5 ms·

No. Even if you work for a Fortune 500 company (which 80% of the workforce doesn't), your CEO likely isn't a billionaire unless they also founded the company.

No. Even if you work for a Fortune 500 company (which 80% of the workforce doesn't), your CEO likely isn't a billionaire unless they also founded the company. The vast majority of these companies aren't lead by the only 770 billionaires in the US. Even making 15 million a year (typical Fortune 500 CEO total compensation), it would take a long time to hit a billion.

bmitc 3y ago
I was assuming the commenter was referring to how billionaires basically control everything through influence, government and regulatory capture, etc. So we're basically their little pawns and compute resources.
hcks 3y ago
You’re not working for your CEO, or at least not for his CEO quality (but his shareholder one)
elaus 3y ago
So this depends on your definition of "working for": Are you working for the CEO or for the owner of the company?
- anywhichway 3y ago
  It still not even close to the majority of Americans no matter your definition. The vast majority of the stock market isn't held by billionaires either. The total net worth of all US billionaires is ~5 trillion and the stock market is worth ~40 trillion. Even if you start counting anyone that works for a company even partially owned by a billionaire, about half of us employees work for small businesses: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/small-business-statistics https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/small-business-stati...
  - croes 3y ago
    You are still working for them, just not 100%
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      You could also say you're working for pension funds as well. This is a silly line of reasoning.
      - croes 3y ago
        You work for both but only one is good. And it's not silly just reality.
        B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago
        > only one is good Er ... which one? The one where fund managers who get bonuses for quarterly performance decide stuff? Seriously, we're getting into "banality of evil" territory ...
        guerrilla 3y ago
        > Seriously, we're getting into "banality of evil" territory ... And what? That means it's fine to just dismiss as if it's not a problem?
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        I've somehow created a thread that's attracted presumably independently wealthy people who think pension funds are evil.
    - mcherm 3y ago
      You COULD say that, if you define "working for" in a particular way. But if define it that way, then "working for" becomes a phrase that has no real use. "X is working for Y" just means "Y has a lot of influence in the world" and says nothing about the relationship between X and Y. So I don't recommend using that definition.
DeathArrow 3y ago
You don't work for the CEO, you work for people owning the company, which means the share holders.
- ddalex 3y ago
  That's why I buy a share of any company I go to, so I'm a share holder, which means I'm working for myself.
  - guerrilla 3y ago
    Are there people that can outvote you consistently? Then you do not work for yourself.
    - ddalex 3y ago
      I always vote with the majority, on principle, so I come up on top everytime
      - guerrilla 3y ago
        I asked if they can, regardless of what you or they do. If they can, then you have no power and you do not work for yourself.
        ddalex 3y ago
        And I replied, no, the CANNOT, because I always vote the majority.
iopq 3y ago
But the CEO works for the owner, who could be a billionaire At the time I worked for intuit, it was Brad Smith, but you could make the case we were BOTH really working for Scott Cook, who IS a billionaire
croes 3y ago
If you say Fortune 500 you also say Black Rock etc. So billionaires.

bmitc 3y ago

I was assuming the commenter was referring to how billionaires basically control everything through influence, government and regulatory capture, etc. So we're basically their little pawns and compute resources.

hcks 3y ago

You’re not working for your CEO, or at least not for his CEO quality (but his shareholder one)

elaus 3y ago

So this depends on your definition of "working for": Are you working for the CEO or for the owner of the company?

anywhichway 3y ago
It still not even close to the majority of Americans no matter your definition. The vast majority of the stock market isn't held by billionaires either. The total net worth of all US billionaires is ~5 trillion and the stock market is worth ~40 trillion. Even if you start counting anyone that works for a company even partially owned by a billionaire, about half of us employees work for small businesses: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/small-business-statistics https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/small-business-stati...
- croes 3y ago
  You are still working for them, just not 100%
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    You could also say you're working for pension funds as well. This is a silly line of reasoning.
    - croes 3y ago
      You work for both but only one is good. And it's not silly just reality.
      - B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago
        > only one is good Er ... which one? The one where fund managers who get bonuses for quarterly performance decide stuff? Seriously, we're getting into "banality of evil" territory ...
        guerrilla 3y ago
        > Seriously, we're getting into "banality of evil" territory ... And what? That means it's fine to just dismiss as if it's not a problem?
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        I've somehow created a thread that's attracted presumably independently wealthy people who think pension funds are evil.
  - mcherm 3y ago
    You COULD say that, if you define "working for" in a particular way. But if define it that way, then "working for" becomes a phrase that has no real use. "X is working for Y" just means "Y has a lot of influence in the world" and says nothing about the relationship between X and Y. So I don't recommend using that definition.

DeathArrow 3y ago

You don't work for the CEO, you work for people owning the company, which means the share holders.

ddalex 3y ago
That's why I buy a share of any company I go to, so I'm a share holder, which means I'm working for myself.
- guerrilla 3y ago
  Are there people that can outvote you consistently? Then you do not work for yourself.
  - ddalex 3y ago
    I always vote with the majority, on principle, so I come up on top everytime
    - guerrilla 3y ago
      I asked if they can, regardless of what you or they do. If they can, then you have no power and you do not work for yourself.
      - ddalex 3y ago
        And I replied, no, the CANNOT, because I always vote the majority.

iopq 3y ago

But the CEO works for the owner, who could be a billionaire At the time I worked for intuit, it was Brad Smith, but you could make the case we were BOTH really working for Scott Cook, who IS a billionaire

croes 3y ago

If you say Fortune 500 you also say Black Rock etc. So billionaires.