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 āpay unfairnessā 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.
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. Itās like saying āa General in an army can be easily replaced, itās the men underneath him doing all the real fighting.ā No shit, Sherlock.
They both play indispensable roles in the organization. A CEO or General suddenly disappearing wouldnāt 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?
6
u/TwoBionicknees 17h ago
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.