People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
Many people have reported this as a fake tweet. I don't have time to be the tweet police. What is everyone's thoughts about having a link to the actual tweet or other social media link?
Edit: Please stop reporting this. They may have re-posted this from somewhere else and didn't know or it might not be fake. I'm not going to x to find out. From now on, please provide an archived link to all politicians and major figures.
If this was true....Nd I wouldn't be surprised that he would sya such a thing as... Making profit for the share holders. Is justified even if ruthlessly done....
I remember watching a documentary, it may have been Robert Reich that was explaining how businesses in the 1970's made profits but the difference between the owner and the employee was high but still within a certain logic. Companies still had the philosophy that you should keep your employees for 30 years and treat them with a certain respect whereas today... A lot of big business are there for the shareholder and screw the employee. They are selfish anyway.... Wanting more than minimal salary ๐
Then again, I love reading Robert Reich.... https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-paid-what-youre-worth-myth
And yet another good article : https://robertreich.substack.com/p/if-bosses-are-raking-it-in-shouldnt
"This isn't true but it may as well be, because it feels true to me" is always such a disappointing thing to see commented under misinformation.
What would be the misinformation? A typical working family in the 1970 could survive and feed their family. Today, a working family barely make enough money to pay for rent.
If CEO deserve their pay (hypothetically) then why would the employee not equally get higher salary increase?
Please explain how business have not, at least in the last 30 years, focused on gaining high profit for shareholders and care very little of the consumer or the workers.
A CEO goal is not to serve the board to the point of ripping a business apart. In that same breath, a Board should actually be held accountable to not pillage companies to simply increase their already big portfolio...
If this was true....Nd I wouldn't be surprised that he would sya such a thing as...
It wasn't true.
well, was it true? I don't wanna go to xitter to find out :(
This is the way.
Why not remove it then?
I'm not the mod you're talking to, but I assume they aren't deleting it because OP posted it before providing a link was a rule, and it might not be a fake tweet. I mean it is fake, but I can't prove that.
Personally I'm in favor of mods erring on the side of not removing content if there's any uncertainty, even if it's a bit annoying seeing this fake tweet
It's misleading on the people Twitter sub. Fake Wikipedia articles hard to distinguish would be misleading on a Wikipedia sub
It really feels like you didn't actually read what I wrote
Worried Elmo? I hope so. Though Iโd prefer you were terrified, you parasitic oligarch.
fake post!
True as anything else from xitter.
Apparently it's fake, but sadly it's too easy to see this being said.
Public healthcare sounds better now. Purdue Pharma did some shady stuff to addict people to opium. Surely we should stop being upset at them maximizing their wealth too (they didn't quite have shareholder, afaik. Just an oligarch family bribing doctors)
he should be scared
This is obviously fake. That's what other CEOs think, not Musk.
The only duty of CEO Musk is to himself!
And this is a lie. There is no law about this there is no duty for it. I mean your company is tock might not be the greatest but that is another thing.
Unfortunately, that's not true. Dodge vs Ford Motor Co established the precedent of shareholder primacy when Henry Ford was successfully sued for attempting to reduce dividends in favor of reinvesting profits.
Good god I wish he was next.
Is this a real tweet? Because holy shit hes so close to understanding why private healthcare is so bad.
Right, this is at your government needs regulations to ensure companies are working in our best interests. Libertarians are incapable of understanding this kind of logic.
He's afraid
It's not even the same jacket. Fucking boston bomber mkII
If killing CEOs reduces their profits, maybe they should work on not having unpopular CEOs
"We're forced to!"
Are you against that?
You spent a shitload of money, scheming to reshape American democracy. Was a single penny spent toward untying your tortured hands?
Do any of these assholes ever address this, as anything besides an excuse for their individual evils?
No of course not its just another bad faith conservative argument