Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The UK also has universal healthcare and a better social safety net (and yes, the NHS is struggling right now, it’s still better than what most retail employees in the US can access affordably)
I’m a veteran and I would put the NHS on par with what I receive at the VA. My father’s family are all Scottish native and or Scottish immigrants and I can attest to this comparison. Having Healthcare is absolutely better than NO healthcare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
How much is not too much ?
and this raise is permanent, this is not like bonus.
How many employees would be ready to take a pay cut when a business starts loosing money ?
Reasonably if the company is loosing money the pay cut comes from the TOP. Floor level employees have little to do with a companies strategies and profitability.
So if anyone is taking a pay cut, it should be from the top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xpxp2002
This is an extremely weird way to support your argument that stock buybacks are stock manipulation. They aren’t and I explained why they aren’t logically and mechanically. The previous interpretation was plainly wrong and has since been corrected. The fact that you keep arguing that something that was illegal in the past means it definitely should be illegal now is pretty ridiculous. Gay marriage used to be illegal. If I were to say it should be illegal now because that’s how it was for most of United States history would you think that would be a compelling argument?

Tell me, in your own words why you think buybacks constitute stock market manipulation. Would also love to know how dividends constitute stock market manipulation as well since buyback are just tax efficient dividends.

I guess you didn’t go to Harvard. Because they have extensive legal and real world analysis on why buy backs are completely a tactic companies used to manipulate market share, and stock price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xpxp2002

I guess you didn’t go to Harvard. Because they have extensive legal and real world analysis on why buy backs are completely a tactic companies used to manipulate market share, and stock price.

Harvard doesn't have an official position on buybacks lol. This is the opinion of one of their professors and there is plenty of room for disagreement with this article (I'm sure from some of his colleagues in HBS as well). Stock buybacks can definitely be the wrong move for some companies in certain situations but the idea that they are categorically bad and obvious manipulation is a fringe opinion. Do you think dividends constitute stock market manipulation?
 
The CEO of a for-profit company prioritizing the financial health of the company itself as required by law for someone in his position? No way!

Now, explain to me, convincingly, why someone at the top end of the scale in the article deserves to make $62,400 annually for tapping on an iPad to ask someone in the back of the store to bring out the product I am picking up? And please justify it by also explaining why most of the time I end up knowing more about the product than they do. I worked retail as well, so any claims of elitism will be useless. I just want to know why people like yourself want to pretend these workers are out on street corners selling matchbooks to make ends meet.

Your first assertion is just not true at all: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...rs/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

As for your second assertion, I highly doubt anyone is simply pushing a button in the Apple Store making at the top end of the salary range. Those salaries are likely reserved for the specialists repairing devices in the back room.

Either way, in many urban areas this pay is not great. It’s fine where I live in the Midwest, but the cost of living here is very low. My 3000sqft house cost about $250K back before the pandemic. Now it costs over $400K when looking at comparable sales in my neighborhood. Housing costs are making a lot of these wages unsustainable. Rentals are pretty crazy nowadays because AirBNB and VRBO have destroyed the market, especially in more urban areas on the coast and other big cities. Although out here there is not really infrastructure for public transit, much less sidewalks and bike lanes. And the cost of used cars is ridiculous. I’m fortunate enough to have worked remotely since before the pandemic, but there is no way I could walk to a job in this town. I’d be mowed down on the side of this two lane road with no shoulders and 55mph speed limit. We already know someone who died on their bike.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AF_APPLETALK
The term is fiduciary duty. In the 80’s under Reagan the Supreme Court interpreted this to be the primary function of issuing a Corporate Charter.

It was stealthy, nobody noticed, but that was when things officially changed in America.

Coincidently, until the Reagan administration Stock Buybacks were actually illegal as they were considered (as it factually is) stock price manipulation.
“In American business, especially, one key theory says that the purpose of corporate enterprise is to “maximize shareholder value.” Some take this even further and claim that such value maximization is the only reason a corporation exists. Watch CNBC or Fox Business News long enough and you’ll begin to believe this is the God’s truth, but it’s not. It’s just a theory.

It’s not even a very old theory, in fact, only dating back to 1976. That’s when Michael Jensen and William Meckling of the University of Rochester published in the Journal of Financial Economics their paper Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.”

 
  • Love
Reactions: NT1440
Apple Stock (in turn execs), up 40% YTD. Apple employees, here is 4% for ya! Thanks for all your hard work in making us money suckers!!!

You do realize the price of the stock doesn't mean Apple gets more or less money right.
 
This is interesting. 10% raises are unheard of in tech, even when getting promoted into a new role. In fact, I’ve generally seen 3% as the norm across FAANGs unless someone (or their division) is either highly overachieving or underachieving.

That said, retail folks are not tech workers and minimum wage in the US is anything but. For reference, McDonalds was offering $25,000 sign-on bonuses post Hurricane Katrina so there’s clearly room for growth. These folks are generally undervalued and underpaid, but salary is only one component of their total compensation. How does their whole package look (e.g., health benefits, education benefits, employee discounts, paid time off, etc.)? Is it equitable and competitive?
 
This is interesting. 10% raises are unheard of in tech, even when getting promoted into a new role. In fact, I’ve generally seen 3% as the norm across FAANGs unless someone (or their division) is either highly overachieving or underachieving.

That said, retail folks are not tech workers and minimum wage in the US is anything but. For reference, McDonalds was offering $25,000 sign-on bonuses post Hurricane Katrina so there’s clearly room for growth. These folks are generally undervalued and underpaid, but salary is only one component of their total compensation. How does their whole package look (e.g., health benefits, education benefits, employee discounts, paid time off, etc.)? Is it equitable and competitive?
I got exactly 10% last year, in tech
 
  • Like
Reactions: xpxp2002
Inflation was 3.7% in August
That's the BLS data for the CPI nationwide.

Whether or not an individual's expenses are similar to the CPI will depend upon where they live.

Whether Apple ought to give raises according to the CPI national figure is something I'm sure the Apple HR department debates.
 
We should just beat down the working class.
Exactly: increase illegal immigration to depress wages; indiscriminately pump money into the economy to increase inflation; push environmental alarmism to raise the price of energy, spend more money on bad energy, and raise the price of goods and services (both in real terms and as a byproduct of inflation; destroy all the communities which have traditionally provided support and purpose. When all of this has the predictable (and predicted) results, blame the rich and then institute more policies which further inhibit the economy.
 
Yada yada. If you think you are worth more elsewhere, go there. I made my choices and retired earlier than many. I’m glad for the choices I made even though I’m now kinda old. Not a fan of being old.
Translation “I got mine, dont care about anyone else”. Such a bad take, why do you think people shouldnt fight for more at their current job?
 
Stock buybacks are just tax efficient dividends. An extreme distaste for stock buybacks is a really good indicator of financial illiteracy (not personal finance, but corporate finance).

I'll help you conceptualize: companies remit profits to the people/entities that own them. That is why they exist. Buybacks are just a cash payment from the company to investors who desire cash (investors who decide to sell their shares in the market). Say you own 10% of Apple and Apple is worth $100. Your value is $10. If Apple decides to use $10 of cash to buy back its stock and you decide not to sell you will still own around 11% but of a company that now has $10 less cash, making its value approximately $90. Your ownership, by not selling, effectively increases but of a company that has less cash than it would have had had it not done the buyback. This is similar to a dividend. If you think buybacks are stock manipulation then you think dividends are and if you think dividends are then you quite literally misunderstand the purpose of a company or what stock manipulation is.
Sorry, I guess I’m new to this. I know that dividends are a predetermined payment per share to each shareholder, so that doesn’t seem like market manipulation and it seems pretty obvious how that benefits the shareholder.

But I don’t see in your explanation how the buyback benefits you as a shareholder. You say you had $10 of value pre buyback, but for your after buyback example you say you then have 11% of $90, which would be $9.90.

You did mention it being tax efficient, so are you taking the 10 cents loss as a write-off?

The dividend seems an obvious net positive, but I don’t see the positive in your example. Did you leave out some detail that causes you to have more value?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.