3 ms·

> Sure, the CEO work value is important, but not that multiple thousand years of employees. Why not? Because you find it personally distasteful? What multiple

> Sure, the CEO work value is important, but not that multiple thousand years of employees. Why not? Because you find it personally distasteful? What multiple is OK? If it’s not 1000 is it 999? If not 500 then 400? If not 100 then 25? Instead of downvoting, try answering…

kkfx 2y ago
[not OP] I suppose because any verticistic org can be sustainable for long. To have a resilient enterprise you need value spread across the entire pyramid, if not what happen when a CEO change mind or die suddenly? Beside that, why travel to be in an office, so doing the same thing he do at home? It's not efficient, it's stupid and stupid thing done for political reasons, like justify RTO because big corps need cities while humanity today need the opposite, could not led to anything than bad lands and dire scenarios. I take that as a proof we are essentially in a falling, failed society, where we lost the substantial propulsion force, industry and open research. Or this change quickly AND SUBSTANTIALLY or we will end up like any other failed empire before, in dire conditions.
- paulcole 2y ago
  HN try not to argue against RTO challenge. Difficulty: impossible.
  - kkfx 2y ago
    Well, it's a current hot topic, since it's clearly imposed for reasons clearly against worker's interests and not direct interest of the companies they work for. So... It's natural to find many discussions who end up touching that topic... Indeed what do you think reading about someone who works from home most of the time, but took a jet to be a 1000km from home some day per week to show up in the office, something clearly not technically needed since office works is still at a desktop, not physical conference, not factory inspections or something like that. Hard to talk about something else.
monkeyfun 2y ago
Indeed, we should actually have a CEO take all of the surplus value. Or at least a continuously increasing amount. Not based on their performance or the value they can be measured to add, nor comparing against any sort of alternative structure that might be more efficient, but simply because they deserve it for their hard work ensuring the company is operational and ever-growing. Indeed, really it should be the case among all companies. And if employees dislike it, they should simply try to employ themselves and join in on the action; so often are people simply lazy whiners who should go make their own profitable business before rent's due. Actually, in retrospect, the CEOs should probably leave some surplus for the landlords to share -- without their herculean work, how would so many have a home to live in?
- paulcole 2y ago
  Huh?

kkfx 2y ago

[not OP] I suppose because any verticistic org can be sustainable for long. To have a resilient enterprise you need value spread across the entire pyramid, if not what happen when a CEO change mind or die suddenly? Beside that, why travel to be in an office, so doing the same thing he do at home? It's not efficient, it's stupid and stupid thing done for political reasons, like justify RTO because big corps need cities while humanity today need the opposite, could not led to anything than bad lands and dire scenarios. I take that as a proof we are essentially in a falling, failed society, where we lost the substantial propulsion force, industry and open research. Or this change quickly AND SUBSTANTIALLY or we will end up like any other failed empire before, in dire conditions.

paulcole 2y ago
HN try not to argue against RTO challenge. Difficulty: impossible.
- kkfx 2y ago
  Well, it's a current hot topic, since it's clearly imposed for reasons clearly against worker's interests and not direct interest of the companies they work for. So... It's natural to find many discussions who end up touching that topic... Indeed what do you think reading about someone who works from home most of the time, but took a jet to be a 1000km from home some day per week to show up in the office, something clearly not technically needed since office works is still at a desktop, not physical conference, not factory inspections or something like that. Hard to talk about something else.

monkeyfun 2y ago

Indeed, we should actually have a CEO take all of the surplus value. Or at least a continuously increasing amount. Not based on their performance or the value they can be measured to add, nor comparing against any sort of alternative structure that might be more efficient, but simply because they deserve it for their hard work ensuring the company is operational and ever-growing. Indeed, really it should be the case among all companies. And if employees dislike it, they should simply try to employ themselves and join in on the action; so often are people simply lazy whiners who should go make their own profitable business before rent's due. Actually, in retrospect, the CEOs should probably leave some surplus for the landlords to share -- without their herculean work, how would so many have a home to live in?

paulcole 2y ago
Huh?