Growth isn’t necessary for high returns on equity. And it isn’t necessary for the investment to provide a return.
Equity returns ultimately come from risk premiums. (Which are small now in US equities BTW).
I’m invested in a microcap private equity fund that has returned >20-25% for years. They have high returns because they buy firms at 3-4x cashflow. You will get the high returns even with no growth. And with no increase in valuation. The returns are a function of an illiquidity premium.
With Apple explicitly, growth is expected given the valuation level. If it doesn’t grow, the share price will decline. So yes, in their case, firm is certainly under pressure to grow.
I also don’t agree with your “best interest for wages to be high and everyone else’s lower”. That is one aspect. It is more complicated. Consider Baumol Effect for starters.
I'm talking about macroeconomics, not micro. Risk premium means there is risk; not everyone gets a return at all. The entire society, as a whole, cannot experience consistent returns unless there is macroeconomic growth. If the pie is not getting bigger, someone has to be losing for someone else to gain.
Things like retirement, 401ks, etc., are society-wide institutions subject to macroeconomic rules.
Equity returns ultimately come from risk premiums. (Which are small now in US equities BTW).
I’m invested in a microcap private equity fund that has returned >20-25% for years. They have high returns because they buy firms at 3-4x cashflow. You will get the high returns even with no growth. And with no increase in valuation. The returns are a function of an illiquidity premium.
With Apple explicitly, growth is expected given the valuation level. If it doesn’t grow, the share price will decline. So yes, in their case, firm is certainly under pressure to grow.
I also don’t agree with your “best interest for wages to be high and everyone else’s lower”. That is one aspect. It is more complicated. Consider Baumol Effect for starters.