No, what matters is how much it would cost to pay their workers more, not what profit margin they’re making. And do you honestly think their profits are lower than what they can pay their workers?
not what profit margin they’re making.
True. You said profit and I even responded profit margin, but I was still thinking you said revenue.
do you honestly think their profits are lower than what they can pay their workers?
From second hand knowledge they did pretty good this year and the first year of covid, but had rough goes in between. I don’t know if it makes up the difference or not.
Without workers there is nothing to sell, so you must pay the workers, but there is a real issue that investors will bail out if they aren’t seeing returns. That said, I have a hard time believing the federal government would ever let the big three collapse, though they have already had to bail out GM once in the last couple decades. Hopefully, it does not become a repetitive issue.
there is a real issue that investors will bail out if they aren’t seeing returns.
So we force them to cover bad bets instead of getting to walk away because they have money.
I have a hard time believing the federal government would ever let the big three collapse
So make those investors cover the loss instead of allowing them to pull out and short the shit out of the company requiring the government to infuse cash to keep them from failing.
This seems to be more getting into the issues with a stock exchange (and its rules), of which I have many. I have heard there are benefits to new companies having easier access to investors, but am not convinced that it is a good trade for the societal costs involved.
Even then, do keep in mind, when an investor divests from a company it isn’t just burning their connection to it; someone else is buying it. Usually some middle-class chump who didn’t understand the company was dying, and is indeed covering the loss by losing his retirement fund to it.
Edit: phrasing of italicized part.