21–30 of 1001 posts
Imagine a bus drivers cooperative. The pay will be nice but the downside that you have to show up with your own bus to join. And then probably be indebted to a bank.
If a company is owned by employees, where does the capital come from?
>Every year, those employees get a percentage of their salaries in company stock. Ok? Anybody can choose to do this if they work at a public company. But what happen if it's mandatory and the stock goes down? Now your labor was stolen at below market rate! Then we will hear "employees compensation should be resilient to market fluctuations."
Not every public company pays its employees in stocks/stock options/RSU/etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is it so insane, in a world of disparity and outsized influence of CEOs and billionaires, where people cannot afford houses? maybe the insane thing was how for hundreds of years we let the rich dictate the rules as if they knew better for having taken advantage of others.
People can absolutely afford houses. They can so easily afford houses that they buy them quickly, often for over asking. If people couldn't afford houses, they would sit unsold until sellers lowered the price to a price someone could afford. Luckily so many people can afford houses in most areas they don't have to do that.
It's insane how socialism is growing in the west after defeat of soviet union
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People can absolutely afford houses. They can so easily afford houses that they buy them quickly, often for over asking. If people couldn't afford houses, they would sit unsold until sellers lowered the price to a price someone could afford. Luckily so many people can afford houses in most areas they don't have to do that.
You're confusing some entities, often private equity or similar corporations buying assets, often to rent, sometimes just to park, being able to buy, and the general public being able to afford to buy. In many desirable metro areas, you need two high incomes (two people in tech or lawyers or finance) to be able to afford to buy anything. What about everyone else?
I think the most surprising thing about trends in modern executive class pay is just how steep it is compared to the median employee. It makes me wonder why shareholders outside the company are happy with it. For example, the Boeing CEO made 22M in 2022 and 32M in 2023. I'd argue that he did a much worse job in 2023 than in 2022 but somehow got paid almost 50% more. Even Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, is "only" being p…
If you look at many top CEOs resumes, they are almost always devoid of any real experience. People talk about replacing various jobs by AI, but I'm pretty sure an LLM could replace most CEOs and no one would notice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is it so insane, in a world of disparity and outsized influence of CEOs and billionaires, where people cannot afford houses? maybe the insane thing was how for hundreds of years we let the rich dictate the rules as if they knew better for having taken advantage of others.
I see. And you keep looking at billionaires instead of regulations or the things that make it possible, like housing regulations (talking Europe now, Idk America well enough). If you really set the market more free, you will automatically have more reasonably wealthy people bc of competition. When thede few billionaires exist due to governments favors we should think what is wrong with some people selling favors to o…
Historically there might have been a few exceptions to that, but basically always you have a few good years and then the winner(s) who emerges starts abusing their position (even without any regulation that might make it easier for them to do that). Unregulated markets tend to be inherently unstable.
And it’s not so much less vs more regulation, there are two axis and yes corrupt and inefficient governments tend to produce regulation that decrease competitiveness, productivity, fairness etc.
And then you have industries which simply can’t be allowed to be privately owned unless there is extensive regulation (because free competition is almost impossible in those sectors): utilities, banking, transportation etc. sometimes even telecom (e.g. roaming fees in the EU).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is it so insane, in a world of disparity and outsized influence of CEOs and billionaires, where people cannot afford houses? maybe the insane thing was how for hundreds of years we let the rich dictate the rules as if they knew better for having taken advantage of others.
People can absolutely afford houses. They can so easily afford houses that they buy them quickly, often for over asking. If people couldn't afford houses, they would sit unsold until sellers lowered the price to a price someone could afford. Luckily so many people can afford houses in most areas they don't have to do that.
US: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/home-price-income-ratio-re...
> If people couldn't afford houses, they would sit unsold until sellers lowered the price to a price someone could afford.
This is fundamentally not the case in much of China and Taiwan where the wealthy sit on empty homes for years or decades. The housing price in Taipei continues to climb while a large number of units sit vacant.
It's insane how socialism is growing in the west after defeat of soviet union