by both parties.

[Chris Ryser]

I don't know if you can call it enslavement when it was an agreed decision by both parties.

Donn.................I have a feeling that you did not understand the meaning of the title.................or I did not make it clear enough.

Of course the deal is a 2 sided agreement otherwise there would have been no deal.

What I have been trying to get across is that a French owned multinational company as they say themselves, in their own today released "Press Release" : Essilor Strengthens US Prescription Laboratory Network.

When a political party gains such a momentum that they just about control every corner of a country, you are on a one way street to a dictatorship. And if you and all your co-citizens have no ears, close their eyes and can't talk, you are well on the way to a future that will be dictated for every move you want to make. It has happened in many countries and still does.

Above company seems now to own the majority of larger optical labs in many countries together with a couple of other major corporations. When they will have achieved total control, which seems to be the goal as they have not stopped the steam roller, you will be forced to professionally do what they are telling you. They will block out and flatten every and any competition. They might as well by then enter the retail market as they will controll the manufacturing and distribution end.

[For-Life]

These poor independents that are getting really good buyouts and retiring.

[Chris Ryser]

These poor independents that are getting really good buyouts and retiring.

For-Life................I think you are mistaken............in a buy out like that management usually has to stay in their position for 3-5 years. They might have a few good bucks.....................but retirement is only in the near future.

[1968]

If this is a problem, then what is the solution? Government involvement?!

[For-Life]

For-Life................I think you are mistaken............in a buy out like that management usually has to stay in their position for 3-5 years. They might have a few good bucks.....................but retirement is only in the near future.

Yes, you are correct. Many lab managers have done a fantastic job with their lab, so Essilor wants them to stay on so they can continue to do so. Smart move by Essilor.

[For-Life]

If this is a problem, then what is the solution? Government involvement?!

Unless the lab field is considered uncompetitive and monopolistic then the Government will not step in. As of right now there is still a lot of competition.

[Chris Ryser]

If this is a problem, then what is the solution? Government involvement?!

It is only a problem if you think it is.

Government has not even stepped in to deal with the Oil industry which affects the population 100% with inflated gasoline prices and price fixing among competitors.

Also they have eliminated most independently owned gas stations and replaced them with corporate ones.

They have eliminated most their own credit cards and therefore don't even carry any credit risks these days. Regular credit cards only.

[For-Life]

It is only a problem if you think it is.

Government has not even stepped in to deal with the Oil industry which affects the population 100% with inflated gasoline prices and price fixing among competitors.

Also they have eliminated most independently owned gas stations and replaced them with corporate ones.

They have eliminated most their own credit cards and therefore don't even carry any credit risks these days. Regular credit cards only.

That is because the government has its hands in the pockets of the oil industry.

[Fezz]

Hey guys........

Something just made me giggle while reading this thread.

A bunch of Canadians are disputing the Enslavery of the US optical!

Sorry..it just hit me kinda funny!


:bbg::cheers::bbg::cheers::bbg:

[1968]

It is only a problem if you think it is.

I agree with rbaker that this is free enterprise. I don't think free enterprise is a problem. Still, I probably wouldn't object to invading France over this.

[dbracer]

Fezz & 68,

Ya both got it right.

We've heard this doom and gloom about auto manufacturers, airlines, Walmart and God only knows how many other U.S. free enterprise systems.

When such entities get too large for their britches they eventually implode. The biggest problem we've had is the government getting involved in their problems -- subsidizes etc.

You other guys quit whining about the gas prices. In Europe they're paying $7.50 a gallon (Well actually it's sold by the liter. Right Canuks?)

Free enterprise isn't a perfect system. Cause there ain't any. But it has and currently is working better than any other system. Name me a system that has created a fantastically successful country somewhere else.

And I'm all for invading France, but it would be akin to invading a daycare center.

Respectfully,
dbracer

[dbracer]

Alright '68 what's the "Tournaments Won 1" thing?

Am I outa the loop somehow here?

Wait, maybe it's the arcade thing I haven't got involved in yet. Course I'd rather be on the archery range. No offense. I'm thinking as I post, and I'm obviously starting to ramble.

My apologies,
dbracer

[Grubendol]

Free enterprise is all well and good but with out social responsibility it runs amok and hurts the populace.

when a large multinational is the nondescript boss at the top of the food chain the employees are treated more and more like fiefs.

[1968]

Free enterprise is all well and good but with out social responsibility it runs amok and hurts the populace.

Who is being hurt by the aforementioned transaction?

when a large multinational is the nondescript boss at the top of the food chain the employees are treated more and more like fiefs.

It's simply not true that employees working for large companies are worse off than employees working for small companies or businesses. This forum was discussing earlier how crappy some small business owners (i.e. optometrists) are to their employees.

[dbracer]

Free enterprise is all well and good but with out social responsibility it runs amok and hurts the populace.

when a large multinational is the nondescript boss at the top of the food chain the employees are treated more and more like fiefs.

Interesting, since those big boys at the top of the food chain pay 85% of the taxes in the U.S. You can look it up.

Are you saying you have trouble feeding yourself, keeping warm, and you don't have enough freedoms?

Most large corporations do a pretty good job governing themselves. If they don't, like the U.S. auto industry did, some country like Japan comes in and eats their lunch. Now they're back to concentrating on quality.

So not only do we have free enterprise we also have free trade. The combination of the two is an amazing thing.

Respectfully,
dbracer

[Grubendol]

Actually very not true. The top 1% pays a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than any other aspect of the "food chain"...they, on average, pay 15% tax, while those of us in the middle and upper middle pay 30-35%.

while the gross numbers are more, the percentage of their salaries is vastly less. this means that those in the middle class feel the taxes even more than those at the top.

Not to mention, that when adjusted with inflation, real wages for the middle class and working poor has been stagnant or decreasing ever since 1980...interestingly enough the percentage of American workers represented by unions has decreased during that same time frame.

[gemstone]

Actually very not true. The top 1% pays a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than any other aspect of the "food chain"...they, on average, pay 15% tax, while those of us in the middle and upper middle pay 30-35%.

.

You got any evidence to back that up, or did someone just tell you that? Where'd you get that?

[impact500]

Grubendol, our tax rules are not totally fair but your comments are misleading. The most recent data I can find shows that the top 1% of the income distribution paid 34% of the total income taxes. Duly noted that Social Security taxes would alter the data somewhat but the big guys still pay a big % of the total. Is it fair? No, the big guys still play the game better than you or I but your comments really are misleading.

On the main subject of this thread, Chris, what rules would you set for when to prevent an acquisition? And to be meaningful, the rules need to be specific and calculable. If market share, what is the cut-off? If some other benchmark, what would it be?

[dbracer]

Actually very not true. The top 1% pays a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than any other aspect of the "food chain"...they, on average, pay 15% tax, while those of us in the middle and upper middle pay 30-35%.

while the gross numbers are more, the percentage of their salaries is vastly less. this means that those in the middle class feel the taxes even more than those at the top.

Not to mention, that when adjusted with inflation, real wages for the middle class and working poor has been stagnant or decreasing ever since 1980...interestingly enough the percentage of American workers represented by unions has decreased during that same time frame.

500 is correct. The Top 1% does pay about 1/3rd of the tax burden. Granted it is a lesser amount of their income than mine, but 15% or 2,000,000 is much more than 28% of 150,000. So ultimately I have to pay less because they pick up the slack at a lower rate.

Now if you take the top 10%, they pay 85% of the tax burden. It makes a lot less for you and I in the end. Not to mention that they employee a helluva percentage of us.

Your statement about the middle class is what is "very not true." The middle class has become increasingly affluent. More of them own their own homes. More of them have more than one car, more TV's, more home amenities. Their life styles are far better than they have ever been in the history of the U.S.

Not me, I'm self employed. And, it's my employees that are mentioned hereinabove. But I live pretty well, or at least I have no room to complain.

Why do you begrudge wealthier of their tax advantage. I simply think we should work to get our tax contribution down where theirs is. I'm happy for those who have more than I and have more advantages than I. I just aspire those advantages. If not, there nothing to aspire.

Respectfully,
dbracer

[1968]

You got any evidence to back that up, or did someone just tell you that? Where'd you get that?

Source = the IRS

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

[gemstone]

Source = the IRS

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

I appreciate you jumpin on in there 68. I was asking the Grube a question. second, I don't understand the chart. It says if I made 60,000 I paid 85% taxes. Or does it mean that the people in the 60,000 bracket are responsible for 85% of all taxes collected. Also that chart ain't from the IRS. It's from the national Tax payers union, who ever the that is. Sounds as if some one (the NTU) just told him that. Am I wrong? I say that those that are paying taxes are paying more than their fair share. I am totally in favor of tax relief. They say that the tax cuts are for GW bush's rich friends. Well I saved money in GW's tax cuts and I am far from rich.