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.
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
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 🙄
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…
Legally correct.
It’s a fiduciary duty, not a legal one. It’s an expected act, but no law says they must maximize profits at any cost.
Its an expectation that can be changed and tempered like any other, but the rich class doesn’t want to own up to deciding to destroy people’s lives for their profit, so they hand wave and pretend like someone made them do it.
Maybe a few more bullets will debase them of this clearly reckless belief.
No, companies can actually be sued if they fail to act in the most profitable way. As well they should.
You can sue anyone for any reason in the US. It does not mean you will win.
That’s also a civil action, not a criminal one. A disagreement in contract law, i.e not something that is illegal.
The actual fiduciary duty executives have is to be beholden to their board and shareholders. They can still decide to make long term and humane choices in guiding their companies. That is their remit, they all just pretend not to have it so they can kill people and destroy lives for personal profit.
Counter example: Apple spends millions on improving accessibility for the blind that outstrips the profitability of that subgroup. They were never sued for that action. Additionally they didn’t sue the maintainers of Android for wholesale copying their implementations. It’s a bit more nuanced, mate.
They can be sued if they act contrary to their shareholder agreement, articles of association, or other conditions made before the shareholder gain a stake. There is nothing that requires a health insurance company to protect profits by denying 30% of claims. There is nothing requiring a company to focus on short-term profitability at the cost of damage to its reputation in the marketplace, or other negative consequences that could arise from attempting to maximize profitability at all costs.
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)
Apparently it’s fake, but sadly it’s too easy to see this being said.
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.