Technically, they could, but they shouldn't. Corporations are designed to distribute profits to their owners. Prior to 2 months ago, we'd have railed on companies if they were sitting on that much cash doing nothing with just for a random scenario where they have 0 customers. People would have had pitchforks if airlines were sitting on $60B in cash and would be demanding they lower prices or raise wages or whatever else - any of which would have made the current situation even worse. Corporations in general are designed to spend their money on growth or distribute it back to shareholders.
Apple has been sitting on billions in cash and I don't remember too many people railing on them. It used to be that companies would put some of that extra money back into the workforce by expanding benefits, raising wages, training, etc. It's sad to see what it's come to now especially with the lack of union representation for most Americans. It's all about the stock prices and pleasing the shareholders.
Apple is not asking for hand-outs from the government to save them. Apple actually pays their Employees pretty well and have great benefits. Peoples problem with Apple is its secrecy, which is its right.
Some people do have issues with Apple, but their general ridiculous success and the idea that they could use it for a major acquisition or expansion has made them immune to some degree. There was talk about them acquiring things like Netflix and Tesla at various points, so people associate the cash with a purpose rather than just for rainy day (or 6 months). But in terms of wages - sure, all these companies could have expanded wages and benefits. But that would make today's crisis even worse - they'd still have no money, but they'd have even higher on-going expenses. If they had no better use of the money, sure. Dividends are a more common way to do it, but stock buybacks have the same general impact. Theoretically, the companies who did buybacks are in better shape than those who paid out dividends. While dividends just gave out money, stock buybacks acquired an asset which the companies could re-sell to get some cash (at a steep discount). I'm a big fan of the government taking ownership stake in the airlines and others that they give aid to - basically, instead of giving grants, the government would be paying for an asset. If the companies recover, taxpayers make a profit. It's part of what made TARP so successful.
disagree #1 lower prices or higher wages wouldn’t have made things worse . I see in another post you referred to that as higher costs for the companies ... but it would also mean that households have more money . companies that have saved money weren’t being trashed . No one is bashing pharmaceuticals that had cash on hand to develop treatments your argument against companies having smart management by having reserves to make it through tough times is that people would have railed on them ? The sources that you are gonna cite for that are the same sources that you call idiots .
To clarify - I'm talking about it being worse for the companies. If United Airlines had spent a bunch of money on planes to expand their services beyond what they thought they'd need or to give their pilots big raises, then today, they'd still have no revenues but much higher expenses. They'd simply need more assistance or go bankrupt more quickly. Again, you're picking industries that don't need help. Pharmaeutical companies are thriving in this environment, but it has nothing to do with their cash piles. If they need cash to develop treatments today, banks would lend it to them in a heartbeat. Pharma companies weren't sitting on piles of cash to be prepared for this scenario. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Companies have been cash-rich and uber-profitable over the last decade. They should either be using that money to expand or return it to shareholders. Or saving it for a recession or industry downturn. They should *not* be saving it for the off-chance that the whole world would be shut down and suddenly they wouldn't be allowed to operate as an ongoing entity. I mean, why not say businesses should be prepared for a meteor to hit, and they are all irresponsible to not have built underground bunkers and a plan to move their operations to the moon just in case?
With this endowment, does Harvard really need government funds to be able to give grants to students? Other schools with smaller endowments would be better recipients imho
As someone at a smaller school, I totally agree, but at least they're sharing it with their students. Their endowment is indeed massive, even in the downturn.
I just want to know the damn status of my stimulus check. I don't need it or anything but I don't see why, a week into the website being open, the information still isn't available. I apparently fall into a very specific category of people that this is happening to...owed in 2018, using TurboTax so no direct deposit info given, and haven't yet filed in 2019 (don't want to because I wouldn't get the full amount). I guess I just hope the check shows up some day.
These U.S. citizens won’t get coronavirus stimulus checks — because their spouses are immigrants https://www.latimes.com/world-natio...oronavirus-stimulus-checks-spouses-immigrants
And here's the fundamental problem with how unemployment and PPP were both structured - accidentally designed to make things more complicated for everyone. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahh...to-higher-unemployment-benefits/#4453d56c69e7
He’s probably getting the same message I am: Payment Status Not Available According to information that we have on file, we cannot determine your eligibility for a payment at this time. For more information on the eligibility rules, see our Frequently Asked Questions page. No options to do anything.
