top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 59 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 39 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    I did some 'back of the napkin' math a few days ago to see what it would take for the employees in my company to purchase enough shares for a controlling stake in the company. I figured that we'd never get 100% of the employees to buy in, but we also don't need 100% of the shares, so to keep it easy I calculated if 60% bought 60% of the shares... and it would cost each employee around $2.3 million.

    That tells me that each employee provides $2.3 million worth of value to the company... and we're not getting paid anywhere near that. Not even close.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    this is interesting to me. can you show your work? Id be interested in going through the thought experiment as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Market cap is around $141 billion.

    Number of employees is around 60,000.

    60% of employees: 36,000.

    60% of market cap: $84 billion.

    $84B / 36,000 = $2.33 million.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    gotcha. What about assets? Im not an accounting person, but we routinely buy tooling for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Raw materials have costs/value associated with them. How would that figure in?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    If you want to compare it to salaries, I think you would need to do the year-over-year change. But even that wouldn't factor in all the bloated C-suite bonuses and such, so I feel like the calculations would end up being much more complex.

    For instance, if you work somewhere for 23 years making on average $100,000 per year, you'll have received about $2.3 million from that company over time. If that company's market cap increases by $2.3 million per employee in that course of time, then you would be about even by your metric.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago*

    Here's a site that calculates basically how much you're being exploited in a company. It's mostly for American stock exchanges, but if you can find the financial reports of your company you can apply the same method (it's nicely described).

    https://yourfairshare.info/

    The top comment doesn't really work, because even if workers pooled the money together, shareholders or execs might refuse to sell their shares if they are expecting it to grow and pay them out more in the future. Buying up companies to turn into coops doesn't work (except for failing/bankrupt companies), because it takes capital to do that, which workers don't have by definition.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Why is this highly upvoted? This is just a poor understanding of economics.

    The market cap just shows the aggregate value of shares that are being publicly traded. It has nothing to do with labor value. You can't derive labor value from the market cap because there's no correlation. If you want to find out how much each employee contributes, you would have to use something like company revenue.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 26 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Do the bare minimum to avoid getting fired.


    Actively sabotage your employer.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    I never understood why we're stuck with just capitalism or communism, two economic systems developed before railroads were a thing and written down at night by candle light or a lantern burning whale fat. I think we should come up with something better. To quote President Not Sure, "The water doesn't have to come from the toilet, but that's the general idea."

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    Railways were a thing when communism was developing during Marx's times and Lenin wrote extensively about railways. Their analysis is still very valid, and if anything, planning has become more feasible than 100 years ago thanks to computers. There are some modern proposals, but they are still very much based on socialism, since capitalism can only lead us to ruin.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    So am I! I just can't believe Adam Smith and Karl Marx are the Einstein and Newton of economics. It feels like capitalism and communism are the luminiferous ether and fluid theory of electricity and we never bothered to advance any further.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    To paraphrase Tim Curry, communism and capitalism are both red herrings.

    Oh that big punch up between the Soviet Union and the United States, decadent capitalism vs brutalist communism. Who won? According to the scoreboard as of 2026: Israel.

    The catch phrase I've always heard about communism is "the people own the means of production." Has that ever been true in practice? Did Soviet citizens own any piece of the means of production? Did anything resembling "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ever once happen under the hammer and sickle? Or was that the false narrative the idiot asshole in charge used to cow the unwashed masses?

    Similar questions could be asked of my fellow capitalist Americans. Capitalism is allegedly about the free market, supply and demand, if there is a demand someone will provide a supply, probably multiple someones, competitors will compete, those who do it faster, cheaper or better will succeed until someone else does it even fasterer, cheaperer and betterer repeat until someone else comes along with a completely different idea, welcome to the infinite cycle of meritocracy where the cream rises to the top. How's that working out? Some substance has risen to the top, not sure it's cream.

    A common problem I see between the Soviet Union and the United States: Weak systems for preventing psychotic despots from ruining it all.

    Further expanding on this: My understanding of the Soviet Union: Something something the Bolsheviks, something something communist revolution, They just about have an election, that Lenin overthrows because it isn't going his way. Lenin is King Shit Of Turd Mountain until his death, then the dumb guy from the ghetto he kept around because he's good at hurting people, Josef "probably worse than Hitler" Stalin takes the throne. The entire run of the Soviet Union is essentially a dictatorship with a command economy and remains thoroughly miserable.

    The United States, meanwhile, has gone through phases. Tides have ebbed and flowed, robber barons have come and gone, consumer protection laws have come and gone. Times when a very few, very rich men have been mostly miserable for most people; times when those assholes get knocked down a peg and the common man has a chance to make a decent living get better.

    The problem is a few ultimately rich assholes in charge.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    This but I’m self employed 😭

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago

    commenting on shitposts at work until my value matches my pay 🫡

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    There's literally a running joke where I work called the "Union Shit". You run to the bathroom to take a 15 - 20 minute shit between your breaks.

    Whether or not you're actually shitting or just shitposting is between you and those walls lol

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    In Germany, you're having a "Sitzung" which is the word for a conference meeting, but literally just means "sitting".
    When you return to your desk, coworkers will ask if the "meeting" was productive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    Remember, people, the economy depends on you. It is important to be responsible, and to #ActYourWage

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    I thought shitposting at work increased my value.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    "Communism in one country as opposed to the glob" - that's the problem.

    How u gonna handle competition from non communist countries?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    What makes socialism less competitive?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    You have far fewer desperate people to feed into the meat grinder, you have to be right everywhere every time or the oppressors will magnify your failures both at home and abroad, your researchers aren't researching almost exclusively weapons of mass destruction.

    Also you know the whole "holding any value for human life" bit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    shitpost until AI can replace you by doing an equivalent job is a dicey proposition.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›