(no title)
svardilfari | 1 year ago
What this article fails to do is repudiate the 'hook' espoused in the first paragraph. Workers are pissed because stock buybacks are highly visible reinvestments by companies of their profits unto themselves and shareholders. The single article source used to argue against flat-line wages through the ensuing decades (from 1997 no less) is all but worthless as it contains no real data, but only expositions without factual source claims. Regardless, flat-line wages ARE real and ARE felt by almost every single person. You would need to waste 11,000 words arguing against that to have better effect.
Finally, spending all that hot-air to explain buybacks and calling workers economically ignorant is lazy writing. No one cares if it's dividends or buybacks, they want to be paid more for the work output they provide. Buybacks are just highly visible and reinforce the point even more so.
takinola|1 year ago
Companies generally pay their workers more only if they have to (tight labor market, threat of stoppages, etc). Companies generally do stock buybacks if that is the best use of the cash at hand (ie there are no better investment opportunities for the capital available). The considerations are completely different.
gary_0|1 year ago
Workers (or their union representatives) asking for wage increases are usually told "sorry, there's no money". If the company then does a share buyback, employees who haven't seen significant raises in years are going to take umbrage. In that context, that's why buybacks are such an issue: they're seen as a "fuck you" to underpaid workers.