Genuine Stupidity
Meta is set to pay its top AI executives almost a billion each in bonuses
31–33 of 33 posts
Re: Meta is set to pay its top AI executives almost a billion each in bonuses
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many shy back from thinking too hard about the riduculous wealth some accumulate I disagree - the current levels of income disparity, then Meta and Zuckerberg’s general conduct along with the general sentiment make it extremely hard to say “attaboy” when reading a news like this. I might be saying this for most readers here.
There's a Board involved with deciding these things who has made the active decision that keeping those particular people in that place is worth it. Maybe the next "hot skill" is "corporate governance auditing" to start profiling the people that keep throwing passively invested funds at such small groups of people in such large amounts. Someone's making the decisions. Food for thought. Mayhaps it's time the rest of t…
Meta's board is a joke. Zuck controls majority votes, so the buck stops with Zuck. You can very much attribute Meta's direction squarely to him.
Re: Meta is set to pay its top AI executives almost a billion each in bonuses
#33I feel like we need a society where the amount of capital you get to keep is inversely proportional to how much you give back to society, on a percentage level. Have $100 billion dollars? Great. The more you give back in charity and community, the more you get to keep. Care more about "number go brrr" and less about your fellow man? We tax all kinds of personally harmful behavior like drinking and smoking. We should…
Giving back to society means a very different thing to billionaires than it does to ordinary folk. They’d rather spend it on politicians to tear down the society they think is wrong rather than shore up the parts that are failing. I have always blamed the idea that seems to stem from liberal economics (not liberal in the American sense) that equates money with virtue, something that conservatives have taken on as a m…
Under my idea, spending on lobbying would affect the equation zero. Contribute to charity (which is still a wide range, Dolly Parton has done so much good through her works through self-initiated foundation that I would suggest she is the gold standard).
Give to existing charity. Create your own foundation (although our government should be watching like a hawk in such a scenario to make sure you're not just funneling money back to yourself).
There might be use in considering corporations "people". But that analogy only holds so far before it becomes worse than the disease it's trying to contain.