• Riskable@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    4 days ago

    The disconnect between public perception and personal humanity has been striking, with some commentary bordering on dehumanizing.

    Yeah it’s a lot easier to humanize someone who makes six figures than someone who makes seven. Why don’t you start there?

    Or maybe just make it so the CEO doesn’t make 700x more than the lowest paid worker. You don’t even have to reduce the CEO pay to do it! Just lift up those other people.

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      4 days ago

      That’s actually been studied. Turns out that about 40 is the tipping point for most people, as in CEO earnings 40 times more than the lowest paid workers. Up to that point people think they boss earns it, above that resentment starts to grow.

      They’re at 700. Yeah, that’s dangerous. People are very sensitive about relative earning for work. Fairness is just hard wired into all animals and it’s dangerous to ignore this, although humans react a bit later and that gives a false sense if security for those at the top.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        But it’s inevitable as a successful business grows, and the population grows. A CEO of a company of 100 people does not have the same level of responsibility as the CEO of one employing hundreds of thousands (Google says UHC employs 440,000, for example).

        Working conditions were inarguably much worse a century ago, but the gap wasn’t anywhere close to 700x back then, was it? The gap was smaller not because the CEOs were more generous, it was just because the largest businesses were much smaller.

        • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          So you’re saying large corporations need to be broken up into smaller businesses I avoid concentrating too much wealth in upper management.

          • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            No, arbitrarily punishing a business for being too successful is both nonsensical, and has a chilling effect on new entrepreneurship. Also, it makes literally zero difference to someone earning $10/hour if one CEO is earning over $4000/hour, or if ten CEOs are each earning $400/hour.

            Ultimately, the ratio itself doesn’t matter at all. The actual number is what actually matters. Who do you think is more likely to be more resentful, someone making $10/hour under a CEO making 50x that, or someone making $100/hour under a CEO making 50x that? Obviously the first person…if they can’t make ends meet, it’s not going to make any difference to them if the CEO gets a pay cut, the fuck do they care?

            • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Businesses that were too successful are also called monopolies, and have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship all in their own.

              Median wage in USA is about $20/h, so the actual numbers say there are a lot of people being closer to having trouble making ends meet. Even then, the ratio matters a lot. It’s the difference between “we’re all in this together” and “some of you won’t make it but it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make”. In the latter situation there is a lot more resentment and sympathy for violence.

              • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Businesses that were too successful are also called monopolies

                No. There is no inherent relationship between the two things. A business can absolutely be very successful while there is competition, simply by being the best ‘competitor’ in the eyes of the customers.

                the ratio matters a lot. It’s the difference between “we’re all in this together” and “some of you won’t make it but it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make”.

                The vast majority of people don’t know or care how much the person at the top is making, at all. They care only about if they’re in good shape themselves. Someone who’s making $100/hour and is living comfortably is, in 99% of cases not going to really give a shit if the CEO is making 50x what they are, or 500x.

                That’s the reality.

    • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      4 days ago

      What infuriates me is that there are those that make 6 figures as being able to potentially make 7. And sure, some of them might.

      But are they brain surgeons that have such a specialized life saving surgery that by the nature of economics pushes the value of their skill exceptionally high? Nope.

      Hell, I make 6, and I’ll admit, I have a lot more than a lot of people. I’m 2-3x the median of my area. I can’t buy a house. I own a 7 year old RAV4. If I was better managing my money and not having to pay out my ass for my ex wife, sure, things would be better.

      It’s not at all difficult to find how just a little less income makes life much harder. It is VERY difficult to see how someone who has so much money can be remotely ok with people having it harder than them.

      Those pulling in 7 figures without highly valuable skills should be dehumanized. Because they have abandoned what has helped humans survive at all. Each other.

    • JesusTheCarpenter
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 days ago

      Also, as if many CEO’s and upper managements humanize their customers and not see them as numbers in a spreadsheet.