3 ms·

I think having stronger employee rights such that a company's leadership can't increase their own compensation disproportionately to that of the average employe

by ljm 3y ago

I think having stronger employee rights such that a company's leadership can't increase their own compensation disproportionately to that of the average employee. A CEO earning 350x the average worker in their company suggests that the worker isn't benefitting from the company's success the same way the boss is, despite them driving the company's value through their labour. There's nothing inherently being wrong with a billionare, it's the gulf between the median income and their own that is a problem, so making an effort to prevent such people enriching themselves at the expense of increasing their staff's pay might help with that. As it stands, workers don't have as much rights as they require, so the balance is skewed heavily away from them and towards an absolute minority of wealthy people.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
> There's nothing inherently being wrong with a billionare I disagree. The amount of money that a person can effectively use (or need) during their lifetime is likely to be less than half a billion. The people who have any kind of social conscience would reach their desired amount of wealth and wouldn't want to continue accumulating it as they know it's purely at the expense of other people and invariably the rich person has an extreme advantage in any negotiations. For someone to reach half a billion and then continue to exploit others to build their wealth higher and higher is clearly some kind of sociopath. Therefore, having a billion dollars is a clear sign that millions of people have been exploited by that billionaire. > I think having stronger employee rights such that a company's leadership can't increase their own compensation disproportionately to that of the average employee I like that idea, but it would need a way to count non-income benefits too. Also, using a mean average can be greatly skewed by the CEO's package, so maybe a median average would be more suitable.
- dbsights 3y ago
  > wouldn't want to continue accumulating it as they know it's purely at the expense of other people > Therefore, having a billion dollars is a clear sign that millions of people have been exploited by that billionaire. When two people enter a trade freely, they both come out richer. How is that at the expense of other people? You sound like a communist.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    > When two people enter a trade freely, they both come out richer. How is that at the expense of other people? Firstly, there's the myth of a "free trade" - that requires both parties to have sufficient knowledge about the deal/product and to have equal bargaining power. That's a very rare thing with Capitalism as the richer party will have much better access to information (and also the influence to bury certain information) and will have a much better bargaining position in any negotiation. Secondly - even though two parties trading with each other can both obtain an advantage from the deal, that's often at the expense of parties not involved with the deal e.g. I can go and buy cheap groceries at a discount supermarket, and would consider that both the supermarket and I benefit, but that will often be at the expense (or due to the exploitation) of the food producers and workers. > You sound like a communist. Thank you, but maybe "socialist" is a more acceptable political term
  - deepfriedchokes 3y ago
    That’s the thing, though, labor isn’t entering into an agreement “freely”, they are entering into an agreement under economic duress. You can’t freely consent if someone has power over you, and in a Capitalist system Capital has power over labor. Capitalism is therefore abusive and exploitative, by design. For the record, I am not, nor have I ever been, a Communist.

by ljm 3y ago

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

> There's nothing inherently being wrong with a billionare I disagree. The amount of money that a person can effectively use (or need) during their lifetime is likely to be less than half a billion. The people who have any kind of social conscience would reach their desired amount of wealth and wouldn't want to continue accumulating it as they know it's purely at the expense of other people and invariably the rich person has an extreme advantage in any negotiations. For someone to reach half a billion and then continue to exploit others to build their wealth higher and higher is clearly some kind of sociopath. Therefore, having a billion dollars is a clear sign that millions of people have been exploited by that billionaire. > I think having stronger employee rights such that a company's leadership can't increase their own compensation disproportionately to that of the average employee I like that idea, but it would need a way to count non-income benefits too. Also, using a mean average can be greatly skewed by the CEO's package, so maybe a median average would be more suitable.

dbsights 3y ago
> wouldn't want to continue accumulating it as they know it's purely at the expense of other people > Therefore, having a billion dollars is a clear sign that millions of people have been exploited by that billionaire. When two people enter a trade freely, they both come out richer. How is that at the expense of other people? You sound like a communist.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  > When two people enter a trade freely, they both come out richer. How is that at the expense of other people? Firstly, there's the myth of a "free trade" - that requires both parties to have sufficient knowledge about the deal/product and to have equal bargaining power. That's a very rare thing with Capitalism as the richer party will have much better access to information (and also the influence to bury certain information) and will have a much better bargaining position in any negotiation. Secondly - even though two parties trading with each other can both obtain an advantage from the deal, that's often at the expense of parties not involved with the deal e.g. I can go and buy cheap groceries at a discount supermarket, and would consider that both the supermarket and I benefit, but that will often be at the expense (or due to the exploitation) of the food producers and workers. > You sound like a communist. Thank you, but maybe "socialist" is a more acceptable political term
- deepfriedchokes 3y ago
  That’s the thing, though, labor isn’t entering into an agreement “freely”, they are entering into an agreement under economic duress. You can’t freely consent if someone has power over you, and in a Capitalist system Capital has power over labor. Capitalism is therefore abusive and exploitative, by design. For the record, I am not, nor have I ever been, a Communist.