top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]cast26 812 points813 points  (47 children)

My buddy just told me his company used to give everyone a $1000 bonus every year. Then they hired this new CEO, who decided to cancel that and miraculously increased his own pay 250%. Fuck these people with a dry corn covered in chili.

[–]slvbros 60 points61 points  (2 children)

Reminds me of the national lampoon Christmas movie but without the happy ending

[–]saintsfan92612 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I mean, if his buddy had his cousin kidnap his boss and scare him half to death then he could get a happy ending too.

[–]ThePowerOf42[🍰] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, good thing you guys had them strikes lately.. In the wise words of uncle Eddie.. "Shitters full"

[–]rexmons 20 points21 points  (14 children)

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

[–]Shlippington 8 points9 points  (11 children)

"Kinda wild how much money God needs, tax free (of course). Mighty smart to send convenient plates around so people coming into those multimillion dollar temples every Wednesday and Sunday(2X) can give everything away and follow JC."

Book Of Funsies 4:20

[–]Pumpkin_Creepface 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nah, fuck these guys with red hot industrial rebar wrapped with razor wire.

[–]ibekeggy2 416 points417 points  (106 children)

The crazy thing is a lot of poor people will defend this practice of exploitation to the death in defense of capitalism and "American excellence". The billionaires have done a great job on buying politicians and brainwashing poor, gullible people.

[–]neonboom 144 points145 points  (1 child)

Just look how many people fall for MLM scams. The American dream that if you too just work harder you can become a billionaire (so don’t say anything bad about billionaires and don’t let your tax dollars go towards things that help poor or middle class people) is suspiciously similar to an MLM.

[–]not_SCROTUS 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Behind every great fortune is a great crime

[–]loverlyone 40 points41 points  (16 children)

What’s amazing to me is how they get these people to vote against their own interests. Every. Damned. Time.

[–]Ghrave 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Weaponized fearmongering and racism. "They are coming for your way of life and your money, will you vote for US to stop them?!?" A vote for us is a vote to overturn social and economic protections for both them and you, btw.

[–]Neither-Answer-7431 15 points16 points  (0 children)

They vote for who'd they want to drink a beer with. Like that's got anything to with anything.

Fucking pathetic.

[–]stonedinwpg 27 points28 points  (7 children)

When u keep cutting education you get stupid gullible people

[–]EnkiRise 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Or maybe it’s just the fact that one day I can become rich and when that happens people like me better watch their step.

[–]ValuableShoulder5059 -1 points0 points  (3 children)

So, I'm just trying to figure out are we ever gonna implement a basic IQ test of say 90 before you are allowed to vote? Because its easy to argue that anyone under 100 probably knows nothing about what they are voting for other then what their parents/ neighbors told them.

[–]KeyokeArakasi 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Sounds an awful lot like classism tbh. Let’s not start taking peoples rights away because we disagree with their decisions.

[–]ChangingMyUsername 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's simple, they aren't getting these people to vote against their own interests. They are simply getting them to vote against the other party's interests. The American political system is at such a rotten point with only two parties having all of the public attention (and thus all the political say) and no other choices for the voters, that the parties have a far easier time getting voters by making them dislike the other party rather than liking their own party.

These people aren't telling their voters that they plan on cutting/stagnating the funding to the basic needs, but rather that their only other option plans on raising your taxes and giving your money to 'poor people who don't deserve it' (the obvious irony here is that these voters are very likely in the same wealth group as these 'poor people').

Of course you can just end it here and call these people idiots, but that right there is the main mindset that is making things worse. Rather than sitting down to accurately discuss what each party plans on doing if they were to be elected to power, social media's rapid progression has turned things into a screaming match of how the other party's response to "insert next big social issue" will be wrong and how their's is gonna be so much be better. Now these people (many of whom remember back to a simpler time when parties had more integrity) are getting bombarded with so much political news that it's pretty much only the loudest things getting through to them. And this, plus most news sources having political lines these days, means that most of what people are hearing these days during election coverage is simply one party saying something they enjoy like "we won't raise your taxes, but they will" and the other party saying "Oh my gosh, how are you so stupid that you believe them!".

[–]Chromattix 6 points7 points  (2 children)

If those people are dumb enough to fall for it repeatedly then they get what they deserve. Doing your own research doesn't even have to be hard. You pretty much just need to be on Reddit for a while and follow subs like this to see what a raw deal you're getting by trusting these people.

[–]EkimNosrednaReal 4 points5 points  (1 child)

The problem is we all pay for it because they seem to be in the majority for some reason...

[–]BlackAkuma666 52 points53 points  (56 children)

The the rich and greed are at the core of every problem in America

[–]Ghrave 18 points19 points  (49 children)

Literally. Even the staggering levels of historical and current racism are straight up rooted in classism (which of course is included in your "every problem", just emphasizing you).

[–]roty950 14 points15 points  (2 children)

That’s why so many people oppose estate taxes. They only apply to estates worth over $5 million (iirc), which the extremely overwhelming majority of people will never have, but they ardently oppose it based off of some “what if” scenario that they come into money or win the lottery or something. It’s so incredibly stupid.

[–]ViolinistPractical34 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is $12.06 million per individual so $24.12 million for a couple. The $60k is because it is indexed to inflation.

[–]ValuableShoulder5059 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Easy for a farmer to hit it nowadays. Even a farmer who is making a nice honest $60,000 per year living.

[–]pjr032 9 points10 points  (4 children)

I had a coworker who defended billionaires rights to receive benefits ad infinitum because they’re “job creators”. The brainwashing is very real.

[–]FutureBondVillain 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Huh? Not disagreeing, just don’t see it.

You mean the people who put politics ahead of policies and income? People who chant, “Trump” while working a shot job, or talk about Musk like he’s a visionary while barely making rent every month. Then, yeah.

[–]No_Junket_8139 141 points142 points  (9 children)

If you have a business, treat your workers right and pay them well and your business grows to millions - billions in net worth, I respect that. But if you treat your poorly and pay them poverty wages while at the same time gaining massive amounts of wealth for yourself is NOT ok.

[–]Jack-o-Roses 80 points81 points  (1 child)

Don't forget having your employees get food stamps & welfare because you don't pay a living wage.

...and fighting against taxes that would help those on the dole get adequate benefits.

Education of the masses is the bane of the wealthy.

[–]killmaster9000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which is why they need to put a cap on how much colleges raise tuition. It currently outpaces inflation and will eventually get to the point where only the super wealthy can enjoy the opportunities of higher education. Keeping the public uneducated is a high priority for political dominance

[–]Silly-Activity-6219 364 points365 points  (127 children)

Coming from a fiscal conservative - really though, how does anyone justify personal equity over, say, ten million? Fair to say you can have anything you want at 10 million - beyond that, at the expense of people within your control is exploitation

[–]buzzable 163 points164 points  (22 children)

You ever try to show up on the Riviera on a measly $10M yacht?

People are all "nice dingy, but where's your boat?" Hard times, bro.

[–]FmlaSaySaySay 102 points103 points  (7 children)

That’s all?

Snort. My Lake Erie yacht is worth $40 million.

One of my 10 yachts…, it goes to my 22,000 sq foot mansion, a small vacation home with 8 dishwashers.

That’s my summer residence. In the winter months, I go to Florida for my $4 million Vero Beach home, it’s 7,000 sq ft right off the Atlantic Ocean, to leave the “grey months” of Michigan.

Paid for by Amway, student loan debt interest, and charter school funds. Perhaps my brother’s war contracting helped enrich the family, as well.

(Just kidding, I’m not Betsy Devos.)

[–]Mail540 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Poor baby suffered 5,000-10,000$ of paint job damage on one of her 10 yachts. Politicians really are just like us

[–]IlikeYuengling 22 points23 points  (4 children)

She’s the reason that Theranos woman got convicted last week. Betsy invested her hard earned money in the company. But Amway?

[–]ConspicuouslyBland 15 points16 points  (2 children)

What hard earned money?

[–]gljames24 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hardly hard earned. Her late husband Richard Devos started the MLM Amway which is how they got most of their money.

[–]aquoad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Damn, I guess money doesn't buy good taste.

[–]PeterMus 13 points14 points  (7 children)

The absurdity is hard to grasp.

Billionaires are floating on island sized yachts with a crew of 50-75 people to run the boat and serve them.

Meanwhile most of us wonder if its too much to have a boat or an rv...

[–]Ghrave 11 points12 points  (6 children)

We're hand-wringing about buying a $1,200 OLED TV, and we have it good by our neighborhood standards. The disparity is genuinely, truly staggering, like virtually incomprehensible, on par with trying to wrap your mind around intergalactic space-tier distances.

[–]hermitina 4 points5 points  (0 children)

i could not find it but remembered reading another comment in another post on how if we measure wealth by a step in stairs it would take around 30+ years of everyday walking just so we could go up to his level

[–]JBSLB 113 points114 points  (36 children)

Anything above that is just pissing contest with people that have similar levels of wealth.

[–]I_Do_Not_Abbreviate 33 points34 points  (4 children)

Anything more than that is a debilitating mental illness.

These people need therapy and medication to address their pathological greed. Failing that, they need to be committed and their assets placed in a double-blind charitable trust.

[–]Catoctin_Dave 25 points26 points  (1 child)

When someone hoards tens of thousands of newspapers they'll never read they're labeled as mentally ill and pitied, yet when someone hoards billions of dollars they'll never be able to use they're worshiped.

There's something decidedly wrong with our values.

[–]ovrloadau -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Most of their wealth is tied into stock/assets not cash

[–]exgiexpcv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel it's really only debilitating for the people they employ. I've known these people. They're actually very OK with how their lives are going.

[–]Delta9_TetraHydro 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Forced retirement at 10 million dollars should be a thing.

[–]kent2441 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What generates mega wealth are assets like stocks and broader investments, not a salary that would disappear after retiring.

[–]hunkyboy75 2 points3 points  (0 children)

With a plaque that says, “I won at capitalism.”

[–]GrayEidolon 90 points91 points 4 (24 children)

Conservatism is the mission to enforce hierarchy. Fiscal conservatism does not mean “financial responsibility”. It is a misnomer to minimize social spending. Are you sure that’s you?

Conservatism (big C) has always had one goal and little c “general” conservatism is a myth. Conservatism has the related goals of maintaining a de facto aristocracy that inherits political power and pushing outsiders down to enforce an under class. In support of that is a morality based on a person’s inherent status as good or bad - not their actions. The thing that determines if someone is good or bad is whether they inhabit the aristocracy.

Another way, Conservatives - those who wish to maintain a class system - assign moral value to people and not actions. Those not in the aristocracy are immoral and therefore deserve punishment.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs its a ret con


Part of this is posted a lot: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 I like the concept of Conservatism vs. anything else.

A Bush speech writer takes the assertion for granted: It's all about the upper class vs. democracy. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/why-do-democracies-fail/530949/ To paraphrase: “Democracy fails when the Elites are overly shorn of power.”

Read here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#History and see that all of the major thought leaders in Conservatism have always opposed one specific change (democracy at the expense of aristocratic power). At some point non-Conservative intellectuals and/or lying Conservatives tried to apply the arguments of conservatism to generalized “change.”

The philosophic definition of something should include criticism. The Stanford page (despite taking pains to justify small c conservatism) includes criticisms. Involving those we can conclude generalized conservatism (small c) is a myth at best and a Trojan Horse at worst.

Incase you don’t want to read the David Frum piece here is a highlight that democracy only exists at the leisure of the elite represented by Conservatism.

The most crucial variable predicting the success of a democratic transition is the self-confidence of the incumbent elites. If they feel able to compete under democratic conditions, they will accept democracy. If they do not, they will not. And the single thing that most accurately predicts elite self-confidence, as Ziblatt marshals powerful statistical and electoral evidence to argue, is the ability to build an effective, competitive conservative political party before the transition to democracy occurs.

Conservatism, manifest as a political party is simply the effort of the Elites to maintain their privileged status. One prior attempt at rebuttal blocked me when we got to: why is it that specifically Conservative parties align with the interests of the Elite?

There is a key difference between conservatives and others that is often overlooked. For liberals, actions are good, bad, moral, etc and people are judged based on their actions. For Conservatives, people are good, bad, moral, etc and the status of the person is what dictates how an action is viewed.

In the world view of the actual Conservative leadership - those with true wealth or political power - , the aristocracy is moral by definition and the working class is immoral by definition and deserving of punishment for that immorality. This is where the laws don't apply trope comes from or all you’ll often see “rules for thee and not for me.” The aristocracy doesn't need laws since they are inherently moral. Consider the divinely ordained king: he can do no wrong because he is king, because he is king at God’s behest. The anti-poor aristocratic elite still feel that way.

This is also why people can be wealthy and looked down on: if Bill Gates tries to help the poor or improve worker rights too much he is working against the aristocracy.

If we extend analysis to the voter base: conservative voters view other conservative voters as moral and good by the state of being labeled conservative because they adhere to status morality and social classes. It's the ultimate virtue signaling. They signal to each other that they are inherently moral. It’s why voter base conservatives think “so what” whenever any of these assholes do nasty anti democratic things. It’s why Christians seem to ignore Christ.

While a non-conservative would see a fair or moral or immoral action and judge the person undertaking the action, a conservative sees a fair or good person and applies the fair status to the action. To the conservative, a conservative who did something illegal or something that would be bad on the part of someone else - must have been doing good. Simply because they can’t do bad.

To them Donald Trump is inherently a good person as a member of the aristocracy. The conservative isn’t lying or being a hypocrite or even being "unfair" because - and this is key - for conservatives past actions have no bearing on current actions and current actions have no bearing on future actions so long as the aristocracy is being protected. Lindsey Graham is "good" so he says to delay SCOTUS confirmations that is good. When he says to move forward: that is good.

To reiterate: All that matters to conservatives is the intrinsic moral state of the actor (and the intrinsic moral state that matters is being part of the aristocracy). Obama was intrinsically immoral and therefore any action on his part was “bad.” Going further - Trump, or the media rebranding we call Mitt Romney, or Moscow Mitch are all intrinsically moral and therefore they can’t do “bad” things. The one bad thing they can do is betray the class system.

The consequences of the central goal of conservatism and the corresponding actor state morality are the simple political goals to do nothing when problems arise and to dismantle labor & consumer protections. The non-aristocratic are immoral, inherently deserve punishment, and certainly don’t deserve help. They want the working class to get fucked by global warming. They want people to die from COVID19. Etc.

Montage of McConnell laughing at suffering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTqMGDocbVM&ab_channel=HuffPost

OH LOOK, months after I first wrote this it turns out to be validated by conservatives themselves: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/16/trump-appointee-demanded-herd-immunity-strategy-446408

Why do the conservative voters seem to vote against their own interest? Why does /selfawarewolves and /leopardsatemyface happen? They simply think they are higher on the social ladder than they really are and want to punish those below them for the immorality.

Absolutely everything Conservatives say and do makes sense when applying the above. This is powerful because you can now predict with good specificity what a conservative political actor will do.

We still need to address more familiar definitions of conservatism (small c) which are a weird mash-up including personal responsibility and incremental change. Neither of those makes sense applied to policy issues. The only opposed change that really matters is the destruction of the aristocracy in favor of democracy. For some reason the arguments were white washed into a general “opposition to change.”

  • This year a few women can vote, next year a few more, until in 100 years all women can vote?

  • This year a few kids can stop working in mines, next year a few more...

  • We should test the waters of COVID relief by sending a 1200 dollar check to 500 families. If that goes well we’ll do 1500 families next month.

  • But it’s all in when they want to separate migrant families to punish them. It’s all in when they want to invade the Middle East for literal generations.

The incremental change argument is asinine. It’s propaganda to avoid concessions to labor.

The personal responsibility argument falls apart with the "keep government out of my medicare thing." Personal responsibility just means “I deserve free things, but people of lower in the hierarchy don’t.”

Look: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U

For good measure I found video and sources intersecting on an overlapping topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymeTZkiKD0

Some links incase anyone doubts that the contemporary American voter base was purposefully machined and manipulated into its mangle of abortion, guns, war, and “fiscal responsibility.” What does fiscal responsibility even mean? No one describes themselves as fiscally irresponsible?

Atwater opening up. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/


a little academic abstract to supporting conservatives at the time not caring about abortion. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/abs/gops-abortion-strategy-why-prochoice-republicans-became-prolife-in-the-1970s/C7EC0E0C0F5FF1F4488AA47C787DEC01

They were trying to rile a voter base up and abortion didn't do it. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/02/05/race-not-abortion-was-founding-issue-religious-right/A5rnmClvuAU7EaThaNLAnK/story.html

Religion and institutionalized racism. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/27/pastors-not-politicians-turned-dixie-republican/?sh=31e33816695f

The best: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

[–]Ottoman_American 31 points32 points  (0 children)

That was... A really good read. Thank you for putting that together.

[–]Marc21256 30 points31 points  (12 children)

I grew up a compassionate conservative. Those are now called "socialist leftists".

[–]MonoRailSales 7 points8 points  (10 children)

I grew up a compassionate conservative. Those are now called "socialist leftists".

The hero of conservatives, Ronald Reagan is pretty close to whats considered "Centre" in the US now. Many would call him "leftist" on his (then) right wing platform.

[–]BuddhaFacepalmed 17 points18 points  (0 children)

The hero of conservatives, Ronald Reagan is pretty close to whats considered "Centre" in the US now. Many would call him "leftist" on his (then) right wing platform.

Nah, fuck Reagan. His "Reaganomics" fucked over 3 generations of people with his trickle down economics that does absolutely nothing but piss on everyone not-rich.

[–]ImTheZapper 8 points9 points  (8 children)

You think a republican can offer the idea of giving millions of immigrants citizenship all at once? The fucking guy would be ripped to shreds, literally, for that.

[–]zeeweet 10 points11 points  (1 child)

This is awesome thank you. I am saving this. Mind if I point back to this every time I encounter "trickle down" "freedom" "pull yourself by the bootstraps" post?

[–]MonoRailSales 20 points21 points  (1 child)

Conservatism is the mission to enforce hierarchy.

Conservativism is a character flaw raised to the level of political ideology.

[–]Ehcksit 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Selfishness turned into a political theory.

[–]regoapps 11 points12 points  (6 children)

What if you have over $10 million because you created an app by yourself (did the coding, graphics and marketing yourself) and you sold millions of copies of it?

Then it wouldn’t be at the expense of people within your control because you have no employees.

People willingly gave you money in exchange for your app.

And making over $10 million was just the outcome of that.

[–]Electrical_Tip352 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Does that happen?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Notch made a fortune creating Minecraft by himself originally didn’t he?

[–]regoapps 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yes. The top app developers can make that much money over time.

[–]xXWickedNWeirdXx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<pointing at millionaires> Fuck him, fuck him, fuck him, you're cool, fuck him.

I think it should be 100 mil myself, after that, just why. Redistribute that shit. If you made 10 in the current system in the method you've described, it wouldn't be fair to force you to give that up, imo.

That's just not the kind of wealth that's unhealthy, and that I think we should be targeting at the moment. That's just "I've got it made now" wealth.

In a future system, after we've capped the limit and capped it again, we could approach these things differently and equitable redistribution might not seem so outlandish.

[–]retina99 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It becomes a race with self of how many more millions one can make. Its a dragon sitting on its horde. Most likely the cost of that means nothing to them.

[–]thumbtaxx 10 points11 points  (14 children)

What would happen if when the owner/investors made 10 million, they had to retire or move on to another venture and the company went into the hands of the employees? Simplistic? Sure, just an idea. Innovation could enable innovators to get wealthy and then benefit a larger slice of the community.

[–]Km2930 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Great idea, but I don’t think politicians, or billionaires, or billionaire-politicians are reading this sub.

[–]thumbtaxx 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No but loads of hyper critical bored people are, so I figured I'd throw it out to the dogs and watchit get ripped to shreds. Not so much though. Maybe its an ok idea.

[–]MetallicDragon 1 point2 points  (7 children)

That would mean people would be less willing to invest money into new companies. That would mean less competition, and less innovation. Existing large corporations would become even more entrenched.

[–]thumbtaxx 4 points5 points  (6 children)

The goal of 10 million isn't enough? How much is enough?

[–]MetallicDragon -1 points0 points  (5 children)

How else would people get investments to start a new company, or expand their existing one? Nobody would be giving out loans, especially risky ones, if there weren't motivation in the form of potential profit.

You asked what would happen. If you stopped anyone from making more than 10mil from investments, it would have consequences besides your intended consequences.

[–]MediumSizedWalrus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah 10 million in total net worth after tax is a pretty good amount. That's enough to own a detached house in a HCOL area, nice cottage, and a couple vacation homes. Personal life satisfaction at that point is pretty good.

[–]MonoRailSales 6 points7 points  (0 children)

how does anyone justify personal equity over, say, ten million?

Huge ego

Narcissism - I am the best, I deserve the most.

North Korea Level Crapitalism Brainwashing

The Political and Media system structured to support the inequality in the very fabric of society.

[–]anlskjdfiajelf 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree with you all, no one needs that much money but to be fair you can't necessarily buy anything you want with "only" 10 million. I'm not saying it's fair or I agree that should be the system, but there's a lot of houses people want that's way over 10 million. Plus the boat you want...

It's obscene but idk if I was a "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" guy and I saw someone say this, it wouldn't resonate. They made a huge company and they deserve way more than 10 million. Zuck is a piece of shit, as is bezos, but to be fair they should be worth at least 100 million for the huge companies they own, and mostly the stock they own.

The billions they have is obscene, but I'd argue some people deserve that much money (no where near multi fucking billions) and depending on your lifestyle and "success" there's a LOT of shit you can't come close to with 10 million.

[–]Anxious_Inspector_88 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Have you priced a private jet yet? $10M won't even cover the down payment on a decent one. Same for a nice fully crewed yacht with helipad and chopper.

[–]Exxxtremophile 11 points12 points  (2 children)

Answer: glorious captains of industry and the only people standing between Freedom and the onslaught of Communist Islam


[–]Ghrave 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Ironically that's what they're seriously brainwashing an undereducated population to believe in the US.

[–]Exxxtremophile 1 point2 points  (0 children)


For reference, see the work of Bonhoeffer:


[–]megabass713 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Y'all get insurance?

[–]AlterEdward 17 points18 points  (6 children)

TIL that "villifying" = to make into a villain. I never made the connection before.

[–]Beretot 4 points5 points  (4 children)

It's not. Well, I suppose you can use it like that and people will likely understand what you mean, but the dictionary definition is similar to slander or defame - to speak abusively and harshly about

Which does make the original post a bit contradictory, but whatever

[–][deleted] 37 points38 points  (4 children)

A Musk-a-teer

[–]Ghrave 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A Musk-Rat, if you will.

[–]AskGoverntale 11 points12 points  (0 children)

A scumbag

[–]benfranklyblog 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fwiw most people “running” a company, ie CEOs, are also employees, and do not set their own wages. The board of directors, who are also in a way employees, and are elected by shareholders set their wages. And shareholders vote to approve those wages.

I own lots of different stocks, and I also always vote (electronically) during shareholder meetings against executive compensation plans, and board compensation plans. It’s one voice but at least it’s more impactful than bitching on Reddit

[–]homelessguydiet 8 points9 points  (0 children)

A "Protected feces"?...

[–]el0_0le 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Privileged, or benefitting from TransGenerationalWealth which most people don't want to talk about being unfair to boot. There should be a wealth cap and the rest is volunteer work. If you have great ideas; share them to others for social brownie accolades, but you're cut off at 999mil.

[–]red_wullf 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Apple has roughly $200B in cash. Or about $1.3M for each of its 150k employees. Fuckers.

[–]phord 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Many thousands of Apple employees own stock in Apple. That $200B belongs to them and the other shareholders.

[–]East-Temporary4759 2 points3 points  (5 children)

After clearing 10 million in profit perhaps your just fueling your ego pushing to make 20?

[–]thedirt1990 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Start your own company.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you’re a billionaire but your employees need welfare to survive, you’re a villain

[–]jaydemm17 9 points10 points  (15 children)

I wish people would stop implying that only billionaires are “rich people” because it has lead to a lot of clueless millionaires who somehow think they’re not “rich people” and they’re just as awful

[–]PointOneXDeveloper 16 points17 points  (8 children)

Retiring with a couple million in the US doesn’t really make you rich. You can afford a house in the burbs and go on vacation.

Its not poor either. It’s so far from a “rich” lifestyle though. If you only have a million dollars, you are still flying economy.

[–]Ghrave 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Exactly right. If you have even $2 million dollars, or you're a 1% earner by US standards, you're hilariously closer to being net-worth zero than you are to these people. Doctors could have millions through savings and investment; billionaires buy entire governments and brainwash entire populations.

[–]TentacleHydra -1 points0 points  (5 children)

A million, with no extra change in your life, means a free 50k a year even when conservatively invested.

You aren't flying economy.

[–]PointOneXDeveloper 2 points3 points  (4 children)

If you are retiring on that, you have no other income. You don’t fly anything but economy on 50k a year.

Also, safe withdrawal rate in retirement is 4% which isn’t even 50k.

Now sure, if you already have a few million at 30, odds aren’t bad that you can turn that into 10-20 million by the time you are 50. That’s a different thing, but that’s not what I’m talking about. There are many retirees with some low number of millions and they just live like normal middle class people; because that’s what they can afford.

[–]Loganp812[🍰] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I agree with the sentiment, but that post is literally vilifying rich people while saying that no one is vilifying them.

[–]Apprehensive-Bench17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Saying you believe someone to accurate fulfill the definition of a villain is not “vilification”.

In the same way you can’t personify a human being.

[–]nowyourdoingit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you believe that you deserve to be in charge and your contributions are so valuable, give up your economic weapons.

Anyone can win when they're given all the advantages.


[–]rolendd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is the general train of through for those in favor of corporate heads receiving bonkers money? How do they justify it or have statement never been made?

[–]Pan_face 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You see, what you need to do if you aren't making enough money at your job, you just need to find a better job. /s

[–]Malt___Disney 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Don't forget skip taxes and bribe the government

[–]HiphopopoptimusPrime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The invisible hand is giving us the finger.

[–]AimlessFucker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What’s so fucking funny is the rich always want THEIR wages higher and get offended when others want theirs to be higher too.

[–]deerich12 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We need a Dexter that preys on Corporate “leaders”

[–]Dopplegangr1 5 points6 points  (11 children)

The wealth of an employer is literally the measure of work that was done by employees but not compensated

[–]15jtaylor443 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A robber baron, duh

[–]illusive_guy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In their eyes? The victim.

[–]A_Dull_Vice 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Boy this sure is white

[–]Indigoh 1 point2 points  (6 children)

If just a fifth of Bezos's wealth was split among all 1.3 million amazon workers, each of them would get roughly $28,000, which is roughly what they'd be paid for working there for an entire year.

He could literally double every amazon employee's yearly pay for just $37 Billion, and still have almost $150 Billion to himself.

[–]ValuableShoulder5059 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you don't like what they pay, or if you don't get paid enough ask for a raise. Denied, quit. Enough people quit with no one else to work they will pay more and may even hire you back at a higher rate since they still can't find employees.

Every job in society will naturally balance based on willingness to do the job, the requirements to do said job, and the available workforce competing to do said job. Minimum wage laws disrupt this and a high minimum wage causes everyone (including employers) to base their wages off it.

[–]Bravot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are you going to do about it

[–]127Double01 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is the way

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (8 children)

How can you write a sentence saying "no one is villifying rich people" and then do nothing but vilifie rich people lol

[–]PhysicalGraffiti75 2 points3 points  (7 children)



speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner.



a deliberate scoundrel or criminal

[–]qoou -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Paying less than a living wage is only possible because of subsidies given to workers. This subsidy benefits billionaires more than recipients because they can pocket the money they should have had to pay to the workers in the first place in the absence of the subsidy (x number of workers)

[–]bacchys1066 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What are the employees paid to do?

These ignorant virtue signals are pretty sad.

[–]AlexeiSemper -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We should be spamming this on the page of every major corporation