I hope every CEO gets the worse form of cancer and dies slowly.
Also, the worst hemmeroids ever and a special CEO diet consisting of nothing but exlax and habanero peppers.
😂
My chaotic soul appreciates the garbage bin trash level of discourse
Even the founder of Costco (only stepped down as CEO a few years ago), a company famous both for how well it treats its customers, and its workforce?
It might have treated them well compared to the competition, but they didn't get as large as they are without making massive profits off the work of their employees. There's a difference between treating the well and treating them fairly.
making massive profits off the work of their employees.
Labor is a cost, not a source of profit, what kind of moronic statement is this? If employees were a source of profit, the notion of downsizing would never exist--why would a company ever lay anyone off, if workers create more value than their wage?
Labor is the source of all profit. How would the company make money if no one did anything? Companies use their control of the means of production to leverage workers into doing labor. They then sell what the labor creates to make money.
They didn't create anything themselves. They had ownership of the means and that gives them ownership of the output that they profit off of. Money doesn't just appear. Something has to be produced, which is done through labor.
Sure, sometimes an employee costs more money than they return. First, that doesn't mean they created no value, just less value than they cost to employ. Second, sometimes this does decrease profit, but is done as a short term reduction of overhead while things change, or it's just dumb business which isn't uncommon.
Labor is the source of all profit. How would the company make money if no one did anything?
Charge the customer more for the finished product than what it cost to produce it. Obviously.
The simple fact is that if employees were a source of profit, businesses would all try to hire as many people as they possibly could, because not doing so would literally be leaving money on the table for no reason. But obviously that is not what goes on. When a business is in trouble financially, what's more common, a hiring freeze, or a hiring spree?
Charge the customer more for the finished product than what it cost to produce it. Obviously.
If there is no labor there is no finished product. Labor creates the thing being sold. Value is extracted from labor and sold.
The simple fact is that if employees were a source of profit, businesses would all try to hire as many people as they possibly could, because not doing so would literally be leaving money on the table for no reason. But obviously that is not what goes on. When a business is in trouble financially, what's more common, a hiring freeze, or a hiring spree?
This is exactly what they do. They hire as many employees as they possibly can afford to hire and have the means of production for them to operate on. That's why as a company is more successful they generally have more employees, to extract more wealth from their labor. Yes, sometimes they don't have things for them to work in that will generate more value than it costs to employ them, in which case they fire them. If they do have the ability and means for them to work on something then they are profit generating.
Yeah, when a company is doing poor financially they cut overhead. This is done as a safety mechanism because they can no longer afford those costs, not because they weren't generating revenue. There's a lot of things that can cause this, and he's it sometimes results in lower profits. The goal is to get their finances in order and stabilize, then continue to grow and expand again. The goal isn't to shrink and keep shrinking. If that created profit then the most successful companies would be the smallest ones, not the largest.
A few bad apple spoil the bunch.
Eh, cancer is no joke. It doesn't discriminate on who it hits. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, even though I would snicker if these CEOs get hit by lightning lol
Ah fuck it, was going to be cryptic but ill just tell the story.
I worked for Duke university and one of the people in our department had stomach cancer. The head of the department, provost, CEO and president sent out emails asking if anyone would donate their leave for the person in their hospital being treated for cancer. If the person didn't get the days then they were going to drop them from the company insurance It was bad so the person had to stay in the hospital.
I hope they all get the most the worse form of cancer and slowly die with no family around. If there is a hell, they deserve it.
Oh man freaking brootal. Dropping them from the insurance when they needed it the most? This is we need "socialized" medical insurance.
Universal healthcare should be a right.
Amen to that!
Intuit is anything but intuitive
Honestly, they're probably thrilled. Legislation forced them to provide a free product for this sort of simple, no frills filing, so they won't be losimg any paying customers to this and probably won't have to spend dev and qa time supporting the free tier anymore
Eat shit [insert private company here]
I hope every CEO gets the worse form of cancer and dies slowly.
Also, the worst hemmeroids ever and a special CEO diet consisting of nothing but exlax and habanero peppers.
😂
My chaotic soul appreciates the garbage bin trash level of discourse
Even the founder of Costco (only stepped down as CEO a few years ago), a company famous both for how well it treats its customers, and its workforce?
It might have treated them well compared to the competition, but they didn't get as large as they are without making massive profits off the work of their employees. There's a difference between treating the well and treating them fairly.
Labor is a cost, not a source of profit, what kind of moronic statement is this? If employees were a source of profit, the notion of downsizing would never exist--why would a company ever lay anyone off, if workers create more value than their wage?
Labor is the source of all profit. How would the company make money if no one did anything? Companies use their control of the means of production to leverage workers into doing labor. They then sell what the labor creates to make money.
They didn't create anything themselves. They had ownership of the means and that gives them ownership of the output that they profit off of. Money doesn't just appear. Something has to be produced, which is done through labor.
Sure, sometimes an employee costs more money than they return. First, that doesn't mean they created no value, just less value than they cost to employ. Second, sometimes this does decrease profit, but is done as a short term reduction of overhead while things change, or it's just dumb business which isn't uncommon.
Charge the customer more for the finished product than what it cost to produce it. Obviously.
The simple fact is that if employees were a source of profit, businesses would all try to hire as many people as they possibly could, because not doing so would literally be leaving money on the table for no reason. But obviously that is not what goes on. When a business is in trouble financially, what's more common, a hiring freeze, or a hiring spree?
If there is no labor there is no finished product. Labor creates the thing being sold. Value is extracted from labor and sold.
This is exactly what they do. They hire as many employees as they possibly can afford to hire and have the means of production for them to operate on. That's why as a company is more successful they generally have more employees, to extract more wealth from their labor. Yes, sometimes they don't have things for them to work in that will generate more value than it costs to employ them, in which case they fire them. If they do have the ability and means for them to work on something then they are profit generating.
Yeah, when a company is doing poor financially they cut overhead. This is done as a safety mechanism because they can no longer afford those costs, not because they weren't generating revenue. There's a lot of things that can cause this, and he's it sometimes results in lower profits. The goal is to get their finances in order and stabilize, then continue to grow and expand again. The goal isn't to shrink and keep shrinking. If that created profit then the most successful companies would be the smallest ones, not the largest.
A few bad apple spoil the bunch.
Eh, cancer is no joke. It doesn't discriminate on who it hits. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, even though I would snicker if these CEOs get hit by lightning lol
Ah fuck it, was going to be cryptic but ill just tell the story.
I worked for Duke university and one of the people in our department had stomach cancer. The head of the department, provost, CEO and president sent out emails asking if anyone would donate their leave for the person in their hospital being treated for cancer. If the person didn't get the days then they were going to drop them from the company insurance It was bad so the person had to stay in the hospital.
I hope they all get the most the worse form of cancer and slowly die with no family around. If there is a hell, they deserve it.
Oh man freaking brootal. Dropping them from the insurance when they needed it the most? This is we need "socialized" medical insurance.
Universal healthcare should be a right.
Amen to that!
Intuit is anything but intuitive
Honestly, they're probably thrilled. Legislation forced them to provide a free product for this sort of simple, no frills filing, so they won't be losimg any paying customers to this and probably won't have to spend dev and qa time supporting the free tier anymore