4 ms·

So, the number of employees get's less every year[1] but the market value rises every year[2]. I'm wondering if the wealth distribution, or whatever you all it,

by buster 9y ago

So, the number of employees get's less every year[1] but the market value rises every year[2]. I'm wondering if the wealth distribution, or whatever you all it, is working right, here.. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268992/change-in-employment-figures-from-boeing/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/268992/change-in-employm... [2] https://www.google.com/finance?q=Boeing&ei=uQf3WOngDM7GsAGJ9Li4Aw https://www.google.com/finance?q=Boeing&ei=uQf3WOngDM7GsAGJ9...

csomar 9y ago
So many things wrong in this comment: 1. The shareholders own the stock. Not the employees. (though the employees can be shareholders). So the metric you are looking at, is the number of shareholders and distribution of the stock in the hands of these shareholders. 2. The Market Cap is a useless metric unless you specify the volatility of the stock. If your stock can depreciate 30% intra-day, then a 50% increase is not really a wealth appreciation unless you realise it (sell the stock). But, whoops, then you are no longer a shareholder.
Ntrails 9y ago
I'm not sure why you're conflating share price and number of employees with wealth distribution? (not to mention it looks from a casual glance as though it's been largely flat 2014-2017) In many ways you'd expect a company that dropped a lot of employees to improve it's profitability due to reducing costs, and if it's more profitable it ought to be worth more right? Obviously it's a trade off, ie no R&D means no new products means it's going to run out of things to sell eventually and that should reduce expected future cashflows and thus value etc etc.
- buster 9y ago
  Yes, just a casual glance. I usually don't really care about that. But from my point of view the share price says over a long period of time "this company is doing fine". The share price has been on a rise since many years. So, when the company is doing "fine" according to market (and everyone who did nothing except buying stocks wins money!), how is it that the employees get screwed? That's how the market works, yes. But i don't have to be ok with it. Actually, all that stock exchange, share price, money-believing, self-regulating capitalism bullsh*t is just fundamentally screwed, in my opinion.
  - arcbyte 9y ago
    People got laid off, the stock price when up, and that combination makes you angry?
    - jondubois 9y ago
      Unless you're a wealthy shareholder or a masochist, then yes you should be angry about that because you're next.
      - arcbyte 9y ago
        I was hoping to get the poster to expand on his reply to the other poster's perfectly logical comment: > In many ways you'd expect a company that dropped a lot of employees to improve it's profitability due to reducing costs, and if it's more profitable it ought to be worth more right? Obviously it's a trade off, ie no R&D means no new products means it's going to run out of things to sell eventually and that should reduce expected future cashflows and thus value etc etc. If he wanted to talk about long term downtrends in Boeing's R&D or other areas that the market should know will impact its future performance I would enjoy hearing about that. If this is just capitalism bashing with nothing new to offer, I'm not interested.
  - Ntrails 9y ago
    > So, when the company is doing "fine" according to market (and everyone who did nothing except buying stocks wins money!), how is it that the employees get screwed? You mean that the people who paid for the company to produce widgets profit when the widgets are profitable? Not the people who designed the widgets? Thing is, if the widgets fail and the company goes bust the shareholders lose their investment. If it does well, they'll make money. They aren't "doing nothing except buying stocks" - they're risking their investment. If the company was funded by debt instead of shares, then the debt would be paid down at a fixed rate and then profits would go to the private owner. So even without "the market" the employees don't profit by design unless the company chooses that as an incentive system. If, however, the company was owned by the workers then they would indeed profit from the widgets and suffer from the failure. Such companies do in fact exist. But they will still lay off staff when it's sensible to do so, and that may well increase profits which are distributed amongst those remaining.
- linkmotif 9y ago
  Probably because rich people own stock and engineers draw upper-middle class salaries. When rich people can get richer while paying fewer people upper-middle class salaries, you get growing wealth inequality.

by buster 9y ago

csomar 9y ago

So many things wrong in this comment: 1. The shareholders own the stock. Not the employees. (though the employees can be shareholders). So the metric you are looking at, is the number of shareholders and distribution of the stock in the hands of these shareholders. 2. The Market Cap is a useless metric unless you specify the volatility of the stock. If your stock can depreciate 30% intra-day, then a 50% increase is not really a wealth appreciation unless you realise it (sell the stock). But, whoops, then you are no longer a shareholder.

Ntrails 9y ago

I'm not sure why you're conflating share price and number of employees with wealth distribution? (not to mention it looks from a casual glance as though it's been largely flat 2014-2017) In many ways you'd expect a company that dropped a lot of employees to improve it's profitability due to reducing costs, and if it's more profitable it ought to be worth more right? Obviously it's a trade off, ie no R&D means no new products means it's going to run out of things to sell eventually and that should reduce expected future cashflows and thus value etc etc.

buster 9y ago
Yes, just a casual glance. I usually don't really care about that. But from my point of view the share price says over a long period of time "this company is doing fine". The share price has been on a rise since many years. So, when the company is doing "fine" according to market (and everyone who did nothing except buying stocks wins money!), how is it that the employees get screwed? That's how the market works, yes. But i don't have to be ok with it. Actually, all that stock exchange, share price, money-believing, self-regulating capitalism bullsh*t is just fundamentally screwed, in my opinion.
- arcbyte 9y ago
  People got laid off, the stock price when up, and that combination makes you angry?
  - jondubois 9y ago
    Unless you're a wealthy shareholder or a masochist, then yes you should be angry about that because you're next.
    - arcbyte 9y ago
      I was hoping to get the poster to expand on his reply to the other poster's perfectly logical comment: > In many ways you'd expect a company that dropped a lot of employees to improve it's profitability due to reducing costs, and if it's more profitable it ought to be worth more right? Obviously it's a trade off, ie no R&D means no new products means it's going to run out of things to sell eventually and that should reduce expected future cashflows and thus value etc etc. If he wanted to talk about long term downtrends in Boeing's R&D or other areas that the market should know will impact its future performance I would enjoy hearing about that. If this is just capitalism bashing with nothing new to offer, I'm not interested.
- Ntrails 9y ago
  > So, when the company is doing "fine" according to market (and everyone who did nothing except buying stocks wins money!), how is it that the employees get screwed? You mean that the people who paid for the company to produce widgets profit when the widgets are profitable? Not the people who designed the widgets? Thing is, if the widgets fail and the company goes bust the shareholders lose their investment. If it does well, they'll make money. They aren't "doing nothing except buying stocks" - they're risking their investment. If the company was funded by debt instead of shares, then the debt would be paid down at a fixed rate and then profits would go to the private owner. So even without "the market" the employees don't profit by design unless the company chooses that as an incentive system. If, however, the company was owned by the workers then they would indeed profit from the widgets and suffer from the failure. Such companies do in fact exist. But they will still lay off staff when it's sensible to do so, and that may well increase profits which are distributed amongst those remaining.
linkmotif 9y ago
Probably because rich people own stock and engineers draw upper-middle class salaries. When rich people can get richer while paying fewer people upper-middle class salaries, you get growing wealth inequality.