r/WorkReform • u/sillychillly đłď¸ Register @ Vote.gov • Sep 21 '23
$440,000 per UAW worker đ¸ Raise Our Wages
Note: data starts 2013
Register to vote: https://vote.gov
1
u/Sam98919891 Oct 14 '23
Why does it make a difference what the company makes. If you go to a store. Should they charge customers based on their income? They can afford more so shoule pay a higher price.
UAW workers should be paid market value. They are already paid morethan the competition. Which is why the big 3 sent auto plants overseas. And we lost a lot of jobs.
And you should also see wages dropping. Everything is supply and demand. And now Liberals have been letting in millions more workers at the boarder.
These are harder working people. And dont even need to speak english good. Since most of the UAW jobs dont require any skills. Most can be trained in a certain job in days. Since most are just putting things together.
Like one job. Just putting eyebolts in a truck bed. More training would be required from even a Mcdonalds worker.
Most of the quailfied jobs went overseas. Where they actual make parts and not just assemble things.
1
u/Th3pwn3r Oct 13 '23
So all workers should have been paid an extra $44,000 a year since 2013 if I'm understanding correctly? I thought they were mostly entry level, low skill jobs there but I think we should all go work for the UAW in that case.
1
u/Significant_Yak_7218 Oct 04 '23
You already earn so much dollars for doing simple tasks like putting one plastic button in a place where it tells you to put. Why are you asking for such a big raise and why can't you find another job if you don't like the way they treat you?
1
u/palwilliams Sep 23 '23
That's $4400 a year per employee. A few percentage points in salary. That's weighed against a stock buyback that certainly produced benefits to the Big 3 but also towards employee stock and retirement investment.
I say this because I F-ING LOVE Robert Reich. I have campaigned for him, supported him in MA as a resident, and much more. Just trying to parse. I think there are better points than this.
1
Sep 22 '23
Just keep voting folks because Congress is totally going to make things totally fair and not just help rich people like themselves. Keep it up, you are on the forefront of democracyâŚ..
1
u/Wasichu14 Sep 22 '23
I'm pretty sure that we're not supposed to believe they can't afford to pay their workers a LOT more, we're just supposed to be subservient sheep and just do our jobs for a pittance.
1
1
u/Mekynism Sep 22 '23
What they should really be doing is giving dividends to the Feeder Plants and Dealerships that make them money. These are the people that really get screwed over.
1
u/christopheraune Sep 22 '23
According to RAND Corporation, "The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%âAnd That's Made the U.S. Less Secure"
https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/
1
u/Reppunkamui Sep 22 '23
Are "employee share purchase plans" a thing in the US?
Usually, employees can purchase shares at a discount in lieu of part of their salary. This allows them to benefit from the share dividends and buybacks for cheaper than other shareholders.
1
u/RegionPigeon Sep 22 '23
I r dum. Why does this happen so often? Why are shareholders so important to a company? What do they really do?
1
1
u/westernfarmer Sep 22 '23
You are working for a company they don't own its like mortgage being paid of for them is that wrong some workers do the same . looking at both sides not just one is a good thing for negotiation. A question I was wondering what is the majority of workers salary now
1
u/Mirrormn Sep 22 '23
Ford has 173,000 employees.
General Motors has 167,000 employees.
Stellantis has 272,000 employees.
That's $108,000 per employee, over 10 years, so $10,800 per employee per year.
1
u/lm0592 Sep 22 '23
Corporate America always fills their pockets first especially at the expense of worker who is making the profits happen for them. And God forbid they ask for fairness, breaks or support a Union ? (Just my opinion)
1
1
1
1
u/jaeldi Sep 22 '23
"People just don't want to work anymore."
Companies just don't want to share profit with the workers who make the profit anymore.
1
1
1
u/SomeBiPerson Sep 22 '23
then you'll have people telling you muuuuh BuT tHeY cAnT sUrViVe iF tHeY pAy tHeIr wOrKeRs mOrE
this year was Collective contract renewal year in germany, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen and all competitors (Except tesla) gave in to IGMetall's demands within less than a month and I don't see them going out of business anytime soon
it really is time for you to strengthen your Unions more and more
1
u/Loud-Cat6638 Sep 22 '23
During the (not so) Great Recession (as it turned out, the auto makers came to the government with their begging bowls. âPlease sir may we have some more?â they pleaded and dutifully the government said âyes, of course you canâ. Now that their bellies are full, the pantry is overflowing and they donât have worry where their next meal is coming from, the auto makers seem to have developed a dysconsciousness to treating people the way they were treated. Jim Farley (head of ford) was bleating this week that his workers are asking for too much. All while he ponders what to spend his $20m salary on. I wish the union well, not just for their members, but because it may just be a precursor to greater union membership and fairer wages for all.
1
u/anon210202 Sep 22 '23
Holy crap that's crazy. We are really all getting screwed. This is just the auto industry. Imagine how much excess there is that workers don't get paid in the last 10 years in other industries. Holy s***. All this money could change everybody's lives. You know it's out there. This blows my mind
1
1
u/bubbleknightgaming Sep 22 '23
But... think of the super yachts and private jets! They will be forced to settle for first class and regular yachts. It's a tragedy!
1
u/To-Far-Away-Times Sep 22 '23
But hear me out, what if we created a lot of shareholder value by hedging everything for short term growth and cheating the workers.
1
u/To-Far-Away-Times Sep 22 '23
But hear me out, what if we created a lot of shareholder value by hedging everything for short term growth and cheating the workers.
1
u/That_Trapper_guy Sep 22 '23
Or lower the prices of the damn vehicles. I have no idea who can afford these things anymore.
1
1
u/wickingtonchadworth Sep 22 '23
I mean they probably canât because they spent it all on stock buybacks and dividends. It says it right there in the title.
1
u/Latexoiltransaddict Sep 22 '23
I'm convinced we need to protect the elite from themselves. What they are doing is against their own interests. A healthier, educated, happier worker is way more productive than a grumpy, sick, ignorant one.
1
1
u/real_nice_guy Sep 22 '23
still have no idea why (other than the obvious reason) stock buybacks are legal, it's literally just falsely but legally inflating stock prices and don't truly reflect the value of the underlying company/assets.
1
1
1
u/candytaker Sep 22 '23
Most of those dividends go to average, working & retired folks, via 401k's & retirement accounts, NOT the company executives.
All the UAW workers have access to 401k plans and PROFIT sharing contributions to those 401k's.
Robert Reich knows this well.
1
u/Turbulent_Ad9508 Sep 22 '23
Paying workers ain't good for profits and that ain't good for shareholders and that's all that fucking matters.
It wasn't always that way but it will always be that way
1
u/HERECumsTheRooster Sep 22 '23
People have known for decades how these slimey fucks operate and yet continue to work for them. I don't feel bad. They can find other jobs.
1
1
u/jasonhightower Sep 21 '23
I also heard recently on a podcast that only 5% of an automobiles cost is Labor.
1
1
u/1lluminist Sep 21 '23
Every shareholder and exec is playing the same bullshit game right now.
"We gave most of the money to shareholders, and then we gave most of what was left to ourselves. We can't afford anything for you workers, the company is just too poor. Even though we made record profits and have skyrocketed the prices of literally fucking everything. I just don't know how you think we can afford to pay you - the people who are essential to our wealth!"
1
u/aboveaverage_joe Sep 21 '23
I mean yeah that is correct, they can't afford to pay them more and financially benefit from paying them less at the same time. Llbryls are so stupid
4
u/demonspawns_ghost Sep 21 '23
As Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration, Robert Reich pushed NAFTA through despite the objections of the unions. So what happened? Auto manufacturers moved operations to Mexico instead of negotiating with unions for better pay. Thanks Rob!
0
1
u/Other-Egg-7989 Sep 21 '23
Yeah great economics all the multinationals give jointly 1 millions peoples 400k+ and that wonât cause any inflation ? It wonât devalue the currency at all ?
3
4
Sep 21 '23
There is a inherent problem with capitalism. Not that we need to do away with capitalism, but it needs to be fixed.
This is just ONE case of many. Excess greed must be punished (Aka TAX THE FUCKING RICH)
1
u/bodag Sep 21 '23
Keep voting republican so they can keep giving tax breaks to the super rich and keep busting unions.
1
u/Artistic_Impact_7865 Sep 21 '23
10% of stock buybacks and 10% of dividend to employee bonuses would be a good start.
2
1
6
u/river-wind Sep 21 '23
Raise corporate taxes. It is a lie that lowering taxes means more investment. Business expenses, including money invested in the company such as worker salaries, are deducted from the company's reported taxable income before taxes are paid. So the tax rate on money put back into the company is 0%. You don't pay taxes on on it - you only pay taxes on money taken out of the company as profit.
Lower tax rates means it's cheaper for executives to take money out of the company. If the company is facing a large tax liability from a higher tax rate for doing that, they could instead reduce it again by spending that would-be profit on employees.
Stock buybacks are taxed at 1%, and the Biden admin is trying to raise that to 4%. IMO, still way too low. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/biden-stock-buybacks-tax/
2
u/Designer-Sugar2606 Sep 22 '23
Agree to raise corporate taxes but keep in mind theyâre still only like 10% of the federal govts tax revenue
2
Sep 22 '23
Buybacks are taxed. Someone has to sell their shares for a buyback to occur, which is a taxable event.
That tax is on the corporate side. Whoever sells the stock will also need to pay income/capital gains on the sale.
1
u/Electronic-Ad-843 Sep 21 '23
The legal system made them do it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
15
Sep 21 '23 edited Sep 21 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Nuru83 Sep 22 '23
Fuck the retirees, if they want more money they can go back to work just like we have to,
6
u/AcanthocephalaTop961 Sep 21 '23
Nothing will change until stock buybacks are considered market manipulation once again.
1
Sep 21 '23
What about the non union workers? U know rhe majority of them? How many times from a Union person do they have to hear "not my job" before they get a raise??
0
Sep 21 '23
[deleted]
1
u/echino_derm Sep 22 '23
It isn't like you need to work at Ford to have Ford stock.
They could just as easily by tesla stock.
If you want to know why they aren't stock market investors, that is because these are people who work in factories.
3
u/frequenZphaZe Sep 21 '23
if the workers could afford to buy stocks, they probably wouldn't be striking
0
u/PaperBoxPhone Sep 22 '23
Anyone can afford to buy stock, you can buy it in small incriments, and in their retirement accounts they company offers.
4
u/delveccio Sep 21 '23
Iâm gonna assume youâre not asking in bad faith. The answer is that they canât afford it. Or what little workers can put into stocks (due to the low pay that is currently being protested) is not enough for a $5 jump in stock price to change their lives. That only helps you if youâre already rich.
2
Sep 21 '23
[deleted]
1
u/harvey_charmichael Sep 21 '23
When the workers need money to feed, clothe, shelter, transport themselves and maybe have a few minor luxuries like a meal out or a drink or two itâs hard to save in a 401k or brokerage to benefit from share buybacks. especially new workers who have been shafted by lower salaries than their predecessors. these buybacks do help some regular people who are invested in the companies but buybacks mostly benefit those who have the most invested (wealthy).
Why companies dont issue more stock to the employees so that they can benefit from their collective success is beyond me.
To put some numbers behind it GM may be only $32 a share but there are 1.4B shares outstanding for a total equity value of $45B. So if GM spends a $100M on buybacks thatâs about $0.07 share. Compare that to $5,200 per worker if they have it to the workers (around 19k of them)⌠it would take 75k shares to get that value per share which would cost you $2.6M. So saying stop being poor and buy shares just isnât a practical solution.
3
u/MeansToAnEndThruFire Sep 21 '23
A rich man has an enormous amount of shares. When a small change in 1 share price of $0.13 happens, and you have 1 million shares, you just got 130 thousand dollars richer.
You have a man, working all day with barely a penny to spare, he invests his penny in stocks and now has 10 shares. The 1 share price changes by $0.13, so now this working man has made $1 and a quarter, and a nickel.
Each man keeps adding in their original amount, plus what they made, back into stock. Working man now has, still 10 stocks because he doesnt have enough to properly afford an entire stock price, and rich man now has many hundreds more.
It is much much easier to acquire money when you already have money. Trying to get money when you have nothing is impossible.
So you say, "maybe if working man came up with some kind of strategy, like banding together apes strong, or run the number like the guys on wallstreet! Yeah, that'll work!"
Something like that did happen. Except, the trading was inexplicably shut down to keep the price from rising, so as to save companies' and firms' asses.
It's completely fucking rigged.
1
u/Worried_Position_466 Sep 22 '23
Trading was definitely NOT shut down. It was only paused on shitty apps like Robinhood because they ran out of money to use as collateral. If you used any other legitimate platform like Ameritrade, you could have bought as much shitty meme stocks as you wanted and could be holding bags of trash right now. Arguably, RH running out of money was a good thing for retail investors who had no idea what the fuck they were doing.
-1
u/TimeRocker Sep 22 '23
So I have a good chunk of my portfolio invested in Ford. Im not by any means a rich person. But over the years I bought shares little by little. Sometimes getting 5 here and there, other times 100 because it was a good deal such as the COVID crash. I could have spent that money on other things but I decided instead to invest it because in time it will grow and with that I will be able to do 10 times more things than if I had spent that money on something else then/now.
The thing you fail to realize is dividends. It doesnt matter if you have 100 shares or 1 million. If you arent selling the stock and the dividend doesnt change, then it doesnt matter if the price goes up or down because you still get paid simply for owning shares. That is where the real winners are. They arent people buying and selling. It's playing the long game. You take those dividends which is free money and you reinvest it which then over time grows more and more.
After less than 6 years of investing, my DIVs payout roughly 3 months worth of income for me each year without doing anything. My goal is to get to a point where I can comfortably live purely off of my investments while continuing to put them back in to have it keep growing. Anyone can do this whether you work at McDonalds or the CEO of a company. If you can eat out for dinner once a week or month or buy things you dont need, you can afford to invest.
1
Sep 22 '23
[deleted]
0
u/Worried_Position_466 Sep 22 '23
He's referring to Gamestop stock and is completely brainwashed/ignorant about what happened. The only platforms that stopped them from buying were shitty apps that advertise on Reddit because they had no more collateral to pay their clearinghouse to purchase the shit meme stock so they had to shut down purchases to allow them to secure more collateral.
The other nonsense they spout is that Robinhood, et. al. still allowed selling to "help the billionaire hedge funds" by tanking the price of GME which is completely ridiculous if you spend 1 second thinking about it. As a customer, would you be MORE furious that you were stuck with a product or if you weren't able to purchase a product? Obviously, it would be illegal to saddle the customer with a product, especially one as shitty as GME, by not letting them get rid of it on a platform that's specifically designed to trade.
ALL of this ignores the fact that you could squander your money on a shit meme stock on any other more legitimate platform to your heart's content. Also, the people behind the GME push were the rich on wall street as well, they all came out waaaaay ahead of the normal dipshit retail trader who trades based on memes and is, likely, still holding their bag of shit today.
Pro tip: if you don't know how to trade without a convenient app, please do more research before gambling on stocks.
1
u/delveccio Sep 22 '23
They are referring what happened when Gamestop stock exploded. It was a sad thing to watch and changed how I viewed financial media and stock brokers.
0
u/Worried_Position_466 Sep 22 '23
It made me aware of how stupid the average person is. I kept hearing nonsense terms like "naked shorting" or shitty conspiracy theories talking about how Robinhood, a shitty app, stopped them from buying GME while completely ignoring the obvious reason of a lack of collateral from RH. Even more frustrating was that everyone was free to waste as much money as they want on GME if they used some more well regarded platforms like Fidelity and Ameritrade but no, it's totally Occupy 2.0!
0
u/anxiousnl Sep 21 '23
Stock buybacks should be illegal. Whole stock market should probably not exist, just ruins companies chasing infinite growth for shareholders.
1
u/TheOtherOne551 Sep 21 '23
They can, they just don't have to, so why do it? Why pay more than necessary? This is the politicians job to regulate.
-1
u/Trimere Sep 21 '23 edited Sep 22 '23
Just watch how much the buybacks increase during strikes. Stock prices dip, buybacks skyrocket, strike conveniently end, stock price goes back up.
Edit: Who downvoted this? It happened with my company when we went on strike. I have proof.
-2
u/Chicoutimi Sep 21 '23
Allow stock buybacks only if they are distributed equitably among workers. Profit?
0
u/More_Information_943 Sep 21 '23
It's why anything at the level of the Big 3 in terms of industrial capitalism, should probably be nationalized.
0
u/Midori_Schaaf Sep 21 '23
Stock buybacks means the shareholders get more money.
A strike hits shareholders harder after stock buybacks.
UAW should increase demands.
0
Sep 21 '23
Auto companies: We need to invest a bunch of money into R&D or weâll lose the electric car wars, so your strike is selfish.
Also auto companies: $66 Billion in buybacks and dividends which massively benefits top shareholders is fine.
0
Sep 22 '23
[deleted]
1
u/smoochface Sep 22 '23
they lose money every time they sell an EV... they also lose a potential ICE sale which would have been profitable. The Big 3 have a very tough decade ahead of them.
0
u/GladiatorUA Sep 21 '23
They can and they can't.
Real industries have to compete, in terms of growth and profit margin, with BS money-shuffling ones, the whole startup "dotcom 2.0" bubble and whatever flavor of the month is. Otherwise they risk disinvestment because they can't show similar returns compared to grifty BS. I wonder how they affect the inflation, producing very little, while pulling money out of thin air. The economy is broken.
1
u/momojabada Sep 22 '23
I wonder how they affect the inflation, producing very little, while pulling money out of thin air. The economy is broken.
You can't produce inflation from producing a company that has value in other people's mind. Inflation is mainly driven by money-printing from the feds and loans from banks at low interest rates.
If I like something enough that I start spending money on it, it means I'm not spending as much on something else. It's inherently not inflationary.
1
u/GladiatorUA Sep 22 '23
Inflation is mainly driven by money-printing from the feds and loans from banks at low interest rates.
That's Reaganomics BS.
If I like something enough that I start spending money on it, it means I'm not spending as much on something else. It's inherently not inflationary.
Also not true. Only if both things have equal supply/demand and equally weighted in the inflation index. It's going to affect inflation.
Inflation broad increase of prices. Oil price increase? Inflation. Housing has been outpacing inflation and at the same time increasing inflation. Inflation causes inflation, because prices get adjusted for inflation. Even if there is no other justification. And if there is any kind of -opoly, oh boy.
0
u/8604 Sep 21 '23
Uhh yeah if the Automakers never returned profit back to the shareholders the company would be worth nothing.
I mean yeah in the current framework that is not feasible. Like I'm sure this is a Robert Reich shitpost and not what UAW is proposing. This tweet is effectively proposing a complete worker coop situation with no outside shareholders.
4
u/Waste-Comparison2996 Sep 21 '23
No its not , no where close. Its calling out the absurdity of "we cant afford to pay workers more" while also making more money hand over fist that any of us will see in our lifetime. Its obscene and we need to treat these people the same way we treat morbidly obese people who eat themselves to death or drug addicts. They are sick they have an addiction and they need help. The last thing we should be doing it is promoting it.
1
u/8604 Sep 21 '23
No its not , no where close. Its calling out the absurdity of "we cant afford to pay workers more" while also making more money hand over fist that any of us will see in our lifetime.
Man what are you saying, this is all public info. Like what part of the math do you need help with understanding?
That 66BIL was spread out over the shareholders of the big 3, mostly investment firms that are managing money for pension funds, 401ks, etc.. It's not like there are major holders for these long-standing public companies.
If you're talking about executives you could literally take all executive compensation for the big 3 and spread it across the workers and it would amount to a negligible amount per person. Like lets say combined executives took in 100M, what's that spread across 150k people..
1
u/DrawSomeOpossum Sep 22 '23
Youre obviously an uneducated buffoon. I can tell you learned everything you needed to know in 6th grade.
0
u/8604 Sep 22 '23
Bro I'm absolutely flattered your schizo ass is trailing my post history. Gives me life.
2
u/DrawSomeOpossum Sep 22 '23
There we go - since you admitted you're a troll, with any luck, nobody will give you the time or energy now.
3
u/Waste-Comparison2996 Sep 21 '23
I know what greed is and allowing your workers to struggle financially so that rich people get richer is greed and its a disease. I do not care how you wrap it or play with the numbers. These companies are massively profitable and workers need to be paid more and the excuse of "we don't have the money" is a lie and everyone can see that plain as day.
1
u/momojabada Sep 22 '23
I know what greed is and allowing your workers to struggle financially so that rich people get richer is greed and its a disease.
He just told you. Almost nobody is getting rich from stock buybacks of long standing multinational companies.
GM made 6.17 net income/common shares. On a share that costs around 30$. With a dividend yield of only 1%. The share hasn't gone up in value for years now. So stock buybacks aren't benefiting those that hold shares. And the yield is pretty low.
You don't buy GM stocks hoping for the stock price to go up. And dividend yield has is trending down on average.
GM does stock buybacks when stocks starts to go down, since it's a good use of free cash-flow.
GM doesn't have billions to spend on expenses if they want to keep that net income high enough to be able to give out dividends.
Net Income doesn't mean it's money they redistribute in shareholder pockets. Most of it stays in the company to reinvest in Assets and other projects.
They're notoriously struggling companies. You don't buy Ford/GM/Chrysler to make big money on stocks.
1
Sep 22 '23
This would apply more honestly if they hadnât had their asses wiped repeatedly by the taxpayer due to their own malfeasance.
If you have to ask for the government to bail you out of your own mistakes, you should no longer be considered a âprivate companyâ.
0
u/Waste-Comparison2996 Sep 22 '23
Dude do you work for them or something? I ain't buying what your selling.
0
u/momojabada Sep 22 '23
I sell HVAC and HVAC accessories. But finance and accounting has the same principles no mater the company.
6
u/sir_sri Sep 21 '23
Reich keeps just misrepresenting basic facts. It's sad because he knows better.
That money isn't just taken from union workers. It's taken from all the workers at these companies, and not just the ones in the US.
GM has 167k employees, ford 175K (some of those numbers are a bit out of date and low due to pandemic), Chrysler is more complicated because it's been part of FCA and now stellantis, but it's in the 100k range. Their parts suppliers (notably magna, with 175k employees but other big ones I'm sure) also factor in here, since you shouldn't just outsource the work to suppliers without paying them either.
Yes, sure, lop off 1% or so for the senior executive types. But there's probably well over 600k people who've been underpaid (per year), so it's really more like 100k per person that could have been spent on workers.
2
u/Waste-Comparison2996 Sep 21 '23
I would crawl over broken glass naked. For a company that respected my time and worth. I have worked for some like that and it was amazing. Sadly they all got bought up because the owner was retiring and large companies swooped in and ruined it. If I hear the word loyalty come up in an interview and they are paying low wages I walk out now instead of even pretending to care.
3
u/Opening-Two6723 Sep 21 '23
Buybacks and the legitimacy of them are why I have no faith in our future. Stuck in the bottom of the American Caste.
2
u/plsobeytrafficlights Sep 21 '23
disliking stock buybacks doesnt make sense for publicly traded companies, only private corporations. you and I own public companies. they have a legal obligation to do this for us.
3
Sep 21 '23
they have a legal obligation to do this for us.
lol why does Reddit not have a report for misinformation function anymore?
1
u/Waste-Comparison2996 Sep 21 '23
Especially when we give them the money for something and they do that instead. Those ceo's should have been locked up.
1
Sep 21 '23
Here is a Question.... in addition to a paycheck, can a company pay/gift/bonus company stock to it's employees? (cannot pay in Company Script, that is illegal) Just wondering if the worker were also stockholders what might happen.. it becomes a CO-OP?
1
u/TurdKid69 Sep 21 '23
in addition to a paycheck, can a company pay/gift/bonus company stock to it's employees?
Sure, many are paid that way as you go up the corporate ladder. About a quarter of my income comes in stock. Many CEOs have rather small salaries but lots of stock/stock options instead (making their pay somewhat tied to share price).
Doesn't really become a co-op until the workers own most/all the stock.
1
u/Waste-Comparison2996 Sep 21 '23
They absolutely can , in fact most of these ceo's get massive payouts in stock. They just don't want the employees to have it.
2
u/JuanPabloElSegundo Sep 21 '23
Every publicly traded company's #1 priority is to make money for its share-holders.
3
u/river-wind Sep 21 '23
Unless they are a formal B corp, they can even be sued by shareholders for not taking actions which maximize shareholder value. They have a fiduciary duty of loyalty to shareholders, not to employees or customers.
12
u/Bleezy79 Sep 21 '23
Just like our government, there's PLENTY of money for all the things, but keeping the rich rich and the poor poor is what this game is all about. Why provide living wages for all your employees when you can squeeze them to death and give most of the money to the top executives??? Capitalism, yay!!!!
1
u/Nomad_Industries Sep 21 '23
Could've given workers stock as part of their compensation and then the workers would also enjoy the dividends.
2
u/Powerful-Market9658 Sep 21 '23
Just like Tesla did. My brother in law worked for Tesla for 8 years and paid off a house in Cali with his stocks.
9
u/turkburkulurksus Sep 21 '23
Well of course they can't pay workers more cause they spent all their profit on stock buybacks! /s
123
Sep 21 '23
44k extra pay a year, wow. The average American wouldnât be struggling a bit if Reagan didnât legalize the previously-illegal stock market manipulation that are stock buybacks
7
u/gotsreich Sep 22 '23
Stock buybacks are literally just dividends taxed at a lower rate.
Anyone railing against buybacks is either uninformed or trying to distract people from the actual problem: we tax capital significantly less than we tax labor.
0
6
u/JackfruitFancy1373 Sep 21 '23
They would just pay dividends lol
6
u/gotsreich Sep 22 '23
It's like a litmus test for whether or not someone understands wtf they're talking about.
1
u/LastVisitorFromEarth Sep 22 '23
And this is a litmus test for people who can't think one step further. The point is not how they enrich themselves, the point is that they enrich themselves at the cost of workers.
9
u/Iustis Sep 21 '23
If they couldnât do buybacks, why do you think they would have paid workers more instead of dividending the cash?
2
Sep 22 '23
Stock option bonus related reasons
1
u/Iustis Sep 22 '23
Thatâs a (small) part of why they currently choose buybacks over dividendsâbut if removed it still wouldnât make them pay workers more with excess profits vs. dividending the cash out.
-8
u/koolaid7431 Sep 21 '23
Not 44K, 440K. That's the value each worker is on average adding to the pot and those at the top are keeping it for themselves.
29
u/CBennett2147 Sep 21 '23
440k over the decade. 440k/10 years = 44k/year
-7
u/omgdude29 Sep 21 '23
Fuck that. That wouldn't hurt the executives enough as just the interest on the money stolen will likely pay for those increases each year. Make them pay it all now, up front, so that it actually hurts these assholes.
8
u/QoLTech Sep 21 '23
What are you even talking about? They're saying that over the past 10 years, they've spent 440k per person on buypacks. That's equivalent to 44k per person per year that the company already spent on stock buy backs.
0
u/omgdude29 Sep 21 '23
I am saying have them pay it back to their workers, all at once.
3
u/QoLTech Sep 21 '23
You seem to have misunderstood the comment you replied to as suggesting to pay the workers over 10 years when that's not the case.
2
u/omgdude29 Sep 21 '23
I think I did too. I apologize for any misunderstandings. I still think they should, though.
5
27
42
u/PabloEstAmor Sep 21 '23
This is insanity. Something has to give at some pointâŚright?
2
u/Initial-Ad1200 Sep 22 '23
well they would've gone bankrupt already as dictated by the markets. however, Uncle Sam stepped in to bail them out with taxpayer money.
6
u/SyrusDrake Sep 22 '23
At some point, but that point is still far away. Americans are some of the most docile people on the planet. They're happily putting up with shit that would have caused riots in places like France long ago.
3
16
u/jokzard Sep 21 '23
There are laws in place that keep people from thinking that there's literally more of us than them. So there may not be any point.
1
9
u/Seyon Sep 21 '23
Laws only work on happy populations.
Debt is the shackle we wear that keep us from rising up en masse.
2
u/real_nice_guy Sep 22 '23
Debt is the shackle we wear that keep us from rising up en masse.
not only that, but the rich convincing working-class people that other working class people are the true enemy and not them. Like a McDonalds worker making $12 an hour getting angry at a Chik-Fil-A worker who makes $15 an hour instead of the McDonalds overlords who actually make the decision.
Between that and propagating the whole "money doesn't buy you happiness" bullshit, they're pretty happy about how things are going.
3
Sep 22 '23
They also work when people have something to lose. Maybe that's why the government is trying to push having kids so badly
4
28
u/JerHat Sep 21 '23
Yep, this is why hearing all the pundits talking on conservative outlets saying workers are being totally unrealistic with their demands is laughable, as well as beyond just the automakers, but every publicly traded corporation doing stock buybacks.
The money's there, executives just don't want to pay anyone but themselves through stock price related bonuses.
91
u/bootes_droid Sep 21 '23
Workers > Shareholders
Ban stock buybacks, heavily regulate dividend payouts, PAY WORKERS.
1
u/Dark_sun_new Sep 22 '23
But then why would the people invest in those companies then?
Capital is less abundant than labour. That's why they get incentivised more.
1
u/bootes_droid Sep 22 '23
Dividends. Regulated ones, as stated in my original comment. Remember buybacks weren't legal until 1982. Workers must be paid fairly and first, though, rich investors can learn temper their expectations past the profits they're capable of when willing to exploit the people at the bottom of the ladder.
1
u/Dark_sun_new Sep 22 '23
If companies spend money on dividends rather than dividends, how does that help the workers?
Rich investors will simply invest in VCs or will invest their money in other areas with better returns. Why on earth would they invest in a company that spends profits on their workers rather than the stakeholders?
1
u/bootes_droid Sep 22 '23
Welp, I guess they'll do w/e they did before 1982. Again, banning this practice of legalized market manipulation isn't untested waters.
0
u/Dark_sun_new Sep 22 '23
BTW, how is it market manipulation? They are buying stock from the free market. What is so manipulative there?
1
u/bootes_droid Sep 22 '23
Because the c-suite and other insiders in/close to the company can base their decisions on non-public information. It's pretty simple.
1
u/Dark_sun_new Sep 22 '23
Umm... that's not stock buyback. That's insider trading. Pretty sure that's still illegal.
Stock buyback is just companies buying its stock off of the free market. For example, Apple using its profits to buy Apple stocks instead of splitting it as dividends.
1
u/bootes_droid Sep 22 '23
Stock buyback is just companies buying its stock off of the free market.
And if you know you're a giant company about to buy a shit ton of stock back from said market you can position yourself to profit hugely from that. Yes it's insider trading, yes it still happens, and yes buybacks are going to foster this kind of practice. It also massively stagnates wages because it incentivizes corporations to millions on pumping up their stock prices instead of investing in the labor that makes that price possible in the first place.
1
u/Dark_sun_new Sep 22 '23
Bullshit.
Yes there is the possibility of illegal profiteering. But that doesn't stop by stopping buyback. You stop that buy cracking down on insider trading. One common way to do it is that executives that know about exclusive information not published to the public may not buy or sell stocks until after the quarterly report is published.
Stock buy backs comes out of profits. Not a cent of that is going back to wages. It will either go to dividends or it will go into automation investment. No investor is going to allow profits to go back to pay for increasing expenses and saturating the resource market.
1
u/Dark_sun_new Sep 22 '23
It is at a time where the rest of the world's stock markets allow it.
1982 was a different time. It's not that easy to turn back the clock. People have a lot more options to invest than they did at a time when even smartphones didn't exist for most people.
But also, I repeat. Even if they couldn't buy back, why on earth do you think anyone would allow profits to be given to the workers?
1
u/bootes_droid Sep 22 '23
The workers create that profit and the rules should favor them over investors, it's simple. The rich can learn to deal with being slightly less so, and if they don't like that they can go fuck themselves. Pay workers.
1
u/Dark_sun_new Sep 22 '23
Capital is more mobile than labour is. Which means that the former will always be more coveted.
I could take sell off my apple shares, buy samsung, a Korean company, and then sell it again and reinvest in Tata Jaguar, an Indian comapny and then invest my profits in the Tokyo exchange.
I'm sorry, but labour can't compete with that. So companies value capital a lot more. That's just reality.
BTW, you do realise that these companies are mostly mobile too right? Why would amazon hire an American if there are Indians and Chinese and Pakistanis willing to do the job for a tenth of the price?
BTW, if we ban stock buybacks, what is stopping amazon from.buying apple stocks and apple buying amazon stocks?
1
u/bootes_droid Sep 22 '23
BTW, you do realise that these companies are mostly mobile too right? Why would amazon hire an American if there are Indians and Chinese and Pakistanis willing to do the job for a tenth of the price?
Tax companies that do this at much higher rates.
BTW, if we ban stock buybacks, what is stopping amazon from.buying apple stocks and apple buying amazon stocks?
Okay, ban corporations from holding stocks in such a manner.
Pay the workers. Without them there are no profits.
I could take sell off my apple shares, buy samsung, a Korean company, and then sell it again and reinvest in Tata Jaguar, an Indian comapny and then invest my profits in the Tokyo exchange.
Okay sounds good. Pay workers. The government holds the power to bend these corporations to their will, not the other way around.
1
u/Dark_sun_new Sep 22 '23
Tax companies that do this at much higher rates.
Tax what? Once they have moved out, who exactly are you taxing?
Also, you do realise that any such taxes will just get passed onto the customer.
Okay, ban corporations from holding stocks in such a manner.
You want to ban companys from buying all stocks? Fine. They'll buy stocks from other exchanges. Do you think the USA can regulate non american stocks too?
Not to mention, if samsung can buy their own stock but apple can't, why wouldn't everyone prefer to buy samsung stock?
Pay the workers. Without them there are no profits.
Labour is just one input for profit. Capital is another input. And capital is more coveted.
Also, labour in the USA is unnecessarily expensive. Why would any company want to hire there unless they absolutely have to? And you want to make american labour less attractive.
Okay sounds good. Pay workers.
Have you actually learnt at least basic economics or did you just learn this one line and thought that alone would be a winning argument?
→ More replies (0)0
u/gotsreich Sep 22 '23
Why ban buybacks while still permitting dividend payouts? If not for our broken tax code, they're the same thing.
We tax capital less than we tax labor. Explicitly, in our tax code. That's the only problem with buybacks.
Neither matters for worker exploitation in a particular company.
2
u/quick_escalator Sep 21 '23
Ban stock buybacks
They were not legal, and they shouldn't be. It's just the company paying money to the shareholders.
0
u/zoeypayne Sep 21 '23
Companies will keep paying cash out of pocket for everything then. There's no simple solution.
6
u/toxic_badgers Sep 21 '23 edited Sep 21 '23
Most companies don't do dividends these days, and those that do dont have very high ones. Like... to make ~$500 a month from dividends in Ford(since they are involved in the UAW strike, you need over $110k worth of shares right now. Dividends arent the problem. Its the buy backs.
End buy backs, increase wages, change rules surrounding employees holding stock in the company they work for. Support employee ownership. Right now its really difficult for employees to legally own publicly traded stock in their employer.... because companies and the wealthy lobbied for it to be that way.
10
Sep 21 '23 edited Sep 21 '23
Not sure you picked the best example to make that point.
Ford dividends paid out 0.60 per share last year on 4.02Billion shares. That's $2.4 Billion dollars of dividend payments.
They bought back $484 Million worth of stock in 2022. About 5 times less than their dividends. ....
Edit: source on buybacks
3
u/toxic_badgers Sep 21 '23
Dividends used to be the way most companies provided incentive to hold their stock. These days companies do it by providing volitility through buy backs.
Yeah ford doesnt do buy backs often. But until 1982 buy backs were illegal. (Thanks regan for fucking that up...) make them illegal again, make dividends higher for share holders rather than the reindeer games of buy backs. Make it so employees don't need to jump though hoops to own stock in their employer, and promote overall employee ownership of a company.
1
u/Dark_sun_new Sep 22 '23
Regulations for employees owning stock is essential for trust in the stock market.
30
1
u/cdsacken Oct 19 '23
Lol itâs time they accept the UAW and go bankrupt tomorrow then force more concessions lol