Current Events > Tax cut went towards stock buybacks, not wages

(+) Yeah! (+)

SK8T3R215 posted...

itachi15243 posted...

Actually, the unemployment is largely due to people leaving the labor force recently and jobs aren't being created at the rate they should and hiring is very sluggish. That along with wage increase also being very slow to rise could end up being an issue

Labor force participation rate has been in the same range for a while now:

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm

We also have more job openings than people looking for jobs in the first time since this data was tracked in 2001.

https://www.bls.gov/charts/job-openings-and-labor-turnover/unemp-per-job-opening.htm#

Those numbers kind of underscore how difficult it is to get business to raise wages or invest in workforce development, even when competition for workers should be pretty intense, though
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

@Darkman124

you ignored my posts and changed the subject broseph.

Probably because you're not arguing a valid or interesting point. Hint: wage increases are discussed in the OP article.
---

that's certainly one theory

Balrog0 posted...

Those numbers kind of underscore how difficult it is to get business to raise wages or invest in workforce development, even when competition for workers should be pretty intense, though

monopsony is one potential explanation for this observation

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-arent-americans-getting-raises-blame-the-monopsony-1478215983

noncompete clauses in worker contracts is one of the stranger things in the world.
---

Esrac posted...

They offer a 401K program, but they only contribute $0.25 for every $1 the employee contributes, up to 6% of the employee's wage.

That's a P good match
---

HydraSlayer82 posted...

Heres recent:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/how-many-americans-dont-have-access-to-a-401k.html

Its pathetic.

In that same article:

Even those who don't have access to a 401(k), or, even better, one with an employer match, can and should still begin putting money away for retirement. Both Roth IRAs and traditional IRAs offer tax benefits and should be considered as part of a diversified savings plan.

Waiting for someone to do it for you is never a good strategy.

SK8T3R215 posted...

Esrac posted...

They offer a 401K program, but they only contribute $0.25 for every $1 the employee contributes, up to 6% of the employee's wage.

That's a P good match

Is it? Maybe it doesn't feel like it when the hourly wage is so low.
---

SK8T3R215 posted...

Esrac posted...

They offer a 401K program, but they only contribute $0.25 for every $1 the employee contributes, up to 6% of the employee's wage.

That's a P good match

depends on whether it's matching 1.25% max for an employee contrib of 6% (which is a shitty match) or 6% for an employee contrib of 24% (which is a good match)

my employer does 10.5% max, if I contrib 4%, but they're way ahead of the pack.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Waiting for someone to do it for you is never a good strategy.

The original discussion was whether workers benefited in a significant way from stock buybacks, and the answer is fairly concretely no.
---

The Republican tax reform package that was supposed to raise wages and spur hiring has instead funded a record stock buyback and dividend spree, benefiting investors and company executives over workers.

Let's not forget stocks have been going DOWN in spite of this

1. Government gives tax cuts putting us further in debt
2. Companies who got the majority of tax cuts put it into stocks to raise it
3. Stocks still went down in price due to Trump's trade war bullshit

Just an all around giant fuck up huh?
---

Darkman124 posted...

The original discussion was whether workers benefited in a significant way from stock buybacks, and the answer is fairly concretely no.

In the long-run, stock buybacks may very well benefit employees, by the simple fact that the company isn't as beholden to as many stockholders to prioritize dividends and valuation over everything else.

itachi15243 posted...

John_Galt posted...

I'm not seeing the problem here

Then you're blind

John_Galt is a gimmick account. Don't take anything it says seriously

Questionmarktarius posted...

Darkman124 posted...

The original discussion was whether workers benefited in a significant way from stock buybacks, and the answer is fairly concretely no.

In the long-run, stock buybacks may very well benefit employees, by the simple fact that the company isn't as beholden to as many stockholders to prioritize dividends and valuation over everything else.

you do realize that the company uses that stock to make purchases, and thereby is just as beholden to prioritize valuation as before...right? it's not like they're just taking it off the table.
---

JustMyOpinion posted...

I frown upon stock buybacks. Use that cash to do what your business does. Do you really have no other ideas/ventures for your business?

A stock buyback is essentially paying off debt. That's a good thing.

JustMyOpinion posted...

I frown upon stock buybacks. Use that cash to do what your business does. Do you really have no other ideas/ventures for your business?

Perhaps it's a better option then say going out and overpaying for an acquisition?
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

JustMyOpinion posted...

I frown upon stock buybacks. Use that cash to do what your business does. Do you really have no other ideas/ventures for your business?

A stock buyback is essentially paying off debt. That's a good thing.

No...it isn't.

Debt is handled differently from equity ownership, and the relative payout of dividends is hugely different from the relative payout of bond interest, because the company can cut their own dividend.

A stock buyback is essentially taking your spare cash and investing it in your own operations. It's a corporate vote of confidence in their own ability to increase profits in the intermediate term.
---

Darkman124 posted...

SK8T3R215 posted...

Esrac posted...

They offer a 401K program, but they only contribute $0.25 for every $1 the employee contributes, up to 6% of the employee's wage.

That's a P good match

depends on whether it's matching 1.25% max for an employee contrib of 6% (which is a shitty match) or 6% for an employee contrib of 24% (which is a good match)

my employer does 10.5% max, if I contrib 4%, but they're way ahead of the pack.

As I understand it, they add a quarter for every dollar the employee contributes to their 401K. Up to a maximum of 6% of the employee's biweekly paycheck. So, as an example, if I make $100 in a biweekly check, my contribution is $6. They add .25 for each dollar. So, they add a total of 1.50. Bringing the 401K contribution to $7.50.

But anything over that, they don't match. So, if I chose to contribute 7%, that additional 1% wouldn't be matched.

That's my understanding of it.
---

Esrac posted...

As I understand it, they add a quarter for every dollar the employee contributes to their 401K. Up to a maximum of 6% of the employee's biweekly paycheck. So, as an example, if I make $100 in a biweekly check, my contribution is $6. They add .25 for each dollar. So, they add a total of 1.50. Bringing the 401K contribution to $7.50.

That's my understanding of it.

Right: that is a bad match. Worse ones exist, of course.

I also owe this a response:

Questionmarktarius posted...

Waiting for someone to do it for you is never a good strategy.

There are maxima to the amount that can go into an employee 401k directly from the employee (18,500 in 2017) and into a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (5,500). 401k plans allow additional tax-deferred savings over and beyond these limits from the employer match.
---

I think my employer contributes whether or not I do

I do contribute and they match it up to a point, but I believe there is an annual contribution they do if there is enough money in the general fund to do so, regardless of whether you contribute or not
---

yeah same here, our 10.5% is a double match up to 4%, but 2.5% is free

i am aware of its relative value and have to weigh any competing offers i get against that free money.
---

But her emails

Darkman124 posted...

the lesson is to have zero loyalty to your employer and change jobs anytime you get an offer that is a significant raise

That is one valid strategy.

I had an old friend that held 14 jobs in 6 years.

Literally jumped around like a rabbit.
---

Esrac posted...

I know I'm in the lowly unskilled labor pool right now, but my employer, for example, does basically refuse to raise wages in general. The starting wage in my department is $9 an hour and has been for years. The average raise per year is about 1%, so about as close to nothing without actually being nothing. Even though my department is constantly shorthanded because no one wants to drive out to this casino in bumfuck small town Louisiana to work a 10 hour shift for $9 an hour.

They offer a 401K program, but they only contribute $0.25 for every $1 the employee contributes, up to 6% of the employee's wage.

Get some real skills in a trade skill or specialist skill of some sort.

Get away from that unskilled labor pool.

Doesn't matter if it's carpentry, welding, plumbing, electrician, etc.

Something that takes some brains.
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Darkman124 posted...

the lesson is to have zero loyalty to your employer and change jobs anytime you get an offer that is a significant raise

That is one valid strategy.

I had an old friend that held 14 jobs in 6 years.

Literally jumped around like a rabbit.

there is, of course, a caveat to the frequency.

too frequent, and you become far less eligible for hire.
---

Darkman124 posted...

there is, of course, a caveat to the frequency.

too frequent, and you become far less eligible for hire.

His coding talents was legit, he was one of those upper tier Red Neck Savant Coders that was practical but amazing at figuring shit out.

He literally could command his salary every time he jumped ship.

Last I heard, he worked at HP (Hewlet Packard)
---