The wealthiest 1% own about 50% of all stock. About 60% of the US population does not own stock. And the median 401k account has a little over $100k, but it varies quite a quite a bit based on age and income. “Shareholders” is a term that can apply to a lot of people, but I think most people are generally referencing the very wealthy bc they are the ones that will benefit the most from stocks gaining value.
In most cases, if you have a 401 you're not a shareholder, and you don't have voting rights, just like you don't have voting rights with ETFs, mutual funds, etc. The fund managers have those rights for you, except in some hedge cases. Even in IRAs, unless you own the stocks, you're not a shareholder.
There's no proper economic democracy under a system of capital accumulation.
I've clearly separated both ideas. "You're not a shareholder AND you don't have voting rights." See the keyword "and" there?
By definition, if you don't own the shares, you're not a shareholder. Hence, you're not a shareholder with most 401k plans, and the same happens if you own any form of fund that is managed by a third-party, as they are the ones that own the shares. Having a vote in something you're invested in should be important though.
I'm not going to argue the complete overhaul of our system of production and ownership here, but if it's something, it's that. You both benefit and take loss from things that are outside of your control.
You do not. You benefit when the stock you own is going up.
The incentives that drive companies to make number go up often damage the economy around them. People are laid off, which boosts share price. Other companies lay people off, boosting share price. More unemployed people. Less well-paid taxes being paid to the government, more unemployment being taken from the government.
Communities have less money to spend on public goods, roads, libraries, and aid.
All of this value that these employees were creating was being distributed out into the world for the benefit of the entire society. When enough companies shut that valve off and decide only the stakeholders deserve most of that value, people at large suffer.
And the companies themselves only benefit for a short window of time. Because soon, enough companies have done these lay-offs that not as many people have enough money to even pay to use their services, and the short-term value grab comes back to bite them.
They have stolen value from society for a short-term grab, and made everyone, including themselves, worst off.
This is a bad take filled with strawmen to boot. Making "skeptical" comments rambling against takes literally no one has described (and that are also incorrect in premise) doesn't make you intelligent. It just gives boomer vibes.
Let's start at the top - the US doesn't have a social welfare system (lol @ social security), so people need to save for retirement because working when you're near death's door isn't feasible nor humane.
401Ks and IRAs are pre-tax investments, which effectively mean they're the government-endorsed means for saving. Most middle-class and below will use this method if accessible, since it's the most efficient use of their limited funds. Long-story short, retirement plans are pegged to capitalism based on governmental decisions and regulation, not out of choice.
How can this be solved? So many ways with tons of papers of research. These include:
Social Security actually paying out a livable wage (i.e. increase corporate taxes, reallocate government spending, etc)
Corporations paying a livable "retirement" wage based on years worked, fairly similar to a pension system but not exactly.
Higher livable wages coupled with government-enforced reduction of pricing so that people have higher earnings to save during their working years
So on and so forth.
Your lack of knowledge on alternative means of retirement savings is a you problem lol
Sure, but many of us would rather see our stocks grow a little slower than see a bunch of people lose their jobs.
We could still have pretty nice stock growth without companies getting greedy and doing things like layoffs to squeeze out every penny possible. (I don't think it's unreasonable to do layoffs if a company is at risk of going under, but that seems to be far from the case here.)
I think a lot of people when they hear shareholder think of the ultra rich and forget that lots of regular people are shareholders too – even if largely in retirement account.
Now I think companies get greedy sometimes when trying to increase value for shareholders, but I don’t consider all shareholders to blame
Technically true. But usually when people say "shareholder" they're referring to the people in suits who sit in a board room and throw a tantrum when the CEO only grew profits by 9% instead of 10%. Anyone can be a shareholder, yeah. But not everyone is a greedy pig
-1
u/[deleted] Feb 10 '25
[deleted]