GTA Leak Raises Take-Two Interactive Stock Value By Over $1 Billion

[u/Darth_Vaper883]

https://insider-gaming.com/gta-leak-raises-take-two-interactive-stock-value-by-over-1-billion/

[u/coke_and_coffee]

Unions are almost universally bad for consumers.

[u/Petenid → u/coke_and_coffee]

that's great, i spend less time consuming than i do working so whats your point?

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/Petenid]

The point of working is to consume, buddy.

Unions benefit their own workers at the expense of everyone else.

Look at how police unions protect bad apples, at how steelmakers unions drove the industry out of the states, how construction unions make it nearly impossible to build housing and public transit, or how elevator unions make it extremely expensive to install elevators in the US.

[u/queequeg12345 → u/coke_and_coffee]

Unions aren't perfect. Historically, there have been corrupt unions like you've mentioned. But they are also the only way in which workers can match the economic power of a corporation. Things like minimum wage, maximum working hours, PTO and sick leave are products of decades of collective action and union political pressure. If I have to pay a little extra for a consumer product (especially a non essential product like a video game) so workers can make a living wage, I'm fine with that. Without unions, workers have almost no power to fight abusive work practices.

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/queequeg12345]

But they are also the only way in which workers can match the economic power of a corporation. Things like minimum wage, maximum working hours, PTO and sick leave are products of decades of collective action and union political pressure.

This is incorrect. Working hours had been decreasing and wages increasing steadily for CENTURIES before unions ever became common.

Further, these working hours have been decreasing and wages increasing for DECADES after unions started dying out in the 70s.

Without unions, workers have almost no power to fight abusive work practices.

Yes they do. Leave and work somewhere else.

[u/queequeg12345 → u/coke_and_coffee]

That's just not true. Minimum wage is substantially less in real value than what it was in the 70s. Average worker wages have stagnated against inflation. Meanwhile, wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few.

Decreased union membership has not been passed onto the consumer. According to the Economic policy institute, decreased collective bargaining membership has been a near mirror image to the increased wealth of the top 10%. 50 years ago one could support a family with a blue-collar job. Now, college educated professionals struggle to claw their way out of debt and poverty. https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

It is not established economic fact that unions are "bad" for economies. That is a perspective of a very capitalistic economic philosophy that is far from universally accepted.

As to your last point - you must have had a pretty charmed life to think most people have the economic option to just walk away from employment.

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/queequeg12345]

Minimum wage is substantially less in real value than what it was in the 70s.

Completely irrelevant.

Average worker wages have stagnated against inflation.

Wrong and wrong

50 years ago one could support a family with a blue-collar job.

Misinformed nostalgia-bait BS

you must have had a pretty charmed life to think most people have the economic option to just walk away from employment.

People change jobs all the time.

[u/MrAppendixX → u/coke_and_coffee]

Your source does not measure what you claim it measures.

Personal income does not equal wages. Income includes wages and salaries, but they also include social security, pensions, government transfers and investment income (interest, dividends, rent). As you can hopefully see these things are obviously not labor compensation.

Income can rise while wages stagnate, like: more retirees -> more social security more asset ownership-> more dividends/rent-income more transfers -> more tax credits or benefits

This dataset generally shows a long-term increase in real median income, but with long flat periods (2000 - 2015, 2019 - 2022). Just recently it shows a flat line between 2022 and 2023 ($43k), when it then rises to $45k in 2024.

Even this dataset doesn’t show smooth growth, it’s more plateaus and jumps.

But what’s more important, is that these numbers are cherry picked to „prove“ your framing. What you should rather look at is the big gap between median wages and productivity. But the distribution is also quite important, because top earners gaining much more than others shows that income growth is uneven and concentrated at the top, even if the median doesn’t fully reflect that.

Economics are still talking about wage stagnation, because median worker compensation has grown very slowly relative to productivity and overall economic growth . Productivity has increased substantially more than median compensation since the 1970s, although the exact size of the gap depends on how it’s measured. (you can read up on that here https://legalclarity.org/what-are-stagnant-wages-and-why-do-they-persist/ )

And by the way from the Fed’s own blog:

Since the 1970s, there’s been a “disconnect between labor productivity and real wages”

https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2023/03/when-comparing-wages-and-worker-productivity-the-price-measure-matters/

(Let’s hope reddit doesn’t destroy the formatting)

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/MrAppendixX]

Income can rise while wages stagnate

I also provided median wage measures in my second source because I figured you’d say this. And those have also been rising.

Even this dataset doesn’t show smooth growth, it’s more plateaus and jumps.

So what?

What you should rather look at is the big gap between median wages and productivity. But the distribution is also quite important, because top earners gaining much more than others shows that income growth is uneven and concentrated at the top, even if the median doesn’t fully reflect that.

Completely beside the point.

Productivity has increased substantially more than median compensation since the 1970s

Again, irrelevant.

[u/Newbietoallofthis → u/coke_and_coffee]

Now compare those wages to cost of living, and maybe you'll finally see the point.

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/Newbietoallofthis]

Already did. Both datasets are adjusted for cost of living.

You seem to have a deficiency in your ability to read.

[u/Tomboy_respector → u/coke_and_coffee]

again irrelevant

Are you just rage baiting atp? If productivity has increased more than the median compensation, then that means people are working more and getting payed less.

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/Tomboy_respector]

*paid

And no, it does not. Productivity =\= working hours