Companies will invest in employees with the tax cuts
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
Comments
-
Figures lie and liars figure
Hi, hondo -
Didn't think you had an intelligent response.sarktastic said:Figures lie and liars figure
Hi, hondo -
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.
-
stats are for losers
-
Yeah, he should have called it "racist."2001400ex said:
Didn't think you had an intelligent response.sarktastic said:Figures lie and liars figure
Hi, hondo -
I agree and I really like what it does to share values.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.
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 policySoutherndawg said:
I agree and I really like what it does to share values.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.
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. -
There should be a Commission on Responsible Corporate Investment so these Corporations will be assured of Investing their profits the Right Way
-
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.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.
"noun: structural unemployment
unemployment resulting from industrial reorganization, typically due to technological change, rather than fluctuations in supply or demand." -
Brutal response, you completely destroyed his argument.MariotaTheGawd said:
Lmao and you're so much more informed on the economy and foreign policySoutherndawg said:
I agree and I really like what it does to share values.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.
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.
Have the liberals here always been this fucking lame? -
All true. These are the positive consequences of lower tax rates and deregulation.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.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.
"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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.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.
"noun: structural unemployment
unemployment resulting from industrial reorganization, typically due to technological change, rather than fluctuations in supply or demand."
-
It's Trump's fault Warren didn't buy low/sell high?!?!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
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.PurpleThrobber said:
It's Trump's fault Warren didn't buy low/sell high?!?!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
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.
-
Adjust for demographics, or don't, if you're only trying to score talking points.2001400ex said:
Wut? Labor force participation hasn't changed.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.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.
"noun: structural unemployment
unemployment resulting from industrial reorganization, typically due to technological change, rather than fluctuations in supply or demand."
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. -
You are completely missing the boat on the point of the thread. As is every other conservative here.PurpleThrobber said:
It's Trump's fault Warren didn't buy low/sell high?!?!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
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.
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.2001400ex said:
You are completely missing the boat on the point of the thread. As is every other conservative here.PurpleThrobber said:
It's Trump's fault Warren didn't buy low/sell high?!?!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
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.
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? -
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.
-
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 -
I knew you'd come back with relevant facts.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.
-
Yet after 21 months we have slower job growth than before.Pitchfork51 said: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 -
Look at labor participation (hint I posted it above). Still historical lows. A fact conservatives mentioned for years under Obama. Yet now ignore.UW_Doog_Bot said:
That we've come close to reaching full employment? Which we never did under Obama.2001400ex said:
You are completely missing the boat on the point of the thread. As is every other conservative here.PurpleThrobber said:
It's Trump's fault Warren didn't buy low/sell high?!?!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
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.
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? -
Dipshit, I responded directly to that, look at the demographics, our overall rate should be falling as our population ages, instead the loss of prime age workers is being offset by the fact that more of them are now working than they did historically. Do I need to link it for you again?2001400ex said:
Look at labor participation (hint I posted it above). Still historical lows. A fact conservatives mentioned for years under Obama. Yet now ignore.UW_Doog_Bot said:
That we've come close to reaching full employment? Which we never did under Obama.2001400ex said:
You are completely missing the boat on the point of the thread. As is every other conservative here.PurpleThrobber said:
It's Trump's fault Warren didn't buy low/sell high?!?!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
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.
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? -
The labor participation rate isn't at a historical low Hondo, liar or moron?
Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States increased to 62.90 percent in October from 62.70 percent in September of 2018. Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States averaged 62.99 percent from 1950 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 67.30 percent in January of 2000 and a record low of 58.10 percent in December of 1954. -
Did your Mom make a video when they let you “score the touchdown?”2001400ex said:
I knew you'd come back with relevant facts.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.
-
Oh so you were lying the last 8 years screaming about labor participation rates. Got it.SFGbob said:The labor participation rate isn't at a historical low Hondo, liar or moron?
Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States increased to 62.90 percent in October from 62.70 percent in September of 2018. Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States averaged 62.99 percent from 1950 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 67.30 percent in January of 2000 and a record low of 58.10 percent in December of 1954.
Not to mention anything about the shift in employment in the 70s with more dual income families. -
well, did she?
-
I've never said shit about the labor participation rate here you lying piece of crap. The point was you claimed that the labor participation rate is at an historical low today, you lied Kunt.
-
I bet if the woodshed were open. (Sorry for your 75k post loss). I'm positive we'd find plenty of zero hedge links and screaming about labor participation.SFGbob said:I've never said shit about the labor participation rate here you lying piece of crap. The point was you claimed that the labor participation rate is at an historical low today, you lied Kunt.
-
And how would that refute your lie that the labor participating rate is at a historical low today Hondo? You're such a dishonest dipshit.
For that sake of argument lets say I did talk about it. That still doesn't turn your fucking lie into the truth Hondo. The labor participation rate isn't at a historical low. You fucking lied. This is why it's such a fucking joke when you accuse anyone else of lying.
