969
Remember when Spez said it was "It's time we grow up and behave like an adult company"? Apparently, that means paying himself $193 million and single-handedly tanking Reddit's profitability right b... (www.npr.org)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
120 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Remember when Spez said it was "It's time we grow up and behave like an adult company"? Apparently, that means paying himself $193 million and single-handedly tanking Reddit's profitability right b...::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 42 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

The people with all the money don't care about anything like this. They don't even care about stewardship/long term value building except maybe the Dupont's and old moneyers. Why wait around trying to make or build something when I can just ride the hype train and make sure I get off and onto the next one before the house of cards falls down?

TSLA's market cap is 618 billion dollars

GM's is 45 billion dollars

Shell Oil's market cap is 200 billion dollars

I've decided that's what's wrong with everything at the core -- the only virtue is money and it doesn't matter how you get it. Spez or anyone else could be doing way worse and everyone would shrug.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Yeah, I'm not sure how to curb the trend of money destroying companies and countries.

    It's hard to incentivize not being greedy.

    There's plenty of billboards/ads/magazines/etc idealizing rich athletes, celebrities, CEOs, etc. There's no MTV cribs for modest/honest/hard working single parents, community volunteers, small business owners who kept their own pay lower to afford employee's medical benefits, etc.

    There's no awards show for most humble (ha), most improved, most selfless, most mentor, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I think shame from society was the regulator in the past, but we are in gilded age II so money supersedes morals.

    There’s no awards show for most humble (ha), most improved, most selfless, most mentor, etc.

    Reminds me of -- Societies grow great when men plant trees in whose shade they will never sit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I definitely don’t think shame played a role. Desire for positive legacy partly, but also for a lot of history kings understood that a peasant uprising provided an opportunity for someone else to take the throne. Look at the Roman Empire. Every emperor was shameless, but some lived lives of careful acknowledgment that all it took was an ally with a dagger to end them, while others died young. Those are the two options, there were no brazen long lived Roman emperors. For most of the 20th century communism was an option if businesspeople fucked around. Today these people fear no consequences

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago*

    Is shame and legacy not related? Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth suggests they are.

    And on emperors, we thankfully don't have that in most of the world anymore. I think the question is, 'what keeps the aristocracy in check' which you're right is partially pitchforks, but there used to be decorum and decency, even if it was pretend for a long time in things like politics and the media.

    There's a reason the stockades are cruel and unusual punishment -- We are pressed maybe the most by our peers.

    I smoked cigarettes for a long time and wanted to quit but never really could even try. When I moved somewhere where people my age thought it was gross and no one would go smoke with me, it was so incredibly easy -- for example.

    If the upper class looked down on each other even a little bit for gutting the poor or the environment or mocking the republic, things would be different I think.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Agree with all.

    Will take a significant change for things to revert back IMO.

    There's that saying that comes to me, similar to... hard men make good times, good times make soft (greedy/morally bankrupt) men, soft men make hard times.... Now just take the non-gender / misogynistic verson of that as needed :)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago*

    The word men/man is actually gender neutral. In old English wereman was masculine, wifman was feminine, and there were a slew of other words that were used for children and various other things. We stopped using the gendered words in middle English.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent