3 ms·

Exactly. There is no reason to pay them more. (It’s not based on how difficult it is either. It’s really based on the labor pool.) Then automate the job com

Exactly. There is no reason to pay them more. (It’s not based on how difficult it is either. It’s really based on the labor pool.) Then automate the job completely? Don’t need to pay anyone for that particular job. Then if you own the automization equipment to get rid of all the laborers? Don’t need to pay anyone. Oh, you have automated protecting your property with robots? Well. Now you own your own fiefdom completely.

mmustapic 2y ago
If all companies do that, who is going to buy their products?
- p_l 2y ago
  It doesn't matter because the capital has grown and can be exfiltrated by then, periodically raising the stock price in the process as you "divest" the company of "unnecessary" parts. The big money is made by shuffling financial instruments around, it does not care about longevity or continued existence of a company, and the more the stock is part of ones compensation the more they are going to feel pressured to serve the goals of stock price not the company. And that goes double for the big investors holding the stock - whose Excel sheets are ultimately the boss of the board members, with the bones and offal for your auguries being analyst statements. So let's say that by great effort you got great profit this quarter. Hopefully through increased revenues, but often by scuttling efforts or otherwise cutting expenses. You beat EPS ratio. ...The stock price falls, with analysts saying that the higher EPS shows not enough growth, and that you are not good prospect because you need more clients of a specific kind. So the management will push for expanding that class of clients, maybe expansion elsewhere where normal calculus would say it's ill advised. But they are compensated according to stock price and resulting ROI when investors sell off that stock or use it as collateral, not according to how well the company is doing.
- keybored 2y ago
  Once someone owns their fiefdom and can protect it with robots and everything is automated...? Then consumer capitalism obviously doesn’t matter any more.

mmustapic 2y ago

If all companies do that, who is going to buy their products?

p_l 2y ago
It doesn't matter because the capital has grown and can be exfiltrated by then, periodically raising the stock price in the process as you "divest" the company of "unnecessary" parts. The big money is made by shuffling financial instruments around, it does not care about longevity or continued existence of a company, and the more the stock is part of ones compensation the more they are going to feel pressured to serve the goals of stock price not the company. And that goes double for the big investors holding the stock - whose Excel sheets are ultimately the boss of the board members, with the bones and offal for your auguries being analyst statements. So let's say that by great effort you got great profit this quarter. Hopefully through increased revenues, but often by scuttling efforts or otherwise cutting expenses. You beat EPS ratio. ...The stock price falls, with analysts saying that the higher EPS shows not enough growth, and that you are not good prospect because you need more clients of a specific kind. So the management will push for expanding that class of clients, maybe expansion elsewhere where normal calculus would say it's ill advised. But they are compensated according to stock price and resulting ROI when investors sell off that stock or use it as collateral, not according to how well the company is doing.
keybored 2y ago
Once someone owns their fiefdom and can protect it with robots and everything is automated...? Then consumer capitalism obviously doesn’t matter any more.