Paying a dividend is paying a person. It's like you're saying that 'as long as they can afford to keep paying employees' they don't need aid. Would you rather they stopped paying people but didn't take aid? The whole point of the aid is so they can keep going and keep paying people.
Most workers who receive majority of their income in the form of stock are in a very high income bracket and should not receive any government bailouts directly or indirectly.
> Many workers are paid a majority of their income in the form of stock from the company they work for.
A very small "many." I'd imagine that class consists mostly of highly-placed executives (who can be assumed to be rather wealthy) and some number of people playing the startup lottery.
I think at many large enterprises getting paid in stock is standard for even junior line-worker hires. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, etc. People a few years into their career are often paid a majority in stock.
> I think at many large enterprises getting paid in stock is standard for even junior line-worker hires. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, etc. People a few years into their career are often paid a majority in stock.
Maybe at FAANG companies (whose FTE workers tend to be very well off) and some other companies with a startup lineage, but I highly doubt this is very widespread.
I, for one, would frankly refuse a compensation package that was majority stock, unless the salary was already good. It'd be too much like those Enron employees who filled their 401ks with Enron stock -- too many eggs in one basket.
If someone who's otherwise well-compensated complains about missing out on dividends on their stock, I have the world's smallest violin here, ready to play a song for them.
You suggested paying a dividend was similar to paying employees. When throwaway2048 challenged this, you brought up stock-based compensation. Surely if such compensation (including dividends) was an obligation in the same way as wages, then the employee would have some recourse when it's interrupted. In other words, they could sue.
> Then, Like I said, its nothing like salary, which is absolutely an obligation.
But I'm never argued it was a salary or an obligation. Literally never used either of those two words. I think you're arguing against something nobody said.
It's money you'd be paying a person. It doesn't matter if it was 'like a salary' or an 'obligation' or not. What difference do you think that would make? Preventing companies paying dividends is prevent them paying people. Real people!
