3 ms·

> which you could just turn around and buy stocks with. Which just benefits the company even further? Edit: if you downvote please reply. How will I correct m

by aylmao 9y ago

> which you could just turn around and buy stocks with. Which just benefits the company even further? Edit: if you downvote please reply. How will I correct my stance if I get no feedback? I'm not sure why I'm getting down voted. Edit: Thanks for the comments. I did assume this meant Amazon stock. Didn't think my comment sounded so combative until I was told.

timdorr 9y ago
If you're buying AMZN on the market, that's coming from other investors, not the company itself. It's already sold that stock (the IPO was back in 96) and benefited directly from it at that time.
- greedo 9y ago
  Well, increased buying of AMZN would drive the price higher, and ostensibly, this percolates up to Amazon and it's employees.
- aylmao 9y ago
  Not trying to be combative! Just providing a counter argument. Although it doesn't directly and immediately benefit a company, doesn't having lots of buy interest keep the stock price high, which _is_ beneficial for the company in general?
  - timdorr 9y ago
    Yep, you're totally right. I was only distinguishing on direct benefits (cash flow). There are certainly many more indirect benefits to performing well on the stock market.
schwarzmx 9y ago
They didn't say to buy Amazon stocks.
mistersquid 9y ago
I did not downvote you, but I will speculate that the single question does present as somewhat confrontational and, depending on mood, might have been interpreted as combative. If I understand your meaning and if your post's "confrontational" mood is/was the issue, you might have cast your post declaratively instead of interrogatively. For example, > Using compensation to buy stocks would benefit the company even further even though the company may unfairly exploit its employees. This would run counter to the employee's own interests. Or something along those lines. Recasting questions as statements sometimes reduces the rhetorical signals which can be interpreted confrontation. EDIT: Remove double quotes; add emphasis. Clarify last sentence. Use past perfect in first sentence. Recast second sentence.

by aylmao 9y ago

timdorr 9y ago

If you're buying AMZN on the market, that's coming from other investors, not the company itself. It's already sold that stock (the IPO was back in 96) and benefited directly from it at that time.

greedo 9y ago
Well, increased buying of AMZN would drive the price higher, and ostensibly, this percolates up to Amazon and it's employees.
aylmao 9y ago
Not trying to be combative! Just providing a counter argument. Although it doesn't directly and immediately benefit a company, doesn't having lots of buy interest keep the stock price high, which _is_ beneficial for the company in general?
- timdorr 9y ago
  Yep, you're totally right. I was only distinguishing on direct benefits (cash flow). There are certainly many more indirect benefits to performing well on the stock market.

schwarzmx 9y ago

They didn't say to buy Amazon stocks.

mistersquid 9y ago

I did not downvote you, but I will speculate that the single question does present as somewhat confrontational and, depending on mood, might have been interpreted as combative. If I understand your meaning and if your post's "confrontational" mood is/was the issue, you might have cast your post declaratively instead of interrogatively. For example, > Using compensation to buy stocks would benefit the company even further even though the company may unfairly exploit its employees. This would run counter to the employee's own interests. Or something along those lines. Recasting questions as statements sometimes reduces the rhetorical signals which can be interpreted confrontation. EDIT: Remove double quotes; add emphasis. Clarify last sentence. Use past perfect in first sentence. Recast second sentence.