|
goodness posted:Edit: a pack of cigarettes 3 days a week costs someone minimum 5000$. That is greater than the couple thousand those 1-3% make between brackets. So yeah, a poor person smoking is literally breaking them fiscally and physically. Where the hell are you buying cigarettes for $32 a pack? [$5000 / 52 weeks = 96.15 / 3 packs per week = 32.05]
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Necc0 posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family Not paying dividends to your stock holders is a pretty good way to tank your stock and make sure nobody ever buys another share too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Yeah because the Waltons are big supporters of Walmart with all the stock they buy. What could possibly have made you think that what you said was relavent to what you quoted? The Walton's get all those dividends because they collectively own over 50% of the stock of the company. I'd say it's fairly relevant to a post about how much Walmart could give their oppressed workers by not paying those dividends. I'm not a Walmart fan, and never shop there even if it costs me more to shop elsewhere, but it's silly to say that Walmart could give their workers a 15% raise if they would just stop paying those filthy dividends to some of the richest people in the world, when the dividends are going to all the shareholders, not just the Walton's, since dividends are paid per share.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Which has what to do with tanking their stock? I mean, at best what you're saying is "that would be a bad business decision" to a hypothetical. No poo poo. So question for you, since that's what you seem to be about. Even if the stock went down, why in the gently caress do you think the Waltons would ever drop below a majority interest? This is a non-issue. So my point was missed entirely. The stock dividends to the Walton's don't matter. It was the implication of not paying out dividends at all (since you can't pick and choose what stock holders get dividends as far as I know). Publicly traded companies big overall purpose is to keep the stock holders happy, and for a company of that size that has historically paid dividends to just suddenly stop doing so would, as you put it, be a bad business decision. I never said anything about this, or any other action changing how much of the company the Walton's held, no idea how you got that out of my simple statement that not paying dividends would be a 'bad thing' (I used tanked stock as the 'bad thing'). For the record, it wouldn't bother me at all if Walmart (and everyone else) started paying their employees more than they currently do. I think the minimum wage hasn't kept up at all with cost of living, and a gradual phased increase in the 'floor' would probably be good, but I'm not nearly well educated enough in this area of economics to know what the long-term impacts would be, although I'm sure it wouldn't be the dire end of the world that some of the biggest critics think. There are plenty of terrible wage issues in the world. Why do we pay EMT's that drive ambulances around and save lives every day so poorly that raising the minimum wage will have burger flippers making as much as they are? Given how huge ambulance bills are, I have no idea why this is, and personally, I think that the EMT is a much higher value to society (and should therefore be paid more) than the dude who makes me a burrito at Taco Bell.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Bobbie Wickham posted:...instead of sneering at the fast food workers who made it happen. Rudager posted:So because one group of people are getting hosed over, then everyone you deem to be less worthy than that group must also get hosed over? Pretty sure I never said either one of those things, but since apparently lots of things I don't say are being read into everything I do say (which started with a simple comment about dividends), I'll just leave you all to your little party here and move on.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Rudager posted:So to re-iterate, just because one group gets hosed over, that means another group you deem less worthy should also be hosed over? How in the gently caress do you get that out of my post? Holy poo poo. Eeyo posted:If anything, they're advocating for EMTs to make more than they currently do, which does not preclude the possibility of current minimum wage workers making more. Or to say it another way, we (as a society) need to have a long and hard think about how we compensate/support all workers because as it stands it's not only minimum wage workers who are unfairly paid. I don't interpret it as saying that minimum wage workers should be held down to be fair to EMTs. See, this guy here can actually read English words and not invent ill intent in them where there is none.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 05:13
|
|