Companies will invest in employees with the tax cuts

2001400ex

Also, fun fact of the day. Employment grew more the last 21 months of Obama than the first 21 months of Trump.

It is the first time Berkshire has bought back stock since 2012. The decision, announced in a quarterly filing Saturday, illustrates the scarcity of attractively priced projects and deals that can satiate yield-hungry investors and firms more than nine years into a bull market.

A legendary value investor best known for striking deals when prices are low, Mr. Buffett has struggled to find large investments that aren’t overvalued. Berkshire hasn’t made a major acquisition since it bought Precision Castparts Corp. for about $32 billion in 2016.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/warren-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-repurchases-more-than-900-million-of-stock-1541248428

sarktastic

Figures lie and liars figure

Hi, hondo

2001400ex

sarktastic said:

Figures lie and liars figure

Hi, hondo

Didn't think you had an intelligent response.

greenblood

Unemployment is never getting much below 3%. These 3% of Americans are unemployable.

Who gives a fuck if these companies buy back stock? It’s their money. This brings us back to the 3%. If 3% of Americans can’t even hold a broom, how can these companies invest in bigger workforces? What else are they going to spend their money on? Before you say, they should raise wages let me ask you this. Why would companies raise wages if competitors aren’t? Unless they can take quality workers from other conpanies, higher wages provide nothing for the company.

SarkFanSixtyNine

stats are for losers

SFGbob

2001400ex said:

sarktastic said:

Figures lie and liars figure

Hi, hondo

Didn't think you had an intelligent response.

Yeah, he should have called it "racist."

Southerndawg

greenblood said:

Unemployment is never getting much below 3%. These 3% of Americans are unemployable.

Who gives a fuck if these companies buy back stock? It’s their money. This brings us back to the 3%. If 3% of Americans can’t even hold a broom, how can these companies invest in bigger workforces? What else are they going to spend their money on? Before you say, they should raise wages let me ask you this. Why would companies raise wages if competitors aren’t? Unless they can take quality workers from other conpanies, higher wages provide nothing for the company.

I agree and I really like what it does to share values.

Obama reads a mean teleprompter, an important skill to the uninformed, but he was a shitty president on so many levels, particularly on the economy and foreign policy. Most anemic "recovery" from a recession in 80 years and he managed to completely destabilize the middle east while nuclearizing Iran. Thanks Obama. Add to that, less than 1% growth near the end of his term. I like the "new new norm" a lot better. Sanctions on Iran, more job openings than unemployed and "impossible" growth rates.

MariotaTheGawd

Southerndawg said:

greenblood said:

Unemployment is never getting much below 3%. These 3% of Americans are unemployable.

Who gives a fuck if these companies buy back stock? It’s their money. This brings us back to the 3%. If 3% of Americans can’t even hold a broom, how can these companies invest in bigger workforces? What else are they going to spend their money on? Before you say, they should raise wages let me ask you this. Why would companies raise wages if competitors aren’t? Unless they can take quality workers from other conpanies, higher wages provide nothing for the company.

I agree and I really like what it does to share values.

Obama reads a mean teleprompter, an important skill to the uninformed, but he was a shitty president on so many levels, particularly on the economy and foreign policy. Most anemic "recovery" from a recession in 80 years and he managed to completely destabilize the middle east while nuclearizing Iran. Thanks Obama. Add to that, less than 1% growth near the end of his term. I like the "new new norm" a lot better. Sanctions on Iran, more job openings than unemployed and "impossible" growth rates.

Lmao and you're so much more informed on the economy and foreign policy

sarktastic

There should be a Commission on Responsible Corporate Investment so these Corporations will be assured of Investing their profits the Right Way

UW_Doog_Bot

greenblood said:

Unemployment is never getting much below 3%. These 3% of Americans are unemployable.

Who gives a fuck if these companies buy back stock? It’s their money. This brings us back to the 3%. If 3% of Americans can’t even hold a broom, how can these companies invest in bigger workforces? What else are they going to spend their money on? Before you say, they should raise wages let me ask you this. Why would companies raise wages if competitors aren’t? Unless they can take quality workers from other conpanies, higher wages provide nothing for the company.

It's not that 3% are unemployable it's that 3% is essentially "structural" unemployment and we are considered at "full employment". Of course we add fewer jobs when we are essentially at full employment. What's been amazing about Trump is the number of people who weren't counted(under Obama) that have returned to the workforce though.

"noun: structural unemployment
unemployment resulting from industrial reorganization, typically due to technological change, rather than fluctuations in supply or demand."

SFGbob

MariotaTheGawd said:

Southerndawg said:

greenblood said:

Unemployment is never getting much below 3%. These 3% of Americans are unemployable.

Who gives a fuck if these companies buy back stock? It’s their money. This brings us back to the 3%. If 3% of Americans can’t even hold a broom, how can these companies invest in bigger workforces? What else are they going to spend their money on? Before you say, they should raise wages let me ask you this. Why would companies raise wages if competitors aren’t? Unless they can take quality workers from other conpanies, higher wages provide nothing for the company.

I agree and I really like what it does to share values.

Obama reads a mean teleprompter, an important skill to the uninformed, but he was a shitty president on so many levels, particularly on the economy and foreign policy. Most anemic "recovery" from a recession in 80 years and he managed to completely destabilize the middle east while nuclearizing Iran. Thanks Obama. Add to that, less than 1% growth near the end of his term. I like the "new new norm" a lot better. Sanctions on Iran, more job openings than unemployed and "impossible" growth rates.

Lmao and you're so much more informed on the economy and foreign policy

Brutal response, you completely destroyed his argument.

Have the liberals here always been this fucking lame?

Southerndawg

UW_Doog_Bot said:

greenblood said:

Unemployment is never getting much below 3%. These 3% of Americans are unemployable.

Who gives a fuck if these companies buy back stock? It’s their money. This brings us back to the 3%. If 3% of Americans can’t even hold a broom, how can these companies invest in bigger workforces? What else are they going to spend their money on? Before you say, they should raise wages let me ask you this. Why would companies raise wages if competitors aren’t? Unless they can take quality workers from other conpanies, higher wages provide nothing for the company.

It's not that 3% are unemployable it's that 3% is essentially "structural" unemployment and we are considered at "full employment". Of course we add fewer jobs when we are essentially at full employment. What's been amazing about Trump is the number of people who weren't counted(under Obama) that have returned to the workforce though.

"noun: structural unemployment
unemployment resulting from industrial reorganization, typically due to technological change, rather than fluctuations in supply or demand."

All true. These are the positive consequences of lower tax rates and deregulation.

2001400ex

UW_Doog_Bot said:

greenblood said:

Unemployment is never getting much below 3%. These 3% of Americans are unemployable.

Who gives a fuck if these companies buy back stock? It’s their money. This brings us back to the 3%. If 3% of Americans can’t even hold a broom, how can these companies invest in bigger workforces? What else are they going to spend their money on? Before you say, they should raise wages let me ask you this. Why would companies raise wages if competitors aren’t? Unless they can take quality workers from other conpanies, higher wages provide nothing for the company.

It's not that 3% are unemployable it's that 3% is essentially "structural" unemployment and we are considered at "full employment". Of course we add fewer jobs when we are essentially at full employment. What's been amazing about Trump is the number of people who weren't counted(under Obama) that have returned to the workforce though.

"noun: structural unemployment
unemployment resulting from industrial reorganization, typically due to technological change, rather than fluctuations in supply or demand."

Wut? Labor force participation hasn't changed.

PurpleThrobber

2001400ex said:

Also, fun fact of the day. Employment grew more the last 21 months of Obama than the first 21 months of Trump.

It is the first time Berkshire has bought back stock since 2012. The decision, announced in a quarterly filing Saturday, illustrates the scarcity of attractively priced projects and deals that can satiate yield-hungry investors and firms more than nine years into a bull market.

A legendary value investor best known for striking deals when prices are low, Mr. Buffett has struggled to find large investments that aren’t overvalued. Berkshire hasn’t made a major acquisition since it bought Precision Castparts Corp. for about $32 billion in 2016.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/warren-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-repurchases-more-than-900-million-of-stock-1541248428

It's Trump's fault Warren didn't buy low/sell high?!?!

Also seems to me that a stock buyback is good for the shareholders and raises the value of their shares instead of the company sitting on a boatload of cash.

Southerndawg

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

Also, fun fact of the day. Employment grew more the last 21 months of Obama than the first 21 months of Trump.

It is the first time Berkshire has bought back stock since 2012. The decision, announced in a quarterly filing Saturday, illustrates the scarcity of attractively priced projects and deals that can satiate yield-hungry investors and firms more than nine years into a bull market.

A legendary value investor best known for striking deals when prices are low, Mr. Buffett has struggled to find large investments that aren’t overvalued. Berkshire hasn’t made a major acquisition since it bought Precision Castparts Corp. for about $32 billion in 2016.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/warren-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-repurchases-more-than-900-million-of-stock-1541248428

It's Trump's fault Warren didn't buy low/sell high?!?!

Also seems to me that a stock buyback is good for the shareholders and raises the value of their shares instead of the company sitting on a boatload of cash.

Exactly.

UW_Doog_Bot

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

greenblood said:

Unemployment is never getting much below 3%. These 3% of Americans are unemployable.

Who gives a fuck if these companies buy back stock? It’s their money. This brings us back to the 3%. If 3% of Americans can’t even hold a broom, how can these companies invest in bigger workforces? What else are they going to spend their money on? Before you say, they should raise wages let me ask you this. Why would companies raise wages if competitors aren’t? Unless they can take quality workers from other conpanies, higher wages provide nothing for the company.

It's not that 3% are unemployable it's that 3% is essentially "structural" unemployment and we are considered at "full employment". Of course we add fewer jobs when we are essentially at full employment. What's been amazing about Trump is the number of people who weren't counted(under Obama) that have returned to the workforce though.

"noun: structural unemployment
unemployment resulting from industrial reorganization, typically due to technological change, rather than fluctuations in supply or demand."

Wut? Labor force participation hasn't changed.

Adjust for demographics, or don't, if you're only trying to score talking points.

https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-06/participation-rate-emerges-as-fed-s-big-job-market-mystery

TLDR our labor participation rate should be going down with all the boomers retiring but instead it's stable because of all the people being added back into the workforce.

2001400ex

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

Also, fun fact of the day. Employment grew more the last 21 months of Obama than the first 21 months of Trump.

It is the first time Berkshire has bought back stock since 2012. The decision, announced in a quarterly filing Saturday, illustrates the scarcity of attractively priced projects and deals that can satiate yield-hungry investors and firms more than nine years into a bull market.

A legendary value investor best known for striking deals when prices are low, Mr. Buffett has struggled to find large investments that aren’t overvalued. Berkshire hasn’t made a major acquisition since it bought Precision Castparts Corp. for about $32 billion in 2016.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/warren-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-repurchases-more-than-900-million-of-stock-1541248428

It's Trump's fault Warren didn't buy low/sell high?!?!

Also seems to me that a stock buyback is good for the shareholders and raises the value of their shares instead of the company sitting on a boatload of cash.

You are completely missing the boat on the point of the thread. As is every other conservative here.

On tax cuts, Republicans said: will increase job as companies will use the money to invest in businesses and employ people.

Democrats said: businesses are already flush with cash. All they will do is buy back stock, which enriches the wealthy and does very little for the middle class.

Guess who was right?

Not to mention that job growth is slower the last 21 months than the last 21 months of Obama. What does that fact mean?

UW_Doog_Bot

2001400ex said:

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

Also, fun fact of the day. Employment grew more the last 21 months of Obama than the first 21 months of Trump.

It is the first time Berkshire has bought back stock since 2012. The decision, announced in a quarterly filing Saturday, illustrates the scarcity of attractively priced projects and deals that can satiate yield-hungry investors and firms more than nine years into a bull market.

A legendary value investor best known for striking deals when prices are low, Mr. Buffett has struggled to find large investments that aren’t overvalued. Berkshire hasn’t made a major acquisition since it bought Precision Castparts Corp. for about $32 billion in 2016.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/warren-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-repurchases-more-than-900-million-of-stock-1541248428

It's Trump's fault Warren didn't buy low/sell high?!?!

Also seems to me that a stock buyback is good for the shareholders and raises the value of their shares instead of the company sitting on a boatload of cash.

You are completely missing the boat on the point of the thread. As is every other conservative here.

On tax cuts, Republicans said: will increase job as companies will use the money to invest in businesses and employ people.

Democrats said: businesses are already flush with cash. All they will do is buy back stock, which enriches the wealthy and does very little for the middle class.

Guess who was right?

Not to mention that job growth is slower the last 21 months than the last 21 months of Obama. What does that fact mean?

That we've come close to reaching full employment? Which we never did under Obama.

sarktastic

Thank you, hondo for pointing out the Democrats are either too stupid to tie their own shoes, bald face liars and/or a combo of both.

Pitchfork51

No one loves hurting businesses like the dems

Putting stupid regulations in place that hardly affect major corporations but jam up small and medium businesses is all they do.

Pandering to their shitty poor base by screwing over local businesses in the name of "stopping corporate malprwctice' is the move

2001400ex

sarktastic said:

Thank you, hondo for pointing out the Democrats are either too stupid to tie their own shoes, bald face liars and/or a combo of both.

I knew you'd come back with relevant facts.