You are basing your idea of CEOs on a stereotype. There will always be bad selfish CEOs; however, that does not mean all CEOs are bad and useless.
Politics Discussion
- Thread starter trajing
- Start date
-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
To add on to what I am saying:
what is bad about working toward helping yourself? people work for themselves. To say other wise is a baseless opinion. That is not to say that helping people is bad, by doing things such as donating to charity, ect.
i have more to say, just can't type on a phone.
(Sorry for grammgrammatical errors, I'm on a phone)
what is bad about working toward helping yourself? people work for themselves. To say other wise is a baseless opinion. That is not to say that helping people is bad, by doing things such as donating to charity, ect.
i have more to say, just can't type on a phone.
(Sorry for grammgrammatical errors, I'm on a phone)
I deliberately picked annoying CEOs because this is how they're viewed by the general public.
But (setting aside boardmeeting/vote shenanigans), they're being paid ridiculously high amounts for a reason: someone values them that much. If they have a history of tripling annual profits, then a company making billions of dollars a year is going to be delighted to pay someone millions, and they're going to have to outbid all the other big companies to do it.
Yes of course people work to help themselves. But people shouldn't work SOLEY to help themselves, and not care about anyone else, especially if they are high up in a company, they should be looking to make sure the people who work for them want to keep working for them, a CEO could drop 1k a month of their wage, and give their 100 employees 10 extra a month.
10 isn't much, but it is 2 days of eating for some people.
Or for those who don't make much, 10 could even be a VERY bad week of food - 1 meal a day (and a crap meal at that) (I just used numbers and not currency, because $/£ are similar in they could get)
10 isn't much, but it is 2 days of eating for some people.
Or for those who don't make much, 10 could even be a VERY bad week of food - 1 meal a day (and a crap meal at that) (I just used numbers and not currency, because $/£ are similar in they could get)
Yes, of course, but why should 1 person get those profits.
CEOs get BIG bonuses for seeing a company make massive profits... but in reality, the CEO did nothing. That bonus they received should be split between them and the employees who actually helped make that profit.
You missed something.
Picture two identical tech companies: Orange and Pear. Not to be confused with Apple. They're manned by virtually identical workforces.
One company has me as a CEO and one has you.
I suck with numbers and failed calculus at least twice, so my company, despite its amazing workforce, earns 2,000,000 this year.
You're amazing with people, and you are able to assign your various genius managers to the perfect tasks and projects. You buy the right companies and sell the right assets. Your company earns 14,000,000 this year.
A CEO can make or break an entire company. They're like a big stat-bonus on an RPG player profile: "This CEO automatically confers a 400% increase to all revenue." The key here is that while there are "hands" doing all the physical labour, there needs to be minds deciding what labour to do, when to do it, how to do it.
I took that test. Quite a few of those questions seem to be random and unrelated to politics.
I like this test better, but it is focused on America. http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
From taking a multitude of tests like these, and from what i think of myself, I tend to be liberal on social type items, but extremely conservative on economic matters. One thing I do want to say, I strongly feel that there is too much governmental influence on our daily lives. (At least in America)
Last edited:
Thanks.
I expected to be a tiny bit farther to the right maybe (notwithstanding that I usually vote left). My views are usually fairly pragmatic but open-minded.
Ok so, um, I think at least three of us should form a party, we're pretty unified.
Pyurist party anyone?
Pyurist party anyone?
Pspist party*
*Edited this in on an earlier post*
From taking a multitude of tests like these, and from what i think of myself, I tend to be liberal on social type items, but extremely conservative on economic matters. One thing I do want to say, I strongly feel that there is too much governmental influence on our daily lives. (At least in America)
Completely forgot to insert this link. http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
I like this test more out of any political spectrum determination type tests.
I like this test more out of any political spectrum determination type tests.
I am not going to take the test again, because it actually doesn't represent me properly at all.
It puts me as a Authoriatian left, but I vote more for right-wing parties, just because their policies seem better... for example, getting the fuck out of the EU. The UK shouldn't be part of it. It costs us a lot of money, I think I saw a statistic that:
10,000 people a year are treated for HIV in the UK.
8,000 of them are non-british citizens, meaning that they are getting free health care, but don't pay a penny into our healthcare system.
Why do they get this healthcare? Because they are an EU citizen, and have access to our services, and while we are in the EU, we cannot change that. It's freaking stupid.
If someone is in the country on holiday and needs medical attention, pay for it, or have travel insurance. That's fine.
If you have come here for treatment, and are using EU status to get it free, because your country makes you pay for treatment, well you can damn well pay to use our healthcare system too!
It puts me as a Authoriatian left, but I vote more for right-wing parties, just because their policies seem better... for example, getting the fuck out of the EU. The UK shouldn't be part of it. It costs us a lot of money, I think I saw a statistic that:
10,000 people a year are treated for HIV in the UK.
8,000 of them are non-british citizens, meaning that they are getting free health care, but don't pay a penny into our healthcare system.
Why do they get this healthcare? Because they are an EU citizen, and have access to our services, and while we are in the EU, we cannot change that. It's freaking stupid.
If someone is in the country on holiday and needs medical attention, pay for it, or have travel insurance. That's fine.
If you have come here for treatment, and are using EU status to get it free, because your country makes you pay for treatment, well you can damn well pay to use our healthcare system too!
I frequently wonder what would happen if America had a legitimate multi-party system (> 2 parties)
In Canada you can say with a straight face to someone that you're with the NDP or the Green party and nobody thinks its (very) weird. Whereas in the states you have two options and the country its pretty solidly divided between those two.
Although I've never lived in the EU, or the UK, I seems like the EU was a good idea at it's conception. It just ended up badly. Everything looks good on paper, but in execution, well...