50 Pieces Of Common Knowledge People Admit To Learning Embarrassingly Late In Life

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I'm not in England and we don't have tribunals. It wouldn't apply anyways. That's doing something to make their job intolerable so they quit. I'm not talking about anytime anywhere close to that.

I'm not in England either :)

May I ask how tall?

I'm like 5'10. In my country that means tall but not unusual, in the US I was often taller than most men. And if I had a dollar for every time someone said " wow you're so tall" I could buy a nice pair of high heels lol

And then you should put those heels in and make even more money. Clever plan!

Well, "the CEO" is a figure of speech of generalization. It portrays a monolithic image.

You talk about the few big companies. What about small firms ? What you say about the CEO is also true about the employee.

The small ones are a bit of inbetween in many cases. A company run by the owner, or even founder, usually has a lot less barriers between the Boss and the Employee. You adress them by their first name, and can just talk to them like to a normal human being. Smaller units, however, in many regards and in many fields - companies, other organizations, organisms of whatever kind, thermal machinery, ... - have systematically lower efficiency AND have to compete against large multinational corporations that don't give an f, or any letter at all. Basically, the concentration on shareholder value by choice, done by the large ones, forces the small ones to either compete here, too, or to have some other USP to offer, like adaptability. Many production plants are set up using standard components, made in a serial production, all the same. Smaller companies making industrial equipment can't compete there - they need to be more adaptable, a closer fit to the demands. But, we haven't understood yet, that capitalism is true to its name by any and every means, without exceptions, and thereby forces its systematic into everything and anything. Not being able to compete, of course, will ruin the company, and that's not in the workers' interest either. It's not that everyone who has the power to decide is a bad person only caring about themselves, it's that the difference they CAN make gets smaller and smaller. And, of course, it won't stop at manufacturing. Care for the elderly, for example, done in specialized facilites that have to generate profit is making the stay extraordinary expensive, the care reduced to the minimum staff, maximum workload and efficiency - and the only thing that one can consider generous is the handouts to the shareholders. Capitalism being true to its name has led, and will lead, small companies whose owners WANT to be different than greedy textbook-CEOs, to either reduce in size and capacity, until the remains and patents are bought by some large multinational corporation, or decide less social, less generous, than they want. The system itself is what is wrong. We put everything and anything BEHIND the interest of some weird perception of a lot of entities by far not as homogenous as perceiced that we call "The Economy", of which the most vocal protagonists never even considered getting tired of always forecasting the decline and loss of western societies if only one of their countless wishes isn's granted in full and immediately. They've been doing that long enough that I'd rather advise to let that mimosa of an economy collaps and die and start over with something that promises to be more robust and reliable - the entire economy cannot be as volatile, fragile and delicate as a record-winning motorcycle engine, when its performance, or the part of it that is the working class'es benefit, only represents a truck's engine. We know the economy would be MORE profitable than ever before, even without anybody having even one iota less, corrected for inflation. Wages could in many cases be doubled on top of that, and still, profitability wouldn't be at a loss. Even within the system of a market-driven economy, everybody could participate from the progress made in recent decades. Not almost everybody, not everybody who XYZ, literally everybody involved, no matter how, how long, when, why, where. We chose to allow channelling ALL benefits gathered from progress or from else - monopolies after forcing out competitors, tax reductions, subsidies - to one group only, and that's, finally, what qualifies this as "capitalism" - the regentship of the capital. Capitalism is NOT a chiffre for "democracy and market", it's a systematic that is widely careless about democracy, dictatorships and so forth, it literally means what it is called - regentship of the capital. If it were different, why would having a lot more not be enough to at least not make anyone have, effectively, less?

After reading all that all I can say is great point 😂😁