this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
328 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
58173 readers
3983 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Reading some of these replies in here are cringe as fuck. Not because I don't agree with the overall sentiment, but rather in the fact that you guys don't know what language to use. In essence, you don't know your audience. Speak in the language that your audience can relate to.
When she says that her pay is dependent on the company performance, the reply isn't to talk about worker this and worker that. The correct reply to that is to point out that GM stock has been essentially flat for the last 4 years. Her job as CEO is to increase value for stockholders. Stockholders haven't seen a 40% increase in 4 years. So if shareholders haven't seen a 40% increase in that time, then how is she justifying her pay increase.
And ultimately, her pay isn't determined by her. It's determined by the board of directors. And there lies the problem with all these out of control CEO salaries.... it doesn't cost anything for a director to increase some CEO's pay. It's not taken out of their pocket. It doesn't affect them directly in any way, so to them it's like monopoly money. You get a raise, and you get a raise and you get a raise. Every CEO gets a raise because the director that approves one CEO's pay might be the CEO of another company who's director is the other CEO who just got a raise. You scratch my back, and you scratch mine.
To be honest, I think it is good that we're starting to see the conversation reframed from that of a consumer to that of a worker. People need to learn to think of themselves that way, not as pure consumers. Maybe it'll spread to also being nicer to waiters and stuff like that.
I disagree with this.
We all are aware of how the communism of the rich works. See David Graeber and others for how the term can be coined all the way back to the roman empire.
This is not rich people playing unfairly with each other. This is about rich people fucking over the source of their wealth,which is the laborers work.
GM has increased their EPS by 50% over the past 4 years. That 40% increase actually seems appropriate, although I think the amount is too high. Basically it started from too high a number, but 40% seems ok.
She is not in charge of the stock price. Her job is to make sure they make money. She has done that.
Yes but one of the primary ways corporations are making money these days is by not hiring enough workers and not paying current workers 3x the salary even though they're expected to do the work of 3 people. So in that way, her salary IS directly tied to exploiting the workers
Do you think JP Morgan or Andrew Carnegie were generous with their workers? Only when they had to be.
(I'm really referring to times since the modernization of stock valuation since the other comment refers to technical financial data like EPS.)
I wrote that comment. EPS isn't technical, it's just the amount of profit made per share. It existed when Andrew Carnegie was around.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. Yes, Andrew Carnegie made money by exploiting workers. That's why that period of time saw the birth of the American labor movement. Which is also why these workers are going on strike.
I'm glad you agree with me?
You said:
Why would you say "these days" when that has always been the case, except for a short period from 1940 to 1980?
Because there was a short time where that wasn't happening, which proves that it's possible. I can amend my statement to "these days just like they did back in the gilded age" if that helps somehow?
I guess, but usually "these days" doesn't include last century (80s and 90s).
You're splitting some seriously irrelevant hairs
But language is how they lie to us and make it seem things are fair. In reality capitalism means all the trillions minted each year by our federal reserve flows to industries and not the people.
Look at it this way, if the federal reserve cutoff loans to banks who service the auto dealerships, the auto industry would collapse. The biggest industries would be severely hurt if not bankrupt without their connection to government and the federal reserve.
Why can't people get that for direct access to federal reserve minting to start their own business, pay for their education, or buy a home? They can't because people are the cattle that capitalists need to exploit.
The directors will be shareholders as well, usually fairly substantial ones if they're on the board. I'm not sure how your logic plays out.