this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
813 points (94.4% liked)
Greentext
4482 readers
2693 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
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
Replace waiter with "CEO" and you begin to understand why socialists believe what they do
Except instead of 25%, it’s 250%.
And the company owners do not walk or have to deal with customers.
Of course they don't walk, they ride pelotons
It must be hard not knowing even the most basic math. How is this CEO getting more money than I pay for the meal?
Sorry, I probably should have explained better, it’s a bit of intentionally misusing the meaning of the term “value” for a joke - the original greentext said “25% of the value of the food”, so if you think of the amount of money required to purchase the raw ingredients and the labour required to create the final meal, that could be considered 100% of the food’s value. So if the food cost $5 to make, the company would sell it at $12.50 to get 250% of the “value” of the food.
But the term “value” usually refers to whatever the customer is willing to pay in exchange for a product, so the joke has an extra meaning - the CEO demands to be paid 2.5x more than anyone is actually willing to pay for it.
Ironically though, CEOs getting paid more than the value of any of the actual sales they generate isn’t uncommon, especially in tech. There are a number of economic sectors (like tech) that function effectively as ponzi schemes. “Venture capitalist” firms invest in tech companies which never actually generate a profit, in the hopes that they will at some point hit it big and make a shitload of profit - which does happen, every now and again: Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc.
Eventually, most tech companies reach a point where they’re pretty much about to collapse, then they’re bought out by some other company - either a larger tech company that wants to acquire their intellectual property, or some other company to strip them of assets or just hold onto the company for some other purpose.
The majority of the VC-funded tech sector is completely unprofitable and held up entirely by investment. For example, OpenAI has billions of dollars worth of debt and has never made any kind of profit.
We are well overdue for this bubble bursting and having another crash akin to the .com bubble
Hey, that's fair, and I obviously didn't get the play on meaning.
And as for the rest, I was flabbergasted when Amazon only had losses of $400 million one year and their stocks went up. Amazon went on to produce some value, and profits, and then screw over a number of businesses and employees with their market dominance in the online store business before completely abandoning any standards for the sake of profits. So the only thing I'm certain of in the stock market or industry values in general is that I'm woefully unqualified to determine what's valuable or not.
*Manages the business, pretty sure that is their actual job, but...
I believe in socialism because the lions share of value should be returned to those who exerted the majority of effort, not the inverse, which is the stupid system we have now
Yeah. Co-ops of sufficient size have CEOs it’s just that the workers are the board
While I agree with you - who can say which workers exert the majority of effort?
By the amount of physical effort - sure, blue collar workers do the most. But this effort is also easy to find from others - everyone can do unskilled labor. So should they receive a lion's share of the company profits just because, what? They managed to get hired?
By the amount of admin, maybe it should be IT or HR or some similar department. Without them, you wouldn't be efficient. Without them you'd never be able to expand. But they don't work on the actual product, they're just there for the ride and would be doing the same thing for any other business.
Should it be sales? Engineers? Security? All these categories have the same pluses and minuses going for them.
And now let's say I start a small business. I go through the trouble of being good enough in my field to come up with a product or service that people will like. I invest my own money into this small business, and I sometimes don't get paid so I can afford to pay my suppliers. I have months where I cut electricity at home so I can keep it on in the office. I fight the beaurocracy of the state, with its million forms I have to fill in and it's million hoops I have to jump through. And this business takes off, and I finally make enough to have it be worth it. And you're telling me I should share with the others? With everyone else who hasn't put as much as me on the line, but now wants to be part of the success? Motherfucker I will cut you.
Or let's say I don't keep the company, I sell it. It goes to some conglomerate who keeps it functioning but installs a new CEO to cut costs and streamline processes. Are you telling me they paid me tens of millions of dollars for the company just so that they can share the profit with the workers? So that they can take directions from them? From the workers, who paid nothing? Who offered nothing in exchange for the rights to the business? Fuck, I'm taking you to the parking lot and breaking your kneecaps with a baseball bat, where the fuck do you even get the balls?
Or let's say I go public. I sell shares, and people buy them. A lot of people invest a lot of money into the company, and want to get their money back. You're telling me that when I turn a profit and decide to share it, I shouldn't give dividends and reward the shareholders who believed in me - instead I should reward the workers who've been getting paid all this time, who've been risk-free in this enterprise, who've been profiting whether I go up or go under? Eat shit and die.
There is no universe where workers, who are staking nothing in a company, should get rewarded over those who have a financial stake in it.
Your comment is weirdly aggressive and is entirely predicated on the idea that we can't have any economic system other than the one where the ownership class and the working class are distinct.
The whole point of workers owning the means of production is that they will take on the risk as well as the reward. The belief in that idea conjoins with the belief that it shouldn't be possible to profit from the labour of others purely because you have money to start with. It's conjunctive with the belief that the investor class is surplus to requirements.
An argument against this is, how would we maintain productivity if no wealthy people were investing in new businesses or in reviving dying ones? There are entire industries that exist only to feed into this machine. This system, that claims to be only motivated by increasing productivity to increase profits, is only putting the brakes on human advancement and betterment of our quality of life. Advertising is, by many measures, the largest industry in the world. So much talent and effort is exerted on how best to sell people a product they don't need, an art form mostly now perfected to convince us we can't live without these things, all in the name of profit.
I'm not well read enough to say that I definitely believe that the world would be better if we enforced worker co-ops. There's so many other ways things could go wrong. I do think you need to open your mind to the fact that the systems we have in place exist only due to opportunism of those who came before us.
Yeah, sorry about that. I was imagining myself in those situations and offering my own reply to the supposed request of someone different taking the credit for my own hard work, while not taking any of the risks.
I feel like enough attempts and takes have been had at workers owning the means of production, by all communist states that have existed. And since they all had the inherent flaw that they are ran and populated by humans, they all end up in corrupt enterprises where there are still just a few sitting at the top, while the masses are fighting for scraps. Arguably the best implementation of it would probably be coops, but the people managing the coop are as susceptible to corruption as any other and are also likely to end in embezzlement/power trading.
Oh, I fully agree. However, I was literally a few months away from being born in a communist state. All my life I heard stories from my parents and grandparents about the small daily injustices they lived through. I'm 100% sure capitalism benefits a handful of people and the rest are suffering - but they're not suffering more than in communism, I'll say that much. People aren't disappearing from the streets if they criticize the CEO of coca cola. They don't get found years later in a government camp, or in another communist country, or not at all. You don't need to hide your comments about the head of state in a layer of fable-like obfuscation. You don't have to worry about if the friends you're joking around with will rat you out to the government because 1/10 of the population is recruited by the secret police, and even more are collaborators. For what it's worth, you have these small liberties under capitalism. I was almost on the other side of that line, and it really annoys the shit out of me when I see people who are only arguing in favor of communism from the safety of their capitalism-created life, unaware that if the situation was the opposite and they were a capitalist in a communist country, they couldn't even dream of making their pro-capitalist thoughts public for fear of their and their family's life.
A dull knife like you won't cut anyone.
banger of a comment, you deserve some sort of compensation for this contribution