undefined | Better HN

0 pointschaostheory2y ago0 comments

> Do you have an actual argument, or do you just plan on name-calling until people shut up and fall in line?

It’s literally the 2nd sentence.

An ignorant person is someone who is lacking in knowledge. It’s pretty accurate in this case

> Oh ok, I guess they can fire Sundar Pichai/Mark Zuckerberg when he underperforms, then? What? They don't own enough stocks to do that?

What are you even trying to say?

0 comments

polygamous_bat2y ago

> What are you even trying to say?

Shares generally give you two benefits, one is a share of the up/downsides, and another is a right of governance in the company. The way employee share distributions are done right now means employees get a tiny fraction of the first and none of the second, even though they are a large stakeholder in the company's future.

chaostheoryOP2y ago

This is a moot point if you understand how capitalism works and the goal of corporate executives: ensuring maximum value for shareholders. As I’ve mentioned before, Google employees own a large amount of stock compare to the average person. Consequently, they will benefit no matter what

polygamous_bat2y ago

> This is a moot point if you understand how capitalism works and the goal of corporate executives: ensuring maximum value for shareholders.

Yes, and the goal of communism is to "share the resources and maximize everybody's potential", wonderful if you are incredibly naive and believe that these systems always do exactly what it says on the sticker, and just an empty platitude if you've lived at least two days in the real world.

Here's an example [1] of pro capitalists fucking over 49% of the shareholders to favor 51% of them, and you can find plenty more examples of you look through recent financial news. So tell me once again how being a 1e-7th shareholder of a trillion dollar tech company is guaranteed to "benefit you no matter what"?

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-11-02/merger...

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointschaostheory2y ago0 comments

> Do you have an actual argument, or do you just plan on name-calling until people shut up and fall in line?

It’s literally the 2nd sentence.

An ignorant person is someone who is lacking in knowledge. It’s pretty accurate in this case

> Oh ok, I guess they can fire Sundar Pichai/Mark Zuckerberg when he underperforms, then? What? They don't own enough stocks to do that?

What are you even trying to say?

0 comments

polygamous_bat2y ago

> What are you even trying to say?

chaostheoryOP2y ago

polygamous_bat2y ago

> This is a moot point if you understand how capitalism works and the goal of corporate executives: ensuring maximum value for shareholders.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-11-02/merger...

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse