As a proloteriat, I work way harder than the CEO's of businesses

...

Other urls found in this thread:

huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/ceo-worker-pay-gap_us_55ddc3c7e4b0a40aa3acd1c9

...

Yeah, it's probably fair to say that the entire proletariat works harder than the entire CEO's of businesses, even though the latter ones might work harder on average.

...

...

...

Oh fuck off, you're a lefty, as if you've ever done a days work in your life

...

50 times?
Stop lying the average is 346 times unless you are discovery where its 1951 times.

...

What, pray tell, is the work of a CEO? What value do they actually contribute in terms of production? Jobs???

Really makes you think.

Well, approximately ten thousand times more according to the Free Market (PBUH).

I bet a dollar that it is the investment and reinvestment of profit into capital.

They make all the big descions, like the president. It's a difficult and stressful job and guess who gets the blame if the company makes a mistake? Not pajeeta.

...

Mere cogs in the machine of competition, then, finally when they can no longer sell, when the rate of profit has reached its lowest point, where there is more in supply than there is demand, their economy stagnates, pushing people to save, stop reinvesting, and stagnate it all the farther…

You win that dollar, my Grecian friend…


You're right, there is no formal condemnation of the little miss, rather mass lay offs ensue to protect such a high bonus for the president.

...

Yeah but the company couldn't even function without the CEO.

The same way a feudal domain couldn't "function" without a lord.

Did it ever occur to you that the company couldn't even function without, you know, the fucking workers?

...

...

11/10 trolled me good

In the case of HP, they couldn't even function with fiorina as ceo

CEO's need workers, workers don't need CEO's

According to Google

Never heard of them till now tbh

There is no CEO and the workers are in a sense the shareholders in a traditional enterprise

The workers are oppressing themselves and porky doesn't even have to lift a finger!

what porky there is no porky in a worker coop

...

All porkies everywhere. Porky always benefits from economic growth much more than workers in co-ops, they don't have to own shares in everything.

shhh
you're talking to a leftcom
it can sperg out anytime

Porky can gain no money or influence from a worker coop because they have no part in it

But they still benefit indirectly from general societal well-being.

You're right I prolly should stop but I'm an idiot with a lack of sleep

Your point? If the entirety of a society benefits indirectly from something of course that would include porky but does that mean benefit should be avoided to spite the ones at the top?

...

Finally a form of capitalism that benefits everyone!

It's pajeet who gets fired if the company fails.

In a market economy, worker coops need to exploit themselves to stay competitive. The hell of capitalism is the firm, not that the firm has a boss.

That is true but the origin of this discussion was that firms are incapable of functioning without CEOs

CEOs have no statistically significant demonstrable effect on corporate performance.

Explain to me if you would the difference between a prole and part of the bourgeoisie please

Its actually probably more like 50,000 times.

Damn porky! Benefitting from societal wellbeing! We should force everyone out into the ricefeilds and work them to death! That'll show 'em!

I like how the rosy picture of C-execs of major companies is like a leftover from the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. As if the guys today worked their way up from the mail room or something. No, they simply have business degrees and connections.

...

Which is why you have regulations so they don't have to work themselves 12 hours a day to stay competitive or some shit

kek

huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/ceo-worker-pay-gap_us_55ddc3c7e4b0a40aa3acd1c9

Shareholders are shitter but being a manager are some stuff can be truelly hell. Is your manager a lazy shitter or being overworked by to mutch calls and planning and shit?

That's all well and good if you're a liberal but worker co-ops and regulations do not make Capitalism into Not-Capitalism

You're not pushing the anarchy part far enough. When everyone has access to guns, and it's not generally discouraged to use them for gain, then it's simple enough to do a violent takeover and even the odds. It also helps with crime of all sorts, extortion, fraud, etc.

LP, pls give me your technoskeptic chart.

...

Or do you mean the reading list or something

Dank ye.

If you could, is greatly appreciated. Wanted to show a friend.

...

Here you go

Techno skepticism is an infantile perspective caused by lack of socialism.

The problem is that eventually the market forces compel them to do that to stay competitive. Porky has to make decisions that destroy the environment and people's lives to stay competitive. The necessity to make those choices doesn't go away when you shift the responsibility to the proletariat.
It's one of the core problems of markets and moneyed systems.

forgot your flag ::DDDD

Call me when the CEOs of Wall Street goes to jail after the crazy shit they did

Any co-op over a certain size is forced to hire a CEO in order to properly administer itself. That said, the existence of management isn't really the problem, capital is.

Some capitalists perform labor - as managers. Being a capitalist, however, is merely to own capital and exploit others for profit. That many capitalists are also managers does not mean that this labor they perform somehow justifies their exploitation of workers based on their ownership of the means of production. Indeed, there are many capitalists who hire other people to work as CEOs whilst they just idly reap the profits of the mere fact that they own the means of production without working at all.

...