4 ms·

The reason the press is so obsessed with stock buybacks is because the press loves talking about how much the middle class is getting "screwed" by big corporati

The reason the press is so obsessed with stock buybacks is because the press loves talking about how much the middle class is getting "screwed" by big corporations, no matter how benign the issue at hand is. If you make a lot of money, you probably did/are doing something shady. It's part of the reason why the press has gotten so focused Silicon Valley and "tech bros". The media has a narrative and will promote anything that confirms that narrative, and will ignore anything that doesn't.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
koboll 8y ago
Real wages have been stagnant for decades, while corporate profits have skyrocketed. So I'd say an obsession on the middle class getting screwed is not exactly misplaced.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  I can have my tin foil and wear it too: both the stagnation of wages and the mis-placement of anger over the stagnation of wages are bad for the middle class and good for the corporate overlords.
- refurb 8y ago
  Real wages may have stagnated, but overall compensation hasn’t. https://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/29/-wage-stagnationcommentary.html https://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/29/-wage-stagnationcommentary.h...
  - freehunter 8y ago
    There are a lot of instances of "technically true, but wildly missing the point" in that article. A washing machine is cheaper today than it was in 1959 because in 1959 automatic electric washing machines were brand new on the market. Same thing with televisions: it's hard to argue TVs were ubiquitous in 1959 compared to today. It's not a very valid comparison to say that something that was cutting edge technology in 1959 is cheaper now than it was 60 years ago. And more benefits going to health care and daycare merely reflects the astronomical increases in the cost of health care and daycare. That's the entire argument over "real wages": costs have gone up more than or on par with people's ability to pay them. But I wasn't surprised when I got to the bottom and found it was written by someone from the Johnson Center at Troy University, which is backed by the far right-wing Koch Foundation, so much that two years after this CNBC article was written, Troy University put out a statement saying they were going to stop getting involved in politics: https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/07/troys_johnson_center_steers_aw.html https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/07/troys_johnson_cent... This CNBC article is a submarine from the very people who created this economic model. Of course they're going to try to put a positive spin on it... because washing machines are cheaper now than they were in 1959! Proof that the average American worker is doing just fine.
    - hueving 8y ago
      >It's not a very valid comparison to say that something that was cutting edge technology in 1959 is cheaper now than it was 60 years ago Of course it's valid in the context of comparing how workers are doing today vs 60 years ago. The salaries today are buying the same perks.
      - freehunter 8y ago
        It'd be valid if washing machines and televisions were the only things workers today need. Back then they were luxuries, today they're standard issue and we have a whole host of new things that need to be bought. You didn't need an Internet connection, a computer, or a cell phone back then. But none of that matters, it's a ridiculous argument to say that a washing machine is indicative of real wage growth. What really matters isn't "how much does a washing machine cost", it's "does your salary keep up with inflation" and the answer is no: https://www.glassdoor.com/research/are-wages-keeping-up-with-inflation/ https://www.glassdoor.com/research/are-wages-keeping-up-with...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

koboll 8y ago

Real wages have been stagnant for decades, while corporate profits have skyrocketed. So I'd say an obsession on the middle class getting screwed is not exactly misplaced.

whatshisface 8y ago
I can have my tin foil and wear it too: both the stagnation of wages and the mis-placement of anger over the stagnation of wages are bad for the middle class and good for the corporate overlords.
refurb 8y ago
Real wages may have stagnated, but overall compensation hasn’t. https://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/29/-wage-stagnationcommentary.html https://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/29/-wage-stagnationcommentary.h...
- freehunter 8y ago
  There are a lot of instances of "technically true, but wildly missing the point" in that article. A washing machine is cheaper today than it was in 1959 because in 1959 automatic electric washing machines were brand new on the market. Same thing with televisions: it's hard to argue TVs were ubiquitous in 1959 compared to today. It's not a very valid comparison to say that something that was cutting edge technology in 1959 is cheaper now than it was 60 years ago. And more benefits going to health care and daycare merely reflects the astronomical increases in the cost of health care and daycare. That's the entire argument over "real wages": costs have gone up more than or on par with people's ability to pay them. But I wasn't surprised when I got to the bottom and found it was written by someone from the Johnson Center at Troy University, which is backed by the far right-wing Koch Foundation, so much that two years after this CNBC article was written, Troy University put out a statement saying they were going to stop getting involved in politics: https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/07/troys_johnson_center_steers_aw.html https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/07/troys_johnson_cent... This CNBC article is a submarine from the very people who created this economic model. Of course they're going to try to put a positive spin on it... because washing machines are cheaper now than they were in 1959! Proof that the average American worker is doing just fine.
  - hueving 8y ago
    >It's not a very valid comparison to say that something that was cutting edge technology in 1959 is cheaper now than it was 60 years ago Of course it's valid in the context of comparing how workers are doing today vs 60 years ago. The salaries today are buying the same perks.
    - freehunter 8y ago
      It'd be valid if washing machines and televisions were the only things workers today need. Back then they were luxuries, today they're standard issue and we have a whole host of new things that need to be bought. You didn't need an Internet connection, a computer, or a cell phone back then. But none of that matters, it's a ridiculous argument to say that a washing machine is indicative of real wage growth. What really matters isn't "how much does a washing machine cost", it's "does your salary keep up with inflation" and the answer is no: https://www.glassdoor.com/research/are-wages-keeping-up-with-inflation/ https://www.glassdoor.com/research/are-wages-keeping-up-with...