221–230 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have an iPhone? Mine is constantly turning “and” into “ABs” when I type with swipe.
I've noticed too. Idk what it is about iOS's autocorrect that has made it go to absolute shit over the last few years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If people are working full time yet still in poverty, they will need government services like food stamps. In this scenario your tax dollars subsidize businesses that pay poverty wages. Wal Mart is the top employer of SNAP and Medicaid recipients. You would rather subsidize Wal Mart’s margins with your tax dollars?
I think the role of government is limited to that of protecting constitutional rights of citizens. People in impoverished countries live with extended family and share income and get along just fine. We shouldn't violate rights of individuals to facilitate a welfare program. That should be handled by families, communities, religious institutions, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, large tech companies are not paying out tens of billions of dollars to the average worker. Did you mean that tens of billions of dollars are going to ALL the tech workers combined? True, but a single absolute number means little when the conversation is about relative distribution of resources and how those numbers change over time.
what is the claim here? That the majority of the tens of billions are given to what, L7 and above? L10?
My claim was that your argument isn't well supported, not that you're wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a French, it's funny seeing references to the French revolution as some kind of rebellion against the rich. Most people don't realize that the revolution was led by the nouvelle bourgeoisie ( new nobles) who were tired of paying taxes to the royals. They sacrificed thousands of commoners to reach their goals akin to how Russia is sending in soldiers into the meat grinder, and France was a much worse place afterwar…
> As a French, it's funny seeing references to the French revolution as some kind of rebellion against the rich As an American with basic history knowledge I find it funny as well. The internet angry mob ideal of the French Revolution has become a meme in itself. It’s not actually about improving conditions or raising wages, it’s just an outlet for impotent internet rage.
For modern society the question of whether there are any regrets in living in a world entirely restructured by the French Revolution is maybe also interesting, but I think people should be a little selfish about having a reasonable present.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and no. Executive compensation, from one perspective, is the mechanism via which shareholders align executive behavior in their favor, to the detriment of workers.
Worker pay is determined by the Law of Supply & Demand, not by the amount of executive pay. I.e. worker pay is determined by the minimum wage the worker will accept and the maximum wage the company is willing to pay. The latter figure is based on the value the worker will provide. Executive compensation is not part of that equation.
They might have twice the yield with the new varietal, but if their crop fails: they risk destitution and might even loose their land. So they rationally choose the proven lower-yield varietal. Their risk appetite is proportional to their savings, if they have any. A catch-22.
For low wage workers in America, is it that much different? So many people stay in badly paying jobs because if they loose access to health insurance they could loose their home. Or get sued over a non-compete they cannot afford to fight.
Seems like below some threshold of wealth, supply and demand don't apply anymore. People are forced to choose the least risky option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> self corrects with pitchforks. Does no one read history anymore? The elites after the French Revolution were not only mostly the same as before, they escaped with so much money and wealth that it’s actually debated if they increased their wealth share through the chaos [1]. Like, in the country today, which wealth constituency is most pushing for overthrowing our republic? [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/650023
And a few of them, of course, lost their heads.
A few of them were always losing their heads. That is the nature of violent elite competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just have to not be among the last suckers to be left to hold the ball.
If there's even a hint that a company is sacrificing the long term for the short term, the stockholders will run for the exits. Share prices can tank before anyone is able to make a trade. This is why professional investors spend awful lots of money on research into the companies they invest in. They're not stupid.
And speculators don't care about any of that while the line is going up. They're not stupid, they just don't care about the actual health of the company, since today it is almost completely decorellated from its share price.
Look at Tesla and tell me why the investors have not yet fleed the scene, in light of the disastrous signals that keep popping up. Because it doesn't matter to speculators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and no. Executive compensation, from one perspective, is the mechanism via which shareholders align executive behavior in their favor, to the detriment of workers.
Worker pay is determined by the Law of Supply & Demand, not by the amount of executive pay. I.e. worker pay is determined by the minimum wage the worker will accept and the maximum wage the company is willing to pay. The latter figure is based on the value the worker will provide. Executive compensation is not part of that equation.
> the maximum wage the company is willing to pay
This is the primary method I was thinking of. A company/CEO has a variety of reasons for paying its labor more than the minimum (retention, moral belief, working next to colleagues, etc). Shareholders really only have executive comp (and its structure) to discourage CEOs from paying labor more than the minimum necessary.