- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
Summary
Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot in a premeditated attack outside the New York Hilton Midtown before speaking at an investor conference.
The gunman, still at large, fired multiple times, leaving shell casings marked with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.”
Authorities suggest Thompson was targeted but remain unclear on the motive. His wife confirmed prior threats against him.
Analysts speculate a possible vendetta tied to his company. The case raises questions about executive security, as Thompson lacked personal protection despite known risks.
I don’t believe there is a single billionaire who is a good person.
What gives them the rights to amass such obscene wealth off of the backs of their workforce just to choose what charitable causes they want to spend their ill gotten gains on.
Furthermore, I take issue with the whole stock market and its need for perpetual growth at any cost.
Then you should acknowledge that you are ignorant about who the billionaires are and what good they may be doing.
Most aren’t amassing wealth on the backs of a workforce. Most are making investments for the company they own to make money. As I said, they don’t have the money in their pockets. The company or the stock for the company is worth money.
Look at any sports team owning CEO. They’re not all great but many are decent people who contribute to their communities. And the people working for them are making decent money. The money the team they own makes is from fans spending money on tickets, buying merchandise, and selling broadcast rights.
That’s exactly the same as
Where the fuck did the money that investment paid come from if not the workers at that investment not being paid their fair share?
You’re on .ml ffs, your bad takes are supposed to be the other way around
I know a billionaire who inherited a company from his relatives. By hiring the right people (well educated, very expensive upper management), he was able to increase production and distribution. He paid his entire staff very well. The value of the company increased as brand reputation increased. He invested personal money and time and worked his ass off to make a company he got for free worth even more. He then sold this company for a staggering profit. He took that money to buy another enterprise. Again, he took the skills he had and invested in hiring the right people who knew how to run a gigantic organization. This allowed him to hire more people whom he could pay even more money to return greater value.
Have you ever received a raise? Was it because your value increased or something else?
“by getting other people to do his work he was able to make a lot of money off the back of his daddy’s money”
Biggest brain in the industry here.
That’s not at all what I said or what I know of the situation. You are making assumptions based on your existing feelings without knowing anything of the matter. The person I know worked his ass off more than any person I’ve ever met.
In the industry I’ve worked in, I’ve had the opportunity to rub shoulders with celebrities, athletes, CEOs, etc. They have all been honest hard working people. Every one of them (over a hundred) had some philanthropic enterprises helping children, the sick, the homeless, animals, etc. Honestly, the wealthy people I’ve met in my life are the most incredible humans I’ve ever met. I guess that’s what upsets me. I wish you could all meet one or two of them and see how you come away feeling that these people are the best hope we have at a kinder world.
Even the nicest most hardworking billionaires you’ve met still never stopped exploiting people. A person can’t make a billion dollars through hard work and ingenuity. You only get that rich by extracting value from the labor of others or inheriting the riches gained through such. They passed the point where they gained little to no benefit from figuring out how they could keep getting bigger numbers and rather than distribute the gains downward and they kept going. They paid money managers to maximize their returns and wash away any concerns about how those investments got so profitable. They paid bosses to hire people at the
lowestmost efficient wage they could and then fire them when it’s more efficient. They may even be contributing some of that ill-gotten wealth to philanthropic enterprises. Not enough to impact their life, naturally, but some. The best will even promise to give it all away. Not now of course, when they die. Until then, they deserve it all and get to decide which ills are sexy enough to be worth contributions.And when you meet them at a mixer or a promo event or wherever it is you do, they’ll be happy friendly people. Because why wouldn’t they be? They’re sitting on a dragon’s hoard of wealth extracted from the work of others, with every freedom and luxury, and a fawning entourage and friendly media ready to continually say how nice and special they are.
How could you possibly say that?
It’s a matter of economics. You buy a thing. You invest in it. It generates value. You sell it for more than you put into it.
At no point does this require “exploiting” anyone.
Your argument just seems like, without any evidence, you think business owners aren’t increasing people’s salaries as the company’s value increases.
Here’s the story of Sponge Daddy. Small company of about 130 people worth about a billion dollars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrub_Daddy
Let’s say it costs me a dollar (including payroll) to make a thing and I sell it for two dollars. In the first week of sales, I run out of stock. I now need to reduce demand to keep up with manufacturing so I increase the price to four dollars. I increase production which includes more factories and salaries which increases the costs to two dollars. I now increase the retail price to five dollars. Within a three years, I’ve sold 500 million things. I’ve generated $2.5 billion in revenue. My overhead is $1 billion, profit is $1.5 billion. How am I exploiting anyone? By not choosing to increase people’s salaries? What If my economic plan is to cover costs in case of a pandemic? What if I plan to create more products and need the extra revenue to invest in the new business opportunity? I need to buy more warehouses and employ more people as my business grows.
I can assure you, you have a fictitious image of what a billionaire is. I certainly don’t know them all, but there aren’t many and I know more than a few.
It’s true! Value just springs forth into this world from the ether. It’s basically alchemy. No other more rational expiation for it.
What if I need my peasants to each give me a bit more grain this season because the plague killed half of them? What if I also need to feed my knights so I can conquer new territories? Why should those lousy peasants have a say in any of that?
I assume a wheel that turns will eventually end up on the other side. Because that’s what wheels do. Just like billionaires. If they were so kind they wouldnt be billionaires. “Oh he gives money to children” and who fucking died and made him king of who gets saved? Who gave him authority to decide who deserves his help and who doesn’t?
Everyone protects their own. That’s the problem. He could instead give that money to his workers like they deserve but he pockets it and dishes it out on personal feelings and vibes. He is a monster. They all are. Like a wheel turns.
It’s just incredible how few people know how money and business works.
And there’s the major difference. You say “that’s how business and money works” and I say “then it’s immoral and anyone who upholds it is a monster”. Just because that’s how it works doesnt make it right. Nor does it make it justified to participate in it to the degree that you become the oppressor.
You seem like the kinda guy who’d be onboard with monarchy or even fascism if you were born into it. Real go with the flow kinda guy. Like a slug.
The billionaires are people who have billions of dollars. If they wanted to do good with their money, they’d be donating it at such a rate that they wouldn’t be billionaires. They never donate enough to threaten their place in the caste and they always make sure to claim it on their taxes.
Donating money is stupid. Investing your money in programs that help people is how most billionaires spread their wealth. If they gave it all away, they’d have no more to give. Instead, you invest the money in something that can continue to benefit people long after they’re gone.
Taxing billionaires until they’re no longer billionaires and investing that into schools, clean energy, and humanitarian aid is how you help people. Letting billionaires roleplay as humanitarians is how we got to where we are. Even if they have good intents, they’re too isolated from the real world to make proper judgments on where the money should go.
You’re right. Their obscene, disgusting levels of wealth and excess should be taxed the shit out by the societies they inhabit. It’s inefficient to just let them pick and choose their own fancies and unironically call themselves altruists.
They are not monarchs.
The problem is that they don’t actually have possession of the billions of dollars. The tax only happens when they sell the stock - as taxable income.
I think I read something recently where someone proposed taxing stocks people are holding. I don’t see that happening. At least not under income tax law.
Moreover, congress embraces the idea that billionaires create industry and jobs. In most cases, this is true. In a lot of cases though, these corporations get away with too much. This is because of a lack of government protections for workers and consumers.
A shame. Wealth taxes for the ultra rich it is, a la Bernie, innovation in all things. Having benefited from friendly, lucrative taxation over the course of a generation has left beyond the reach of current legislation. Tax legislation specifically and solely aimed at the ultra rich, no one would bat an eye.
In most cases? In most cases billionaires and conglomerates have monopolised entire industries, many across multiple industries that can no longer sustain any meaningful competition and growth. A company like Amazon/Google/Meta just replacing all industry with its own brand, squeezing out, gatekeeping or catch & killing any disruptors or smaller ventures is not a net positive for society. That’s how you get to a handful of medical insurers dictating whether you live or die.
We tax land as a percentage of its value. Why not stocks?
How can possible think billionaires are better stewards of the power bestowed upon them by their immense wealth than a democratic society entrusted with that same power would be?
Like the guy who owns the flames N Murray Edwards who were trying to get the city to buy them a new stadium that they’ve finally got funded. I recall allegations that they were trying to use it to influence the municipal election/make it an election issue.
Not saying government shouldn’t pay for infrastructure, but the public paid for a large portion of the development, they’re not giving back shit unless it personally benefits them, financially, influence or just public image. That level of wealth is unfathomable and you do not get to that level without exploitation, there is absolutely no such thing as an ethical billionaire, that includes people benefiting from generational wealth.
You know what would be beneficial? If the wealth they’re hoarding went back into the system. Imagine if those billions just sitting there doing nothing but generating dividends actually were invested into making the world a better place. At the very least, money in the hands of the people who’s labour went into generating their (virtual) wealth.
It just seems like people keep repeating this line “there is absolutely no such thing as an ethical billionaire” without giving it any thought. Who said this and what facts do they have to back up this statement?
Companies are worth money. The value of that company increases for a thousand different reasons and what that company does with that money varies.
Some companies, like Walmart, Amazon, UHC, squeeze profit from every place they’re legally (or not) allowed to to benefit the bottom line and executive pockets. Some companies are full of hard working people doing incredible things. Some companies just get lucky and they sell a shit load of stuff. \
Some billionaires are celebrities or athletes who’ve taken an already large sum of money and invested it for a small return. Some billionaires started with a few million, made some wise financial decisions, maybe bought real estate at the right place and time, and turned it into billions. Once you have a large amount of money, it’s not hard to make it bigger.
I mean, it seems like the argument against billionaires is that no company should ever see an increase in value; that no person should ever be worth more tomorrow than they were yesterday.
Not every company makes money doing the same thing. Not every CEO is a billionaire. Not every billionaire is evil.
You can throw out every example you want about the actions of particular companies but I’d argue there are just as many, if not more, doing things somewhat decently. Just because a company is worth billions doesn’t mean it’s bad; just as a company making a few hundred thousand isn’t necessarily good.
You’re all laser focused on certain people and certain industries. Just step outside the box and get some perspective.
Also… why are we talking about billionaires when this guy was only worth $43 million?
You cannot have that much wealth and operate in an ethical way, it’s not possible. Just like you cannot have non-consensual sex with somebody in an ethical way, there is no scenario where that is possible.
Just because a system allows you to do something doesn’t make it morally acceptable to do it. Right now, it’s trivial to scam people out of tens of thousands of dollars using meme crypto-currency. But just because you can do it doesn’t mean it’s morally acceptable.
That’s the classic, “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” incorrect, you can hate both the player, and the game, it’s not mutually exclusive.
Capitalism is a fundamentally evil system. It allows and creates incentives for people to make effectively unlimited amounts of money by exploiting others. Billionaires are the ultimate example of what happens when Capitalism is allowed to run rampant for centuries. No one person should be able to amass that amount of wealth and power, it’s wrong, and it indicates deep societal problems.
An ethical way to operate a company would be some kind of employee-owned structure, where everybody who works for the company has equal say in how it operates. They get to decide if they want a CEO, who it is, and what they get paid. They get to decide collectively what the company does with the profits. They might decide to equally distribute it to all employees. They might decide to reinvest some percentage in better workflows, better equipment, or nicer facilities. The point is it would actually be democratic.
Also, I know this guy wasn’t a Billionaire. There are other ways to be a bad person than being a billionaire.
You are starting your argument off with two entirely different concepts. Employees are paid for their work because they are employees. Non-consensual sex is the explicit lack of agreement to be in the situation.
Please, tell me WHY it is unethical to employ people? How is it exploitive to run a business? At what point does a company make so much money that it’s unethical for them to continue doing business?
I’m on board with a coop and democratically run operations. When in history has any company ever succeeded as such? To my knowledge, these are locally run organizations with no ability to scale up. So, how do we end up with big nation and world changing projects? Is it your belief that we shouldn’t have large scale projects? We shouldn’t have corporations like Google or Caterpillar or Visa? Is it your belief that we
shouldmust destroy everything we know and go back to village life? Are these real things that you think have to happen or is this in an idealistic world? How do you take what we have now and make it into your image?Do you think merely agreeing to something makes the arrangement acceptable? A mugger sticks a gun to my head and says, “give me your wallet or I’ll kill you.” I give him my wallet. Was that actually a real, consensual choice? Of course not, agreement is a necessary condition for a fair contract, but not a sufficient one.
If you’re doing the work, you’re entitled to the fruits of your labor. Slavery is the exact inverse of that, where you are entitled to none of the fruits of your labor.
Capitalism tries to split the difference, where depending on a complex set of contractual agreements of dubious legitimacy, you are entitled to some arbitrary amount of fruit for your labor.
There are degrees of severity of course, some relationships are far more exploitative than others.
There isn’t a magical number where a business becomes unethically profitable. The issue with Capitalism isn’t one of degree. It’s not like a bath that’s too hot, where the only issue is the temperature needs to be lowered.
If your business operates in a way that is undemocratic, it’s unethical. Doesn’t matter if all the employees agreed to it, doesn’t matter if they all signed contracts permitting it, doesn’t matter that the legal system allows the business to operate like that.
Now of course, as I said, there are degrees. A mom & pop flower shop that employs local high school kids as part time workers, pays them well, and treats them nicely, that’s not a huge issue. Unethical still, but not terrible. It’s like cheating on a middle school pop quiz, still wrong, but extremely minor.
You also brought up the issue of practicality. This requires a lot of depth to respond to, so would you prefer to pivot to that, or stay on the more theoretical questions about Capitalism and exploitation?