Friedman doctrine

Last updated

Portrait of Milton Friedman Portrait of Milton Friedman.jpg
Portrait of Milton Friedman

The Friedman doctrine, also called shareholder theory, is a normative theory of business ethics advanced by economist Milton Friedman that holds that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. [1] This shareholder primacy approach views shareholders as the economic engine of the organization and the only group to which the firm is socially responsible. As such, the goal of the firm is to increase its profits and maximize returns to shareholders. [1] Friedman argued that the shareholders can then decide for themselves what social initiatives to take part in rather than have an executive whom the shareholders appointed explicitly for business purposes decide such matters for them. [2]

Contents

The Friedman doctrine has been very influential in the corporate world from the 1980s to the 2000s. It has also attracted criticism, particularly since the 2007–2008 financial crisis, caused by various financial institutions which engaged in excessive risk for profit maximization, causing the bubble and collapse of the American real estate market that triggered the crisis throughout the wider global economy. [3] [4] [5]

Overview

Friedman introduced the theory in a 1970 essay for The New York Times titled "A Friedman Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits". [2] In it, he argued that a company has no social responsibility to the public or society; its only responsibility is to its shareholders. [2] He justified this view by considering to whom a company and its executives are beholden:

In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires ... the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation ... and his primary responsibility is to them. [2]

Friedman argued that an executive spending company money on social issues is in effect spending somebody else's money for their own purposes:

Insofar as [a business executive's] actions in accord with his "social responsibility" reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money. [2]

Friedman argued that the appropriate agents of social causes are individuals—"The stockholders or the customers or the employees could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so." [2] He concluded by quoting from his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom that "there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud." [2]

In Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman had argued that when companies concern themselves with the community rather than profit it leads to corporatism, [6] consistent with his statement in the first paragraph of the 1970 essay that "businessmen" with a social conscience "are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society". [2]

The Friedman doctrine was amplified after the publication of an influential 1976 business paper by finance professors William Meckling and Michael C. Jensen, "Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure", which provided a quantitative economic rationale for maximizing shareholder value. [7]

Influence

Shareholder theory has had a significant impact in the corporate world. [8] In 2016, The Economist called shareholder theory "the biggest idea in business", stating "today shareholder value rules business". [9] In 2017, Harvard Business School professors Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine stated that maximizing shareholder value "is now pervasive in the financial community and much of the business world. It has led to a set of behaviors by many actors on a wide range of topics, from performance measurement and executive compensation to shareholder rights, the role of directors, and corporate responsibility." [7]

Shareholder theory has led to a marked rise in stock-based compensation, particularly to CEOs, in an attempt to align the financial interests of employees with those of shareholders. [7]

In September 2020, 50 years after publishing "A Friedman Doctrine", The New York Times published 22 short responses to Friedman's essay written by 25 prominent people. [10] In November 2020, the Stigler Center of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business published a compendium of 28 articles on the legacy of Friedman. [11] Finance professor Alex Edmans compared Friedman's article to the Modigliani–Miller theorem, arguing that Friedman's conclusion is incorrect but that the article is instructive because it highlights the assumptions required for it to be true. [12] Accordingly, Stigler Center director Luigi Zingales argued that the Friedman doctrine should be considered a theorem, not a doctrine. [13]

Criticism

The Friedman doctrine is controversial, [1] with critics variously saying it is wrong on financial, economic, legal, social, or moral grounds. [14] [15]

It has been criticized by proponents of the stakeholder theory, who believe the Friedman doctrine is inconsistent with the idea of corporate social responsibility to a variety of stakeholders. [16] They argue it is morally imperative that a business takes into account all of the people who are affected by its decisions. [17] [18] They also argue that taking into account the interests of stakeholders can benefit the company and its shareholders; [19] for example, a company donating services or goods to help those hurt in a natural disaster is not acting in the direct interest of its shareholders, but in doing so builds community allegiance to the company, ultimately benefitting the company and its shareholders. In 2019, influential business groups such as the World Economic Forum and the Business Roundtable updated their mission statement, leaving behind the Friedman doctrine in favor of "stakeholder capitalism", [20] at least on paper if not in widespread practice. [21]

Friedman's characterization of moral responsibility has been questioned. Ronald Duska, in a 1997 article in the Journal of Business Ethics , [22] as well as in his 2007 book Contemporary Reflections on Business Ethics, [23] argued that Friedman failed to differentiate two very different aspects of business: (1) the motive of individuals, who are often motivated by profit to participate in business, and (2) the socially sanctioned purpose of business, or the reason why people allow businesses to exist, which is to provide goods and services to people. [24] Duska said of a hypothetical businessperson's belief that there is no business ethics beyond making a profit: "Does that mean [the businessperson] is likely to give you a faulty product if he can get away with it and make more profit? If he really believes what he says, aren't you a fool to do business with him?" [23] John Friedman (no relation to Milton Friedman), writing in the Huffington Post in 2013, said: "Mr. Friedman argues that a corporation, unlike a person, cannot have responsibility. No one would engage in a business contract with a corporation if they thought for one minute that a corporation was not responsible to pay its bills, for example. So clearly, therefore, a corporation can have legal, but also moral responsibilities." [25] In contrast to such criticism of Friedman's business ethics, some scholars have pointed out that Friedman emphasized respect for the liberty of other people, respect for the law, and various duties of companies, so the Friedman doctrine does not advocate unconstrained pursuit of profit, [26] and that the Friedman doctrine overlaps with, [27] or even entails, [28] corporate social responsibility.

Left-wing social activist Naomi Klein argued in her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine that adherence to the Friedman doctrine has impoverished most citizens while enriching corporate elites. [29]

Other scholars argue that it is unhealthy and counterproductive to the companies that practice it. Harvard Business School professors Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine said in 2017 that the Friedman doctrine is "distracting companies and their leaders from the innovation, strategic renewal, and investment in the future that require their attention", puts companies at risk of "activist shareholder attack", and puts "managers ... under increasing pressure to deliver ever faster and more predictable returns and to curtail riskier investments aimed at meeting future needs." [8] The Economist said in 2016 that a focus on short-term shareholder value has become "a license for bad conduct, including skimping on investment, exorbitant pay, high leverage, silly takeovers, accounting shenanigans and a craze for share buy-backs, which are running at $600 billion a year in America". [9]

In 2019, Jerry Useem writing in The Atlantic , [30] and prominent Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders writing in The New York Times , [31] argued that shareholder theory, which promoted a rise in stock-based compensation, has led executives to enrich themselves by implementing stock buybacks—often to the detriment of the companies they work for. [32] The critics argued this diverts company funds away from potentially more profitable or socially valuable avenues, like research and design, reduces productivity, and increases inequality by delivering money to higher-paid employees who receive stock-based compensation and not to lower-paid employees who do not.

Lawrence Mishel, distinguished fellow of the Economic Policy Institute, argued in 2020 that wages have been kept low in the United States because of the Friedman doctrine, namely the adoption of corporate practices and economic policies (or the blocking of reforms) at the behest of business and the wealthy elite, which resulted in the systematic disempowerment of workers. [33] He argued that the lack of worker power caused wage suppression, increased wage inequality, and exacerbated racial disparities. Notably, mechanisms such as excessive unemployment, globalization, eroded labor standards (and their lack of enforcement), weakened collective bargaining, and corporate structure changes that disadvantage workers, all collectively functioned to keep wages low. [33] From 1979 to 2019, while economy-wide productivity rose 61.8 percent, hourly compensation for production and non-supervisory workers increased only 17.5 percent, [34] whilst the earnings of the top 1 percent and 0.1 percent increased 158 percent and 341 percent, respectively. [33]

In January 2022, billionaire hedge fund manager and investor Paul Tudor Jones attributed the opioid epidemic in the United States as a product of the Friedman doctrine. [35] Notably, the theory of corporations having the only objective of profit maximization (without any consideration of other stakeholders), led Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family to engage in unethical corporate practices of increasing revenue, by abetting doctors to dispense prescription opioids, without any legitimate medical purpose. [35] The opioid epidemic resulted in at least 400,000 adult deaths by prescription drug overdose within the United States, most of which would have been part of the workforce within the economy of the United States. [35] [36]

See also

Contrary ideas

Related Research Articles

Business ethics is a form of applied ethics or professional ethics, that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that can arise in a business environment. It applies to all aspects of business conduct and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and entire organizations. These ethics originate from individuals, organizational statements or the legal system. These norms, values, ethical, and unethical practices are the principles that guide a business.

Corporate governance refers to the mechanisms, processes, practices, and relations by which corporations are controlled and operated by their boards of directors, managers, shareholders, and stakeholders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Triple bottom line</span> Accounting framework

The triple bottom line is an accounting framework with three parts: social, environmental and economic. Some organizations have adopted the TBL framework to evaluate their performance in a broader perspective to create greater business value. Business writer John Elkington claims to have coined the phrase in 1994.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corporate social responsibility</span> Form of corporate self-regulation aimed at contributing to social or charitable goals

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) or corporate social impact is a form of international private business self-regulation which aims to contribute to societal goals of a philanthropic, activist, or charitable nature by engaging in, with, or supporting professional service volunteering through pro bono programs, community development, administering monetary grants to non-profit organizations for the public benefit, or to conduct ethically oriented business and investment practices. While once it was possible to describe CSR as an internal organizational policy or a corporate ethic strategy similar to what is now known today as Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG); that time has passed as various companies have pledged to go beyond that or have been mandated or incentivized by governments to have a better impact on the surrounding community. In addition, national and international standards, laws, and business models have been developed to facilitate and incentivize this phenomenon. Various organizations have used their authority to push it beyond individual or industry-wide initiatives. In contrast, it has been considered a form of corporate self-regulation for some time, over the last decade or so it has moved considerably from voluntary decisions at the level of individual organizations to mandatory schemes at regional, national, and international levels. Moreover, scholars and firms are using the term "creating shared value", an extension of corporate social responsibility, to explain ways of doing business in a socially responsible way while making profits.

In a corporation, a stakeholder is a member of "groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist", as defined in the first usage of the word in a 1963 internal memorandum at the Stanford Research Institute. The theory was later developed and championed by R. Edward Freeman in the 1980s. Since then it has gained wide acceptance in business practice and in theorizing relating to strategic management, corporate governance, business purpose and corporate social responsibility (CSR). The definition of corporate responsibilities through a classification of stakeholders to consider has been criticized as creating a false dichotomy between the "shareholder model" and the "stakeholder model", or a false analogy of the obligations towards shareholders and other interested parties.

Shareholder value is a business term, sometimes phrased as shareholder value maximization. The term expresses the idea that the primary goal for a business is to increase the wealth of its shareholders (owners) by paying dividends and/or causing the company's stock price to increase. It became a prominent idea during the 1980s and 1990s, along with the management principle value-based management or managing for value.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Technostructure</span> Bureaucrats who shape an organisationss economy

Technostructure is the group of technicians, analysts within an organisation with considerable influence and control on its economy. The term was coined by the economist John Kenneth Galbraith in The New Industrial State (1967). It usually refers to managerial capitalism where the managers and other company leading administrators, scientists, or lawyers retain more power and influence than the shareholders in the decisional and directional process.

An agency cost is an economic concept that refers to the costs associated with the relationship between a "principal", and an "agent". The agent is given powers to make decisions on behalf of the principal. However, the two parties may have different incentives and the agent generally has more information. The principal cannot directly ensure that its agent is always acting in its best interests. This potential divergence in interests is what gives rise to agency costs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stakeholder theory</span> Management and ethical theory that considers multiple constituencies

The stakeholder theory is a theory of organizational management and business ethics that accounts for multiple constituencies impacted by business entities like employees, suppliers, local communities, creditors, and others. It addresses morals and values in managing an organization, such as those related to corporate social responsibility, market economy, and social contract theory.

Corporate responsibility is a term which has come to characterize a family of professional disciplines intended to help a corporation stay competitive by maintaining accountability to its four main stakeholder groups: customers, employees, shareholders, and communities.

Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich 459; 170 NW 668 (1919), is a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford had to operate the Ford Motor Company in the interests of its shareholders, rather than in a manner for the benefit of his employees or customers. It is often taught as affirming the principle of "shareholder primacy" in corporate America, although that teaching has received some criticism.

Michael Cole Jensen was an American economist who worked in the field of financial economics. From 1967-1988, he was on the University of Rochester's faculty. Between 2000 and 2009 he worked for the Monitor Company Group, a strategy-consulting firm which became "Monitor Deloitte" in 2013. Until 2000, he held the position of Jesse Isidor Straus Professor of Business Administration at Harvard University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Profit motive</span> Motivation for businesses to maximize profits

In economics, the profit motive is the motivation of firms that operate so as to maximize their profits. Mainstream microeconomic theory posits that the ultimate goal of a business is "to make money" - not in the sense of increasing the firm's stock of means of payment, but in the sense of "increasing net worth". Stated differently, the reason for a business's existence is to turn a profit. The profit motive is a key tenet of rational choice theory, or the theory that economic agents tend to pursue what is in their own best interests. In accordance with this doctrine, businesses seek to benefit themselves and/or their shareholders by maximizing profits.

The Business Roundtable (BRT) is a nonprofit lobbyist association based in Washington, D.C. whose members are chief executive officers of major U.S. companies. Unlike the United States Chamber of Commerce, whose members are entire businesses, BRT members are exclusively CEOs. The BRT lobbies for public policy that is favorable to business interests, such as lowering corporate taxes in the U.S. and internationally, as well as international trade policy like the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Robert Edward Freeman is an American philosopher and professor of business administration at the Darden School of the University of Virginia, particularly known for his work on stakeholder theory (1984) and on business ethics.

A corporate social entrepreneur (CSE) is someone who attempts to advance a social agenda in addition to a formal job role as part of a corporation. It is possible for CSEs to work in organizational contexts that are favourable to corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSEs focus on developing both social capital, economic capital and their formal job role may not always align with corporate social responsibility. A person in a non-executive or managerial position can still be considered a CSE.

Shareholder primacy is a theory in corporate governance holding that shareholder interests should be assigned first priority relative to all other stakeholders. A shareholder primacy approach often gives shareholders power to intercede directly and frequently in corporate decision-making, through such means as unilateral shareholder power to amend corporate charters, shareholder referendums on business decisions and regular corporate board election contests. The shareholder primacy norm was first used by courts to resolve disputes among majority and minority shareholders, and, over time, this use of the shareholder primacy norm evolved into the modern doctrine of minority shareholder oppression.

Conscious business enterprises are those which choose to follow a multiple stakeholder approach, as opposed to 'traditional business' strategy, which focuses primarily on shareholders and profit maximisation. In contrast, conscious businesses can be double-bottom line, triple-bottom line, or more, by focusing on other stakeholders such as employees, customers, measurable positive societal impact, the community, or the environment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Benefit corporation</span> Type of for-profit entity

In business, and only in United States corporate law, a benefit corporation is a type of for-profit corporate entity whose goals include making a positive impact on society. Laws concerning conventional corporations typically do not define the "best interest of society", which has led some to believe that increasing shareholder value is the only overarching or compelling interest of a corporation. Benefit corporations explicitly specify that profit is not their only goal. An ordinary corporation may change to a benefit corporation merely by stating in its approved corporate bylaws that it is a benefit corporation.

Business purpose refers to the wider, long-term goals of a commercial enterprise. It expresses the corporate's reason for existing, its particular commitment with respect to the surrounding world. A business purpose statement serves as an affirmative reminder of the company's core identity to employees, customers, and other stakeholders; a common ground hopefully enabling them to focus on their particular tasks while feeling what they do is part of a wider, socially valued endeavor. Alongside established normative, purpose is a fundamental component of business ethics and is closely related to corporate statements such as vision, mission, and values. A simplifying, although debatable view, contends that business purpose may exist in one of two forms: current purpose, or mission; and future purpose, or vision. The term has gained wide media attention in recent times.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Smith, H. Jeff (15 July 2003). "The Shareholders vs. Stakeholders Debate". MIT Sloan Management Review (Summer 2003).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Friedman, Milton (13 September 1970). "A Friedman Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits". The New York Times Magazine . Retrieved 23 October 2024.
  3. ↑ Sorkin, Andrew Ross (11 September 2020). "Has Business Left Milton Friedman Behind?". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  4. ↑ "Opinion | Profits and Social Responsibility: Revisiting Milton Friedman". The New York Times. 3 October 2020. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  5. ↑ Posner, Eric (22 August 2019). "It's Time to Rethink Milton Friedman's 'Shareholder Value' Argument". The University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  6. ↑ Friedman, Milton (2002) [1962]. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN   0-226-26421-1. OCLC   49672469.
  7. 1 2 3 Denning, Steve (17 July 2017). "Making Sense Of Shareholder Value: 'The World's Dumbest Idea'". Forbes. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
  8. 1 2 Bower, Joseph L.; Paine, Lynn S. (June 2017). "The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership". Harvard Business Review . 95 (3): 50–60. These events illustrate a way of thinking about the governance and management of companies that is now pervasive in the financial community and much of the business world.
  9. 1 2 "Analyse this". The Economist. 31 March 2016. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
  10. ↑ "A Free Market Manifesto That Changed the World, Reconsidered". The New York Times . 11 September 2020. Retrieved 16 September 2020. The 25 people who wrote responses are Marc Benioff, Martin Lipton, David R. Henderson, Howard Schultz, Alex Gorsky, Marianne Bertrand, Daniel S. Loeb, Oren Cass, Oliver Hart, Erika Karp, Joseph Stiglitz, Leo E. Strine Jr. with Joey Zwillinger, Sara Nelson, Dambisa Moyo, Robert Reich, Glenn Hubbard, Kenneth Langone, Anand Giridharadas, Laurence D. Fink, Thea Lee with Josh Bivens, Felicia Wong, Russ Roberts, and Darren Walker.
  11. ↑ "eBook: Milton Friedman 50 Years Later, a Reevaluation – ProMarket". promarket.org. Stigler Center of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. 17 November 2020. Retrieved 17 January 2021. The articles are also accessible as separate posts: "Friedman 50 years later Archives – ProMarket". promarket.org. Retrieved 8 June 2021.
  12. ↑ Edmans, Alex (10 September 2020). "What Stakeholder Capitalism Can Learn From Milton Friedman". promarket.org. Stigler Center of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business . Retrieved 17 January 2021.
  13. ↑ Zingales, Luigi (13 October 2020). "Friedman's Legacy: From Doctrine to Theorem". promarket.org. Stigler Center of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business . Retrieved 17 January 2021.
  14. ↑ Denning, Steve (27 April 2017). "The 'Pernicious Nonsense' Of Maximizing Shareholder Value". Forbes. Retrieved 12 July 2019.
  15. ↑ Fox, Justin (18 April 2012). "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase ... What Exactly?". Harvard Business Review . Retrieved 24 May 2020.
  16. ↑ Stout, Lynn A. (2012). The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. ISBN   9781605098135. OCLC   760975992 . Retrieved 3 September 2017.
  17. ↑ Freeman, R. Edward; Reed, David L. (Spring 1983). "Stockholders and stakeholders: a new perspective on corporate governance". California Management Review . 25 (3): 88–106. doi:10.2307/41165018. JSTOR   41165018. S2CID   154711818.
  18. ↑ Harrison, Jeffrey S.; Freeman, R. Edward; Cavalcanti Sá de Abreu, Mônica (2015). "Stakeholder Theory As an Ethical Approach to Effective Management: Applying the Theory to Multiple Contexts". Review of Business Management. 17 (55): 858–869. doi: 10.7819/rbgn.v17i55.2647 . Retrieved 15 July 2019.
  19. ↑ Dooms, Michaël (2019). "Stakeholder Management for Port Sustainability: Moving From Ad-Hoc to Structural Approaches". In Bergqvist, Rickard; Monios, Jason (eds.). Green Ports: Inland and Seaside Sustainable Transportation Strategies. Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp. 63–84. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-814054-3.00004-9. ISBN   9780128140550. OCLC   1028528205. S2CID   169082669.
  20. ↑ Sundheim, Doug; Starr, Kate (22 January 2020). "Making Stakeholder Capitalism a Reality". Harvard Business Review . Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  21. ↑ Govindarajan, Vijay; Srivastava, Anup (30 January 2020). "We Are Nowhere Near Stakeholder Capitalism". Harvard Business Review . Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  22. ↑ Duska, Ronald F. (September 1997). "The Why's of Business Revisited". Journal of Business Ethics . 16 (12/13): 1401–1409. doi:10.1023/A:1005731008313. JSTOR   25073004. S2CID   141568203.
  23. 1 2 Duska, Ronald F. (2007). Contemporary Reflections on Business Ethics. Issues in Business Ethics. Vol. 23. Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag. pp. 7–11. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-4984-2. ISBN   9781402049835. OCLC   76951920. S2CID   152426794.
  24. ↑ Cortez, Franz Giuseppe F. (December 2017). "Employee Profit Sharing: A Moral Obligation or a Moral Option?" (PDF). Kritike: An Online Journal of Philosophy. 11 (2): 257–277 (273). doi: 10.25138/11.2.a14 . Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 February 2020. Ronald Duska clarifies the confusion between motive and purpose. The purpose of business is the provision of goods and services and this purpose is independent from the plethora of motives that individual business owners can have.
  25. ↑ Friedman, John (12 May 2013). "Milton Friedman Was Wrong About Corporate Social Responsibility". HuffPost . Retrieved 15 July 2019.
  26. ↑ Cosans, Christopher (July 2009). "Does Milton Friedman support a vigorous business ethics?". Journal of Business Ethics . 87 (3): 391–399. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9927-5. JSTOR   40294932.
  27. ↑ Muldoon, Jeff; Gould, Anthony M.; Yonai, Derek K. (October 2023). "Conjuring-up a bad guy: the academy's straw-manning of Milton Friedman's perspective of corporate social responsibility and its consequences". The American Economist . 68 (2): 171–188. doi: 10.1177/05694345221145008 .
  28. ↑ Ferrero, Ignacio; Hoffman, W. Michael; McNulty, Robert E. (Spring 2014). "Must Milton Friedman embrace stakeholder theory?". Business and Society Review . 119 (1): 37–59. doi:10.1111/basr.12024. hdl: 10171/43129 .
  29. ↑ Grainger, James (9 September 2007). "It's all Friedman's doing". Toronto Star . Archived from the original on 13 October 2012. Retrieved 28 August 2017.
  30. ↑ Useem, Jerry (August 2019). "The Stock-Buyback Swindle". The Atlantic. Retrieved 25 July 2019.
  31. ↑ Schumer, Chuck; Sanders, Bernie (3 February 2019). "Schumer and Sanders: Limit Corporate Stock Buybacks". The New York Times . Retrieved 25 July 2019.
  32. ↑ But for a somewhat different view see: Teitelbaum, Richard (7 March 2019). "Share Buybacks May Be Bad — Just Not for the Reasons You Think". Institutional Investor. Retrieved 25 July 2019.
  33. 1 2 3 Mishel, Lawrence (December 2020). "Rebuilding worker power: systematic erosion of workers' power relative to their employers has suppressed US wages". Finance & Development . International Monetary Fund. pp. 44–47. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  34. ↑ "The Productivity–Pay Gap". Economic Policy Institute . Retrieved 15 February 2022.
  35. 1 2 3 "CNBC Transcript: Billionaire Investor & JUST Capital Co-Founder Paul Tudor Jones and Accenture Chair & CEO Julie Sweet Speak with CNBC's "Squawk Box" Today". CNBC. 11 January 2022. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  36. ↑ "Drug Overdose Deaths | Drug Overdose | CDC Injury Center". www.cdc.gov. 9 September 2021. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.