coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
I just gave Wal-Mart as an example and they are the who would benefit the most from iworkers pay. Most of the 500 companies would have anything close.
-
Features
S&P 500 Companies Spend 95% of Profits on Buybacks, Payouts
- Thread starter ksen
- Start date
All that matters is employees would spend <100% of the extra money you gave them in your business, and <100% of what they did spend would be profit.
And even then, if they did spend 100% of the extra money on your business and 100% of it was profit (each of which individually is wildly implausible) you'd break even.
arkirk
Veteran Member
The thriving little town got converted to a bunch of shuttered business locations and a few blocks away, a new Walmart. The small operators (bookstores, clothing stores, electronics stores, drug stores, restaurants, etc.) were all gone two years after the arrival of Walmart. Their employees and owners began turning up at Walmart as greeters and cash register operators and stockers. People rail against Communism because they don't accept the mediocrity of one size fits all production, then their town leaders decide to let Walmart be the "decider" of what will be available in the town.
The problem is that there is NO WAY BACK TO A HEALTHY ECONOMY. NO WAY TO START A NEW BUSINESS IN THE FACE OF THIS SUBSIDIZED COMPEITION. In my estimation, Walmart is a commercial disease that affects many locations nationwide and impoverishes our society.
Huge corporations pretty much all use as much of the Walmart model as they can get away with, so yes, Colorado atheist is right on that score, but is it good for our society?
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
So when the consumers in the town wanted to buy things, they went to Wal-Mart instead of those other shops? So why wouldn't you say the consumers made the difference?
arkirk
Veteran Member
Unfair competition made the difference. The building of the store was subsidized with tax forgiveness by the town council. I actually appeared at hearings on their MOU and building permit and opposed the project. Unfair is unfair. I guess you don't seem to understand that. By the way, the voices of the people at the hearings almost unanimously opposed Walmart but the council went ahead and moved this thing in. Kind of an oligarchical form of Communism huh? The council was voted out in the next election, but the damage was already done.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,105
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Interesting site. I bookmarked it to take a closer look at it later.
They have that damn thing many sites are doing now where the scroll bar disappears after a second and you must re-move the pointer to the bar to bring it back. I find that extremely annoying and makes me not want to use any site that does it. Frankly, it pisses me off.
James Brown
Veteran Member
I get that, although I rarely zero in my mouse pointer onto a narrow scroll bar anymore. I typically just use the scroll wheel on my mouse, but different strokes.
But as for Loyal3, I've been investing with it for nearly a year. You can make a one-time investment or, as I do, have a set dollar amount invested on a regular basis for dollar-cost averaging. I focus on companies with a track record of increasing their dividends at a higher rate than inflation. With reinvested dividends I benefit from the magic of compounding. All for as little as a few dollars a week, commission free.
When I studied financial investments in college, before the invention of the World Wide Web, I was perturbed that brokerage commissions averaged 7% and you could only purchase shares of companies in round 100-share lots. So if you found a company you liked and the stock was just $10 a stub, your initial investment started at $1000 and the broker took $70 for his trouble. Then every three months you'd get a dividend check for less than five bucks which you could maybe use to buy a burger and coke. Not very encouraging for young, low-income investors. Today, thanks to Loyal3 and other sites, anyone can purchase shares of quality companies for free for as little as ten bucks. Truly a revolutionary marvel.
Now back to the topic.
thief of fire
Member
Probably one of the best strategies has been to borrow money, at artificially low rates, and then invest this borrowed money into companies who are also borrowing money (at artificially low rates) in order to buy their own shares.
With less shares existing in these companies it makes their earnings per share look even better too, and so they can go even higher.
Leverage on your leverage!
Who is it that tends to have access to borrowing money at these low rates? I'd say it is the wealthy not the poor (unless it is some kind of not recourse instrument, in which case the interest will be higher anyway).
With less shares existing in these companies it makes their earnings per share look even better too, and so they can go even higher.
Leverage on your leverage!
Who is it that tends to have access to borrowing money at these low rates? I'd say it is the wealthy not the poor (unless it is some kind of not recourse instrument, in which case the interest will be higher anyway).
What about cash they borrow?
You're right, no coherent explanation for that being a problem either.
It strikes me as unsustainable in the long term.
I believe you hold the same opinion, at least when it comes to sovereigns.
Well, if it can't be sustained it won't.
Debt is cheaper than equity as a source of capital up to a point. Thus having debt lowers your weighted average cost of capital up to a point. Hence most companies have a target capital structure that involves some level of debt. Let's say they feel comfortable at debt of 3X EBITDA. If EBITDA goes up, you can take on more debt. If cash flow comes in and is used to pay off debt below 3X EBITDA, you can issue more debt.
If you don't have better uses for the cash, you pay it out to equity holders.
Without some statistic showing leverage metrics are getting crazy I can't imagine why this is a problem.
Do you have any such statistics?