ERD50--- not saying that they can't support the dividend. I am asking what would be the result if they cut the dividend to pay the truckers more to get more truckers available? It would still be the same result on the bottom line.
And the earlier posts were regarding paying the truckers more-- to help reduce the apparent shortage of drivers. That's more the direction I was hoping to be addressing. Probably didn't do it well.
But again, this just isn't the way business works.
The trucking business would be paying the drivers more with the intent of
improving business. The plan would be: we pay more, we attract more drivers, we can ship more, we can make more, we can maintain or maybe increase dividends/stock price.
They would not pay more and just take it from dividends and shrug their shoulders. Why do that?
Now, if they
have to pay more, say, just to stay even, and they can't recoup all of that in new business, then their profits drop. That might bring about a drop in dividends and/or stock price.
It's profits that drives divs/stock price. Investment and costs can drive profits. But you can't skip the middle part. The decision to increase (or not increase) driver compensation should be based on what it can do for profits. You don't just rob Peter to pay Paul.
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Exactly.
In the late 90's tech companies were taking anyone who showed a bit of aptitude and trained them for computer jobs, and paid pretty well. That's how they filled the jobs.
-ERD50
Isn't this why we got saddled with tons of retail software that was junk and buggy during that time?
At least they weren't driving over the road trucks and causing accidents.
Well, the ones I was familiar with were in sys-admin/maintenance positions, not development.
But that probably did play a role in some of the buggy software we have seen. But that's what happens when there is a shortage of workers to fill a position. They raise pay, they lower standards to get more workers. It's the way it is.
-ERD50