3 ms·
>It's quite funny that we see the CEO of a publicly traded company has worse than a sole-proprietor, when profits will go directly to a sole proprietor- but not
by coldtea 10mo ago
>It's quite funny that we see the CEO of a publicly traded company has worse than a sole-proprietor, when profits will go directly to a sole proprietor- but not to a shareholder CEO.
Speaking in the same mindset as the parent, we're fine with the profits going directly to a sole proprietor.
In fact, what we want is a name attached to the profits, and a not a role.
We're not anti-profits.
We're anti bland corporate leadership, with no reputational risk and no personal ties to the company (and often no financial risks either, see golden parachutes) - one whose only mission is to maximize profits, product and customers and legacy be damned.
- dijit 10mo agoThis is a totally fair point to make. As mentioned though, the irony is in that, once upon a time, the lords and landed gentry were the "bland, soulless overlords" and so buying things would improve their profits... and nobody could become them. Then the idea of fractional ownership came about and the common man could buy in to an enterprise. Now of course, everyone is correct that this has been weaponised- but it's often interesting to go back to the original intent (or idea) of something to see how warped it has become.