526
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
526 points (80.9% liked)
People Twitter
5392 readers
529 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If this was true....Nd I wouldn't be surprised that he would sya such a thing as... Making profit for the share holders. Is justified even if ruthlessly done....
I remember watching a documentary, it may have been Robert Reich that was explaining how businesses in the 1970's made profits but the difference between the owner and the employee was high but still within a certain logic. Companies still had the philosophy that you should keep your employees for 30 years and treat them with a certain respect whereas today... A lot of big business are there for the shareholder and screw the employee. They are selfish anyway.... Wanting more than minimal salary ๐
Then again, I love reading Robert Reich.... https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-paid-what-youre-worth-myth
And yet another good article : https://robertreich.substack.com/p/if-bosses-are-raking-it-in-shouldnt
"This isn't true but it may as well be, because it feels true to me" is always such a disappointing thing to see commented under misinformation.
What would be the misinformation? A typical working family in the 1970 could survive and feed their family. Today, a working family barely make enough money to pay for rent.
If CEO deserve their pay (hypothetically) then why would the employee not equally get higher salary increase?
Please explain how business have not, at least in the last 30 years, focused on gaining high profit for shareholders and care very little of the consumer or the workers.
A CEO goal is not to serve the board to the point of ripping a business apart. In that same breath, a Board should actually be held accountable to not pillage companies to simply increase their already big portfolio...
It wasn't true.