this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
1565 points (98.7% liked)

Microblog Memes

6036 readers
2440 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I'd argue the allowance of passive shareholders is what causes the biggest problems. Shares of profits should go to active employees only, unless they've fulfilled the requirements of a pension, not entities that intend to collect capital while contributing no labor towards the products/services generating the profit.

Passive income should only be hard earned. The only passive income that should be legal should be after 20+ of laboring/supporting the means by which those profits were generated, so it cannot be gamed.

Not some random asshole leeches who don't want to work showing up with chips from their last trip to the exploitation, insider info casino, demanding any, let alone all profit. People have to earn a living, it's perfectly reasonable to DEMAND skin in the game in order to make money.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This doesn't address the core issue of capitalism:

Owners in general (of businesses, housing, everything) get all the money, thanks to the opportunity to mercilessly take advantage of workers/renters/everyone else. And taking advantage gets you more money to take more advantage of people.

The passivest of incomes goes to the owners, the ceos are just the highest paid guard dogs of those people.

Is that ok? Passive income being much harder to earn for everyone, unless you are rich enough to start your own business, that is.

Are we not going to end up in the same situation? Isn't it basically the same situation we're already in?

[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I disagree, by untethering profit from the labor that makes the capital, innumerable problems arise.

Passive investors have taken to buying enough of a profitable company to make it self-destruct for a short term burst of profit that then kills the company, stuff like "sell all your real estate in own to lease agreements, give us the profits next quarter, then choke to death on rent after we sell."

There's no incentive to care about your product or service if you buy and sell for short term profit.

If this could happen at all, you could make rules about how much profit the creating owners can retain relative to staff. New businesses could come from employees, now making enough to have excess capital, to form new companies if they feel they can make something better, and the promise of passive income ONLY After they've worked there for appreciable time would create commitment to making good products and services again instead of figuring out how to trick consumers with crap for a quick score.

This whole mess is created because people with all effectively all the capital have no interest in an actual market of goods and services that benefits society, they live in a different, nationless world, it's why they choke peasant schools and commons to cut their own taxes. Such people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for companies in a country they don't care about. They should be restricted from it.

If Elon Musk really wants ownership in company X, for example lol, he would be more than welcome to apply to work there for a small but growing share of profit over the course of his employment share of the profits.

If he'd like to make his own company, he should be forced to take a reasonable share of the profits, tied to a non-insane multiple of his lowest paid employee, and if the employees, the shareholders, see he isn't putting 40 hours of attention a week into running the company, they should have recourse to protect their interests they have skin in from him.

New companies should be formed solely by laborers with an idea getting together with honestly earned money. Closer to a cooperative model. The idea of infinite growth needs to end decades ago as it's making people suffer now and is on track to destroy the planet. We need equilibrium. Growth should be measured, or it is a danger. We need to go back to condemning rather than cheering people who wish to pursue extreme wealth, as that's as antisocial a goal as "I'd like to set lots of buildings on fire." People used to know that, but we've been propagandized to see greed as virtuous "rational self-interest."

I firmly believe the capital markets are what have detached any semblance of humanity from commerce. They must be destroyed. Labor is what matters and thus should be what capital is tethered to, gambling is a vice for entertainment.

But we can't even get our most leftwing, lol, party to do anything, not even healthcare. So this is all a pipedream. It will eventually collapse under the weight of its own corruption, but until then, this place is a dystopia.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago

Shares of profits should go to active employees only, unless they've fulfilled the requirements of a pension, not entities that intend to collect capital while contributing no labor towards the products/services generating the profit.

So if my nephew wants to borrow $5k from me to start a business, I shouldn’t be allowed to lend it to him?

Keep in mind that all of these restrictions result in consenting adults being prevented from entering the economic arrangements they want to enter into.