>>10858059>That money is coming out of the increase in productivity you mong, not out of the CEOs magically generating that much more profit because they can post on Twitter now.If you weren't smallbrain you'd know what I mean. CEOs are now very public figures. Not only do top investors know them, but smaller public investors, the media, customers, etc. If the CEO of a company you hold is found sucking tranny dicks on the subway, you know you would sell your shares immediately. In the 21st century, the CEO IS THE COMPANY.
>That's not what the image is getting at. It's simply showing that the workers are not getting a fair increase in pay when productivity is rising ultimately because they are there to work the innovative technology.But where does that productivity come from? The technology also costs money. Why would an employer raise compensation when the increase in productivity came from another source?
>Profit is instead routed to the CEOs who you seem to think deserve it because there are a few famous ones out there, your notable example being Musk of all people.Musk is just a very notable example everyone in even this filthy board would recognize so stop fixating on him. CEO's don't deserve profits because no one deserves anything. But it is the CEO (and CFO) ultimately keeping the company's cashflow in the green. And what motivates them? A high pay. Tell your CEO that you are going to cut his pay and see how fast your shares drop as he just fucking leaves.
>Ultimately the CEO as it is now and shareholder are unnecessary leeches on the economy and should be cut off so the worker gets paid in equivilance to what their labour is producing.I already explained why you are wrong on CEOs. Shareholders are also integral to the economy. At the beginning, shareholders were the ones who actually got the entire company started. Without investors you get none of the companies you use to improve your quality of life.
