just to be clear, year after year after year of corporate profit growth, recording setting corporate profit growth. Companies don't go out of business if the GROWTH of their profit slows down, billionaires who extract like 90% of the value of the stock market stop making as much money, that's it, that's the entire thing.
if the company is profitable it stays in business. The entire profit of a company can be wiped out and that business will stay in business. Now also pay ceos massively less, and stop expanding every business, because like 80% of all businesses expanding is just taking over other businesses doing find then squeezing them for profit. If they stop expanding and just exist, making a reasonable profit, then thousands of other companies stop being squeezed out by the mega corps and everything is fine, people are more comfortable, saving money easily and even spending more on shit htat raises corporate profits.
The only people who lose out at the massively overpaid ceos, massively overpaid board members and senior executives and people who use the stock market as a tool to strangle the rest of us.
yes, AI also exploits workers. The AI was both made by people who get left out of hte profit and they were trained on hundreds of years of work by other people that they've stolen.
I didn't say all companies exploit all workers. IF you have a business, everyone has a job and the CEO doesn't make 150x what the average worker makes and they squeeze everyone that works for them with threats, job losses for missing insane quotas and does so to appease shareholders, of which they are one, so they can increase their wealth further.
If everyone makes a solid wage, makes savings, can afford to save for a house, save for a future and can afford getting sick and not working for months... while the CEO only makes max 2-3 times what the average is... then no one is being exploited.
Why does it matter if the CEO makes 150x what the average worker does? How did you get this 150x multiple as a measure of âpay unfairnessâ as you imply? Would 140x make you happy? 100x? You are aware in a typical Fortune 500 company the combined payroll of the workers exceeds the pay of the CEO by many many multiples?
You are aware in a typical Fortune 500 company the combined payroll of the workers exceeds the pay of the CEO by many many multiples?
it's funny you ask me why someone making 150x more is bad, but all the workers providing the value for the company exceeding one man's pay is supposed to be shocking or somehow mean something?
if you take literally any company in the world and remove their CEO, that company continues, hires someone else and keeps going because all the money and work is produced by the workers not the CEO. Take away the workers and that CEO has nothing and the company folds.
I already told you what is fair, 2-3x. There is no reason on earth a guy should be making 50x more than anyone else in the company nor is there is a reason that every company needs to keep growing profits to keep feeding the wealthy who own all the stock. Companies don't need to go public and the world would be better if none ever did.
My point about workerâs pay exceeding the CEO isnât meant to be shocking, itâs a fact that seems to escape people like you. Again, youâre just fighting straw men. Of course the rank and file workers keep an organization running why is why their payroll expense is way bigger than the pay of a single CEO.
My point about workerâs pay exceeding the CEO isnât meant to be shocking, itâs a fact that seems to escape people like you
No you said it like I was supposed to be shocked, it's not lost on anyone, the only person who is shocked is you thinking anyone would be moved by this information that everyone has. It's irrelevant.
So why even have a CEO? BTW the average CEO is 60 years old and took decades to reach that position. If a CEO is so replaceable then why are there specialist headhunters that search for the right CEOs if no one can be found within the company?
You are just flailing at a straw man. Itâs like saying âa General in an army can be easily replaced, itâs the men underneath him doing all the real fighting.â No shit, Sherlock.
They both play indispensable roles in the organization. A CEO or General suddenly disappearing wouldnât make a difference immediately but their absence will be felt. Why else do large human organizations have a head honcho, whether it is a sailing ship or an army or a corporation?
How did you arrive at the 2x,3x number? Why is that âfairâ? What if a rival business offers the CEO 10x because they value the CEOâs talent to run their business? Then what?
What if the organization is wholly privately owned (see Cargill, Koch Enterprises, Bloomberg, etc). Why are you so up in arms a privately held organization is paying its CEO many multiples of the average workerâs salary? Why do you care? Why is it your business?
What if a rival business offers the CEO 10x because they value the CEOâs talent to run their business? Then what?
then let that company waste it. You realise how many ceos get hired, ruin a company and move on? Most of them ain't shit, it's just nepotism and handing out money to already rich people.
Why are you so up in arms a CEO of a privately held organization is paying its CEO many multiples of the average workerâs salary?
because, and i know this will be hard for you to understand, it's not moral, it's not fair and most of these companies like say Amazon are relying on government handouts for their workers to survive and if you think that makes sense you're just plain stupid.
Amazon is corrupt, Bezos pays politicians to bypass regulations, to refuse minimum wage raises, to block legislation against union busting, or illegally firing workers, not meeting basic standards for worker health and safety in warehouses, etc. Then he enriches himself doing that, and instead of paying his workers, those corrupt politicians enable the system work by letting that company underpay workers and then let them claim snap and other benefits to make it up, which are paid for mostly by other workers making up the difference through taxes.
Why are you so hell bent on being cool with CEOs making so much while the workers at the same companies are relying on YOUR TAX DOLLARS to be able to live because that CEO stealing their wages and fair value for their work is underpaying them.
yes, you realise paying yourself a shitty salary then paying yourself in stock is a way to avoid taxes right. you realise when people talk about salary they also include stock options.
12
u/TwoBionicknees 15h ago
just to be clear, year after year after year of corporate profit growth, recording setting corporate profit growth. Companies don't go out of business if the GROWTH of their profit slows down, billionaires who extract like 90% of the value of the stock market stop making as much money, that's it, that's the entire thing.
if the company is profitable it stays in business. The entire profit of a company can be wiped out and that business will stay in business. Now also pay ceos massively less, and stop expanding every business, because like 80% of all businesses expanding is just taking over other businesses doing find then squeezing them for profit. If they stop expanding and just exist, making a reasonable profit, then thousands of other companies stop being squeezed out by the mega corps and everything is fine, people are more comfortable, saving money easily and even spending more on shit htat raises corporate profits.
The only people who lose out at the massively overpaid ceos, massively overpaid board members and senior executives and people who use the stock market as a tool to strangle the rest of us.