4 ms·

Stuff like this will lead to the rise of socialism again tbh. It's like Tucker Carlson said - it's no wonder that the young people support socialism, when they

by _vbnz 4y ago

Stuff like this will lead to the rise of socialism again tbh. It's like Tucker Carlson said - it's no wonder that the young people support socialism, when they can't afford a house and face massive economic uncertainty even in professional fields, etc. Everyone knows that the super-rich executives will benefit massively from this (or have already taken huge bonuses and dividends in prior years), and they basically run the government and will face no consequences. They get rewarded for failure, meanwhile normal working people face mass lay-offs, high interest rates and high inflation.

dachryn 4y ago
the execs definitely miss out on a lot of money because bonus programs are typically multi year. There are always -short term (how did we do this year, the classic everyone gets) -long term (bonus defined today, paid out over a few years if you meet the strategic goals, typically director and exec level, we are easily talking 100k+/year here in bonus money) bonusses. So, yeah, still a financial letdown for them. But they still got paid quite a lot of money of course. The average swiss person had no stakes or no culpability at all (except maybe choosing them, clients could have walkd away)
- cableshaft 4y ago
  But they've already made out like bandits in the meantime, and can move on to the next company to raid (I mean, be an executive of). Like you can make $5 million a year now, but have things suddenly end on you at some point when things come crashing down, but probably not for several years, or you can make $1 million a year, but play it safe, and in five years get a $7 million long-term bonus. Might as well get as much out of the company now and trust the government will bail you out (or not, what do they care, they can just move on to the next thing, and even if not, they've already made a shit ton of money, they could just retire, no big deal).
- handsclean 4y ago
  In my country it’s not illegal when you punch somebody in the face, but we have another deterrent that works very well. If you punch somebody in the face, then he pulls out his wallet and gives you $50, then presents his face for you to punch again if you’d like. Once you stop punching, he gives you $100. So you see, assailants quickly learn that face punching is an action of grave consequence and loss, and the fact that everybody here is punching each other in the face all the time is probably because of something else.
akvadrako 4y ago
[flagged]
- _vbnz 4y ago
  Socialism isn't just "government does stuff".
- lwhi 4y ago
  It's not socialism. It's just an inevitable effect of capitalism. The idea that 'the market decides' is a complete myth. In reality the economy is too interlinked for this to ever be allowed to happen.
- _djo_ 4y ago
  With social and economic consequences that might dwarf this level of costs. It's seldom that simple.
  - polotics 4y ago
    I therefore propose "hostage capitalism". What do you think? Maybe "captured capitalism"?
  - BeFlatXIII 4y ago
    How strongly will those costs be felt by the Swiss people compared to the rest of the world?
- lm28469 4y ago
  Yes, 100% textbook socialism lmao: privatizing profits and socializing losses
- mrsuprawsm 4y ago
  *socialism for the rich. The poor get the privilege of underwriting the rich's losses.
- bearmode 4y ago
  Explain how this is the workers owning the means of production, please.
mschuster91 4y ago
> It's like Tucker Carlson said - it's no wonder that the young people support socialism, when they can't afford a house and face massive economic uncertainty even in professional fields, etc. What? Tucker Carlson said something sensible and actually correct for once in his life? For real though - remember the saying "If at age 20 you are not a Communist then you have no heart. If at age 30 you are not a Capitalist then you have no brains"? It's just the same: by age 30, the generations of my parents and before generally had a stable job with one earner earning enough to feed a family, afford to buy a house and a car. Basically, back when that quote was said, people at 30 had actual assets to their name which (at least fundamentalist) Communism would have threatened to take away... but our generation? What do we have that actually belongs to us? Our homes are rented, our cars are beaters barely road-worthy, financed/leased or we don't have cars at all, our computers are often enough simply the machines we get from work, our phones are rented from our phone providers and our "pensions" are a virtual joke - the pensions in the US are a gamble on the stock market (and heaven forbid if there is an actual correction - stocks are fundamentally overvalued by at least 50%, but correcting that downward would wipe out so many people that politicians have no other choice than to feed the beast), and thanks to medical debt being a thing and elderly care costs exploding as well we can't even expect to inherit meaningful wealth. Oh and the old tale our boomer parents told us from "you have to waste your childhood with learning and learning and learning otherwise you end up poor" turned out to result in "we are poor anyway". So, why should we defend a capitalist system that doesn't even give us anything in return? Why should we defend the right of rich people to exist when we have to struggle to make rent and food each month? Why should we not take up the pitchforks?!
- cudgy 4y ago
  > Why should we not take up the pitchforks?! US citizens are too lazy to consider voting for candidates other than the ones lambasted by their corrupt news sources. Picking up a pitchfork and deciding who to stick it into requires even more effort.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  > Oh and the old tale our boomer parents told us from "you have to waste your childhood with learning and learning and learning otherwise you end up poor" Well, Lenin did say “Study, study and study.”
thrown123098 4y ago
Everything you need to see why socialism only happens when people are starving in this other Fox News interview: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wVEEsgz524s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wVEEsgz524s
- nivenkos 4y ago
  That's a really American government/welfare-based view though. I'm in a trade union and here in Sweden we support the Left party because they support trade unions - e.g. in the 80s there were proposals for having union members on the board, having unions own a stake in the companies, etc. - these all would have helped a lot with the current mass layoffs and inflation.
  - ExoticPearTree 4y ago
    I never understood unions, since all they seem to care is to force companies to keep people employed no matter what, even when they're not needed anymore. Speaking of the US, the unionised work there is terrible: at 4PM they would drop everything and come back the next day. No overtime, no nothing. You can't do a rush job or anything, they worked at their own pace and they didn't care about our deadlines and stuff. Its like dealing with government employees. On the other hand, working with non-union people was great. They would put in the hours with no fuss, and obviously get paid for overtime and stuff. But you could actually get them to work as much as possible in a day.
    - ROTMetro 4y ago
      For me I never understood companies, since all they seem to care about is to force wages as low as possible instead of caring about the good of their people (and a company is nothing but a grouping of people) and to take on contracts/projects/commitments they can't meet out of greed. When given a choice, people prefer not to be overworked due to poor management/scheduling/greed. When given a choice, people prefer to have stability in employment. This is demonstrated by the fact that when they have collective power these are two of the common items they negotiate for. Unions are created to promote their members interests. There, now you understand unions :) They represent the interest of their members not the companies interests and not letting workers pay the price for poor management/scheduling/overcommitments (I think this is where you are getting confused). Unions don't care to 'force companies' anything, They care to represent THEIR members priorities. What you are promoting are a company's priorities which the company already looks out for and would be a strange thing for unions to form to then also promote.
blurbleblurble 4y ago
Why bring him into this? His only reason for ever admitting something like that is to warm people up to his thicket of lies.

by _vbnz 4y ago

dachryn 4y ago

the execs definitely miss out on a lot of money because bonus programs are typically multi year. There are always -short term (how did we do this year, the classic everyone gets) -long term (bonus defined today, paid out over a few years if you meet the strategic goals, typically director and exec level, we are easily talking 100k+/year here in bonus money) bonusses. So, yeah, still a financial letdown for them. But they still got paid quite a lot of money of course. The average swiss person had no stakes or no culpability at all (except maybe choosing them, clients could have walkd away)

cableshaft 4y ago
But they've already made out like bandits in the meantime, and can move on to the next company to raid (I mean, be an executive of). Like you can make $5 million a year now, but have things suddenly end on you at some point when things come crashing down, but probably not for several years, or you can make $1 million a year, but play it safe, and in five years get a $7 million long-term bonus. Might as well get as much out of the company now and trust the government will bail you out (or not, what do they care, they can just move on to the next thing, and even if not, they've already made a shit ton of money, they could just retire, no big deal).
handsclean 4y ago
In my country it’s not illegal when you punch somebody in the face, but we have another deterrent that works very well. If you punch somebody in the face, then he pulls out his wallet and gives you $50, then presents his face for you to punch again if you’d like. Once you stop punching, he gives you $100. So you see, assailants quickly learn that face punching is an action of grave consequence and loss, and the fact that everybody here is punching each other in the face all the time is probably because of something else.

akvadrako 4y ago

[flagged]

_vbnz 4y ago
Socialism isn't just "government does stuff".
lwhi 4y ago
It's not socialism. It's just an inevitable effect of capitalism. The idea that 'the market decides' is a complete myth. In reality the economy is too interlinked for this to ever be allowed to happen.
_djo_ 4y ago
With social and economic consequences that might dwarf this level of costs. It's seldom that simple.
- polotics 4y ago
  I therefore propose "hostage capitalism". What do you think? Maybe "captured capitalism"?
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  How strongly will those costs be felt by the Swiss people compared to the rest of the world?
lm28469 4y ago
Yes, 100% textbook socialism lmao: privatizing profits and socializing losses
mrsuprawsm 4y ago
*socialism for the rich. The poor get the privilege of underwriting the rich's losses.
bearmode 4y ago
Explain how this is the workers owning the means of production, please.

mschuster91 4y ago

> It's like Tucker Carlson said - it's no wonder that the young people support socialism, when they can't afford a house and face massive economic uncertainty even in professional fields, etc. What? Tucker Carlson said something sensible and actually correct for once in his life? For real though - remember the saying "If at age 20 you are not a Communist then you have no heart. If at age 30 you are not a Capitalist then you have no brains"? It's just the same: by age 30, the generations of my parents and before generally had a stable job with one earner earning enough to feed a family, afford to buy a house and a car. Basically, back when that quote was said, people at 30 had actual assets to their name which (at least fundamentalist) Communism would have threatened to take away... but our generation? What do we have that actually belongs to us? Our homes are rented, our cars are beaters barely road-worthy, financed/leased or we don't have cars at all, our computers are often enough simply the machines we get from work, our phones are rented from our phone providers and our "pensions" are a virtual joke - the pensions in the US are a gamble on the stock market (and heaven forbid if there is an actual correction - stocks are fundamentally overvalued by at least 50%, but correcting that downward would wipe out so many people that politicians have no other choice than to feed the beast), and thanks to medical debt being a thing and elderly care costs exploding as well we can't even expect to inherit meaningful wealth. Oh and the old tale our boomer parents told us from "you have to waste your childhood with learning and learning and learning otherwise you end up poor" turned out to result in "we are poor anyway". So, why should we defend a capitalist system that doesn't even give us anything in return? Why should we defend the right of rich people to exist when we have to struggle to make rent and food each month? Why should we not take up the pitchforks?!

cudgy 4y ago
> Why should we not take up the pitchforks?! US citizens are too lazy to consider voting for candidates other than the ones lambasted by their corrupt news sources. Picking up a pitchfork and deciding who to stick it into requires even more effort.
selimthegrim 4y ago
> Oh and the old tale our boomer parents told us from "you have to waste your childhood with learning and learning and learning otherwise you end up poor" Well, Lenin did say “Study, study and study.”

thrown123098 4y ago

Everything you need to see why socialism only happens when people are starving in this other Fox News interview: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wVEEsgz524s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wVEEsgz524s

nivenkos 4y ago
That's a really American government/welfare-based view though. I'm in a trade union and here in Sweden we support the Left party because they support trade unions - e.g. in the 80s there were proposals for having union members on the board, having unions own a stake in the companies, etc. - these all would have helped a lot with the current mass layoffs and inflation.
- ExoticPearTree 4y ago
  I never understood unions, since all they seem to care is to force companies to keep people employed no matter what, even when they're not needed anymore. Speaking of the US, the unionised work there is terrible: at 4PM they would drop everything and come back the next day. No overtime, no nothing. You can't do a rush job or anything, they worked at their own pace and they didn't care about our deadlines and stuff. Its like dealing with government employees. On the other hand, working with non-union people was great. They would put in the hours with no fuss, and obviously get paid for overtime and stuff. But you could actually get them to work as much as possible in a day.
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    For me I never understood companies, since all they seem to care about is to force wages as low as possible instead of caring about the good of their people (and a company is nothing but a grouping of people) and to take on contracts/projects/commitments they can't meet out of greed. When given a choice, people prefer not to be overworked due to poor management/scheduling/greed. When given a choice, people prefer to have stability in employment. This is demonstrated by the fact that when they have collective power these are two of the common items they negotiate for. Unions are created to promote their members interests. There, now you understand unions :) They represent the interest of their members not the companies interests and not letting workers pay the price for poor management/scheduling/overcommitments (I think this is where you are getting confused). Unions don't care to 'force companies' anything, They care to represent THEIR members priorities. What you are promoting are a company's priorities which the company already looks out for and would be a strange thing for unions to form to then also promote.

blurbleblurble 4y ago

Why bring him into this? His only reason for ever admitting something like that is to warm people up to his thicket of lies.