The Rich and Powerful Who Abuse the System: the contempt topic

[DanteGabriel]

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66803279

 

Grovelling shitbag. 

Ah, I didn't realize this gaping asshole was also the "young people should eat less avocado toast" asshole.

I said, in the Hollywood strike thread, that maybe beating a few billionaires to death in public would be a lesson to other greedheads... I was 80% joking at the time but every day these vultures pick at our corpses and complain about the taste, that percentage drops.

[BigFatCoward]

15 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Ah, I didn't realize this gaping asshole was also the "young people should eat less avocado toast" asshole.

I said, in the Hollywood strike thread, that maybe beating a few billionaires to death in public would be a lesson to other greedheads... I was 80% joking at the time but every day these vultures pick at our corpses and complain about the taste, that percentage drops.

The thing that grips my shit is Bezo's, for example, could be worth 50 billion and treat his staff great. 

There doesn't have to be a correlation between ultra wealth and being a cunt. 

[Tywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Nah, you are undervaluing the difficulty of their skillset and the importance of meetings and actually underestimating the amount of time spent thinking and doing.  I deal in my job with a LOT of CEOs.  They are a mixed bag.  But a good CEO works incredibly hard and is the end decisionmaker point for an entire organization.  That is a very particular skillset, if done right.  It involves incredibly hard work, really good listening skills (which, hint, can't be done well over email), the ability to understand and synthesize vast amounts of information from lots of different (can't believe I'm using this word) stakeholders, attention to detail but also, and simultaneously, the ability to tune out detail and derive signal from noise, and a certain sociopathic ability to take a decision even though it will not please everyone.  I actually think the job is very, very stressful, is often done poorly, but, and I will agree, is often WAY overcompensated.  

The job does attract some pretty unfortunate types too.  There are the visionaries and dreamers (can't get them to look in the mirror honestly), the cult of personality types (OMFG), and the jackasses (enough said).  But a lot of the very most contemptuous people I have ever dealt with are the next rung down, and not the CEOs.

I don't think you said anything that disagrees with my argument. Of course there are good CEOs that have most or even all of the attributes of a dynamic leader. I just believe it's the exception, not the norm. It's my belief that most people at the top of the corporate ladder really just care about making as much money for themselves as possible and the things they say they're trying to do positively for their workers or the community is just lip service. 

Also, since you brought it up, we need to think more about how this current culture allows for sociopaths, or those who display sociopathic tendencies, to rise through the ranks. You say they're on the next rung down, but that's because they're working their way to the top. Numerous studies say CEOs disproportionately show these signs compared to the average population. IIRC it's 1% for the general public compared to anywhere from 5-20% for CEOs, and if you think the people below them (who are actually doing a lot of the CEO's work) are worse than we have a real problem on our hands. 

Honestly, I think if we could shoot a dart of truth serum into most of the top executives at most major companies they'd agree with the shitheel that sparked this thread.

And one last thing, you mentioned time. Again, there are some really hard workers who really do put in 12-14 hour days where they're working like crazy. You know I've argued in the career thread that's not actually a good thing, but I know what it's like to be there. However, a lot of these people claim to work really long hours, but probably do like 4 hours of real work on a given day. I doubt 1% of CEOs and top corporate figures work anywhere nearly as hard as someone working construction or in a meat packing plant and those folks get paid way less and are held to a much higher standard. 

[Liffguard]

8 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The thing that grips my shit is Bezo's, for example, could be worth 50 billion and treat his staff great. 

There doesn't have to be a correlation between ultra wealth and being a cunt. 

The thing is, if bezos were the type of person to settle for "only" 50 billion, then he would have never even become a billionaire in the first place.

The type of person for whom "enough" is a meaningful concept stops trying to expand and grasp long before they reach mutli-billionaire levels of wealth.

It's also true that the dollar value wealth of someone like bezos is kind of beside the point. Keeping workers insecure and precarious is as much about maintaining control and disciplining labour as it is about saving pennies.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Liffguard

[Rippounet]

6 hours ago, Liffguard said:

Or to put it another way, and it's a point I've talked about before, I'm not personally all that fussed about people who have nice stuff, or even people who don't need to work. My concern is with the people who actually control the systems and institutions that other people rely on to live their lives ("the means of production" if you want to be a bit Marxist about it, but that is also a bit reductive IMO).

Yeah, I'd also say the thread meant to talk about power coming from wealth rather than wealth itself.

But is that so simple though? Can you have "nice stuff" without other people having less, and can you not work without exploiting (directly or indirectly) the work of others?

Intellectually speaking, the defense of wealth and inequality has been that 1) anyone could become rich and 2) one's greed could benefit all. But that construction was always based on infinite growth.

The moment you say growth is no longer possible, wealth becomes a problem in itself. Or, to put it differently, if the pie isn't growing, then everyone should have their fair share.
Or as some people are starting to say, if the pie is no longer growing, will we be able to maintain democracy?

[Tywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The thing that grips my shit is Bezo's, for example, could be worth 50 billion and treat his staff great. 

There doesn't have to be a correlation between ultra wealth and being a cunt. 

He could be worth $500M and still live an amazing life while not making his drivers pee in bottles because they're not allowed to stop and use bathrooms. 

And the fucker has like an $80K annual salary to dodge billions in taxes he should actually be paying.

But he cares about you...

[karaddin]

15 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The thing that grips my shit is Bezo's, for example, could be worth 50 billion and treat his staff great. 

There doesn't have to be a correlation between ultra wealth and being a cunt. 

I said it in the Musk thread but I'm going to say it again, the fact that Musk could run the Tour De France for something like 290 years just out of the money he spent on Twitter is the closest I get to actually wrapping my head around the ridiculous life of luxury they could be living.

At least Bezos seems happy, Musk takes all that wealth and stays all night in the office trying to get approval from people on Twitter. You can live that lifestyle while utterly broke. The only difference is that you wouldn't get to see the other workers also still in the office because they'll get deported if you fire them.

[SeanF]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't think you said anything that disagrees with my argument. Of course there are good CEOs that have most or even all of the attributes of a dynamic leader. I just believe it's the exception, not the norm. It's my belief that most people at the top of the corporate ladder really just care about making as much money for themselves as possible and the things they say they're trying to do positively for their workers or the community is just lip service. 

Also, since you brought it up, we need to think more about how this current culture allows for sociopaths, or those who display sociopathic tendencies, to rise through the ranks. You say they're on the next rung down, but that's because they're working their way to the top. Numerous studies say CEOs disproportionately show these signs compared to the average population. IIRC it's 1% for the general public compared to anywhere from 5-20% for CEOs, and if you think the people below them (who are actually doing a lot of the CEO's work) are worse than we have a real problem on our hands. 

Honestly, I think if we could shoot a dart of truth serum into most of the top executives at most major companies they'd agree with the shitheel that sparked this thread.

And one last thing, you mentioned time. Again, there are some really hard workers who really do put in 12-14 hour days where they're working like crazy. You know I've argued in the career thread that's not actually a good thing, but I know what it's like to be there. However, a lot of these people claim to work really long hours, but probably do like 4 hours of real work on a given day. I doubt 1% of CEOs and top corporate figures work anywhere nearly as hard as someone working construction or in a meat packing plant and those folks get paid way less and are held to a much higher standard. 

Being a sociopath, not caring about the harm you inflict on other people, is an asset if you wish to get to the top.

Edited September 14, 2023 by SeanF

[Heartofice]

I suspect that at a certain point, most CEOs stop caring about wealth. The money then becomes just a number because you can literally afford anything, it's meaningless. I actually think a lot of these CEOs mainly care about the product they are producing, work is their life and they get super focused on winning and making things work. So it's not really a question of whether CEOs have enough, because that isn't their focus. 

In terms of 'working hard', I doubt there is a single CEO that has become successful without working incredibly hard for a number of years, most likely sacrificing their own personal and social lives (another reason why many end up being sociopaths, because they simply give less of a shit about hanging out with other humans). So personally I'm not really all that bothered if they decide to take their feet off the pedal when they finally make it. 
 

[Tywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Being a sociopath, not caring about the harm you inflict on other people, is an asset if you wish to get to the top.

Which should make societies reevaluate why that is. Sociopaths don't make for great leaders, they're actions prioritize benefitting themselves. These types should be weeded out, not allowed to climb to the top. Organizations, be it corporations or governments, should identify all the positive traits Zabs mentioned to find their leaders while knowing how to identify people who are going to be destructive for their own gain. 

Fuck the people who build their lives on the shattered dreams of other human beings. 

[Tywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I suspect that at a certain point, most CEOs stop caring about wealth. The money then becomes just a number because you can literally afford anything, it's meaningless. I actually think a lot of these CEOs mainly care about the product they are producing, work is their life and they get super focused on winning and making things work. So it's not really a question of whether CEOs have enough, because that isn't their focus. 

As someone who grew up around not just the 1%, but the .1%, I can say from my experience you're dead wrong. Not for all, but for the majority their bank accounts are a dick measuring contest and it means everything to them.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

As someone who grew up around not just the 1%, but the .1%, I can say from my experience you're dead wrong. Not for all, but for the majority their bank accounts are a dick measuring contest and it means everything to them.

Were they CEOs or just people who inherited wealth?

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Being a sociopath, not caring about the harm you inflict on other people, is an asset if you wish to get to the top.

Even worse - being a sociopath who looks for ways that they can maximize harm and get away with it is a benefit. The most successful capitalists look not just at actively not caring about harm but explicitly look for ways that they can maximize the exploitation of others, because that will likely make them more money. Sometimes they position it as maximizing efficiency or finding the cheapest labor or market values, but at the end of the day they are trying their best to wring as much value out of people as they possibly can without being sued too much. 

And that's just the labor part. If you're looking for the amount of harm you can cause legally elsewhere you can look at the use of various chemicals, the exploitation of the environment, the algorithms of social media that prioritize engagement by giving people things that make them more angry and more depressed...the list goes on and on. Just simply not caring about the harm isn't enough there. You have to actively look for those ways. 

[Rippounet]

38 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I suspect that at a certain point, most CEOs stop caring about wealth. The money then becomes just a number because you can literally afford anything, it's meaningless. I actually think a lot of these CEOs mainly care about the product they are producing, work is their life and they get super focused on winning and making things work. So it's not really a question of whether CEOs have enough, because that isn't their focus.

Not quite your fault because the confusion comes from the original declaration, but we shouldn't confuse entrepreneur (the founder of a company / creator of a product) and CEO (the chief executive of a company).
I do believe that Musk and Bezos being both are exceptions rather than the rule when it comes to large corporations.
If we're looking at truly large corporations, a CEO's objective is MSV (maximising shareholder value), so profit. However, the CEO may not be that wealthy (in the final analysis, he's still an employee) ; the people who are really wealthy are generally the descendants/family of the founder, who will benefit most from the company making as much profit as possible (though CEOs do get huge bonuses as "incentive" on top of their massive salaries).
Which is why it is in fact entirely possible for a  large corporation to not give a shit about the quality of its products, as long as the profits keep coming.
It's not even that uncommon for the CEO of a company to not fully understand what their company is selling - either not understand the main product, or just not keep track of all the different products.

I think it's very important to bring this nuance here, because it's the transformation of corporations into profit-making schemes that is at the heart of financial capitalism that has led us to where we are now. The shareholders are only after dividends, the CEO is only after their bonus, and the employees seldom get paid enough to care that much.
So in the end, the corporation has (as I can't remember who wrote) the behavior of a psychopath.
That's why so many people will call themselves "anti-capitalist": they're not necessarily against a capitalist economy in itself, but against its psychopathic aspects.

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Not quite your fault because the confusion comes from the original declaration, but we shouldn't confuse entrepreneur (the founder of a company / creator of a product) and CEO (the chief executive of a company).
I do believe that Musk and Bezos being both are exceptions rather than the rule when it comes to large corporations.
If we're looking at truly large corporations, a CEO's objective is MSV (maximising shareholder value), so profit. However, the CEO may not be that wealthy (in the final analysis, he's still an employee) ; the people who are really wealthy are generally the descendants/family of the founder, who will benefit most from the company making as much profit as possible (though CEOs do get huge bonuses as "incentive" on top of their massive salaries).
Which is why it is in fact entirely possible for a  large corporation to not give a shit about the quality of its products, as long as the profits keep coming.
It's not even that uncommon for the CEO of a company to not fully understand what their company is selling - either not understand the main product, or just not keep track of all the different products.

I think it's very important to bring this nuance here, because it's the transformation of corporations into profit-making schemes that is at the heart of financial capitalism that has led us to where we are now. The shareholders are only after dividends, the CEO is only after their bonus, and the employees seldom get paid enough to care that much.
So in the end, the corporation has (as I can't remember who wrote) the behavior of a psychopath.
That's why so many people will call themselves "anti-capitalist": they're not necessarily against a capitalist economy in itself, but against its psychopathic aspects.

Sure, to be fair I was mainly talking about the CEO founder / entrepreneur, mainly because those are the people who will be truly rich, which seemed relevant to the conversation. As you say, CEOs in other contexts are not really part of the super rich. 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Sure, to be fair I was mainly talking about the CEO founder / entrepreneur, mainly because those are the people who will be truly rich, which seemed relevant to the conversation. As you say, CEOs in other contexts are not really part of the super rich. 

I think this is fair, and it's important to point out that a whole lot of the wealthy out there have nothing to do with being CEOs at all. They should also be on the menu. 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Which should make societies reevaluate why that is. Sociopaths don't make for great leaders, they're actions prioritize benefitting themselves. These types should be weeded out, not allowed to climb to the top. Organizations, be it corporations or governments, should identify all the positive traits Zabs mentioned to find their leaders while knowing how to identify people who are going to be destructive for their own gain. 

Fuck the people who build their lives on the shattered dreams of other human beings. 

I think Frank Herbert was correct that power tends not to corrupt, so much as it attracts pathological personalities.

I would not say that most politicians, business leaders, senior public sector workers are sociopaths, but I think a disproportionate number are. I think the system does little or nothing to deter such behaviour.

WRT politicians, it’s clear that many voters are quite willing to elect face-eating leopards.

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Were they CEOs or just people who inherited wealth?

A mix of all of the above when it comes to wealthy individuals. 

27 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think Frank Herbert was correct that power tends not to corrupt, so much as it attracts pathological personalities.

I would not say that most politicians, business leaders, senior public sector workers are sociopaths, but I think a disproportionate number are. I think the system does little or nothing to deter such behaviour.

WRT politicians, it’s clear that many voters are quite willing to elect face-eating leopards.

Like I've said before, the numbers I've seen are roughly 1% of the population are sociopaths and somewhere between 5-20% of people at the top of organizational charts are (using that distinction to not make this just about CEOs). Furthermore, a much larger percentage are individuals who lack ideal emotional intelligence and don't treat those below them well though they're not sociopaths. I hate the cliche "nice guys finish last," but it often proves true the higher you try to climb.

 

[JGP]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Like I've said before, the numbers I've seen are roughly 1% of the population are sociopaths and somewhere between 5-20% of people at the top of organizational charts are (using that distinction to not make this just about CEOs). Furthermore, a much larger percentage are individuals who lack ideal emotional intelligence and don't treat those below them well though they're not sociopaths. I hate the cliche "nice guys finish last," but it often proves true the higher you try to climb.

 

Because, beyond token gestures, caring about employees et al similar is a stance generally counter to maximizing margins. 

I've been mid and upper management for a few companies that had fantastic cultures at one point, but when the profits dip... [spreads hands]

 

[Tywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, JGP said:

Because, beyond token gestures, caring about employees et al similar is a stance generally counter to maximizing margins. 

I've been mid and upper management for a few companies that had fantastic cultures at one point, but when the profits dip... [spreads hands]

 

And here in lies the problem, those at the top only care about money. Now let me be clear, every company needs to make a profit, but the level of greed while stripping down the middle and working classes has become disgusting. And that's before we address those in poverty. It doesn't have to be this way.