Upon being hired, before a company has gone public, one can be given x amount of stock “options”. There are various rules of how and when one can cash those in, once the company goes public, assuming the stock does well.
Sorry, that was 2 sentences…does that work for you?
Ok now we are getting somewhere. I understand all that you have written, actually experienced something similar myself , however; you still have not explained exactly what a stock option is.
I am not trying to be difficult, honestly but you are throwing around the term “ stock options “ as though it is like some prize or a new car or something and am just wondering what your understanding of a “stock option “ is?
I worked for a company that did exactly that. There were several thousand employees. I wasn’t a key person, just another person in IT. I was pretty high up in the food chain, but my shares were minimal. There were likely a great many who didn’t get anything. Over the years, as company stock plummeted, they became worthless.
Eventually the company was absorbed by a major financial institution. I could have converted the stock, but the remaining couple of hundred dollars value just wasn’t worth my effort.
Stock options can only be before a company goes public?
Your idea won’t work. (no surprise)
Given that US Steel, GM, Kellogg’s etc. have been in business over 100 years. it is implausible for a company to give away even 1% of its stock to workers each year. (What would today’s workers get ? Yesteryear’s workers already own 100% of the company?
I’ve got a better idea.
Let’s get rid of our communist-based social security system
and let each worker own his own retirement account.
He can
See? Problem solved.
No. Any company that has stock can offer them.
Ambush springer
Well that covers 18% of all employees in the USA.
Except that many of those companies are old. come over 100 years old. If they gave out even 1% of their stock each year well . . . they’d have to stop by now. and then the thing that benefited 18% of workers won’t even benefit 18% anymore.
We need a differnt method.
My sincere apologies.
You are posting it but Obama was government. You are posting a failure by the government to help the bottom 50 percent hold more assets.
This was, umm approximately during the time of bailout mania. right?
That sudden big drop,
it looks a little like during bailout mania, the government transferred a bunch of assets from the lower-half to the upper-half.
Somehow I don’t see that as a “failure to prevent.”
It’s more like, “The government did it, and now the government, and its obedient servants, blame someone else.”
I’m confused as to what you are trying to show.
Total wealth of the bottom 50% has almost tripled over the last 30 years. As a percentage of total wealth, the percentage has decreased from 3.5% in 1989 to 2.8% today.
I personally find wealth (total assets minus dept) a better measure of one’s financial health than total assets.
Total wealth vs distribution.
Picture:
One would hope that as the US economy grows 5%,
wealth and income of the lower half would also grow 5%.
It has not.
Instead, as the economy grows 5%, wealth and income of the lower half grows, but by less than 5%.
Why is that important?
Also, it is important to remember that the upper and lower half is fluid. Many of those in the lower half 30 years ago are likely now in the upper half. Those just entering the workforce today would start in the lower half on their journey throughout life. As they too accumulate wealth, many of those will also find their way into the upper half.
I see good news here. The economy is growing, and everyone is reaping the benefits of that growth. Yes, some are benefitting more than others. But how much of that is due to upward mobility?
In response to your image question.
Let’s say this is a mailroom clerk. Company A has no hand truck and company B does.
The mailroom clerk is obviously more productive in company B. That speaks more about the efficiency of company B than it does about the mailroom clerk. If company B were to triple the mailroom clerk’s salary, the mailroom clerk would never be able to find another company willing to pay that kind of inflated salary.
Your forgetting about who designed, built, produced, etc., the hand truck
This idea @Guilds has that the salary of CEO’s are bankrupting workers is utter ■■■■■■■■■ If we took ALL the salaries of the top executives at Walmart for example and distributed that money equally to ALL the rest of the Walmart employees, guess how much mor they would all get per year?
