Bonuses are great but.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
8,145
Location
Michigan
Do you think these will be yearly now by these companies?

How much will stockholders receive in comparison to the workers?
 
no, they will not be an annual thing. I'm also sure that this is more of a PR thing to obscure the news of the store closing.
 
Yall better watch it! This is almost political in nature. Someone might be offended.

IBTL.
 
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
no, they will not be an annual thing. I'm also sure that this is more of a PR thing to obscure the news of the store closing.

Are you talking just about Walmart? Because of the corporate tax break, all kinds of companies are able to give bonuses this year. Pretty darn nice thing to do if you ask me. But you think Walmart did it as a "PR" move because they had to close some Sam's Club stores? I don't get that.
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Do you think these will be yearly now by these companies?

How much will stockholders receive in comparison to the workers?


Aren't a fairly decent percentage of workers stockholders as well?
 
Any companies now giving these bonuses. Will they be permanent?

Actually the wealthy own the vast majority of stocks in this country, not middle class workers.
 
What difference does it make how much the stockholders will receive? They invested in the company expecting a return on their investment. Some investments make money and some don't, so there is no guarantee that an investment will pay a return. That is a gamble all investors take. If you want to invest your $$ in the market, buy a S&P 500 index mutual fund. Over the years, the unmanaged funds have done better than the managed funds.
 
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
What difference does it make how much the stockholders will receive? They invested in the company expecting a return on their investment. Some investments make money and some don't, so there is no guarantee that an investment will pay a return. That is a gamble all investors take. If you want to invest your $$ in the market, buy a S&P 500 index mutual fund. Over the years, the unmanaged funds have done better than the managed funds.


It makes a difference because the workers are doing the work. Day in and day out. Investors only put up money and no sweat equity. It should at least be a 50/50 split shouldn't it?
 
Actually no. Only about 55% of Americans own stock. Of that the top 10% own about 80% of the stocks.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Rock_Hudstone

Suffice it to say, if that other person had won none of these people would be getting any bonus, period, permanent or otherwise.


Boom there it is, every thread. I've been getting bonuses for 12 years. But you're right, the world would have ended.
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
What difference does it make how much the stockholders will receive? They invested in the company expecting a return on their investment. Some investments make money and some don't, so there is no guarantee that an investment will pay a return. That is a gamble all investors take. If you want to invest your $$ in the market, buy a S&P 500 index mutual fund. Over the years, the unmanaged funds have done better than the managed funds.


It makes a difference because the workers are doing the work. Day in and day out. Investors only put up money and no sweat equity. It should at least be a 50/50 split shouldn't it?
.What you are trying to say is that you are not adequately compensated for the service you provide your employer. That can be remedied by acquiring skills that companies pay big $$ to obtain.
 
Originally Posted By: Rock_Hudstone

Suffice it to say, if that other person had won none of these people would be getting any bonus, period, permanent or otherwise.


Not sufficient. It's a gamble. If jobs aren't created and trickle-down economics doesn't work, these bonuses will be paid back, and then some, in extra taxes. Lowering he corporate tax rate THAT much can bring back work, but that's not to say us poor peons will be the beneficiaries of any additional corporate profits.

I'll believe I've benefited when I average my tax returns over the next 10 years.
 
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
What you are trying to say is that you are not adequately compensated for the service you provide your employer. That can be remedied by acquiring skills that companies pay big $$ to obtain.


Not at all. I think my compensation is reasonable. I think others are far too little and far too much....
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Lowering he corporate tax rate THAT much can bring back work, but that's not to say us poor peons will be the beneficiaries of any additional corporate profits.


Beats unemployment... Been there back in the early 90’s.... now that suck3d
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Any companies now giving these bonuses. Will they be permanent?

Actually the wealthy own the vast majority of stocks in this country, not middle class workers.

So lets punish the wealthy that pay 95% of the taxes again??
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
What difference does it make how much the stockholders will receive? They invested in the company expecting a return on their investment. Some investments make money and some don't, so there is no guarantee that an investment will pay a return. That is a gamble all investors take. If you want to invest your $$ in the market, buy a S&P 500 index mutual fund. Over the years, the unmanaged funds have done better than the managed funds.


It makes a difference because the workers are doing the work. Day in and day out. Investors only put up money and no sweat equity. It should at least be a 50/50 split shouldn't it?


Companies have a fiduciary responsibility only to shareholders. Not to employees.
 
I don't disagree. What I will say is that sometimes, it makes sense to try to keep the employees you have. There has to be some frictional costs if there is a great deal of turnover.

Now where that point is, I really don't know. I suspect someone believes this will ultimately improve the bottom line.

Retail margins are pretty small. I think WalMart's margins are about 3% so there isn't much room for them to make a mistake here. However, someone has to believe this is good for the bottom line, or it wouldn't be happening.

Originally Posted By: Donald


Companies have a fiduciary responsibility only to shareholders. Not to employees.
 
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Originally Posted By: Rock_Hudstone

Suffice it to say, if that other person had won none of these people would be getting any bonus, period, permanent or otherwise.


Not sufficient. It's a gamble. If jobs aren't created and trickle-down economics doesn't work, these bonuses will be paid back, and then some, in extra taxes. Lowering he corporate tax rate THAT much can bring back work, but that's not to say us poor peons will be the beneficiaries of any additional corporate profits.

I'll believe I've benefited when I average my tax returns over the next 10 years.


Trickle down economics has never worked. It will not this time. US Corporations are sitting on $2T dollars. Plenty of money to invest if they saw a place where investment would help the business. Buying new machines to make widgets faster does not help if there are not more people to buy the widgets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top