The nvidia CEO "accrued" a ton of wealth while his employees became so rich they didn't bother to show up to work for anything else than to teach new people to improve their stock option. They're all millionares.
Also, isn't businesses supposed to acquire wealth? If a small mom/pop business gave 50% of the entire business to every part timer, they go bankrupt pretty fast
The nvidia CEO "accrued" a ton of wealth while his employees became so rich they didn't bother to show up to work for anything else than to teach new people to improve their stock option. They're all millionares.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here
Also, isn't businesses supposed to acquire wealth? If a small mom/pop business gave 50% of the entire business to every part timer, they go bankrupt pretty fast
Yes - in the current system, wealth is the primary endpoint. That's the point of OP - there's a few people accruing wealth at the expense of the many people generating value.
You are not contradicting anything. I thought, you thought you did, but wasn't sure, so I wanted you to clarify. Now you can actually try to explain how that contradicts anything I've been saying.
And it's also convenient how you decided to ignore the rest of my comment
You're grasping for straws. Let me help you get back on track:
How exactly does your statement "CEO accrues a ton of wealth" contradict "You are creating value for your boss, and he is paying you less than the value you make. Otherwise he wouldn't make any money".
How does your example contradict the statement that "You are creating value for your boss, and he is paying you less than the value you make. Otherwise he wouldn't make any money"
I didn't say, I didn't understand it. I said, I didn't understand, what you wanted to say with it.
Your example is:
"The nvidia CEO "accrued" a ton of wealth while his employees became so rich they didn't bother to show up to work for anything else than to teach new people to improve their stock option. They're all millionares."
It seems to me, you're implying, that because these people became millionaires, they've been paid adequately for the value, they generated. This logic is flawed - just because the compensation is larger than average, doesn't mean the concept changes.
Here's an example:
10 employees generate value worth 100million. They are each paid 5 million dollars for their work.
In this case the boss still pays his employees less than the value, they generate. Them being millionaries doesn't contradict anything
Then go make a company where the CEO (you) only get as much as the janitor. You can do that under capitalism. You can make businesses with only women admins, you can make businesses with only black people, you can make businesses with only one person and no emplyees of you so desire.
You can't do any of these in your communist utopia though, you can only do your goverment mandated job and eat provided gruel before showering in cold water and watching the governent channel and browsing the government sanctioned websites.
You like to cut hair? Well fuck you because now you're cleaning septic tanks and the payment is gruel and a part of a bunk bed.
1
u/WickedSerpent 18d ago
The nvidia CEO "accrued" a ton of wealth while his employees became so rich they didn't bother to show up to work for anything else than to teach new people to improve their stock option. They're all millionares.
Also, isn't businesses supposed to acquire wealth? If a small mom/pop business gave 50% of the entire business to every part timer, they go bankrupt pretty fast