this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
727 points (97.5% liked)

News

23929 readers
4155 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Non profits are a thing and they are able to grow, hell, you would expect them to grow more because less money goes to the pockets of a CEO and more goes to growing the company.

It can also make profit without billions going to the pockets of a single person, if that money was just redistributes to all employees the business would probably grow even faster because more qualified people would want to work there and would be happier working there.

Three scenarios:

  1. The company makes 100B in revenue, pays its employees a fair wage, distributes 5B to the C-suites and makes 50B in total profit

  2. The company makes 100B in revenues, pays its employees a fair wage, distributes 10M to the C-suites, distributes 4.99B in bonus to all employees and makes 50B in total profit

  3. The company reduces its prices, makes 95.01B in revenues, pays its employees a fair wage, gives 10M to the c-suites, makes 50B in total profit

What's the difference?

Hint: there's no difference except the number of people being treated better

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

NPOs have CEOs as well and many earn salaries in the millions. NPOs are the exact right example, though, but not for the reason you are talking about. Non-profit does not inherently mean lower-ranking employees get a bigger share.

The big difference is that NPOs dont have shareholders or owners, which is how billionaires become billionaires, by owning companies worth billions.

But you should know that most NPOs rely almost entirely on government grants and donations. They couldnt even survive a single year on their own revenues.

If you want to establish the NPO concept in the free market, you would need to ban private ownership of ocmpanies. It could work but there is no way it will ever be implemented.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 4 minutes ago* (last edited 2 minutes ago)

I think you are ignoring his main question though. Are those not legitimately three different options companies have? Do they not have wildly different outcomes on the workers?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Funny how you ignored everything but the non profit bit. The reason they rely on donations and grants is because they're mostly charities, there's no reason a private company couldn't reinvest 100% of its profits and try to adjust its prices to be closer to breaking even. Hell, life insurance for road users works exactly this way around here, prices are adjusted based on how much they need to pay for claims and we're the place that pays the least for that type of insurance in North America, everything is paid for by car owners and it will covers anyone involved in an accident with a car, may they be in the car or riding a bike or walking on the sidewalk, it's still cheaper than anywhere else for those who pay for it.

Tell me, from the companies' perspective what the difference is between the three example I gave? You're the one who said it's not realistic to lower prices.

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

I think you are not familiar with how economy works. No offense, really, Im not an expert either but I dont really have the patience to go over everything in detail. Reinvesting profits is what ALL companies do. What youre suggesting was the opposite, you said profits should be distributed to employees or customers.

The difference between your examples is that 1 is a different company than 2 and 3. They are not different scenarios for the same company.

There are reasons why CEOs earn a lot and you cant change that by telling companies "but why not just give the money to your other employees, it would be better for them". Thats not how economy works. Im not saying the way things are is good at all, but youre not offering an alternative. What youre suggesting would require that owners and shareholders would give a shit about the wellbeing of their employees and customers.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

What a nice non answer that also ignores dividends and wealth accumulation and the fact that profits = revenues - spendings including wages :)

"ThEy'Re NoT tHe SaMe CoMpAnY!"

It's what we call a thought experiment, the end result is the same, the difference is who gets to keep more money.

I'm done with people like you defending billionaires and being unable to think about alternatives, have a good life.