Are shareholders “owner” class or do they do actual work?
Mostly asking because of constant bullshit comments from shareholders at my workplace
lol I am sure the same shareholders complained about what a monsterous thing it is for someone to go shoot a CEO in the street
What is this timeline?
The group, which is seeking unspecified damages, argued that the public backlash prevented the company from pursuing “the aggressive, anti-consumer tactics that it would need to achieve” its earnings goals.
They even cheat the share holders
Proving that the problem isn’t the CEOs; it’s the controlling shareholders (aka capitalists). Non-owner/founder/investor CEOs (the majority of CEOs) are hired and fired at the will of the controlling shareholders, so are more like high paid whores, whereas the controlling shareholders are the capitalists demanding the suffering and horrors for ever increasing profits.
Remember, the vast majority of the stock market is controlled by the richest 0.1%, something like 90% of stock is owned by the richest 10-20%, and the poorest half own nothing.
at least that’s what they want to make it look like, so their CEO golf buddy doesn’t get lynched.
It’s both.
And some CEOs are FAR worse than others.
It’s both.
Yes. Without question.
And some CEOs are FAR worse than others.
But rarely better than the worst person you know.
They are hired and fired at the behest of the shareholders, though. Their motives and ethics are what decide the kind of CEO that takes the reins.
Partially. Some CEOs are more psycho than others.
Some are able to do what builds profit with less sociopathy.
Edit: either way, they’re also to blame. More so than any other single person. And also not a faceless mass or abstract concept.
Yes… but at the behest of the shareholders. If the shareholders want to trade off empathy for profits, they will. And it will be a trade off. And the shareholders will want more profit without regard for the fallout. Because their only stake in the company lasts until those profits last, then they cut their losses and run, in a much more expedient way than the CEOs.
You’re just repeating things. See my edit.
Isn’t a shit ton of retirement money in the stock market? I imagine it’s mostly not voting shares, but that’s a major reason there’s so much resistance against making the stock market less of a factor in our economy.
Been saying this on lemmy, and getting varying degrees of love and hate. “Look at this man! (Please don’t look behind the curtain.)”
All y’all hating on CEOs and pointing fingers are behaving and believing exactly as the boards of directors wish. This also ties into golden parachutes. They sound obscene to those of us with “real” jobs, but think on it. You take a high-paying CEO slot, but you’re not so much in control. The board can order you to pull some heinous shit to get what they want, then fire you when the public backlash hits. (Remember reddit doing exactly that with Chao?)
Yeah, I want a fucking parachute. It’s an insurance policy, nothing more. At least at my shit job, I won’t get fired for following my manager’s orders. (Yes, we can make up scenarios where that’s not true, I know.)
Yes, but you’re leaving out the bit where the ceos are just as shitty a person / people, morally, as the board you talk about. They aren’t forced, they go along and agree. They hire people who align with their interests, aka agree with the shitty things they’re willing to do. It’s not like they’re some poor hard done by millionaire / billionaire who’s forced to do bad things to survive. They could also leave at any time and they wouldn’t suffer financially for doing so. They’re not being forced to do anything. They agree with their own decisions. Don’t fool yourself that they have morals, money to that degree turns your morals off entirely, if you ever had them.
The language is not typical for an investor suit recognizing the inherent evil in the process, it makes me think it’s for publicity or to drive a legal precedent around the inhumanity required to operate a C corp.
This is the actual language from the suit, but it is used in an accusatory way. Read all the way from page 10-11. Specifically point 37. The suit
So they are trying to force the company to admit, “no we are still committed to anti-consumer policies to boost profits”, is that the point?
Yeah, I’d like to see the actual document. Hard to believe they said “anti-consumer” was their expectation. I think you’re right on one of those tow ideas!
It reminds me of tech companies getting massive investments for AI when in reality AI isn’t going to make billions
It’s definitely making some companies billions.
Not by value gained from the AI, or most of the peoplr actually supplying thr AI stuff. But bubbles are pretty profitable (until they aren’t).
“With your money, I can convince someone richer than you to invest before you cash out.”
What makes me feel like it fits here
Sued because the company didn’t factor in how the death of the CEO would affect earnings and share price.
What a depressing world we live in.
I think earnings and share price tanked because of US cuts tho. The timing matches better. But they seemed ignorant of that or want to distract. CEOs are easily replaced and do little of value. It’s the workers and middle managers who pull the load.
Who cares about some murders? The profits must FLOW!
Everyone is disposable in the corporate structure
That also applied for all the denied treatments… Fuck the lives, we must hit the profits targets for the year!
Maybe they need luigi’s as well
