Huawei pays US$9.65 billion in dividends to current and retired staff
www.scmp.com
Huawei enacted its Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) in 1987 at its establishment, and implemented it in 2003 two years after Shenzhen’s local authorities laid the rules for it.
  • ree
    66·
    3 years ago

    but that’s the thing.

    Baseless claim and misrepresenting data is misinformation.

    You don’t answer my question and make claims. I don’t find anything online to contextualize that number hence my first comment :

    without knowing the distribution of shares amongst staff that average means nothing.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      66·
      3 years ago

      What data are you claiming is being misrepresented?

      You just made up a claim that isn’t sourced or based on anything. Your original comment is perfectly reasonable. We don’t know what the exact distribution of shares is. However, the article I found for you does give a bit of an insight into that. If you’re curious to find out more exact numbers then please do that instead of making unsubstantiated claims.

      • ree
        53·
        3 years ago

        In your title. You added the “average” information which is not present in the article you linked.

        That information at first glance suggest that each worker get $75k.

        Reporting an average without other distribution parameters is a misleading practice.

        edit: typo

          • ree
            53·
            3 years ago

            Ho, now we’re getting personal. good. I’ve got a degree in statistics.

            What you wrote is still misleading.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              34·
              3 years ago

              It’s only misleading if you don’t understand the difference between the average and the median, which somebody with a degree in statistics certainly should. You basically made up some nonsense and stuck to your guns for two days now. Bravo, that’s some real dedication to trolling.

              • ree
                43·
                3 years ago

                Again with the personals.

                1. You decided to include that information in the title for a reason.

                2. When I pointed out that it was misleading you answered with a source that has not relevance to my comment.

                I think that your behavior is deliberate and that you’re spreading misleading information.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  34·
                  3 years ago

                  You seem to take a lot of things personally. I’m just stating simple facts here. I included correct information in the title, there is absolutely nothing misleading about it. I think your behavior here is deliberate trolling and I have a strong suspicion that you didn’t know the difference between average and median until now.

                  • ree
                    43·
                    3 years ago

                    My first comment pointed out that an average like “$75k each” without distribution parameters is useless. You responded with a non-relevant paper.

                    1. By including that average in your title you chose to represent that information in a specific way. That way is misleading.
                    2. By citing a source with not relevance to the question you make it seems like there is support for your representation.

                    What you’re doing is spreading missinformation.

                    by the way :

                    1. on the one hand you assume that people cannot divide number, on the other hand you assume that people knows the difference between median and average.
                    2. an average is often used in the common language as a substitute for the geometric mean but also the median. Learn your stat : the meme is “mean and median”. I invite you to read the first § here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average . Or is wikipedia too biased for your taste?