this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024
756 points (98.3% liked)

News

23627 readers
2350 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] riskable@programming.dev 49 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The disconnect between public perception and personal humanity has been striking, with some commentary bordering on dehumanizing.

Yeah it's a lot easier to humanize someone who makes six figures than someone who makes seven. Why don't you start there?

Or maybe just make it so the CEO doesn't make 700x more than the lowest paid worker. You don't even have to reduce the CEO pay to do it! Just lift up those other people.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's actually been studied. Turns out that about 40 is the tipping point for most people, as in CEO earnings 40 times more than the lowest paid workers. Up to that point people think they boss earns it, above that resentment starts to grow.

They're at 700. Yeah, that's dangerous. People are very sensitive about relative earning for work. Fairness is just hard wired into all animals and it's dangerous to ignore this, although humans react a bit later and that gives a false sense if security for those at the top.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But it's inevitable as a successful business grows, and the population grows. A CEO of a company of 100 people does not have the same level of responsibility as the CEO of one employing hundreds of thousands (Google says UHC employs 440,000, for example).

Working conditions were inarguably much worse a century ago, but the gap wasn't anywhere close to 700x back then, was it? The gap was smaller not because the CEOs were more generous, it was just because the largest businesses were much smaller.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So you're saying large corporations need to be broken up into smaller businesses I avoid concentrating too much wealth in upper management.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, arbitrarily punishing a business for being too successful is both nonsensical, and has a chilling effect on new entrepreneurship. Also, it makes literally zero difference to someone earning $10/hour if one CEO is earning over $4000/hour, or if ten CEOs are each earning $400/hour.

Ultimately, the ratio itself doesn't matter at all. The actual number is what actually matters. Who do you think is more likely to be more resentful, someone making $10/hour under a CEO making 50x that, or someone making $100/hour under a CEO making 50x that? Obviously the first person...if they can't make ends meet, it's not going to make any difference to them if the CEO gets a pay cut, the fuck do they care?

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Businesses that were too successful are also called monopolies, and have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship all in their own.

Median wage in USA is about $20/h, so the actual numbers say there are a lot of people being closer to having trouble making ends meet. Even then, the ratio matters a lot. It's the difference between "we're all in this together" and "some of you won't make it but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". In the latter situation there is a lot more resentment and sympathy for violence.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Businesses that were too successful are also called monopolies

No. There is no inherent relationship between the two things. A business can absolutely be very successful while there is competition, simply by being the best 'competitor' in the eyes of the customers.

the ratio matters a lot. It's the difference between "we're all in this together" and "some of you won't make it but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make".

The vast majority of people don't know or care how much the person at the top is making, at all. They care only about if they're in good shape themselves. Someone who's making $100/hour and is living comfortably is, in 99% of cases not going to really give a shit if the CEO is making 50x what they are, or 500x.

That's the reality.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago

15% of people make $100k in the USA. That means 85% care and a large part of them are not in a good shape.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago

What infuriates me is that there are those that make 6 figures as being able to potentially make 7. And sure, some of them might.

But are they brain surgeons that have such a specialized life saving surgery that by the nature of economics pushes the value of their skill exceptionally high? Nope.

Hell, I make 6, and I'll admit, I have a lot more than a lot of people. I'm 2-3x the median of my area. I can't buy a house. I own a 7 year old RAV4. If I was better managing my money and not having to pay out my ass for my ex wife, sure, things would be better.

It's not at all difficult to find how just a little less income makes life much harder. It is VERY difficult to see how someone who has so much money can be remotely ok with people having it harder than them.

Those pulling in 7 figures without highly valuable skills should be dehumanized. Because they have abandoned what has helped humans survive at all. Each other.

[–] JesusTheCarpenter@feddit.uk 18 points 1 week ago

Also, as if many CEO's and upper managements humanize their customers and not see them as numbers in a spreadsheet.