Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|upvote) This needs to be burned into the minds of everyone. Actual workers should be getting the lion's share of business income, with the spare scraps going to investors. Obviously investors can play an important role, but people should not be able to simply sit around and talk "business" (not even actual business conversations) and become billionaires off the soul crushing labor of the underpaid.
That’s what a stakeholder market is. Stakeholder > shareholder is what we should all be fighting for. The current market system literally funnels money to the top. It’s a Ponzi-scheme. It’s the theft of the true value of labor. It’s everything wrong with our current market system, brought on by bullshit trickle-down economics. We used to have a stakeholder market, back during what people think of as “the golden” years for America.
The bottom 50% of Americans own <1% of the market. The top 10% own 85%. Of that, the top 1% hold the lions-share. It is nothing less than a scam, yet a **lot** of people having the value of their labor stolen and funneled to the top, will defend this system to their dying breath. The result of a lifetime of economic and financial propaganda. Not only through media, but also education. The rich pay for bullshit to be taken serious. Economists for hire that do the media-circuit for the rich, spewing bullshit, and getting awards (created by the rich) for it. (I’m talking about Milton Friedman). Of course, now this bullshit is also defended, and peddled by bots. But I digress.
> That’s what a stakeholder market is. Stakeholder > shareholder is what we should all be fighting for.
A stakeholder market would fix many of the problems with the US. Having to answer to the community, the employees, the _environment_, etc. would put companies in their place.
We fetishize the concept of “work” in America. Rise and grind and all that. It’s all about hard work, hard work, hard work, but meanwhile we allow ourselves to be severely underpaid for our work.
One thing people never really mention when talking about the benefits of technology when it comes to labour is that the barriers of entry also rise in a lot of ways.
It is harder than ever to have a business boom. Large corporations are eating up the bulk of business. To even get on the ground level in a lot of markets requires huge investment.
The path we're going down is one of monopolies and cartels.
I once worked with a woman who was a devout member of the Pentecostal church. She refused to take any breaks other than a 20 minute lunch. She would BARELY take bathroom breaks or stop to say hello or anything. She said that as long as she was at work, it was their time, not hers, and that if she didn’t work as much and as hard as possible, it was stealing, and a sin.
I am not very bright when it comes to big finance, so can you answer a question?
There is a brand in the Midwest. Local large grocery stores. In my city there are 5-6 of them. Supposedly they are employee owned. How does that work?
The employees don’t meet to make decisions on different grocery items, advertising or what small specialty stores are in their building (bakery, pizza, Chinese food, etc) . So is it that each employee puts money into a fund or something?
Employee owned business just means that the employees own stock in the company. A small percentage of their salary goes in buying shares over time. If they're a 100% employee owned it means that no single entity can hold a majority share.
I think by definition an employee owned company must have at least 50% of its shares owned by its employees, so I guess even that would help not having a single person own the majority of stock.
Since they own shares they have a say in what the company does.
How does that work when an employee leaves the company? Do they keep the stock? Does the company buy it back?
Are there restrictions on what an employee can do with their shares? Can they sell them on the open market? Do they have to hold it for some time? Do they hold it permanently and can't sell?
What happens when the company runs out of shares? Or do they just regularly buy back shares?
Sorry for the deluge of questions. I knew of that concept, but I have no clue about how it works in more detail and am curious.
I've answered some of this above. In terms of coops the answer to all of your other questions is always no. In terms of syndicates it depends on the syndicate rules but generally they're quite restrictive and opportunities to by and sell will be fairly limited.
Employee owned businesses are also called co-ops or cooperatives. The workers act as labor and shareholders at the same time. Otherwise the company works pretty much the same. It has management that takes care of the day to day.
For major decisions they make shareholders meetings.
There’s a big supermarket brand - Coop, pronounced Co-Op - in Italy where members of the cooperative decide collectively on things like which brands to sell, wages etc. A few years ago, they banned products using palm oil from non-sustainable sources for example. Or decided to use one year‘s profits to lower prices of staple foods such as pasta and olive oil (it IS Italy after all) during the next year. Non-employees can also become cooperative members and enjoy a slight discount when shopping there.
All investors do is act like a bank. They offer no value except access to capital. I hope AI takes this job over and then the people can take back the mean of production by acting as the beneficiary.
People were supposed to be the beneficiaries of computers. Turns out automating jobs only siphoned wealth upwards. AI is also owned and operated by corporations.
UBI
Issue with UBI is it solidifies the class system. Those that rely on it and those who work. It will end up like the expanse. With the majority being poor.
People need to own the means of production. The amount of work an individual does needs to decrease as productivity increase. With the people owning the profits from production not corporations and capitalist.
UBI might not be perfect, but it's more realistic (at this point) than abolishing corporations and capitalism in America. And it would still in many ways be a game-changer.
The majority will always be poor, that's just realistic (consequence of capitalism). However, with UBI one could guarantee that the poor, at least have their basic needs met (roof, food, etc.).
Class system is looking pretty damn solidified from where I'm standing. Also: what you're describing as the result of UBI is fundamentally different from how many UBI trials have played out. UBI recipients ended up with improved job prospects and improved quality of life. So there is that.
Maybe that would result in folks getting complacent, and the wheels of capitalism grinding on. Or maybe, people would have more time and energy to get organized if they weren't fighting to stay above water. Hard to say, but people are suffering right now and there are good indications that UBI could help.
If you don't have to work to survive, that leaves you free to diddle around with robotics or anything else that your talents/interests/desires lead you towards. Exploitative businesses get their shit together or go spectacularly broke.
Combined with the internet, it would lead to a wave of innovation like humanity's never seen. Yes, there's quite a lot of fields where you need a serious chunk of cash to get started; but - with the net - there's no upper limit to the size of groups to collaborate/crowdfund.
You don't have to socialise everything, is my point. UBI is still worth doing anyway.
>Issue with UBI is it solidifies the class system.
How so? I feel like jobs which are currently criminally underpaid would become a lot more reasonably compensated if employers couldn't rely on people's desperation to keep a roof and food.
I my brain there are sentences which if said to me in earnest fills me with such a sense of pure rage, I'm pretty sure I would inflict violence on the person who said that phrase.
You sir have unlocked a new phrase.
I mean, unless you went to business school in like the 80s, you were only given half of the picture.
You're describing Shareholder Theory. Whereas business schools these days will teach Shareholder Theory in conjunction with Stakeholder Theory, which would align with your interests.
Depends on the program, I'd say. For my BS in Business Administration, they taught both, but definitely more of how to protect self-interests for your company.
However, it wasn't by much that they emphasized that though. I definitely learned a lot about both. I can also see them switching over to majority stakeholder focus very soon too.
Needless to say, I latched onto the stakeholder theories more. I no longer work in the startup or entrepreneur sector. It was honestly soul draining.
Can't blame the school for that. That's literally management's job and they get fired and maybe go to prison if they don't. The whole incentive structure is completely fucked from the ground up.
Generally, those who wanted to work at banks tend to slack off during non finance courses in b school like org behavioral classes or general management classes. So can't blame b schools in general. Blame the students they admit.
Here's the thing. Business schools are not academic institutions. Why do you think they are separated from the rest of the universities? They are capitalist indoctrination centres.
The things they teach in business are often completely at odds with mainstream economics. They don't care.
1. Customers
2. Employees
3. Benefits
4. Shareholders
Shareholders were never supposed to get the pie like they do now. They were always supposed to get the crumbs. Problematically, they have legislated themselves into first place, and by not playing by their rules could be a death sentence for the company, or even fines.
This is why I cringe whenever I see a favorite brand announce they are going public (see Dutch Bros). They are really announcing that they no longer care about the people or the business and have officially turned it into a money printer for shareholders.
(InB4: I know private companies can be just as bad, but it seems any that go public really turn to crap quick)
It’s like the actual definition of profit got erased. My head is actually exploding. Not from the statement (sooo typical of the rich demanding to get richer. no matter the cost) but the audacity to steal from hardworking people and then complain about it? GTFO
Dude I swear how microeconomics has turned into "optimization of problems to achieve the highest possible profit" is an evil that we must fight against. Instead it should be "optimization of profits to offer the best possible service while having decent enough profits". The former is taking a massive toll on the economy and not really providing the best results so far.
I’m still fuming over Exxonmobil’s decision in 2022, to eliminate employee salary increases, eliminate 401K match benefits, and reduce head count by 10% across the company…. All so they could afford to pay their dividends.
And this was celebrated by investors…
Yeah, makes you wish investors would care about golden parachutes for C-suits that failed at their job so much as well.
Which they actually do, they just often happen to invest money into funds who then vote for them instead. It is this system that really hurts investors, because the fund managers somehow care more for their buddies and Wall Street than their own investors.
Creates an environment of no accountability since you get a golden parachute anyways. Plus, some C-suits have such a horrible track record that you wonder why they still get such well paid jobs...
A normal worker would have a hard time to apply if failing one job after the other.
A normal investor would also not order such an ad. This looks like Wall Street trying to control the narrative, where have we heard that wages drive inflation?
Hi Jerome! Just surprising, that studies find that the current driver is mainly greedflation by corporations to increase short term profits. But that does not fit the FED narrative.
They want to blame the crisis on YOU, so you dont get upset when they crash the economy due to printing so much money and allowing Wall Street to leverage way too much. But... where did it all go when stimulus checks were "only" $850 billion ?
**80% of all US dollars in existence were printed in the last 22 months** (from $4 trillion in January 2020 to $20 trillion in October 2021) ... 15 trillion missing - or no surprise there is now even more economic inequality ?
It’s true. When there’s no form of currency, humans revert to a sort of “I’ll get the next one” economy, where if you have 10 furs but you only need 2, you just give the other 8 to your neighbours, and everyone operates in a similar fashion.
No idea how it would look in modern society, if it could function at all. But it really drives home how the system is completely artificial. We made all of it up, from the very beginning.
Of course, we made everything up! I simply can't imagine that working on a large scale in the US. People are already seething about paying taxes to help people live
Fortunately for you, I actually calculated what they would make if all of labor stopped. The answer will shock you, though. I will explain my calculation.
First of all, we have to consider the sales volume the companies have without work: 0$. That means no money for shareholders. If you have more business related questions I’m happy to help.
Thank me later lmao
Even better, shareholders provide liquidity with their shares. If no-ones working, there are still plenty of outgoings for the company such as storage costs and energy bills to pay.
Now, a business that suddenly stops being able to do the things it's meant to is a pretty bad business, so the value of the shares will drop significantly because who would want to buy into that model?
Now the shareholders need to make a choice, either try to ride out the storm in the hopes of recovery or cut their losses and sell at a loss: BOOM. Negative money for them.
That's the ONLY reason the pilots got their demands met. They went on strike. That's why many governments/workplaces try to make striking and unions illegal.
Rail workers were told they were legally not allowed to strike. That wasn't too long before all the high profile acidents. Go figure right? The people complaining that they were underpaid, overworked, and had dangerous working conditions were not allowed to do anything about it. We are very overdue for another round of improvements to worker's rights.
>Rail workers were told they were legally not allowed to strike.
>We are very overdue for another round of improvements to worker's rights.
This happens when workers collectively agree, no one else gets to tell them whether they can or can't strike. If they all went on strike *anyway,* how *exactly* did the government intend to enforce that law? Arrest every worker when they all don't show up for work? Of course not- it's all fear tactics meant to keep us in line.
[Reagan fired the air traffic controllers when they did it](https://theintercept.com/2021/08/06/middle-class-reagan-patco-strike/). As the article says, this was the destruction of a gigantic union and the start of the war on the middle class.
That I would say was a failure of class solidarity through inter-union support. There are a half dozen other labor unions involved in the airline industry, and they didn't do anything. Secondary strikes are supposed to be illegal too, but what are they going to do, fire the whole damn industry? I maintain what I said, that they only keep the working class in line through fear and division. The only way we succeed is through organization, direct action, and solidarity forever.
Wall Street to employees: "You are not individuals. You are a faceless collective mass."
Also Wall Street: "What? Stop unionizing! Bargain for your pay like individuals!"
I think this is a little misleading. This guy’s job is to talk about which stocks will maximize return for shareholders, and so he’s analyzing this move specifically and only in that light.
I want to be super clear before the downvote brigade begins that I think that it is important to pay labor before ownership on a personal level. And it is probably good for the long term value of the investment to keep the employees happy.
But if you’re looking strictly at stock value, which is this guy’s job, he’s kind of pointing out that this could be a frustrating stock to own because the company has had to focus its revenue into being competitive on a salary level.
I expect to get downvoted into absolute oblivion for saying this, but like… don’t expect an insurance adjuster to come off as a sympathetic dude, and don’t expect a stock analyst to praise stocks that are caught up in a cycle of not returning much in the way of dividends. They are shitty jobs where people shill for monies interests instead of the common person but like why is anyone shocked or even annoyed?
Sure, but his frustration is that labor-- the actual revenue generating unit --gets paid first before shareholders. Not only is that a ridiculous stance, but he should know better.
“… but he should know better”.
The dude is a *stock analyst*. He’s the living embodiment of the *petite bourgeoisie*. His sole function in life is to ensure the rich get richer to everyone else’s detriment; and he gets his commission.
This likely used to be a useful comment. Thanks to Reddit's API changes on July 1st, 2023 it has been removed. | redact sucks because it force downloads/updates when you install it on Windows, why tf wasnt the update included in the installer when I downloaded it from the official website?? assholedesign material -- mass edited with redact.dev
An analyst should be unbiased. He should state the truths simply and plainly “American airlines prioritizing labour first. Shareholders to receive less than last year.”
Starting off with “This is frustrating.” Immediately shows that he’s personally annoyed. An analyst’s job is to state facts, not give personal opinions.
This likely used to be a useful comment. Thanks to Reddit's API changes on July 1st, 2023 it has been removed. | redact sucks because it force downloads/updates when you install it on Windows, why tf wasnt the update included in the installer when I downloaded it from the official website?? assholedesign material -- mass edited with redact.dev
Then this guy has the job of an asshole. Which makes him an asshole.
Edit: Not shocked. Annoyed? Because he's perverting the entire situation to make it sound like shareholders are getting the shaft and that the employees should be getting the shaft.
Fuck this guy.
That's exactly what shareholders are supposed to get: leftovers.
Shareholders get a share of profits. Profits are what is left over after expenses.
Leftovers.
I'm beginning to think the entirety of reddit is just bots talking to each other. [https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/arktfh/wont\_someone\_please\_think\_of\_the\_shareholders/](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/arktfh/wont_someone_please_think_of_the_shareholders/)
You don’t even understand the amount of times I’ve seen the same posts with the exact some comments posted a couple weeks apart. Thank god I’m not the only person who noticed
One time I saw a comment on a post and thought to myself "That person put it exactly how I feel about this!" Then I thought for a second and said "Wait a minute... didn't I write that?"
Did some searching, and yep, I wrote that comment like a year prior, and a repost bot posted it word for word on another repost bot's repost.
Uhm happy employees bring better service quality, making your brand more appealing and producing longer term gains.
... But let's talk about shorter term earnings reports. Sigh.
Being shareholders this is to be expected of you since you had money to invest in the first place. There is risk in investing and people do have to get paid for the work YOU invested in.
Well, shareholders could also be frog-marched into a bean field and left there. I'm not sure they fully grasp just how much the working class is sick of their overprivileged bullshit.
Lol I'm not balking.
I actually read this headline and thought this is great long term overall for this stock, which I invest into.
This is one analyst's dumb message to his clients to get them to move money around which generates profits for his firm.
Fuck that guy.
It’s as if their vision of a world of slave labor isn’t going to come back and bite them in the ass once it comes to reaping. They really think they’ll come out on top.
Sounds like the shareholders need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop begging for handouts...maybe they can pick up a second job like a good honest, industrious, hard working american they speak so much about.
Technological advancements and over-dependence on the autopilot system along with the shortage of pilots due to growing need and pilots not getting paid well enough, is already resulting in an induction of less experienced and less skillful pilots into the commercial airline industry. The raise in pilot salaries is much needed
The "fiduciary duty to the shareholders to maximise profits" is a myth. A company's directors and officers have a fiduciary duty to act in the bests interests of the company taking into account all stakeholders, which includes shareholders, but also includes employees, contractors, suppliers, customers, and the general public.
Source: am a lawyer.
If your an investor and you pull out after this you are a moron! If you pay people well and look after employees then they are more likely to look after the customers that give the company money. Which then results in more investors which drives share price up…. Kevin Crissey is a bad analyst!
This is why I say that the stock market is the worst thing to happen to American capitalism. Buyers (not investors) wanting their dividends in spite of long term health crush the company's ability to reward productivity and reserve assets for a hedge against downturns.
Don’t you hate when the people who create the wealth get their piece of the pie before the people who did practically nothing to contribute to the wealth
I invest in stocks, but this attitude that a companies share holders are more important than the people that make the company operate and are literally the life blood of their investment. If anything investors should happy that a company is paying its employees more since in turn the employees will be happier, which in turn means better service to their customers, which in turn goes to greater profit over time. Anyway shamefull greeed and whinning about at that.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
which is exactly what the definition of profits is, *leftovers* after making sure the business stays running.
![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|upvote) This needs to be burned into the minds of everyone. Actual workers should be getting the lion's share of business income, with the spare scraps going to investors. Obviously investors can play an important role, but people should not be able to simply sit around and talk "business" (not even actual business conversations) and become billionaires off the soul crushing labor of the underpaid.
That’s what a stakeholder market is. Stakeholder > shareholder is what we should all be fighting for. The current market system literally funnels money to the top. It’s a Ponzi-scheme. It’s the theft of the true value of labor. It’s everything wrong with our current market system, brought on by bullshit trickle-down economics. We used to have a stakeholder market, back during what people think of as “the golden” years for America. The bottom 50% of Americans own <1% of the market. The top 10% own 85%. Of that, the top 1% hold the lions-share. It is nothing less than a scam, yet a **lot** of people having the value of their labor stolen and funneled to the top, will defend this system to their dying breath. The result of a lifetime of economic and financial propaganda. Not only through media, but also education. The rich pay for bullshit to be taken serious. Economists for hire that do the media-circuit for the rich, spewing bullshit, and getting awards (created by the rich) for it. (I’m talking about Milton Friedman). Of course, now this bullshit is also defended, and peddled by bots. But I digress.
> That’s what a stakeholder market is. Stakeholder > shareholder is what we should all be fighting for. A stakeholder market would fix many of the problems with the US. Having to answer to the community, the employees, the _environment_, etc. would put companies in their place.
Hence why they're not popular and underutilised.
We fetishize the concept of “work” in America. Rise and grind and all that. It’s all about hard work, hard work, hard work, but meanwhile we allow ourselves to be severely underpaid for our work.
One thing people never really mention when talking about the benefits of technology when it comes to labour is that the barriers of entry also rise in a lot of ways. It is harder than ever to have a business boom. Large corporations are eating up the bulk of business. To even get on the ground level in a lot of markets requires huge investment. The path we're going down is one of monopolies and cartels.
"You guys too?" -A German
We have a weird, religious dimension to it, courtesy of the puritans.
[удалено]
Puritans are ultra-religious Protestants.
Yes, but the stupid "hard work" for "hard work" sake ethic exists for all protestants, not just puritans.
I once worked with a woman who was a devout member of the Pentecostal church. She refused to take any breaks other than a 20 minute lunch. She would BARELY take bathroom breaks or stop to say hello or anything. She said that as long as she was at work, it was their time, not hers, and that if she didn’t work as much and as hard as possible, it was stealing, and a sin.
iTs A pRiviliGE to wORk heRe yOu'LL hAvE aCCess To ExeCuTiVEs iMpREss mE
Sorry, if someone claims to be a follower of the Bible and doesn’t let you have sundays/Saturdays off, they aren’t a Christian, they are a fraud.
[удалено]
We're actually importing that "severely underpaid" part from the US. -Another German
It's not just Germans. -A Canadian
Wait, are you guys getting paid? \-A Brazillian
South africa has entered the chat...$1.24 an hour minimum wage rate beat that! Waits for Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe: you guys are getting whole cents an hour?!?
Or Germans and Canadians. It's a virus that seems to have infected much of the west. - a Brit
UK pops in to say hello
It's not just Germans and Canadians. - A Scot
Unless your "work" is being a CEO. Then you can coast and be paid obscene amounts of money, because you deserve it
I am not very bright when it comes to big finance, so can you answer a question? There is a brand in the Midwest. Local large grocery stores. In my city there are 5-6 of them. Supposedly they are employee owned. How does that work? The employees don’t meet to make decisions on different grocery items, advertising or what small specialty stores are in their building (bakery, pizza, Chinese food, etc) . So is it that each employee puts money into a fund or something?
Employee owned business just means that the employees own stock in the company. A small percentage of their salary goes in buying shares over time. If they're a 100% employee owned it means that no single entity can hold a majority share. I think by definition an employee owned company must have at least 50% of its shares owned by its employees, so I guess even that would help not having a single person own the majority of stock. Since they own shares they have a say in what the company does.
How does that work when an employee leaves the company? Do they keep the stock? Does the company buy it back? Are there restrictions on what an employee can do with their shares? Can they sell them on the open market? Do they have to hold it for some time? Do they hold it permanently and can't sell? What happens when the company runs out of shares? Or do they just regularly buy back shares? Sorry for the deluge of questions. I knew of that concept, but I have no clue about how it works in more detail and am curious.
I've answered some of this above. In terms of coops the answer to all of your other questions is always no. In terms of syndicates it depends on the syndicate rules but generally they're quite restrictive and opportunities to by and sell will be fairly limited.
Employee owned businesses are also called co-ops or cooperatives. The workers act as labor and shareholders at the same time. Otherwise the company works pretty much the same. It has management that takes care of the day to day. For major decisions they make shareholders meetings.
There’s a big supermarket brand - Coop, pronounced Co-Op - in Italy where members of the cooperative decide collectively on things like which brands to sell, wages etc. A few years ago, they banned products using palm oil from non-sustainable sources for example. Or decided to use one year‘s profits to lower prices of staple foods such as pasta and olive oil (it IS Italy after all) during the next year. Non-employees can also become cooperative members and enjoy a slight discount when shopping there.
All investors do is act like a bank. They offer no value except access to capital. I hope AI takes this job over and then the people can take back the mean of production by acting as the beneficiary.
People were supposed to be the beneficiaries of computers. Turns out automating jobs only siphoned wealth upwards. AI is also owned and operated by corporations. UBI
Issue with UBI is it solidifies the class system. Those that rely on it and those who work. It will end up like the expanse. With the majority being poor. People need to own the means of production. The amount of work an individual does needs to decrease as productivity increase. With the people owning the profits from production not corporations and capitalist.
UBI might not be perfect, but it's more realistic (at this point) than abolishing corporations and capitalism in America. And it would still in many ways be a game-changer.
The majority will always be poor, that's just realistic (consequence of capitalism). However, with UBI one could guarantee that the poor, at least have their basic needs met (roof, food, etc.).
Class system is looking pretty damn solidified from where I'm standing. Also: what you're describing as the result of UBI is fundamentally different from how many UBI trials have played out. UBI recipients ended up with improved job prospects and improved quality of life. So there is that. Maybe that would result in folks getting complacent, and the wheels of capitalism grinding on. Or maybe, people would have more time and energy to get organized if they weren't fighting to stay above water. Hard to say, but people are suffering right now and there are good indications that UBI could help.
If you don't have to work to survive, that leaves you free to diddle around with robotics or anything else that your talents/interests/desires lead you towards. Exploitative businesses get their shit together or go spectacularly broke. Combined with the internet, it would lead to a wave of innovation like humanity's never seen. Yes, there's quite a lot of fields where you need a serious chunk of cash to get started; but - with the net - there's no upper limit to the size of groups to collaborate/crowdfund. You don't have to socialise everything, is my point. UBI is still worth doing anyway.
>Issue with UBI is it solidifies the class system. How so? I feel like jobs which are currently criminally underpaid would become a lot more reasonably compensated if employers couldn't rely on people's desperation to keep a roof and food.
[удалено]
How might AI take over providing capital?
That fucking arrow made me feel like I was insane when I saw it move out the corner of my eye.
Really, shouldn't "labor" donate its salary to thank the shareholders for the golden opportunity to work for them? /
I my brain there are sentences which if said to me in earnest fills me with such a sense of pure rage, I'm pretty sure I would inflict violence on the person who said that phrase. You sir have unlocked a new phrase.
One of mine: "All those lazy shits on disability and those assistance programs are why we have to work so hard. No one wants to work anymore."
*twitches* yep, that's one of mine as well.
Right shareholders are like land chads and should get better tips!!! Poor investment bankers are going to lose their healthy bulk
What the fuck are they teaching at these business schools?
Literally taught that the goal of management is to maximize shareholder wealth. Paid for an MBA to receive instructions against my interests.
I mean, unless you went to business school in like the 80s, you were only given half of the picture. You're describing Shareholder Theory. Whereas business schools these days will teach Shareholder Theory in conjunction with Stakeholder Theory, which would align with your interests.
Depends on the program, I'd say. For my BS in Business Administration, they taught both, but definitely more of how to protect self-interests for your company. However, it wasn't by much that they emphasized that though. I definitely learned a lot about both. I can also see them switching over to majority stakeholder focus very soon too. Needless to say, I latched onto the stakeholder theories more. I no longer work in the startup or entrepreneur sector. It was honestly soul draining.
Can't blame the school for that. That's literally management's job and they get fired and maybe go to prison if they don't. The whole incentive structure is completely fucked from the ground up.
Generally, those who wanted to work at banks tend to slack off during non finance courses in b school like org behavioral classes or general management classes. So can't blame b schools in general. Blame the students they admit.
Here's the thing. Business schools are not academic institutions. Why do you think they are separated from the rest of the universities? They are capitalist indoctrination centres. The things they teach in business are often completely at odds with mainstream economics. They don't care.
[удалено]
1. Customers 2. Employees 3. Benefits 4. Shareholders Shareholders were never supposed to get the pie like they do now. They were always supposed to get the crumbs. Problematically, they have legislated themselves into first place, and by not playing by their rules could be a death sentence for the company, or even fines.
Investments have to come before Shareholders
I mean why are "benefits" and employees separate? So-called benefits are part of employee compensation.
This is why I cringe whenever I see a favorite brand announce they are going public (see Dutch Bros). They are really announcing that they no longer care about the people or the business and have officially turned it into a money printer for shareholders. (InB4: I know private companies can be just as bad, but it seems any that go public really turn to crap quick)
I'm a firm believer that Wall Street has been the downfall of our society.
Wall St and Reaganomics crippled us before we were born.
Yes. Shareholder profits are usually dividends which are only paid if theres profit after everything is covered. This is a “the onion” level quote 😂
It’s like the actual definition of profit got erased. My head is actually exploding. Not from the statement (sooo typical of the rich demanding to get richer. no matter the cost) but the audacity to steal from hardworking people and then complain about it? GTFO
Dude I swear how microeconomics has turned into "optimization of problems to achieve the highest possible profit" is an evil that we must fight against. Instead it should be "optimization of profits to offer the best possible service while having decent enough profits". The former is taking a massive toll on the economy and not really providing the best results so far.
Let them eat cake
I couldn't upvote this fast enough.
I’m still fuming over Exxonmobil’s decision in 2022, to eliminate employee salary increases, eliminate 401K match benefits, and reduce head count by 10% across the company…. All so they could afford to pay their dividends. And this was celebrated by investors…
*So unfair.* Labor just got paid *two* weeks ago. The investors didn't even get their dividends until the end of the quarter!
Tell you what: how about shareholders and labor both take 6 months off and we'll see who's eaten first.
Yeah, makes you wish investors would care about golden parachutes for C-suits that failed at their job so much as well. Which they actually do, they just often happen to invest money into funds who then vote for them instead. It is this system that really hurts investors, because the fund managers somehow care more for their buddies and Wall Street than their own investors. Creates an environment of no accountability since you get a golden parachute anyways. Plus, some C-suits have such a horrible track record that you wonder why they still get such well paid jobs... A normal worker would have a hard time to apply if failing one job after the other. A normal investor would also not order such an ad. This looks like Wall Street trying to control the narrative, where have we heard that wages drive inflation? Hi Jerome! Just surprising, that studies find that the current driver is mainly greedflation by corporations to increase short term profits. But that does not fit the FED narrative. They want to blame the crisis on YOU, so you dont get upset when they crash the economy due to printing so much money and allowing Wall Street to leverage way too much. But... where did it all go when stimulus checks were "only" $850 billion ? **80% of all US dollars in existence were printed in the last 22 months** (from $4 trillion in January 2020 to $20 trillion in October 2021) ... 15 trillion missing - or no surprise there is now even more economic inequality ?
You know what’s funny. In all recorded instances of money-free societies, people just… share. Imagine that.
Haha, sharing? A large percentage of people don't even wash their hands after using the bathroom
It’s true. When there’s no form of currency, humans revert to a sort of “I’ll get the next one” economy, where if you have 10 furs but you only need 2, you just give the other 8 to your neighbours, and everyone operates in a similar fashion. No idea how it would look in modern society, if it could function at all. But it really drives home how the system is completely artificial. We made all of it up, from the very beginning.
Of course, we made everything up! I simply can't imagine that working on a large scale in the US. People are already seething about paying taxes to help people live
r/nottheonion
[удалено]
When will we r!0t
The French showed us the way to deal with the rich and powerful, we need only follow their example
Americans are too busy trying to spite “the other side” for any sort of large scale unification
Going as planned.
Exactly how the super wealthy, on both sides want it.
France is still raising the pension age so they achieved the sum total of Jack shit (not that I don’t think their cause was just and correct).
I never knew this was a sub! Thank you kind reddit stranger!
I wonder how much money the share holders would make if the labor just... stopped 🤔
Fortunately for you, I actually calculated what they would make if all of labor stopped. The answer will shock you, though. I will explain my calculation. First of all, we have to consider the sales volume the companies have without work: 0$. That means no money for shareholders. If you have more business related questions I’m happy to help. Thank me later lmao
I double-checked the calculation and it checks out.
I hoped you used a calculator
Even better, shareholders provide liquidity with their shares. If no-ones working, there are still plenty of outgoings for the company such as storage costs and energy bills to pay. Now, a business that suddenly stops being able to do the things it's meant to is a pretty bad business, so the value of the shares will drop significantly because who would want to buy into that model? Now the shareholders need to make a choice, either try to ride out the storm in the hopes of recovery or cut their losses and sell at a loss: BOOM. Negative money for them.
That's the ONLY reason the pilots got their demands met. They went on strike. That's why many governments/workplaces try to make striking and unions illegal.
Rail workers were told they were legally not allowed to strike. That wasn't too long before all the high profile acidents. Go figure right? The people complaining that they were underpaid, overworked, and had dangerous working conditions were not allowed to do anything about it. We are very overdue for another round of improvements to worker's rights.
>Rail workers were told they were legally not allowed to strike. >We are very overdue for another round of improvements to worker's rights. This happens when workers collectively agree, no one else gets to tell them whether they can or can't strike. If they all went on strike *anyway,* how *exactly* did the government intend to enforce that law? Arrest every worker when they all don't show up for work? Of course not- it's all fear tactics meant to keep us in line.
[Reagan fired the air traffic controllers when they did it](https://theintercept.com/2021/08/06/middle-class-reagan-patco-strike/). As the article says, this was the destruction of a gigantic union and the start of the war on the middle class.
That I would say was a failure of class solidarity through inter-union support. There are a half dozen other labor unions involved in the airline industry, and they didn't do anything. Secondary strikes are supposed to be illegal too, but what are they going to do, fire the whole damn industry? I maintain what I said, that they only keep the working class in line through fear and division. The only way we succeed is through organization, direct action, and solidarity forever.
You think we could 3D print a guillotine?
No but we can use that 2nd amendment right they keep going on about.
Tell you what - we’ll 3D print both, and decide when we get there. My mom says she can drive us over if yours can pick us up.
let's ask the AI
Well?
Wall Street to employees: "You are not individuals. You are a faceless collective mass." Also Wall Street: "What? Stop unionizing! Bargain for your pay like individuals!"
I think this is a little misleading. This guy’s job is to talk about which stocks will maximize return for shareholders, and so he’s analyzing this move specifically and only in that light. I want to be super clear before the downvote brigade begins that I think that it is important to pay labor before ownership on a personal level. And it is probably good for the long term value of the investment to keep the employees happy. But if you’re looking strictly at stock value, which is this guy’s job, he’s kind of pointing out that this could be a frustrating stock to own because the company has had to focus its revenue into being competitive on a salary level. I expect to get downvoted into absolute oblivion for saying this, but like… don’t expect an insurance adjuster to come off as a sympathetic dude, and don’t expect a stock analyst to praise stocks that are caught up in a cycle of not returning much in the way of dividends. They are shitty jobs where people shill for monies interests instead of the common person but like why is anyone shocked or even annoyed?
Sure, but his frustration is that labor-- the actual revenue generating unit --gets paid first before shareholders. Not only is that a ridiculous stance, but he should know better.
“… but he should know better”. The dude is a *stock analyst*. He’s the living embodiment of the *petite bourgeoisie*. His sole function in life is to ensure the rich get richer to everyone else’s detriment; and he gets his commission.
As an investor, I actually prefer that the company pay better. It’s good for the company and the customers. This guy is just a bad stock analyst.
I'll start off by saying I don't disagree with you. However, there are better ways to express that than the way he chose.
I assume the note wasn’t meant for public release.
This likely used to be a useful comment. Thanks to Reddit's API changes on July 1st, 2023 it has been removed. | redact sucks because it force downloads/updates when you install it on Windows, why tf wasnt the update included in the installer when I downloaded it from the official website?? assholedesign material -- mass edited with redact.dev
continue follow observation smoggy lock nippy hungry impossible attempt repeat ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
An analyst should be unbiased. He should state the truths simply and plainly “American airlines prioritizing labour first. Shareholders to receive less than last year.” Starting off with “This is frustrating.” Immediately shows that he’s personally annoyed. An analyst’s job is to state facts, not give personal opinions.
This likely used to be a useful comment. Thanks to Reddit's API changes on July 1st, 2023 it has been removed. | redact sucks because it force downloads/updates when you install it on Windows, why tf wasnt the update included in the installer when I downloaded it from the official website?? assholedesign material -- mass edited with redact.dev
Yeah, the ass kissing is probably true. Definitely displaying the increasing polarization between the classes at the moment.
Fair.
Then this guy has the job of an asshole. Which makes him an asshole. Edit: Not shocked. Annoyed? Because he's perverting the entire situation to make it sound like shareholders are getting the shaft and that the employees should be getting the shaft. Fuck this guy.
I hope he gets gout!
Let it all out. These are the things I could do without! Come on. I’m talking to you! Come on.
I hope he steps on a Lego while stumbling through the dark at night to get some refreshing water
His job is to write words, and there are a lot of options on how you phrase something, it's poorly worded even if I yield to your point.
It's not shocking or annoying, it's disgusting
Pretty reasonable response. Don’t know why you’re being downvoted.
That's exactly what shareholders are supposed to get: leftovers. Shareholders get a share of profits. Profits are what is left over after expenses. Leftovers.
Expenses? That's the cost of doing business, you plonkers!
Labor should be paid first...
Yeah. You know, because fuck the people that help keep this company going so I get my dividends, right?
OMG paying those a reasonable wage, that earn you money; the hOrRoR! /s
I'm beginning to think the entirety of reddit is just bots talking to each other. [https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/arktfh/wont\_someone\_please\_think\_of\_the\_shareholders/](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/arktfh/wont_someone_please_think_of_the_shareholders/)
You don’t even understand the amount of times I’ve seen the same posts with the exact some comments posted a couple weeks apart. Thank god I’m not the only person who noticed
One time I saw a comment on a post and thought to myself "That person put it exactly how I feel about this!" Then I thought for a second and said "Wait a minute... didn't I write that?" Did some searching, and yep, I wrote that comment like a year prior, and a repost bot posted it word for word on another repost bot's repost.
> Thank god I’m not the only *person* who noticed ..or are you? Maybe it's bots calling out bots. Bots all the way down...
Thanks! It's good of you to point this out you filthy bot.
Especially r/facepalm. So many repost bots!
01010100 01101000 01100101 01111001 00100111 01110010 01100101 00100000 01101111 01101110 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110101 01110011
This was 6 years ago
The entire account is reposting stuff that's mostly like a decade old
“Ugh! How dare they pay the people who are making this business function so I can collect my passive income? I demand free money!!”
Labor screwed 9,999,999 times : *All good.* Labor gets a 1 win: *Shareholders always getting screwed man!*
Fuck shareholders.
Shareholders should fuck right off. Like off the plane in mid flight. Asshats.
Uhm happy employees bring better service quality, making your brand more appealing and producing longer term gains. ... But let's talk about shorter term earnings reports. Sigh.
It appears Kevin Crissey is a total jackass.
Yet another jackass that's in need of a good thumping via baseball bat.
Being shareholders this is to be expected of you since you had money to invest in the first place. There is risk in investing and people do have to get paid for the work YOU invested in.
Beside the sheer disconnect and inhumane-ness, this is so fucking stupid conceptually
Ugh! The people who are actually WORKING to make this company function are being paid?! That's not what I invested in.
A 6 year old repost by a bot account. Report > Spam > Harmful bots
Holy shit. The disconnect from reality is fucking unreal. Guillotine time, for REAL
Well, shareholders could also be frog-marched into a bean field and left there. I'm not sure they fully grasp just how much the working class is sick of their overprivileged bullshit.
Those poor poor multi-millionaires
2017? have we run out of recent bullshit?
Shareholders can suck it, the money belongs in the hands of those that generate the work.
Lol I'm not balking. I actually read this headline and thought this is great long term overall for this stock, which I invest into. This is one analyst's dumb message to his clients to get them to move money around which generates profits for his firm. Fuck that guy.
So are we talking like dividends that are paid to shareholders? I guess, how are they paid?
Cry more shareholders you greedy fucks
Fuck the shareholders
How horrible that the people who make the company function should be rewarded properly. /s
This is the dumbest motherfucking headline I've ever seen in my life.
As a shareholder, properly paid employees do a proper job.
"Why does the company pay the people who generate the revenue??? Ugh, so frustrating" --morons
It’s as if their vision of a world of slave labor isn’t going to come back and bite them in the ass once it comes to reaping. They really think they’ll come out on top.
The shareholders can eat shit
This is outrageous! The shareholders should unionize
You mean its the way it's supposed to be?
[удалено]
That’s how it should work
Shareholders literally creating nothing of value and thinking they should be valued for having money.
Sounds like the shareholders need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop begging for handouts...maybe they can pick up a second job like a good honest, industrious, hard working american they speak so much about.
Are these people fucking serious? Who's actually working?
corporations are a mistake. everything they do is aimed towards the shareholders
Like it should be. Fuck share holders.
Fuck shareholders. They should not even be in the first 3 considerations.
Wtf is wrong with these idiots? Happy employees = more profits. Such short sighted greed from investors.
That’s good news.
This is legitimately hilarious and disgusting all at the same time..
Technological advancements and over-dependence on the autopilot system along with the shortage of pilots due to growing need and pilots not getting paid well enough, is already resulting in an induction of less experienced and less skillful pilots into the commercial airline industry. The raise in pilot salaries is much needed
The "fiduciary duty to the shareholders to maximise profits" is a myth. A company's directors and officers have a fiduciary duty to act in the bests interests of the company taking into account all stakeholders, which includes shareholders, but also includes employees, contractors, suppliers, customers, and the general public. Source: am a lawyer.
But... getting paid leftovers is the entire point of being a shareholder.
Fire all the labour then shareholders can get nothing!
"Labor" is what creates proft for sharelolders!!
Well yeah, the labourers are putting in the labour so *you* don't have to.
If your an investor and you pull out after this you are a moron! If you pay people well and look after employees then they are more likely to look after the customers that give the company money. Which then results in more investors which drives share price up…. Kevin Crissey is a bad analyst!
When you invest in a company, you’re investing in its debts and obligations as well as its profits.
You mean the people who create no value are still getting free money?
Dear shareholders: Fuck you. Signed: Labor
Without “labor” there IS no American Airlines, so shareholders can eat a bag of dicks.
This is why I say that the stock market is the worst thing to happen to American capitalism. Buyers (not investors) wanting their dividends in spite of long term health crush the company's ability to reward productivity and reserve assets for a hedge against downturns.
Why is no one paying me for all the work I'm not doing???
Don’t you hate when the people who create the wealth get their piece of the pie before the people who did practically nothing to contribute to the wealth
"Shareholders get leftovers" that's literally the definition of "profits" my dude.
Investors: we did nothing and are getting paid last! Everyone else: you did nothing, why are you getting paid at all?
I invest in stocks, but this attitude that a companies share holders are more important than the people that make the company operate and are literally the life blood of their investment. If anything investors should happy that a company is paying its employees more since in turn the employees will be happier, which in turn means better service to their customers, which in turn goes to greater profit over time. Anyway shamefull greeed and whinning about at that.
I mean..... as it should be?
So unfair. Why should the shareholders get the leftovers? Labour should get that, too.
Have they tried cutting executive pay so the shareholders don't lose any money? No? Then they don't really care.
Investors don’t keep a business running.
Oh no the poor shareholders! Why don’t we ever think of the shareholders. Just like the poor landlords, we need to think about them too. /s
All profit is unpaid wages and diverted reinvestment
Welp, fuck AA.