Many people have reported this as a fake tweet. I don’t have time to be the tweet police. What is everyone’s thoughts about having a link to the actual tweet or other social media link?
If this was true…Nd I wouldn’t be surprised that he would sya such a thing as… Making profit for the share holders. Is justified even if ruthlessly done…
I remember watching a documentary, it may have been Robert Reich that was explaining how businesses in the 1970’s made profits but the difference between the owner and the employee was high but still within a certain logic. Companies still had the philosophy that you should keep your employees for 30 years and treat them with a certain respect whereas today… A lot of big business are there for the shareholder and screw the employee. They are selfish anyway… Wanting more than minimal salary 🙄
Then again, I love reading Robert Reich… https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-paid-what-youre-worth-myth
And yet another good article : https://robertreich.substack.com/p/if-bosses-are-raking-it-in-shouldnt
“This isn’t true but it may as well be, because it feels true to me” is always such a disappointing thing to see commented under misinformation.
What would be the misinformation? A typical working family in the 1970 could survive and feed their family. Today, a working family barely make enough money to pay for rent.
If CEO deserve their pay (hypothetically) then why would the employee not equally get higher salary increase?
Please explain how business have not, at least in the last 30 years, focused on gaining high profit for shareholders and care very little of the consumer or the workers.
A CEO goal is not to serve the board to the point of ripping a business apart. In that same breath, a Board should actually be held accountable to not pillage companies to simply increase their already big portfolio…
This is the way.
Yes, but an archived link so tweet cannot be deleted.
Good point, I’ll change the sticky.
I’m for it. This is like the 15th fake Elon Musk tweet I’ve seen today
Why not remove it then?
I’m not the mod you’re talking to, but I assume they aren’t deleting it because OP posted it before providing a link was a rule, and it might not be a fake tweet. I mean it is fake, but I can’t prove that.
Personally I’m in favor of mods erring on the side of not removing content if there’s any uncertainty, even if it’s a bit annoying seeing this fake tweet
It’s misleading on the people Twitter sub. Fake Wikipedia articles hard to distinguish would be misleading on a Wikipedia sub
It really feels like you didn’t actually read what I wrote
well, was it true? I don’t wanna go to xitter to find out :(
It’s not even the same jacket. Fucking boston bomber mkII
prolly the wrong climate to be openly admitting profits are more important than peoples lives.
Shh
A real “let them eat cake” moment.
I’ve heard that phrase my whole life and only looked it up now because of your comment. For anyone else that’s curious:
“Let them eat cake” is the traditional translation of the French phrase “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”,[1] said to have been spoken in the 18th century by “a great princess” upon being told that the peasants had no bread.
…
The quote is taken to reflect either the princess’s frivolous disregard for the starving peasants or her poor understanding of their plight.
I had a history teacher who claimed that French bakers at the time called the layers of dough that were left on the bottom of the ovens and had to be scraped off periodically “cake” and that is what Marie Antoinette was referring to when she said “let them eat cake.” So it was just as heartless, but maybe less comically out of touch.
The one sentence the poster you responded left out:
The phrase “let them eat cake” is conventionally attributed to Marie Antoinette, although there is no evidence that she ever uttered it, and it is now generally regarded as a journalistic cliché.
And brioche is more like a rich egg bread than what I would recognize as cake.
The eggs and butter make it much more expensive though, so the sentiment is similar.
deleted by creator
He’s too high profile. Too many people watching him at all times. An assassin would have a hard time getting to him I would think.
Somebody got shots at Donald Trump. Nobody is safe. If a trained shooter wants you and knows how their bullet is going to behave (wind, drop, etc) then you’re already dead.
deleted by creator
Is there a list of healthcare company shareholders?
I guarantee you the companies will start freaking out once their largest shareholders start to be picked off and everyone else sells their shares.
The largest shareholders tend to be retirement funds. It’s generational warfare that no one realizes or talks about.
Market linked retirement funds, imo rank among one of the worst regressions in American governance/society.
It broke the employer:employee relationship where your work provides a pension, and you are secured in your old age for loyalty and time worked.
It directly enabled an emboldened a new group of parasites, who run hedge funds to gamble with other people’s money whilst skimming fees up and down the transaction flows. You win, I win - you loose, I win.
And those ‘smart people’ crash the economy every 10-15 years due to their collective greed and over leveraging in order to take the maximum profit they can - or society as a whole “lands softy” due to central banks fiscal policy via inflation, and we all see where that’s landed us.
Well those hedge fund managers still worked when it was DB pensions. But it just seemed to not be as crazy as it is now.
A DB plan at least locked in your retirement payout, allowing much more security of income than being left to the wolves in the stock market.
I’ve seen multiple workers who need to retire, it was past their planned date to retire despite saving for their entire lives, because ‘the market’ wiped out a chunk of their retirement package.
Yes DB is better for the person. I’m saying on the market and fund manager side it didn’t really matter. I don’t think DC contributed more to risk taking or the crazy maximizing, that just seemed to happen from greed and other factors.
In addition to what [email protected] said, this would be generational warfare against…themselves. Old people are exponentially more likely to need healthcare than young people are.
I’m talking about this in broad terms. What is the first way corporations in general save money? Pay employees as little as they can, destroy pension plans for new employees, etc.
I would disagree that that is an example of generational warfare.
The older people get, the less of their money tends to be in actual stocks, and the shares managed by retirement funds are inevitably non-voting, so they can’t even voice what tiny bit of opinion their fraction of ownership would theoretically get them.The “shareholders” being performed for are the managers of those investment funds.
Making obscene wealth on stock investing is relatively rare, but making obscene wealth investing other people’s money and then paying yourself an obscene salary out of the proceeds is far more common.
Those are the people who control the massive amounts of money that companies perform for to drive up share prices.Why own when you can get paid to control? Then your money isn’t on the line and you don’t need to be lucky to get rich.
The older people get, the less of their money tends to be in actual stocks,
Eh it’s still a ton. And even then it’s in bonds which a good amount are corporate bonds, and guess what the corporation wants to do.
the shares managed by retirement funds are inevitably non-voting,
Really doesn’t alleviate the pressure of “maximize the shareholder value at all costs”. Fiduciary duty is ingrained, it doesn’t need to be actively decided on by the board.
And you do get rich from stocks, not that you need to because it’s a retirement fund. I think you’re barking up the wrong tree trying to pin this on the fund managers. They personally don’t even care if the stock goes up, because they get a percent fee no matter what.
My point was more that the corporate behavior is geared towards pleasing fund managers rather than retirees or people with retirement accounts.
The fund manager decides where the money goes, so they’re the ones that need to be happy. Yes, legally both the fund manager and the company have a fiduciary duty to the literally millions of people with 401ks that put money into their stock or fund, but in practice it’s fund managers who matter.
If blackrock says that all things being equal, they’re going to preferentially invest in sustainable companies, suddenly companies have an incentive to make themselves sustainable by whatever metric blackrock is using. Likewise when an investment firm doesn’t reduce their stake in an insurance company for harming patient outcomes.Non-voting means the CEO can be sued by them, but not replaced. It’s a different level of responsibility.
I still think your barking up the wrong tree. They are one cog in the machine which demand fiduciary duty.
???
Did he just condemn people for celebrating the killer and shitting on the killed and then went on providing the exact reason why people are celebrating? He forget to take his meth this morning or something?
It’s fake
Legally correct.
It’s a fiduciary duty, not a legal one. It’s an expected act, but no law says they must maximize profits at any cost.
Its an expectation that can be changed and tempered like any other, but the rich class doesn’t want to own up to deciding to destroy people’s lives for their profit, so they hand wave and pretend like someone made them do it.
Maybe a few more bullets will debase them of this clearly reckless belief.
No, companies can actually be sued if they fail to act in the most profitable way. As well they should.
Counter example: Apple spends millions on improving accessibility for the blind that outstrips the profitability of that subgroup. They were never sued for that action. Additionally they didn’t sue the maintainers of Android for wholesale copying their implementations. It’s a bit more nuanced, mate.
You can sue anyone for any reason in the US. It does not mean you will win.
That’s also a civil action, not a criminal one. A disagreement in contract law, i.e not something that is illegal.
The actual fiduciary duty executives have is to be beholden to their board and shareholders. They can still decide to make long term and humane choices in guiding their companies. That is their remit, they all just pretend not to have it so they can kill people and destroy lives for personal profit.
Not according to Dodge Brothers vs Ford.
That was settled a long time ago.
Which goes to show how legality isn’t a measurement of correctness.
I couldn’t find this tweet on Elon Musk’s Twitter feed
Does that mean he deleted it, or it’s fake? I don’t know how Twitter works.
Either is possible.
It’s fake. It was posted on r/ToiletPaperUSA earlier today and clearly flaired as fake/satire.
You are right, Elon would never share or post some off the wall shit!
Can you edit the title to flag that?
Ditto @[email protected]
Ditto @[email protected]
Thank you for your sacrifice (of going to x).
It was painful scrolling through his feed 😅
Says it isn’t found?
I get the profile on kbin but no posts.
I still use the correct linking because it’s supposed to work across federated platforms and if it isn’t that’s an actual issue.
That link worked, maybe my phone just sucks.
So I’m watching Severance right now and it’s incredible how spot on the corporate cult portrayal is in that show
There doesn’t seem to be any actual record of this being tweeted.
deleted by creator
the >80%+ that still use facebook using the laughing meme aren’t “the radical left” if anything, facebook is a right leaning platform.
Worried Elmo? I hope so. Though I’d prefer you were terrified, you parasitic oligarch.
fake post!
True as anything else from xitter.
he should be scared
