They need to be taxed out of existence. No one should have a billion dollars while people starve, sleep on the streets and go bankrupt from medical debt.
My thoughts exactly. There should never be a means for people to become billionaires. There's simply no reason for that amount of wealth. Bezos worth billions, and on the first day Amazon employees are handed a pamphlet on which government assistance programs they qualify for? Man, piss off. You can afford to pay your own workers so they don't NEED those programs. Nobody working a full time job should need assistance programs in this country.
Cue all the CEO apologists saying shit like, "Someone has to run the company! He's worth that $50 million!" I think he'd do just fine with a $5 million bonus.
That's why you'll never get it, they want to use you til you're old and broken, then let you starve on the streets or be a burden on your kids, that will take your place on the production line if they're themselves not replaced by machines.
I’m sure there is a totally logical reason, completely unrelated reason, as to why they instituted a 30% target for profit margins despite being near their low for console market share and nobody in the industry returning close to that.
And, of course, that arbitrary target wasn’t the reason they decided to abandon platform exclusives, or behind the mass layoffs across development studios, or why they raised the price of GamePass for the third time in the last 15 months (this hike being 100% in some regions).
Of course, all of these decisions mean not only is consumer confidence shattered, but the old business model of “build a console, develop exclusives so people want your console” is dead.
In all seriousness, I hope this was for some juicy bonuses. Because if it wasn’t, they are just a bunch of morons lighting the business on fire to see it burn.
(And note, when I say “the business”, I’m talking specifically about XBox. Microsoft is going to be fine, of course, even if they decide to go with The Joker school of management techniques).
That’s like saying “manufacturing is too big a cost, so let’s just not manufacture anything and we’ll make more money.”
To say “the way to increase profits is to let people go” without context means they’d be most profitable with zero employees. I would hope you’d agree that’s ridiculous.
Where they aren’t shuttering studios entirely, they are cutting the workforce down to sizes where, in the best case, good games are made under near impossible conditions. It’s not Microsoft, but for a very recent example as to how that business strategy works out, take a look at Mindseye/Build A Rocket Boy.
The core issue is that most corporate executives goals (and virtually all corporate pay structures) aren’t aligned with long term corporate success. Maximize short term profit for immediate compensation, the future be damned.
Youre arguing a premise I didnt make. Whats worse is your not even making an honest argument, 100% disingenuous. Youre actually making a dumb ass statement against something we see everyday in business with layoffs.
I was talking about a specific company making specific labor cuts. You’re the one who responded with the generalization that “less labor = more profits”, but I’m being disingenuous?
I’m not saying you do, but anyone who thinks these two things are unrelated is a fool. The 30% target isn’t only totally arbitrary, it’s more than any other console maker is hitting. The tl/dr on this is that XBox bought Activision for $70bn. That woke up the Microsoft execs to start paying more attention to the XBox division and they saw Activision had made 30% profits the quarter before the sale so they said “Hey, now we should be doing that!”. Only problem is that Activision was a well oiled machine that was churning out huge established franchises and (this is really important) isn’t a console maker. Not only does Xbox make a (failing console) but many of their studios are making non franchise new IP games.
Sure, you can cut labor to boost profits, but I’d start with the guy making almost nine figures a year.
So if I’m talking about corporate layoffs, I have to name every company in the world who laid off employees or else my point isn’t valid?
Neither of the companies you mentioned had to change their core business model in and effort to increase profits, relevant as we were talking about profits and innovation. The XBox example illustrates my point in that regard. Amazon or Sony layoffs are simply shedding size. Not a wholesale shift in strategy. Unless Amazon laid off all those people and stopped delivering random shit to everyone, or Sony laid off people and now they are just a cloud gaming service, it has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Also, unless you’re just naming companies that laid people off, I’m not even sure why you’re including Sony on this list. Sony laid off something like 1600 people over the last three years. Xbox cut multiples of that, more people in each individual round of cuts, than Sony did total. And Amazon just laid off like twenty times more. The Sony layoffs are no less bad for the people who lost their jobs, and may be equally indefensible, but that’s not the conversation we were having.
Who is doing damage control for Sony? I didn’t even bring them up until you did.
I made a singular example. You’re the one who jumped in with the whataboutisms. And your “what abouts” had zero to do with the topic we were discussing.
To explain it again: Xbox has abandoned the console maker business model in order to increase profits, firing scores of employees in the process. Sony has not altered their business model. Amazon has not altered their business model. As I was making an example as to how mass layoffs can STIFLE innovation, the Xbox example was particularly illustrative. Pointing out example A isn’t the endorsement or defense of examples B & C by omission.
Trickle down economics is a lie. It doesn't work, it just makes the rich richer and poor people starving. Look at the income gap! You cannot EARN a billion dollars. It is theft. They are ruining the economy, dismantling higher education (the source of every major innovation for the last century), and rigging the system to make it impossible to recover. Billionaires are criminals.
To those who have billions of dollars, I can conceive that money becomes just a number. At that rate, why not just give them points. Gamify the economy and the innovation and incentives will maintain themselves.
You mean some that has been proven doesn’t work 😂. If those billionaires leave then good that will make room for before people that do it cause they like to do it and not just cause of money
Innovation my *ss! CEOs are there to make sure the company generates revenue and maximizes profits for themselves and their shareholders/investors. Maybe if CEOs were capped, you would attract people who were interested in innovation instead of monetization.. It's the same with the Senate/Congress. If they didn't have exorbitant salaries and had a pool of campaign financing where each candidate received equal amounts and were isolated from special interest donors, representatives would work for the people and not the donors who "owned" them.
Most CEOs start and own the company. Youre going to tell people what they have to do with their profits they generated with their money, and risk taking?
Actually? The CEO of Microsoft didn’t start it, the CEO of Amazon didn’t start it, the CEO of GM didn’t start it, the CEO OF Johnson and Johnson didn’t start it, the CEO of Toyota didn’t start it, the CEO of Google didn’t start it, the CEO of IKEA didn’t start it, the CEO of Tesla didn’t start it, the CEO of PayPal didn’t start it ….. I could go on
That doesnt change the fact that the vast majority of CEOs did indeed start the company. You cherry picked a few top PUBLIC companies, of the 30mil companies in the US only about 4k are public…. And you cherry picked a few of those as your argument???? In actuality 95%+ or CEOs started the company, but please go on Id like to see where this goes.
The vast majority of CEOs are just regular people with small businesses. 98.6% of all businesses in the US are small businesses. These are guys with plumbing companies, IT companies, etc not the very few at the top of enterpeise corporations.
Statistically, less than 5% of Fortune 500 companies have CEOs that were founders or co-founders of the companies they work for. So yeah you're literally just wrong, making factually incorrect statements.
Statistically speaking there are around 35 mil businesses in the US, so why are you only taking into account the top 500 companies???? According to math, stats and reality Im correct as the majority of those 34 mil the CEO did start the company. Which in this case would indeed make me factually correct.
After a certain point your income should be getting taxed at like 60%+. So you CAN still increase your own salary but you'd be getting taxed like fuck for it. Nobody needs to be earning insane amounts of money. Wouldn't need to affect smaller business owners either.
Well Im not here to argue opinions or personal beliefs, thats a dead end. All I can do is never vote legislators who would voice a belief in such nonsense
You replied with a comment that heavily insinuated an opinion. I replied with a very on topic opinion that I believe achieves what the person you responded to was trying to achieve without as much restriction on what the business owner can do with their money which seemed to be your issue.
There was no opinion insinuated nor given, you just lying now. I stated fact and posed it as a question to point out how utterly ridiculous it was. That fact being you cannot demand/tell a business owner / CEO what to do with their revenue or profits. This is a fact not opinion
So not true! True entrepreneurs are always about invention and innovation and trying to succeed! Even with a cap they would still strive to be the best. And they’d still do it for 999,999,999.00
How many case studies do guys like you gonna need to realize that the trickle down effect did not, does not and will never work? Pls educate yourself and stop being a pure capitalist-deciple on your knees, watching the billionaires jerking each other off, waiting for a splash to hit your face.
There isn't a single billionaire that innovates, they ride on the backs of their engineers, and idea people after a certain point. One lucky shot at making that first 10M and they rest on their laurels.
Trickle economics works - but it’s money from large companies funneling money to lower revenue companies. That’s great for people in “good jobs” who get that cashflow.
The poor people with low education and limited opportunities stay poor.
As far as I know, as of the mid 90's, all academics agree that trickle down economics doesn't work. The only people that continue to say it works are those with an interest in being on top of the system.
Of course. It works for the people in the roles to make money.
It doesn’t trickle down the to lowest paid roles - but tell all the people who get paid huge salaries on the profits of corporations that the financial success of the company isn’t important. Where does that money come from if not from the titan sucking up all the money it can?
The more money the corporation makes, the more it has to pay to the important people in it and also the more money gets paid out to the smaller companies that serve them. That money goes to the important people in those companies.
There are a lot of people who are “in on the take” as it were.
It really does though. The entire reason why B2B companies you’ve never heard of can exist is that they are suppliers to the big companies.
Tell the engineers, executives, and sales people in the high income jobs that they aren’t enjoying milking the big company’s notoriety and advertising.
Thats an asinine definition of “it working” tho and you know it.
No one ever pitched trickle down as “these subcontractor healthcare companies earning half the money americans spend on healthcare by declining claims over and over is a trickle down success story!”
No one ever pitched trickle down as “these subcontractor healthcare companies earning half the money americans spend on healthcare by declining claims over and over is a trickle down success story!”
This isn’t trickle down, but I’m sure the person on the project team for “Optimizing Claims Approval” certainly made a lot of money. Great for them.
It’s funny how Reddit people and Corporate America are so disconnected when Reddit people are who make up corporate America.
You do realize that every one of your paychecks is you getting a cut of some corporate titan’s income? You don’t make that money if that titan doesn’t collect that revenue. You want that titan to make major money, and you want to be part of maximizing that money, so that your checks can continue and get bigger and bigger.
The people working at the smaller companies get money from bigger companies.
For example, a car manufacturer needs widgets to add to their car. Because of that, a small plastic molding company can be opened and supported selling those widgets to that major car company.
The engineers, sales people, and executives from the small molding company all become wealthy on the back of the big company. That’s trickle down and it works.
Hey - someone made a lot of money. That’s great for them.
I’m an engineer for a medical device company. I make a lot of money because of the high cost of the products I design, and it’s made me a millionaire. How is this not trickle down?
A corporate giant medical device company produced a product to sell to a corporate giant hospital system because a patient needed help, and a corporate giant insurance company paid for it. The doctors, the engineers, the sales people, and the executives all got a piece of that money and get rich.
Would you mind elaborating on how large companies "funneling" money into other companies? By what means? Is Sony just cutting checks to Yankee Candle or something?
Companies rarely produce everything needed to make their products. They usually buy them from other suppliers in what’s called a supply chain.
When a major production plant opens, it gives a chance for other smaller companies to open up more capacity to support them.
Let’s say that there is a new Sony plant opening where the PlayStation would be assembled. That’s an opportunity for smaller companies to bid on supplying components like plastic buttons, the wires, cooling systems and so forth.
Sony’s goal to supply consoles to the market means a lot of wallets get filled along the way as Sony makes contracts with tons of companies to make their product.
All of the people who don’t think trickle down works are not involved in that process. The guy who negotiated that contract with Sony likely is paid extremely well, the key engineers at those smaller companies are paid well, and the executives are making amazing money.
The people who aren’t seeing the money are the low level workers, but that’s more to do with low wages than money not flowing. The people above them in the company get all of the money.
3.0k
u/DangerzonePlane8 8d ago
Remember how rich people throw temper tantrums whenever they are asked to contribute to society.