The argument you’re now outlining is not a subset of the arguments you previously listed (and I was referencing).
I agree buybacks create adverse incentives. As I’ve stated elsewhere in this thread, the damages of these adverse incentives are outweighed by the tax advantages buybacks have over dividends.
All of these arguments apply to dividends as well as share buybacks. And, therefore, do not support a shift back to dividends.
If you compare the dividend yield of the s&p500 from 1980 to today, it dropped by around 3%. Based on today’s market cap, that 3% equates to around $900b. In the last year, we’ve had around $700b in share buybacks for s&p 500 companies. These data suggest that the shift to buybacks did not negatively impact liquidity, r&d, or overall ability to maintain employment levels.
> How Corporations Scam Their Shareholders and Screw over Workers
I don't see how workers are getting screwed. The main charge in the article is that executives take advantage of positive signalling around share buybacks to boost share price prior to selling shares. If this claim is true, the share price should go back down once more material public information is released that suggests a lower valuation. The losers in this scenario are shareholders who purchased in the short period following the buyback. Although some workers may fall into this group, the vast majority do not.
Also, the article implies that companies should go back to issuing dividends over share buybacks. This doesn't make sense. The tax advantage nature of share buybacks far outweighs the ill-gotten gains executives reap from this strategy.
On average, share price increases ~2% following a buyback announcement. So, while execs can 'scam their shareholders' with this scheme, the loss to shareholders is nowhere near the ~10-20% benefit shareholders get by realizing gains as capital gains instead of income.
Yes, but I don't see how that applies to the subject matter at hand. There is no law that says an employer has to provide extra financial support to parents in extenuating circumstances like this.
> As a society, we decide what things are important to us and everyone gets to help support those, like it or not.
If GP doesn't care about supporting parents or future generations (and he is in a position to make this decision), it's certainly his prerogative to not do so.
We don't disagree on your point. I'm just pointing out that the degree of punishment enacted on the professor could be much less severe than most people are imagining.
I agree with you. My claim is that there's "less reason to be outraged at the Dean".
If the professor was executed for this, for most people, there's reason to go to war.
If the professor was fired, for most people, there's reason to be outraged.
If the professor was voluntarily placed on leave with pay, well, maybe you still find reason to be outraged, but less so than the aforementioned scenarios.
In any case, most people in this thread are assuming the professor was fired, and that's incorrect.
I think it's important to note that nowhere in the article (nor anywhere else I can find) does it state that the professor was "suspended". Rather, it only says that the professor will "no longer be teaching this class for the remainder of the semester".
I think this is an important distinction because it leaves the door open to the possibility that: 1) the professor voluntarily stepped down 2) the professor will return after the semester is over 3) the professor is being paid during this leave and will suffer no real professional consequences.
In other words, there's a real possibility that the Dean had the following conversation with the professor: "Hey, I know this wasn't intentional on your part, but this is quickly becoming a PR nightmare and I'd like to nip it in the bud. Would you mind stepping down from your post for just this semester until this dies down and I can get a handle on it? This will make everyone's life easier & you'll still get paid anyways."
In this light, there's less reason to be outraged at the Dean.
> The Episerver acquisition is indeed a bad exit, and I think I will lose >$100k in stock I exercised
Based on what information? So far, all that's been publicly confirmed is that the sale price was below $600M, which presumably leaves opportunity for your shares to be worth something.
> (In a May online survey drawing responses from 734 Uber and Lyft drivers nationwide, 71% said they wanted to be independent contractors)
As others are mentioning, the survey was very simplistic and most drivers don't understand the full ramifications of AB5.
That said, I still think the majority of fully-informed drivers would vote against AB5.
Enforcing AB5 will very likely result in: 1) substantial increase in benefits 2) slightly lower base pay 3) half of drivers losing their job 4) scheduled shifts.
My guess is #3 is the biggest issue for most drivers.
Ultimately, scheduling shifts is going to be both easier to manage and more cost efficient than what you're suggesting. Uber has a good idea of how many drivers they need at any given time. This ideal distribution of supply will never align perfectly with the supply pool's natural scheduling preferences. You can try to use economic incentives to force these two distributions to overlap, or you can just exert control (that you rightfully have over employees) and force your employees to work when you need them.
Drivers will still take advantage of such a system. Whenever a market is over-supplied, drivers will sign in to collect their free "on-call duty" checks for doing nothing.
Without scheduled shifts, drivers will purposefully all sign up for the same shift to induce supply overflow.
In this situation, drivers can game the flexibility of the system to collect a paycheck while sitting in their cars doing nothing.
Even if drivers don't game the system, there will always be natural imbalance between supply and demand. Surge bonuses can mitigate this imbalance, but scheduling shifts is the more economically efficient way to solve the imbalance problem (hence why they say schedule flexibility will no longer be a feature in a driver employment model).
The antibody test results for this data set don't seem representative of the population at large. Reason being, if you look at the antibody positivity rate, it consistently drops as time goes on (whereas everything I've read suggests it should increase with time as more ppl have been infected).
My guess is that at the beginning, hospitals were only testing COVID-sick patients, and as time went on testing became more widespread.
Based on the 27% statistic, 2.27M NYC residents have been infected with COVID. There are 236K confirmed COVID cases in NYC, so ~10% of total cases were confirmed.
I agree buybacks create adverse incentives. As I’ve stated elsewhere in this thread, the damages of these adverse incentives are outweighed by the tax advantages buybacks have over dividends.