7 ms·

If you find it acceptable to act on your selfish behavior you should also find it acceptable that the company acts on its selfish behavior, and fires you for so

If you find it acceptable to act on your selfish behavior you should also find it acceptable that the company acts on its selfish behavior, and fires you for someone to works the same but produces more, no? Which is what actually happens. Also, if I believe that newfound productivity is so amazing for stock price, I buy stock. What's wrong with this approach?

Frummy 3y ago
Yea, I find it acceptable to be just as greedy about the middle class priorities as the 0,01% are about theirs. What’s wrong is that you don’t benefit as much as them, and us workers outnumber them. I prioritise the quality of life of a larger quantity of people rather than the capital increase of a select few sociopaths.
tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
Uhm, plenty wrong with that. Someone’s left holding the bag. It sounds like you’ve sufficiently alleviated any personal risk in this hypothetical by ensuring that you get a piece of the pie.
- analognoise 3y ago
  Ah, the risk canard. Those wealthy people are so at risk! Why they're more at risk than the single mother who takes a bus to work, because of their highly leveraged position and the extreme table stakes of those so lofty! Or that's a myth, everything is setup for them to succeed, and they've captured value that we should all be sharing in because we don't fully account for externalities or the accumulation of capital. As a human being everyone should have a piece of the pie, and we can remove force from the system if we choose to - and we will one day.
thicknavyrain 3y ago
No because the marginal returns on utility to the average individual from working less is far, far, far greater than the marginal returns to utility to already insanely wealthy shareholders from squeezing a worker for all they're worth.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  If you have a 401K, it’s very likely (and for your sake, I hope) that you’re also in the set of shareholders.
  - Arelius 3y ago
    That sort-of just strengthens their point then right? It seems they should then be well positioned to compare the potential outcomes.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      The overwhelming majority of shareholders are anything but “insane wealthy”.
      - altereds 3y ago
        That is again reiterating their point that it is favorable only to the small portion of insanely wealthy shareholders and does not even favor the overwhelming majority of shareholders too who are not insanely wealthy.
        thicknavyrain 3y ago
        Yes, that was exactly it although I should have qualified that's what I meant.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  The marginal returns on the individual then manifest as returns to the broader society, happier 99.99% outweighs the earnings of the billionaires in terms of societal impact and QoL improvements. But sadly, we don’t make the rules.
arcticbull 3y ago
Man you’re going to freak out when you hear what unions do.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  They start out well but often have no negative feedback loops, so everything gets a bit rubbish.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Well, their feedback loop is the employer. The point is there's a natural tension between the two.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Most unions cut across employers, do they not? That's why they break the natural competition over individual employees that the presence of other employers generates.
PartiallyTyped 3y ago
What is wrong with this approach is that not everyone has disposable income to buy stock. I suggest that you come and visit Poland and live on the median salary for a year or two. How about we start building society for the 99.99% of us?
- prepend 3y ago
  61% of Americans own stock [0] so it’s certainly of more interest than 0.01%. I don’t think owning stock is about disposable income, it’s about saving. I would expect many people have a savings plan, if at least for retirement. So the majority of people directly own stock and there are more who indirectly do through pensions and other instruments that own stock for beneficiary purposes. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    The world exists beyond the US. Purchasing power is also a thing. Median gross salary in Poland is $18000, and about $14000 net. They earn less than 1200 per month, of which 300-400 is spent on rent excluding utilities, add another 50-100 utilities, 200 for food, then gas and transport and you quickly see that the savings are minuscule. How can you buy stock on 200 (at best) after all expenses?
    - prepend 3y ago
      You’re proposing a simple problem to solve. Select a percentage that you want to save (say 5-10%) and save that. So if you have $200/month put $10-20 into an index fund and retire in 40 years. This is the same way Americans do it. Purchasing stock hasn’t been difficult for decades and there are many zero fee index funds that you can put small amounts into each month. I can’t find percent Polish people who own stock but I will bet you $1000 that it’s greater than 0.01%.
      - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
smallerfish 3y ago
I'll let you into a little secret - you're going to die in about 40 years from now. After that, no more _hsjqllzlfkf_. Nobody will remember you in about 50 years from now. Everything you did in your life will be forgotten in about 75 years from now. In fact, it'll be as if you never existed. (*Maybe you have children, in which case revise this a little; they'll have their fond memories, but they'll also resent you for a lot of things.) There should be a _lot_ more to life than working for other people.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Not there should be. Because of mostly capitalist advances we can look forward to working less and still having a good life, but there's no should. It's been achieved, so there is more, but that's on the back of a lot of work, productivity, and progress.
- hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
  How about you don't tell me how to live my life?
sanitycheck 3y ago
Well done for accurately voicing the "opinion" of the existing system, and getting near universal criticism for it! I hope those who object who aren't already some degree of socialist will move a little leftwards now.

Frummy 3y ago

Yea, I find it acceptable to be just as greedy about the middle class priorities as the 0,01% are about theirs. What’s wrong is that you don’t benefit as much as them, and us workers outnumber them. I prioritise the quality of life of a larger quantity of people rather than the capital increase of a select few sociopaths.

tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago

Uhm, plenty wrong with that. Someone’s left holding the bag. It sounds like you’ve sufficiently alleviated any personal risk in this hypothetical by ensuring that you get a piece of the pie.

analognoise 3y ago
Ah, the risk canard. Those wealthy people are so at risk! Why they're more at risk than the single mother who takes a bus to work, because of their highly leveraged position and the extreme table stakes of those so lofty! Or that's a myth, everything is setup for them to succeed, and they've captured value that we should all be sharing in because we don't fully account for externalities or the accumulation of capital. As a human being everyone should have a piece of the pie, and we can remove force from the system if we choose to - and we will one day.

thicknavyrain 3y ago

No because the marginal returns on utility to the average individual from working less is far, far, far greater than the marginal returns to utility to already insanely wealthy shareholders from squeezing a worker for all they're worth.

sokoloff 3y ago
If you have a 401K, it’s very likely (and for your sake, I hope) that you’re also in the set of shareholders.
- Arelius 3y ago
  That sort-of just strengthens their point then right? It seems they should then be well positioned to compare the potential outcomes.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    The overwhelming majority of shareholders are anything but “insane wealthy”.
    - altereds 3y ago
      That is again reiterating their point that it is favorable only to the small portion of insanely wealthy shareholders and does not even favor the overwhelming majority of shareholders too who are not insanely wealthy.
      - thicknavyrain 3y ago
        Yes, that was exactly it although I should have qualified that's what I meant.
PartiallyTyped 3y ago
The marginal returns on the individual then manifest as returns to the broader society, happier 99.99% outweighs the earnings of the billionaires in terms of societal impact and QoL improvements. But sadly, we don’t make the rules.

arcticbull 3y ago

Man you’re going to freak out when you hear what unions do.

robertlagrant 3y ago
They start out well but often have no negative feedback loops, so everything gets a bit rubbish.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  Well, their feedback loop is the employer. The point is there's a natural tension between the two.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Most unions cut across employers, do they not? That's why they break the natural competition over individual employees that the presence of other employers generates.

PartiallyTyped 3y ago

What is wrong with this approach is that not everyone has disposable income to buy stock. I suggest that you come and visit Poland and live on the median salary for a year or two. How about we start building society for the 99.99% of us?

prepend 3y ago
61% of Americans own stock [0] so it’s certainly of more interest than 0.01%. I don’t think owning stock is about disposable income, it’s about saving. I would expect many people have a savings plan, if at least for retirement. So the majority of people directly own stock and there are more who indirectly do through pensions and other instruments that own stock for beneficiary purposes. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  The world exists beyond the US. Purchasing power is also a thing. Median gross salary in Poland is $18000, and about $14000 net. They earn less than 1200 per month, of which 300-400 is spent on rent excluding utilities, add another 50-100 utilities, 200 for food, then gas and transport and you quickly see that the savings are minuscule. How can you buy stock on 200 (at best) after all expenses?
  - prepend 3y ago
    You’re proposing a simple problem to solve. Select a percentage that you want to save (say 5-10%) and save that. So if you have $200/month put $10-20 into an index fund and retire in 40 years. This is the same way Americans do it. Purchasing stock hasn’t been difficult for decades and there are many zero fee index funds that you can put small amounts into each month. I can’t find percent Polish people who own stock but I will bet you $1000 that it’s greater than 0.01%.
    - PartiallyTyped 3y ago

smallerfish 3y ago

I'll let you into a little secret - you're going to die in about 40 years from now. After that, no more _hsjqllzlfkf_. Nobody will remember you in about 50 years from now. Everything you did in your life will be forgotten in about 75 years from now. In fact, it'll be as if you never existed. (*Maybe you have children, in which case revise this a little; they'll have their fond memories, but they'll also resent you for a lot of things.) There should be a _lot_ more to life than working for other people.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Not there should be. Because of mostly capitalist advances we can look forward to working less and still having a good life, but there's no should. It's been achieved, so there is more, but that's on the back of a lot of work, productivity, and progress.
hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
How about you don't tell me how to live my life?

sanitycheck 3y ago

Well done for accurately voicing the "opinion" of the existing system, and getting near universal criticism for it! I hope those who object who aren't already some degree of socialist will move a little leftwards now.