Now that you link stock buybavks to growing salaries, I cannot ignore it anymore.
Stock buybacks only benefit shareholders and companies, not the economie. Trickle down and all that doesn't work, stock buybacks reduce a companies tax burden, especially when leveraged which they often are, do not lead to more investment. And they make the rich even richer.
If I get RSUs quarterly and my company additionally buys back 10% of stock. My post vest RSUs should also be worth 10% more. This is effectively a bonus and my tax obligation would be lower than cash.
In theory (and sometimes/often in reality) it results in more effective allocation of capital. It's not about "trickle down "econonomics"" but about those investors using that money to invest into more productive businesses.
> And salaries rise, primarily, through labour organization and collective bargaining.
No. Supply and demand is and pretty much always was a much stronger force.
Stock buybacks are not “trickle down” economics. It’s returning money to investors who then have to rebalance their portfolios and find something new to invest in. This is what is good for the economy.
I believe the parent commenter's point was exactly this. Giving money to the investor class and expecting it to benefit everyone is the definition of trickle-down economics.
The comparison is leaving it with the company and hoping something good comes out of it. That’s also trickle down economics by that moronic definition.
