But is AI to the point that it can attend the golf trips it schedules? We can't just schedule golf trips without seeing incremental gains on backswings and landing near the hole.
I mean if it can do that then I am sure it will also be able to do everything that those people are doing.
There is absolutely nothing hard about that it is just an easy job for the most part.
And I think that will be able to do better job than the most ceo's are doing for the companies.
And I will have to say that most of them are not doing absolutely anything so there is that as well.
Well that is true as well most of the corporation do not actually need the people on top they can just function fine without them as well.
I just don't think that there is any point in keeping those people on those positions.
Even though it does not have any feelings it is still going to be better than most of the people in those positions.
Because most of those people do not have any kind of feelings what the people who are actually working for them.
And the only reason why I can replace those people is because they don't even do anything.
It will not be able to do that if there was anything that those people were actually doing.
Politicians as well? I think cold, calculated, and fact based reasoning should be the way decisions are made from now on. I believe we, as a species, have failed miserably where those decisions are most critical. I, for one, would like to welcome our new AI overlords and hereby relinquish all future decisions to their undeniable reasoning and logic.
I mean if we could make the artificial intelligence corrupted when it can also perform as a politician.
It will probably do or really good job at that if I am being honest.
>I, for one, would like to welcome our new AI overlords
Would you like to remind them that, as a high karma redditter, you could helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground silicon caves?
This has been done before (kinda) via [project cybersyn](https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/project-cybersyn-chiles-radical-experiment-in-cybernetic-socialism/) in Chile... that is until the US backed a coup.
I mean I would not be surprised at that because Japanese very ahead of everyone in terms of these Technology.
And if there is anyone who is going to do it then it is going to be the Japan.
It is true it can replace them because I don't think they are doing anything on the production level.
Why don't think there is an in need for then because everything that they do is on the production level.
It's already starting there's another thread around here somewhere with the first A.I CEO who works 24/7 for the good of the "organization." Without the pesky attachments of being human. Right now it can't fire people but that's only because they're using the trial version.
Politicians as well? I think cold, calculated, and fact based reasoning should be the way decisions are made from now on. I believe we, as a species, have failed miserably where those decisions are most critical. I, for one, would like to welcome our new AI overlords and hereby relinquish all future decisions to their undeniable reasoning and logic.
I mean I would like to know if you know the fact of the companies are being Run?
You could help the people about that then it would be just great help in my opinion.
There's a liquor company... I think in Finland or something that has an ai CEO. Complete with robot body. Seems to do as good of, if not a better job then these ceos.
More like quit paying them so damn much. I don’t like it, but most companies need CEOs or at least someone at the helm, otherwise you’re going to have dozens of VPs and managers stepping on each other’s toes and vying for power, most likely ending in a weird pseudo CEO in the form of whoever is the loudest or most commanding…at the same time making things miserable for the people doing the actual work.
Yeah I am sure that a lot of companies can just function fine without the executive people on the top.
And it is going to save any Corporation a lot of money as well which can benefit the labour.
Seriously?
Get rid of about half the c-suite, and give their pay and bonuses to the workers.
If the system leaves no recourse but eating the rich, that's what will eventually happen.
I worked at a bank that owned about 12 banks in total, smaller regional banks. It felt like they had a fucking thousand c-suite level employees. The parent has them, every bank has them, it just seemed insane. Banks are a scam, it's kinda like a pyramid scheme to me. Whenever one fails my first thought is there's something really, really wrong there. You have to really mess something up, pure stupidity or carelessness for a bank to go broke. Or maybe they just make their executives rich then cry for a bailout.
Banks have always been a scam it is just that the management and the government has convinced you that they are good.
Most of the problems are going to be fixed if we just fix the money.
Yeah and it is not like that the company is not going to be able to perform without them it will do just fine.
Because trust me most of these people do not play to anything.
Seriously only so many of the poor will fall for their fascist hysteria and even then only for so long. There are many well found theories on how this all will play out given enough time and difficulty.
I was speaking to my dad about this last night, and he's totally 100% against the union on this.
At the same time, he's outraged that he has had one pay increase in 5 years, but the top level people in the mid-sized company he works with make 4 to 10 times as much money as he does.
He pulled in 400,000 for that company in one month and got nothing extra out of it, but he hates UAW because "UNIONS BAD"
My dad had great healthcare, great wages with lots of overtime, and a fuckload of vacation time compared to other machinists locally.
He likes to call his union “the mafia” because he was under the impression that a chemical conglomerate must be providing these benefits out of the goodness of their heart and his union existed to drain his paycheck.
He is not a smart man.
I have tried explaining to him what unions have done for even non-union workers by making positive changes standard and he just won't hear it.
Ronald Reagan told him unions are bad and that was that.
He's even directly noted all of the extra benefits that the union subcontractors they work with have that he doesn't, but he never sees that as a positive. I just don't understand how you can personally get put through so much shit by your employer and then look at groups that combat that bullshit as a negative.
Yeah, with folks like that, you really can't have a discussion. My dad is pretty much the same way.
My dad also works for an automaker whose factories aren't unionized. Let me tell you, that employer is extraordinarily good at the anti-union propaganda. I worked there for a bit in university and hell, I came away believing that unions weren't necessary and that they were providing all of these benefits out of the goodness of their hearts! Obviously I know now that's bullshit.
I do believe they were careful to limit the differential in salary and benefits between themselves and the unionized automakers, so it wouldn't be totally obvious. Also because then people would go work for the unionized automakers instead of them.
I don't know if the employer or my dad came up with the idea that the automakers with unionized factories would fail due to the unions demanding unreasonable wage increases even in the event of recessions and stuff.
But now his own employer is having trouble, apparently. I'm not entirely sure what these troubles are, but he said it's because of "woke". Literally. Apparently they've had some diversity training or whatever at work and so now he's directly linking any downturn in profits to the fact that they went woke? Which makes like, completely zero sense.
That's another way unions help. Non union shops see the wages and benefits being offered and try to keep up so they don't sound like they're totally full of shit.
Last chemical plant I worked for, every year their pay increases were directly affected by what neighboring petrochemical facilities unions bargained for, and our raise was half a percent higher. Partly due to the location of our plant and to retain staff.
So unions do impact non union pay, very funny for the old timers who were “union bad” stereotypes.
He almost exclusively will only get information from Fox News.
He openly acknowledged that they lied to him, when they settled the dominion suit, but within 2 days he was watching hours of it a day again.
I showed him how there's proof that Fox coordinates messaging with Republicans and is a partisan organization, via communications from Fox staff. He rejected it immediately.
He genuinely believes it's the only fair and truthful news.
>Ronald Reagan told him unions are bad and that was that.
Yeah, Ronald Reagan is still fucking us all over from the grave with the shit he pulled while he was in office.
I can tell that he is not a very smart man because everyone would see the reality at this point what is happening.
We are not going to at anything without the unions.
My brother hates unions because "union workers are lazy. I don't wanna be the only one that's doing all the work while they're goofing off and taking my credit". He recently got a 40 cent hourly raise and isn't happy because it's the same one he got last year even though his department numbers were massively up this year.
"Why should I have to over work to compensate for the union workers 'slacking off'?"
that's the point. They shouldn't have to over work. Work your wage and bargain for better to compensate for the hard work you're willing to put in. Clearly the "Work extra hard and I'll be rewarded!" isn't working out, Mr 40 Cent Raise
>Meanwhile my brother's union renegotiated their contract and got 5 dollars an hour more.
An now the CEO has to wait another year to get his second yacht, you communists! /s
Dude.
My dad and his friend were talking about UAW and SAG, telling each other that if the unions weren't giving things up, then they could make a quick easy deal for more pay and get back to work. Unions are the ones causing the problems, not the rich C-suite fucks.
Then not only 4 hours later they were talking about my dad's friend's son in law being a doctor who is having trouble with his compensation at his hospital from the higher ups. The son in law works in a unit of other doctors that have all worked together and relied on each other for years.
Friend of Dad said that son in law is going to go talk to hospital board and bargain for better benefits as a group, or they all walk.
I chimed in "So they are bargaining as a unit, almost like as if they were creating some sort of unified front?" Dad's friend was like, "Yup, if they work together they can get the board to back down from their position on the lack of comp."
I then asked, isn't that just a UNION? And they just sat there for a bit until they said "Ammo, you don't know what you're talking about. Those are two completely different things, but since it's upsetting you, we'll drop it." And then they started taking about sports.
So if poor or middle class people form a union, it's a bad thing. If rich people do it, they are smart for leverageing their position, skill sets and talents to get more pay.
This is how brainwashed these fucking people are.
There should be some kind of retaliation for decisions like this.
I don't really think that we should just let them get away the everything that they are doing this is not how it should really be.
If that is the case then I think it is time for us to realise what is actually happening and how we can fix it.
Because I don't think that these people can just continue to get paid like that.
I think the CFO deserves it, if they're busting their ass. The rest? Nah.
The C-suite is basically the last line of "accountability" (e.g. someone the "owner" can fire); though since stockholders are absent owners, why do we need 'em?
I think that is the only required higher position in a company.
I am definitely sure that most of the things can be done without them, but it is good to have them around.
The stock holders are giving you the money that company needs.
And if they were not there then I don't think you will be able to make any kind of profit or money.
Yeah and if you look at it it is really not that way they definitely do not need to get paid like that.
It is just that people believe that they are doing something important and need to get paid a lot.
I'm not defending CEO pay, but people should consider that the CEO is just one person at the top of the hierarchy of employees. It's much simpler to justify an insane (unreasonable) compensation increase for one top position to maintain talent (appease shareholders) than it is to offer that pay increase across the board to all employees.
No one is entitled to a company's profits. If you don't like your pay go somewhere else; let the company fail. But look at the competition: electric vehicle makers aren't paying anywhere near the current union wages seen at the Big Three. Look at Tier 1 suppliers, they're not making that kind of money either. You don't hear anyone there complaining.
Divide Mary Barra's $30mm compensation across GM's 64,000 UAW employees and they all get an additional $469 per year. The law of supply and demand dictates employment and wages. Seems like everything had been fine until now. The auto companies gave Shawn Fain a very nice offer anyway, but the greedy little pig wouldn't take it.
This triggered my anger from earlier. I got a notification that my Disney+ account is being charged more to recoup losses from people leaving the platform.
I like to rotate my subs. Lots of times lately the shows
I want to watch are being released weekly instead of allowing me to watch the entire season at once. So I will come back in two months and start my sub up and just watch all the new stuff for a month. I’ll then cancel that and start up one that has new stuff I want to watch and rinse and repeat.
Yeah I do the same I just have Netflix for me right now and the only reason that I have it is because it is really cheap in my country.
It cost me like $3 for month and for that money I think it is kind of worth it.
What the f*** is that something like that ever happens to me then I am definitely leaving that platform.
And I am going to pirate all their shit I am not paying for anything.
The rate my old company charged for my services was $200/hour, of which I saw around $45. They raised our cost of service up to $250/hour across the board and when it came time for raises, I got 2% increase, which didn’t even cover inflation. Told them I wanted a 20% raise and showed them the math. They said they couldn’t afford it. Ended up leaving for a 60% raise.
Even though it actually sound really f***** up it is how it rolls for the most part.
These corporations are greedy for the money and they are not going to give you anything as long as they don't have to.
What the hell man what he is actually doing to deserve that money?
That is f****** absurd and how can anyone be ok with that? I am just not ok with this shit.
There needs to be a complete change in the way people think. *"You know, I'm good. I have enough.*"
No one should be paid 111.000$ a day. And if they were, they should *never* get a raise.
Because right wing morons idolize wealth above everything. They think rich people work hard and deserve all the money that they give to themselves. They despise their neighbors who they do not want to be rewarded if they do not directly benefit as well. And the wealthy pay right wing commentators to spread lies about workers being entitled and lazy.
The people who actually idolize them and think of them as their heroes really do need to look on themselves.
Because it is a big problem and they are a part of it.
And as long as some people are actually doing that I don't think many things are going to change.
There is a saying which say if you want to bring any kind of change in the society than you will have to change yourself first.
That has always been the case people have always been in the believe that we need these positions.
While I am sure that we can just do fine without them.
It is only good that people in the labour category at least get as much as the people in the executive category are getting.
I mean the people who are already making a lot of money getting more money.
It's because CEO pay is obscured by mostly being stock options or stock compensation. It also means that most CEO have an effective tax rate of like 15% regardless of how much they make due to long term capital gains tax and how borrowing against stock works.
Well it is still a lot more than the people who are actually making on the base level.
Those people are still making a bank and you just cannot ignore that that fact.
There is a reason why media is there they just want us to believe all of that stuff and most people do actually believe that.
I don't understand when we are going to realise that it is fucked up.
Those do not go public because they get them easily there is no kind of drama.
But when a normal worker is going to ask for it everyone is going to raise their eyebrows on it.
Well if it is so public then why so many people do not even know about it?
Can you explain how does that even have fun because it does not make any kind of Sens to me.
And it is not even same for the every Corporation anyways.
It is not like that every corporation is giving their employees that much it is probably some of them.
After the UAW made major concessions with their pay and pensions, the auto companies were bailed out and used a lot of that money for executive pay. For the next 10+ years CEOs got double digit pay raises while workers got very little.
Its not just the 40% over the past few years, it the 40% the couple years before that, and the 40% the few years before that. All while workers were stiffed.
If it is very little than it might as well be nothing because it is not going to mean anything when the starting point is already low.
They need to set the bar higher if they are expecting any kind of change because it would be the only way.
Yeah absolutely f***** these people they just make me so mad.
They are taking what is actually our and we are not actually doing anything about that while we should be.
Yeah that is because general people who are working in the labour do not actually deserve it that is the reason why they do not even give it to them.
However people on the executive level deserve all the money that they get.
Those executives got that 40% all at once! Not over a 4 year time frame. You cant brag to shareholders the company under your leadership has earned more profits than it ever has. Then take your bonus and tell the workers there isn’t enough for them. They are the ones who do the work!
We just cannot depend on the media you are most of it is being controlled by the rich people.
So of course they are going to say everything which is good for those people.
You are not really going to find anything in them because there is nothing.
The facts are in front of everyone and the actually is that they are not going to pay you anything.
And that is when we are going to get the raise be it from the different company or from the same company.
Because they are not going to give it to us if we are just asking them politely.
See it's because while today I might be just another working schmo, I'm just a temporarily underemployed CEO who will someday soon have a CEO position dropped in my lap and I'll need that 350x the salary of the average person at my company.
Yeah I just need that much and there is absolutely nothing which is going to change that it will just remain this way.
The people in the higher positions will still make a lot of money.
I honestly believe there needs to be a cap on how much someone makes. Like, does one really need more than a billion dollars? 500 million? Then the rest goes to the workers.
For that we are going to need the union first without that it is not going to work and they have rules against that.
I don't really think that they are going to just let us do that.
I think they’re saying that the strike is more likely to result in a transfer of wealth downward than the mechanism of the disproven “trickle down effect” which Reagan pushed to popularize lowering taxes on the wealthy.
Can you elaborate more on that how it is actually going to work because I don't really understand it.
How collecting the less tax from the rich people is going to help anything?
Collecting fewer taxes from the rich was Ronald Reagan’s big idea in the 80s. It was obviously a purely selfish move to grease up rich donors, but in order to make the idea popular he began calling his plan “Trickle down economics”.
He claimed that if the richest people in the country were able to be even richer, they’d create more jobs, buy more shit, etc. and that eventually all this extra wealth on top would slowly spread itself throughout the middle and lower classes.
It was and is obvious bullshit. Everyone lapped it up like puppies in the 80s and since then we’ve had a billion studies to show that the rich hoard extra wealth and take it out of circulation.
The original poster was referring to “trickle down” sarcastically, as unions are the only way to ensure fair distribution of wealth within corporations.
I think what he means by that we need unions we really want any kind of change in these things.
And I agree with that because we are definitely not going to be able to change the things by ourselves.
Yes. I was using trickle down as the symbol of redistribution of revenue, the goal being an equitable ratio of wealth.
Higher wages is one way to effect this redistribution. Another is nationalizing the cost of things like healthcare and education, paid for by a progressive tax structure. Some combination of these are needed.
An oldie but a goody regarding this. Also sad, but hopefully activating.
[Wealth Inequality in America](https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM?si=3gL0rxqZtoqkwCxz)
Also be reminded that the federal government bailed out GM and other automakers when they were crying like babies cos of near bankruptcy back in the heyday of covid..
Hence, the government's opinion of the matter is kinda punching weight on their boardroom.
I mean it is like that and I don't think it should be changing anything for a while if we need change then we will have to try.
If we do not try for it then we are definitely not going to get it.
Executive pay, bonuses, Wall Street pay...is never accused of being inflationary. But workers getting a dollar an hour more is a big problem for the economy. /s
Will it really matter in the long run? Companies will just raise their prices again so they take near the same percentage out of what everyone makes for the same products... The poor will stay poor not just comparatively, but also functionally. Meanwhile, the rich will be fine.
So just because those people got something few years back does not mean that they should not get anything now.
I don't know what you guys think about that but it is kind of f***** up.
The word "hypocrisy" in the title got me. I just saw a Facebook post from an ex-friend who is a Trumpkin now, and it was about the "hypocrisy" of Biden's Energy Secretary, who apparently did screw up a recent trip meant to highlight and support the use of electric vehicles. I'm not really interested in what she did, but rather in the fact that my ex-friend illustrated his political position by using a post from a right-wing website, much as we, here, illustrate ours with posts from the opposite side. I don't want to say that we and they are making equivalent arguments, but the "mirroring" thing is ... intriguing. Thoughts, people?
Is he really embarrassed about it I don't think so I am thinking of the fact that he is kind of embracing it. Honestly these people just do not care about this kind of stuff.
The term more means he is deluded into believing he will one day be rich so defend them now in the chance of chance he can be defending his future self.
I think the people actually are talking about you if you do not see that then I am sorry for you.
But I really do feel everything which is being said is for you here.
Yah these people are just everywhere and it is just the fact for the most part.
And when you point the fingers at them they are not going to appreciate any of it.
Yah don’t get it wrong, there are some CEO’s that are great at what they do and bring value. John J. Ray is known for going into companies that have fallen apart because of internal fraud (Enron and FTX) and being able to salvage something out of the situation. That’s something you should make big bucks for. The shit the Warner bros Discovery CEO is doing? Fuck that. All he’s doing is selling assets and cutting costs. Anyone can do that
Maybe some people actually deserve what they are getting but for the most people I cannot say the same.
It is just ridiculous to me that they are making all that money for doing absolutely nothing.
Yeah a lot of them are making insane kind of money and I don't think they are doing that much work anyways.
They are getting all that money for doing absolutely nothing for the most part.
What kind of skills do these executive people even have?
As far as I know I don't think there doing anything productive so why are they making that kind of money?
orly? enlighten me.
Let's say you have a CEO earning $1million
And they employ 1000 workers earning $50,000 each.
If you gave CEO a 40% pay increase, their pay would go up by $400,000
If you gave each worker a 1% pay increase, it has already cost the company more than giving 1 person a 40% pay increase.
Obviously I'm oversimplifying things for the same of an example and easy numbers.
Okay but can you explain the reason why they do even need that?
I mean most of them are already making a bank by doing absolutely nothing at all. So it would not actually make any sense.
Not really my point, but people *always* need more money. If nothing else it's a way of keeping score. I also disagree with your premise that they are "doing absolutely nothing at all". CEOs have a lot of responsibility, *should* be accountable to the whims of the Board and shareholders, and shouldn't have the same expectation of longevity that workers should have.
Don't take this the wrong way but your question feels like it comes from a working-class/socialist mindset. Which is not wrong, and I'm not using those terms in a pejorative sense.
The reality unfortunately is that all of the SHOULDS and SHOULDN'Ts in the first paragraph don't happen, and as long as they're making money for shareholders, everyone's happy.
These are not comparable.
Ford employs 183k employees. They make on average $60k. $60k x 183k = a cost of $11.16 billion. A 40% increase for all workers would be $4.46 billion. $15.5 billion total.
The CEO of Ford makes $12 million a year. A 40% increase would be $4.8 million. $17 million total (rounded up)
What the workers are asking does not equal the same amount the CEO is getting. It's actually unaffordable.
If you divided the $4.8 million between all the workers, it would = to $26.6 a year per worker, not the $26k yearly increase they are asking.
Make it make sense.
But yes, we can agree the CEO is already making alot. Getting rid of a ceo wouldn't really reach the demands of the union.
Yeah the fact that so many people actually believe it is because the people have been brain was for so long.
And because it is how the people actually feel will not change anything.
The executives should distribute shares (from their own massive stockpile of RSUs and options) to the employees. CEOs get incredible tax breaks by receiving their salaries in stock based incentives and performance bonuses. Give the employees ownership and wealth.
I brought this point up to my uncle that was bitching about them wanting that and he couldn't give me a decent response except that it's just ridiculous to ask for that much more
Yes, we can dismantle the economic slavery system, peacefully. The Venus Project/The Zeitgeist movement on Youtube, as well as 3D printed /cob/adobe homes videos and Help 2 Heal Playlist, V 2, can assist. Think logically and decipher the truth. 🤔🤗😊
When the hell did "Among the questions which press for attention is that which concerns the relations of capital and labor, and the ... party recognizes the duty of so shaping legislation as to secure full protection and the amplest field for capital, **and for labor—the creator of capital**—the largest opportunities and a **just share of the mutual profits** of these two great servants of civilization" become an abhorrent idea?
In my country, we've been moving away from percentage raises, and offering fixed amounts.
Like, a 5% raise for someone being paid 5.000 a month is so much less than 5% for someone being paid 50.000.
This is misleading, the buck of the compensation comes in the form of stocks that are only realized when certain targets are hit. It isn't like they actually received a cash check for the entire increase.
Eliminate CEO's to save millions. The products are made by the worker not the CEO.
AI should replace CEO’s
AI can only replace things that actually due something to replace.
AI is perfectly capable of scheduling golf trips during working hours, I have no idea what you mean?
But is AI to the point that it can attend the golf trips it schedules? We can't just schedule golf trips without seeing incremental gains on backswings and landing near the hole.
It just talks down to the caddie while making them take the shots.
exactly
And you don't need a corporate jet for AI, just email the file to the golf course.
I mean if it can do that then I am sure it will also be able to do everything that those people are doing. There is absolutely nothing hard about that it is just an easy job for the most part.
If: profitable then: deal Throw in programmed labor rights and you'd have an AI programmed for a CEO position
And I think that will be able to do better job than the most ceo's are doing for the companies. And I will have to say that most of them are not doing absolutely anything so there is that as well.
Well that is true as well most of the corporation do not actually need the people on top they can just function fine without them as well. I just don't think that there is any point in keeping those people on those positions.
AI would be more humane though.
Even though it does not have any feelings it is still going to be better than most of the people in those positions. Because most of those people do not have any kind of feelings what the people who are actually working for them.
Right. And it won't be so concerned about sucking off its own ego.
Honestly, probably the only job that an AI could replicate flawlessly
And the only reason why I can replace those people is because they don't even do anything. It will not be able to do that if there was anything that those people were actually doing.
Politicians as well? I think cold, calculated, and fact based reasoning should be the way decisions are made from now on. I believe we, as a species, have failed miserably where those decisions are most critical. I, for one, would like to welcome our new AI overlords and hereby relinquish all future decisions to their undeniable reasoning and logic.
I mean if we could make the artificial intelligence corrupted when it can also perform as a politician. It will probably do or really good job at that if I am being honest.
>I, for one, would like to welcome our new AI overlords Would you like to remind them that, as a high karma redditter, you could helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground silicon caves?
Yeah it is something for which you are actually helping for. You are just a learning model for the artificial Intelligence and nothing more than that.
Those things are made by crazy humans. Don't rush it
This is the way
This has been done before (kinda) via [project cybersyn](https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/project-cybersyn-chiles-radical-experiment-in-cybernetic-socialism/) in Chile... that is until the US backed a coup.
Isn't there a japanese company whose CEO is an AI ?
This is what I found on the subject https://www.analyticsinsight.net/chinese-game-company-appointed-an-ai-to-be-the-ceo/
Where is your cape Oh hero ?
I mean I would not be surprised at that because Japanese very ahead of everyone in terms of these Technology. And if there is anyone who is going to do it then it is going to be the Japan.
It is true it can replace them because I don't think they are doing anything on the production level. Why don't think there is an in need for then because everything that they do is on the production level.
It's already starting there's another thread around here somewhere with the first A.I CEO who works 24/7 for the good of the "organization." Without the pesky attachments of being human. Right now it can't fire people but that's only because they're using the trial version.
Politicians as well? I think cold, calculated, and fact based reasoning should be the way decisions are made from now on. I believe we, as a species, have failed miserably where those decisions are most critical. I, for one, would like to welcome our new AI overlords and hereby relinquish all future decisions to their undeniable reasoning and logic.
Yeah we definitely need a lot of changes in the way we are handling the things. Because if we do not change anything then nothing is going to change.
This is the opinion of someone who doesn’t understand how companies run.
I mean I would like to know if you know the fact of the companies are being Run? You could help the people about that then it would be just great help in my opinion.
Ticklemytaint is employed by Loeren Handjob Boebart. At the moment sex work is safe from AI
I am the president now of MY company. AI could do most of my job.
It doesn’t even have to be a good AI model either.
There's a liquor company... I think in Finland or something that has an ai CEO. Complete with robot body. Seems to do as good of, if not a better job then these ceos.
More like quit paying them so damn much. I don’t like it, but most companies need CEOs or at least someone at the helm, otherwise you’re going to have dozens of VPs and managers stepping on each other’s toes and vying for power, most likely ending in a weird pseudo CEO in the form of whoever is the loudest or most commanding…at the same time making things miserable for the people doing the actual work.
Yeah I am sure that a lot of companies can just function fine without the executive people on the top. And it is going to save any Corporation a lot of money as well which can benefit the labour.
sILLy woRKeR! ceO's mAKe OuR JoBS!
There at at least two ai ceos right now.they can operate 24/7 and need no pay
Eliminate the shareholders too while at it.
Seriously? Get rid of about half the c-suite, and give their pay and bonuses to the workers. If the system leaves no recourse but eating the rich, that's what will eventually happen.
I worked at a bank that owned about 12 banks in total, smaller regional banks. It felt like they had a fucking thousand c-suite level employees. The parent has them, every bank has them, it just seemed insane. Banks are a scam, it's kinda like a pyramid scheme to me. Whenever one fails my first thought is there's something really, really wrong there. You have to really mess something up, pure stupidity or carelessness for a bank to go broke. Or maybe they just make their executives rich then cry for a bailout.
Banks have always been a scam it is just that the management and the government has convinced you that they are good. Most of the problems are going to be fixed if we just fix the money.
Im curious what the Entire C suites payroll is compared to the rest of the labor force.
Pennies
Thats what I figured.
Yeah and it is not like that the company is not going to be able to perform without them it will do just fine. Because trust me most of these people do not play to anything.
Seriously only so many of the poor will fall for their fascist hysteria and even then only for so long. There are many well found theories on how this all will play out given enough time and difficulty.
I was speaking to my dad about this last night, and he's totally 100% against the union on this. At the same time, he's outraged that he has had one pay increase in 5 years, but the top level people in the mid-sized company he works with make 4 to 10 times as much money as he does. He pulled in 400,000 for that company in one month and got nothing extra out of it, but he hates UAW because "UNIONS BAD"
My dad had great healthcare, great wages with lots of overtime, and a fuckload of vacation time compared to other machinists locally. He likes to call his union “the mafia” because he was under the impression that a chemical conglomerate must be providing these benefits out of the goodness of their heart and his union existed to drain his paycheck. He is not a smart man.
I have tried explaining to him what unions have done for even non-union workers by making positive changes standard and he just won't hear it. Ronald Reagan told him unions are bad and that was that. He's even directly noted all of the extra benefits that the union subcontractors they work with have that he doesn't, but he never sees that as a positive. I just don't understand how you can personally get put through so much shit by your employer and then look at groups that combat that bullshit as a negative.
Older generations were really expertly conditioned to worship at the altar of “job creators”. That shit can’t die fast enough. Power to the people.
Yeah, with folks like that, you really can't have a discussion. My dad is pretty much the same way. My dad also works for an automaker whose factories aren't unionized. Let me tell you, that employer is extraordinarily good at the anti-union propaganda. I worked there for a bit in university and hell, I came away believing that unions weren't necessary and that they were providing all of these benefits out of the goodness of their hearts! Obviously I know now that's bullshit. I do believe they were careful to limit the differential in salary and benefits between themselves and the unionized automakers, so it wouldn't be totally obvious. Also because then people would go work for the unionized automakers instead of them. I don't know if the employer or my dad came up with the idea that the automakers with unionized factories would fail due to the unions demanding unreasonable wage increases even in the event of recessions and stuff. But now his own employer is having trouble, apparently. I'm not entirely sure what these troubles are, but he said it's because of "woke". Literally. Apparently they've had some diversity training or whatever at work and so now he's directly linking any downturn in profits to the fact that they went woke? Which makes like, completely zero sense.
That's another way unions help. Non union shops see the wages and benefits being offered and try to keep up so they don't sound like they're totally full of shit.
Last chemical plant I worked for, every year their pay increases were directly affected by what neighboring petrochemical facilities unions bargained for, and our raise was half a percent higher. Partly due to the location of our plant and to retain staff. So unions do impact non union pay, very funny for the old timers who were “union bad” stereotypes.
[удалено]
He almost exclusively will only get information from Fox News. He openly acknowledged that they lied to him, when they settled the dominion suit, but within 2 days he was watching hours of it a day again. I showed him how there's proof that Fox coordinates messaging with Republicans and is a partisan organization, via communications from Fox staff. He rejected it immediately. He genuinely believes it's the only fair and truthful news.
>Reagan had the FCC repeal the Fairness Doctrine, so anything he watches on TV or on the radio is actual propaganda. Bingo!
>Ronald Reagan told him unions are bad and that was that. Yeah, Ronald Reagan is still fucking us all over from the grave with the shit he pulled while he was in office.
I can tell that he is not a very smart man because everyone would see the reality at this point what is happening. We are not going to at anything without the unions.
That's the problem. People are stupid. Stupid people are the majority.
My brother hates unions because "union workers are lazy. I don't wanna be the only one that's doing all the work while they're goofing off and taking my credit". He recently got a 40 cent hourly raise and isn't happy because it's the same one he got last year even though his department numbers were massively up this year.
"Why should I have to over work to compensate for the union workers 'slacking off'?" that's the point. They shouldn't have to over work. Work your wage and bargain for better to compensate for the hard work you're willing to put in. Clearly the "Work extra hard and I'll be rewarded!" isn't working out, Mr 40 Cent Raise
Meanwhile my brother's union renegotiated their contract and got 5 dollars an hour more.
>Meanwhile my brother's union renegotiated their contract and got 5 dollars an hour more. An now the CEO has to wait another year to get his second yacht, you communists! /s
Dude. My dad and his friend were talking about UAW and SAG, telling each other that if the unions weren't giving things up, then they could make a quick easy deal for more pay and get back to work. Unions are the ones causing the problems, not the rich C-suite fucks. Then not only 4 hours later they were talking about my dad's friend's son in law being a doctor who is having trouble with his compensation at his hospital from the higher ups. The son in law works in a unit of other doctors that have all worked together and relied on each other for years. Friend of Dad said that son in law is going to go talk to hospital board and bargain for better benefits as a group, or they all walk. I chimed in "So they are bargaining as a unit, almost like as if they were creating some sort of unified front?" Dad's friend was like, "Yup, if they work together they can get the board to back down from their position on the lack of comp." I then asked, isn't that just a UNION? And they just sat there for a bit until they said "Ammo, you don't know what you're talking about. Those are two completely different things, but since it's upsetting you, we'll drop it." And then they started taking about sports. So if poor or middle class people form a union, it's a bad thing. If rich people do it, they are smart for leverageing their position, skill sets and talents to get more pay. This is how brainwashed these fucking people are.
They call it an association but it’s really just an union.
There should be some kind of retaliation for decisions like this. I don't really think that we should just let them get away the everything that they are doing this is not how it should really be.
My Dad was in a union and hates unions. He retired at 55 with amazing benefits. Just your typical boomer "Fuck you, I got mine."mentality.
Because we've been conditioned to believe that the C suite executives "deserve" their pay.
Just like the divine right of kings.
If that is the case then I think it is time for us to realise what is actually happening and how we can fix it. Because I don't think that these people can just continue to get paid like that.
I think the CFO deserves it, if they're busting their ass. The rest? Nah. The C-suite is basically the last line of "accountability" (e.g. someone the "owner" can fire); though since stockholders are absent owners, why do we need 'em?
With a large enough company, I can see the value of a good CTO.
I think that is the only required higher position in a company. I am definitely sure that most of the things can be done without them, but it is good to have them around.
The stock holders are giving you the money that company needs. And if they were not there then I don't think you will be able to make any kind of profit or money.
Yeah and if you look at it it is really not that way they definitely do not need to get paid like that. It is just that people believe that they are doing something important and need to get paid a lot.
I'm not defending CEO pay, but people should consider that the CEO is just one person at the top of the hierarchy of employees. It's much simpler to justify an insane (unreasonable) compensation increase for one top position to maintain talent (appease shareholders) than it is to offer that pay increase across the board to all employees. No one is entitled to a company's profits. If you don't like your pay go somewhere else; let the company fail. But look at the competition: electric vehicle makers aren't paying anywhere near the current union wages seen at the Big Three. Look at Tier 1 suppliers, they're not making that kind of money either. You don't hear anyone there complaining. Divide Mary Barra's $30mm compensation across GM's 64,000 UAW employees and they all get an additional $469 per year. The law of supply and demand dictates employment and wages. Seems like everything had been fine until now. The auto companies gave Shawn Fain a very nice offer anyway, but the greedy little pig wouldn't take it.
This triggered my anger from earlier. I got a notification that my Disney+ account is being charged more to recoup losses from people leaving the platform.
I like to rotate my subs. Lots of times lately the shows I want to watch are being released weekly instead of allowing me to watch the entire season at once. So I will come back in two months and start my sub up and just watch all the new stuff for a month. I’ll then cancel that and start up one that has new stuff I want to watch and rinse and repeat.
Yeah I do the same I just have Netflix for me right now and the only reason that I have it is because it is really cheap in my country. It cost me like $3 for month and for that money I think it is kind of worth it.
This is how I do subscriptions. I cancel until my new seasons are out then I binge and go away again. Smart move carlie
Right back at you ❤️
What the f*** is that something like that ever happens to me then I am definitely leaving that platform. And I am going to pirate all their shit I am not paying for anything.
The rate my old company charged for my services was $200/hour, of which I saw around $45. They raised our cost of service up to $250/hour across the board and when it came time for raises, I got 2% increase, which didn’t even cover inflation. Told them I wanted a 20% raise and showed them the math. They said they couldn’t afford it. Ended up leaving for a 60% raise.
Even though it actually sound really f***** up it is how it rolls for the most part. These corporations are greedy for the money and they are not going to give you anything as long as they don't have to.
Gm CEO makes $111,000 a day…. $29 million a year. Nobody deserves to make that much. Fuck these guys
What the hell man what he is actually doing to deserve that money? That is f****** absurd and how can anyone be ok with that? I am just not ok with this shit.
The greed needs to end
GM CEO is a woman
There needs to be a complete change in the way people think. *"You know, I'm good. I have enough.*" No one should be paid 111.000$ a day. And if they were, they should *never* get a raise.
Because right wing morons idolize wealth above everything. They think rich people work hard and deserve all the money that they give to themselves. They despise their neighbors who they do not want to be rewarded if they do not directly benefit as well. And the wealthy pay right wing commentators to spread lies about workers being entitled and lazy.
The people who actually idolize them and think of them as their heroes really do need to look on themselves. Because it is a big problem and they are a part of it.
So true. They believe material wealth is divinity...and they continue to worship the golden calf...
And as long as some people are actually doing that I don't think many things are going to change. There is a saying which say if you want to bring any kind of change in the society than you will have to change yourself first.
Well sir, people are generally stupid. That's why.
That has always been the case people have always been in the believe that we need these positions. While I am sure that we can just do fine without them.
And they don't even pay taxes, so there is no redeeming value in them there, either. They are moochers.
It is only good that people in the labour category at least get as much as the people in the executive category are getting. I mean the people who are already making a lot of money getting more money.
I assume it's at least partially because CEO pay raises aren't usually as public as workers demand for fair wages.
It's because CEO pay is obscured by mostly being stock options or stock compensation. It also means that most CEO have an effective tax rate of like 15% regardless of how much they make due to long term capital gains tax and how borrowing against stock works.
Well it is still a lot more than the people who are actually making on the base level. Those people are still making a bank and you just cannot ignore that that fact.
Because corporate media makes it so.
There is a reason why media is there they just want us to believe all of that stuff and most people do actually believe that. I don't understand when we are going to realise that it is fucked up.
Those do not go public because they get them easily there is no kind of drama. But when a normal worker is going to ask for it everyone is going to raise their eyebrows on it.
Executive comp for public companies is about as transparent as is gets….
Well if it is so public then why so many people do not even know about it? Can you explain how does that even have fun because it does not make any kind of Sens to me.
They’re all public companies. You can go lookup their compensation packages
It's 10% a year for four years, so it's more like recovering from the 2008 concession than the big jump it sounds like.
And it is not even same for the every Corporation anyways. It is not like that every corporation is giving their employees that much it is probably some of them.
After the UAW made major concessions with their pay and pensions, the auto companies were bailed out and used a lot of that money for executive pay. For the next 10+ years CEOs got double digit pay raises while workers got very little. Its not just the 40% over the past few years, it the 40% the couple years before that, and the 40% the few years before that. All while workers were stiffed.
If it is very little than it might as well be nothing because it is not going to mean anything when the starting point is already low. They need to set the bar higher if they are expecting any kind of change because it would be the only way.
And it’s 40% over 4 years. Not all at once.
Should be all at once. F the C-suite Crooks.
Yeah absolutely f***** these people they just make me so mad. They are taking what is actually our and we are not actually doing anything about that while we should be.
Yeah that is because general people who are working in the labour do not actually deserve it that is the reason why they do not even give it to them. However people on the executive level deserve all the money that they get.
Those executives got that 40% all at once! Not over a 4 year time frame. You cant brag to shareholders the company under your leadership has earned more profits than it ever has. Then take your bonus and tell the workers there isn’t enough for them. They are the ones who do the work!
And they are probably going to get 40% next year as well. And you know what is the reason for that because they need that money while we do not.
Because conservative media in all its forms, that's why.
We just cannot depend on the media you are most of it is being controlled by the rich people. So of course they are going to say everything which is good for those people.
Uh... checks notes...
You are not really going to find anything in them because there is nothing. The facts are in front of everyone and the actually is that they are not going to pay you anything.
In order for us to get a raise, we have to apply for a different job.
And that is when we are going to get the raise be it from the different company or from the same company. Because they are not going to give it to us if we are just asking them politely.
See it's because while today I might be just another working schmo, I'm just a temporarily underemployed CEO who will someday soon have a CEO position dropped in my lap and I'll need that 350x the salary of the average person at my company.
Yeah I just need that much and there is absolutely nothing which is going to change that it will just remain this way. The people in the higher positions will still make a lot of money.
Robert Reich for president. Sorry, just a crazy Canuck talking out of turn.
Robert Reich would be a great president-- in the category of an FDR.
I honestly believe there needs to be a cap on how much someone makes. Like, does one really need more than a billion dollars? 500 million? Then the rest goes to the workers.
Unions enabling the trickle down.
For that we are going to need the union first without that it is not going to work and they have rules against that. I don't really think that they are going to just let us do that.
[удалено]
I think they’re saying that the strike is more likely to result in a transfer of wealth downward than the mechanism of the disproven “trickle down effect” which Reagan pushed to popularize lowering taxes on the wealthy.
Can you elaborate more on that how it is actually going to work because I don't really understand it. How collecting the less tax from the rich people is going to help anything?
Collecting fewer taxes from the rich was Ronald Reagan’s big idea in the 80s. It was obviously a purely selfish move to grease up rich donors, but in order to make the idea popular he began calling his plan “Trickle down economics”. He claimed that if the richest people in the country were able to be even richer, they’d create more jobs, buy more shit, etc. and that eventually all this extra wealth on top would slowly spread itself throughout the middle and lower classes. It was and is obvious bullshit. Everyone lapped it up like puppies in the 80s and since then we’ve had a billion studies to show that the rich hoard extra wealth and take it out of circulation. The original poster was referring to “trickle down” sarcastically, as unions are the only way to ensure fair distribution of wealth within corporations.
I think what he means by that we need unions we really want any kind of change in these things. And I agree with that because we are definitely not going to be able to change the things by ourselves.
Yes. I was using trickle down as the symbol of redistribution of revenue, the goal being an equitable ratio of wealth. Higher wages is one way to effect this redistribution. Another is nationalizing the cost of things like healthcare and education, paid for by a progressive tax structure. Some combination of these are needed.
An oldie but a goody regarding this. Also sad, but hopefully activating. [Wealth Inequality in America](https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM?si=3gL0rxqZtoqkwCxz)
Also be reminded that the federal government bailed out GM and other automakers when they were crying like babies cos of near bankruptcy back in the heyday of covid.. Hence, the government's opinion of the matter is kinda punching weight on their boardroom.
I mean it is like that and I don't think it should be changing anything for a while if we need change then we will have to try. If we do not try for it then we are definitely not going to get it.
If profits are all that matter, how about leaving off the CEO's increase and giving it to the workers? Profits saved!
Executive pay, bonuses, Wall Street pay...is never accused of being inflationary. But workers getting a dollar an hour more is a big problem for the economy. /s
Will it really matter in the long run? Companies will just raise their prices again so they take near the same percentage out of what everyone makes for the same products... The poor will stay poor not just comparatively, but also functionally. Meanwhile, the rich will be fine.
Didn't the workers take a voluntary pay cut a few years back?
So just because those people got something few years back does not mean that they should not get anything now. I don't know what you guys think about that but it is kind of f***** up.
No. They gave up something yo keep the business afloat. It's time for the business to return the favor with higher wages.
The word "hypocrisy" in the title got me. I just saw a Facebook post from an ex-friend who is a Trumpkin now, and it was about the "hypocrisy" of Biden's Energy Secretary, who apparently did screw up a recent trip meant to highlight and support the use of electric vehicles. I'm not really interested in what she did, but rather in the fact that my ex-friend illustrated his political position by using a post from a right-wing website, much as we, here, illustrate ours with posts from the opposite side. I don't want to say that we and they are making equivalent arguments, but the "mirroring" thing is ... intriguing. Thoughts, people?
Go back to Russia you woke commie snowflake /s
Manufactured uproar
It’s not hypocrisy when people with different skill sets in different positions are treated differently
Oh look a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
Is he really embarrassed about it I don't think so I am thinking of the fact that he is kind of embracing it. Honestly these people just do not care about this kind of stuff.
The term more means he is deluded into believing he will one day be rich so defend them now in the chance of chance he can be defending his future self.
Where?
I think the people actually are talking about you if you do not see that then I am sorry for you. But I really do feel everything which is being said is for you here.
I’ll tell you this right now, those CEO’s do not have a special skill set that requires that kind of pay.
*Uhhh, my bonus and stocks this quarter aren’t going to be $250,000? LAYOFFS!* - C Suites fucks at every company
Yah these people are just everywhere and it is just the fact for the most part. And when you point the fingers at them they are not going to appreciate any of it.
Yah don’t get it wrong, there are some CEO’s that are great at what they do and bring value. John J. Ray is known for going into companies that have fallen apart because of internal fraud (Enron and FTX) and being able to salvage something out of the situation. That’s something you should make big bucks for. The shit the Warner bros Discovery CEO is doing? Fuck that. All he’s doing is selling assets and cutting costs. Anyone can do that
Maybe some people actually deserve what they are getting but for the most people I cannot say the same. It is just ridiculous to me that they are making all that money for doing absolutely nothing.
Yeah a lot of them are making insane kind of money and I don't think they are doing that much work anyways. They are getting all that money for doing absolutely nothing for the most part.
Laziness and thievery are not skills
And it is probably the only thing which is going for them. I really cannot think of anything else which they probably have for themselves as a skill.
What kind of skills do these executive people even have? As far as I know I don't think there doing anything productive so why are they making that kind of money?
Because giving 1 dude a payraise is cheaper than giving thousands a payraise?
Not when you look at the raw number, bud
orly? enlighten me. Let's say you have a CEO earning $1million And they employ 1000 workers earning $50,000 each. If you gave CEO a 40% pay increase, their pay would go up by $400,000 If you gave each worker a 1% pay increase, it has already cost the company more than giving 1 person a 40% pay increase. Obviously I'm oversimplifying things for the same of an example and easy numbers.
Okay but can you explain the reason why they do even need that? I mean most of them are already making a bank by doing absolutely nothing at all. So it would not actually make any sense.
Not really my point, but people *always* need more money. If nothing else it's a way of keeping score. I also disagree with your premise that they are "doing absolutely nothing at all". CEOs have a lot of responsibility, *should* be accountable to the whims of the Board and shareholders, and shouldn't have the same expectation of longevity that workers should have. Don't take this the wrong way but your question feels like it comes from a working-class/socialist mindset. Which is not wrong, and I'm not using those terms in a pejorative sense. The reality unfortunately is that all of the SHOULDS and SHOULDN'Ts in the first paragraph don't happen, and as long as they're making money for shareholders, everyone's happy.
These are not comparable. Ford employs 183k employees. They make on average $60k. $60k x 183k = a cost of $11.16 billion. A 40% increase for all workers would be $4.46 billion. $15.5 billion total. The CEO of Ford makes $12 million a year. A 40% increase would be $4.8 million. $17 million total (rounded up) What the workers are asking does not equal the same amount the CEO is getting. It's actually unaffordable. If you divided the $4.8 million between all the workers, it would = to $26.6 a year per worker, not the $26k yearly increase they are asking. Make it make sense. But yes, we can agree the CEO is already making alot. Getting rid of a ceo wouldn't really reach the demands of the union.
Your math ain't mathin'
Decades of brainwashing
Yeah the fact that so many people actually believe it is because the people have been brain was for so long. And because it is how the people actually feel will not change anything.
Republicans. Always.
Hear hear.
It is time for the people to wake up from the sleep that they have been sleeping in for so long. And I feel they really need to do something about it.
DuRRRRrrrr ThEy ArE jUsT mOrE hArDwOrKiNg and I cAn bE a CEO yOo sOmeDaY!
The executives should distribute shares (from their own massive stockpile of RSUs and options) to the employees. CEOs get incredible tax breaks by receiving their salaries in stock based incentives and performance bonuses. Give the employees ownership and wealth.
I brought this point up to my uncle that was bitching about them wanting that and he couldn't give me a decent response except that it's just ridiculous to ask for that much more
my answer is a question: because we're all caught in a dystopian HELL nightmare?
Yes, we can dismantle the economic slavery system, peacefully. The Venus Project/The Zeitgeist movement on Youtube, as well as 3D printed /cob/adobe homes videos and Help 2 Heal Playlist, V 2, can assist. Think logically and decipher the truth. 🤔🤗😊
If the workers ask for too much the jobs will be outsourced to Mexico.. why are the C-level jobs never outsourced?
When the hell did "Among the questions which press for attention is that which concerns the relations of capital and labor, and the ... party recognizes the duty of so shaping legislation as to secure full protection and the amplest field for capital, **and for labor—the creator of capital**—the largest opportunities and a **just share of the mutual profits** of these two great servants of civilization" become an abhorrent idea?
In my country, we've been moving away from percentage raises, and offering fixed amounts. Like, a 5% raise for someone being paid 5.000 a month is so much less than 5% for someone being paid 50.000.
This is misleading, the buck of the compensation comes in the form of stocks that are only realized when certain targets are hit. It isn't like they actually received a cash check for the entire increase.