3 ms·

Companies are raking in record breaking levels of profit, but less than 1% of the US population has nearly 50% of the wealth, and it's still not enough for them

Companies are raking in record breaking levels of profit, but less than 1% of the US population has nearly 50% of the wealth, and it's still not enough for them, they want more.[1] They need to learn to share. [1] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/19/1170669245/millerknoll-ceo-andi-owen-video-bonuses https://www.npr.org/2023/04/19/1170669245/millerknoll-ceo-an...

ramijames 3y ago
The world is all about incentives. If the incentives of company loyalty, a better future, and better economic status are removed for workers, what is the point? I just see rampant greed that is eating everything of any worth. It makes me not want to participate at all.
- EchoChamberMan 3y ago
  The good thing is those incentives can be restored rather easily, the money is there. Events like the auto union profit share recently, and the EU trying to fight against Apple's dominance are good signs. Sustainable growth is possible, but we need to accept the limitations of reality and fight against concepts like infinite growth.
  - ramijames 3y ago
    I don't really know how you are defining "easy" here. Substantially altering cultural trends is usually a fundamentally difficult thing.
    - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
      True enough, but I do think the right person in the right place at the right time can make a large difference. I also think "Many hands make light work," maybe that is a better strategy.
- deathanatos 3y ago
  > It makes me not want to participate at all. That's not a choice? Rent must be paid, bread must be put on the table, the future must be planned for, and that means having an idea of where the money will be when I can no longer work. (If you're where you can make such a choice, great. Most of us are nowhere near it.)
  - ramijames 3y ago
    Unfortunately, I do not really have a choice.
    - deathanatos 3y ago
      Ah, sorry, I didn't realize you were the author when I responded to you! I think I'm misreading your comment a bit. I agree, it does make one want to not participate. 'Twere it only so simple…
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ponector 3y ago
Record breaking layoffs results in record breaking profits in short term. My division of international reinsurance company had gradually laid off about a half of IT people we had. Almost all contractors let go. And now the company report said they overachieved their 2023 goal to have 3B net income. God bless capitalism!
graypegg 3y ago
The weird thing about an economic model that allows that disparity to occur, is because it's some local maximum of effort to change. There's enough people willing to sell their stake in the fight to the next few up in the economic ladder, in exchange for some small portion of the wealth owned by the rung above. The main driver being that small portion they get is still greater than any amount of wealth and power the person could access before. A change in the status quo means then losing the source of that wealth. We land at a plateau because some critical mass of people (not even that many, globally speaking), accept that as OK, and their summed wealth and power outweighs everyone not in that tree. (With the amount that they care decreasing the further down you find yourself if you are in the tree.) Given the current system, we could widen that tree, so more people share in the wealth of the rich few by protecting them, and/or we can shorten the tree by reducing how much wealth one person can accrue. Either way, it's searching for a new local maximum where enough of the people living comfortably can choose to ignore the plight of the people suffering by protecting someone else. We do get some choice over the ratio though. It's just hard to get the ball moving, clearly.

ramijames 3y ago

The world is all about incentives. If the incentives of company loyalty, a better future, and better economic status are removed for workers, what is the point? I just see rampant greed that is eating everything of any worth. It makes me not want to participate at all.

EchoChamberMan 3y ago
The good thing is those incentives can be restored rather easily, the money is there. Events like the auto union profit share recently, and the EU trying to fight against Apple's dominance are good signs. Sustainable growth is possible, but we need to accept the limitations of reality and fight against concepts like infinite growth.
- ramijames 3y ago
  I don't really know how you are defining "easy" here. Substantially altering cultural trends is usually a fundamentally difficult thing.
  - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
    True enough, but I do think the right person in the right place at the right time can make a large difference. I also think "Many hands make light work," maybe that is a better strategy.
deathanatos 3y ago
> It makes me not want to participate at all. That's not a choice? Rent must be paid, bread must be put on the table, the future must be planned for, and that means having an idea of where the money will be when I can no longer work. (If you're where you can make such a choice, great. Most of us are nowhere near it.)
- ramijames 3y ago
  Unfortunately, I do not really have a choice.
  - deathanatos 3y ago
    Ah, sorry, I didn't realize you were the author when I responded to you! I think I'm misreading your comment a bit. I agree, it does make one want to not participate. 'Twere it only so simple…
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ponector 3y ago

Record breaking layoffs results in record breaking profits in short term. My division of international reinsurance company had gradually laid off about a half of IT people we had. Almost all contractors let go. And now the company report said they overachieved their 2023 goal to have 3B net income. God bless capitalism!

graypegg 3y ago

The weird thing about an economic model that allows that disparity to occur, is because it's some local maximum of effort to change. There's enough people willing to sell their stake in the fight to the next few up in the economic ladder, in exchange for some small portion of the wealth owned by the rung above. The main driver being that small portion they get is still greater than any amount of wealth and power the person could access before. A change in the status quo means then losing the source of that wealth. We land at a plateau because some critical mass of people (not even that many, globally speaking), accept that as OK, and their summed wealth and power outweighs everyone not in that tree. (With the amount that they care decreasing the further down you find yourself if you are in the tree.) Given the current system, we could widen that tree, so more people share in the wealth of the rich few by protecting them, and/or we can shorten the tree by reducing how much wealth one person can accrue. Either way, it's searching for a new local maximum where enough of the people living comfortably can choose to ignore the plight of the people suffering by protecting someone else. We do get some choice over the ratio though. It's just hard to get the ball moving, clearly.