I think Cyberpunk is more likely. Huge buildings, no plants, no animals, everything controlled by big corps and law is basically non-existent except if rich folk are affected
Are you seriously saying if a company offered management 1/500 their current salary (which is the scenario they suggested), most would stay? You sure you want to make that argument?
I dont know what makes you so angry, I think you are getting defensive because you cant accept that your arguments are being invalidated.
I havent defended billionaires in any way and I hate them just as much as anyone, I dont see how understanding the ecomony and financial motivations would be equal to defending billionaires.
As you seem so fixated on this thought experiment, lets do it. Youre suggesting a company cuts the upper managements salaries by 99.8%, thats both scenarios 2 and 3. What will happen is every single one of those people will notice they can make 500 times their salary in any other company and leave. The company will be left without management and go bankrupt within a few months.
Shareholders want to maximize growth. If there was a way to simply cut management salaries to increase profit, they would have done it ages ago.
I know you think you found the easy solution, but reality is not easy. Companies dont have ethics or a conscience. They maximize profits based on numbers. For them to change anything there needs to be an incentive, either financial gain or laws restricting them.
No, companies do not actually have the option to simply cut the upper managements salary by 99.8%.
And even if they could, it would simply end in all management leaving the company the next day, the company going bankrupt and all of the empolyees losing their jobs.
Im not trying to defend management salaries in the millions. It is damn unnecessary and should be taxed appropriately. But simply denying that thats how the world works right now is bs.
I think you are not familiar with how economy works. No offense, really, Im not an expert either but I dont really have the patience to go over everything in detail. Reinvesting profits is what ALL companies do. What youre suggesting was the opposite, you said profits should be distributed to employees or customers.
The difference between your examples is that 1 is a different company than 2 and 3. They are not different scenarios for the same company.
There are reasons why CEOs earn a lot and you cant change that by telling companies "but why not just give the money to your other employees, it would be better for them". Thats not how economy works. Im not saying the way things are is good at all, but youre not offering an alternative. What youre suggesting would require that owners and shareholders would give a shit about the wellbeing of their employees and customers.
Maybe they are friends but have different political and social values. That happens.
If supporting fascists in taking over the USA is a deal-breaker to you, thats totally understandable though. But remember it is the easy way out, convincing them would be the right thing but much harder.
NPOs have CEOs as well and many earn salaries in the millions.
NPOs are the exact right example, though, but not for the reason you are talking about. Non-profit does not inherently mean lower-ranking employees get a bigger share.
The big difference is that NPOs dont have shareholders or owners, which is how billionaires become billionaires, by owning companies worth billions.
But you should know that most NPOs rely almost entirely on government grants and donations. They couldnt even survive a single year on their own revenues.
If you want to establish the NPO concept in the free market, you would need to ban private ownership of ocmpanies. It could work but there is no way it will ever be implemented.
That is kind of true. But on the assumption that the corporation (in this case Costco) is doing more good than bad, like generating fair jobs, it would benefit most to see that business grow. If you dont generate profit because you distribute everything to your employees or customers, you will never be able to grow. So Costco will stay with 10 employees forever and only those businesses that exploit workers and customers can grow.
You could argue that there is really no need for businesses to grow as big ss many are today and I would completely agree, but that has to be regulated by law.
Youre not talking about running the government, which isnt really expensive, youre talking about the whole country.
"10 people cant pay for a whole country of 340,000,000 including all of its infrastructure and industry, they dont have that much money".
Can you reflect on how fucking ridiculous this statement is?
Whats next? "Elon Musk cant even buy a planet, hes not that rich"
I would like to rephrase your proposed options while preserving their real meaning:
The worlds richest man doesnt know what a Nazi salute look like and accidentally does it twice.
A Nazi does a Nazi salute.
I would say its around 1:99 in favor of number 2.
Also, it doesnt even really matter if he did it intentionally (which of course he did). Any sane person knows you dont do Nazi salutes in public, thats why other politicians dont do them even unintentionally.
Oh fuck distopian timeline is moving forward pretty fast. So glad I dont live in the US and wont have to make the choice of living as a slave or dying for people that dont want to be freed.
I think a certain italian plumber says otherwise.