Cynic here. I love the sentiment, but without an effective societal rule change the battle for their wealth would be insane. Does each new billionaire drop dead too? That could work out….
Anyone with individual access to more than 1% of the wealth in each country gets a 7 day warning before Krueger crawls out their spyware always-recording television and cuts their head off while they sleep.
Doesn't stop people from having loopholes like 80 friends each owning 0.9%, but at least then they have to work for it and manage internal politics more carefully. Also higher chance one of them accidentally turns out to be a decent human instead of a .pdf.
If any new billionaire would drop dead too, then that might make a change, though I’m sure families would get together and make $999,999aires in short time.
The problem would still be the sociopaths who want to control more than their sociopath “competitors” (in the biggest number game, not competitors in markets, which none of them want).
Most of them care about either the biggest number, most power, or most fame, or mixes of the 3.
Ehhh, no. The millionaires right below them will erupt in a frenzy to take the top spot and assert control of as much as they can.
Say what you will, but those most vicious ones at the top spend a lot of energy keeping the ones who are just below them, in their places. I see that a ton of misery would spring loose as the multi-millionaires fight each other to get to the top.
This is such a shallow view of the world. No, if every single billionaire died tomorrow, literally nothing will change. The people below them will rise to the top. People who think like you also think that if they got rid of the hierarchy, then surely the problem will be solved... But no, when one hierarchy is gone another will take its place. This is because humans are social animals, and like all the other great apes, we evolved to exist in hierarchal societies.
In 2025, STIHL generated €5.48 billion in revenue and employed 20,246 people worldwide. Founded by Andreas Stihl in 1926, the company is celebrating its 100th anniversary. Nikolas Stihl is the founder's grandson.
Undoubtedly never worked a day in his life.
Which also, undoubtedly he would argue about and tell us about that day when he was seven, his grandfather made him carry a sack of nuts and bolts from one side of the factory to the other.
I'll bet that one day still sticks in his memory as if it was some form of torture.
But he thinks everyone that does it daily for hours should do it more for free.
I hope that this badly affects their company before he dies.
That was my first thought. I don't work a blue collar job but I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty. This guy looks like he's never been near a running chainsaw.
Not liking has nothing to do with it.
It's verified evidence that these people don't see others as humans, they see us as product.
Not even counting the massive human rights violations.
These type of people are the ones we should be chanting murder to, because they Choose to do this.
You would have to be an actual lobotomite to think that killing all the billionaires is going to change anything. All the people under them would just take their place? Are you just going to keep killing people endlessly, what's exactly is that 200 iq play here?
you are not required to read my comment if you believe it to be too long. Please feel free to skim passed it. You have no responsibility to engage or even agree with me but if you are one of the lazy fucks that thinks themselves clever by leaving a comment: too long didn't read - let me go ahead and simply respond to you here: go fuck yourself. There now you don't have to leave any comment.
“And replace them with socialists, right?”
“Kill the capitalists.” What an absolutely deranged thing to chant as though it were some kind of political slogan worth celebrating. Apparently we’ve reached a point where people can casually advocate killing an entire class of people and then congratulate themselves for being morally enlightened.
For all the advancements humanity has made in medicine, philosophy, science, and morality, we still manage to say incredibly stupid shit like this and other people cheer it on because they seem to have forgotten what the word kill actually means.
And before anyone starts: no, capitalism is not perfect. Of course it isn't. But pretending that capitalism has produced nothing but misery requires ignoring an enormous amount of history.
We are living through one of the most prosperous and peaceful periods in human history. The countries that consistently rank among the world's most prosperous, stable, and livable are overwhelmingly capitalist economies. Germany is capitalist. Sweden is capitalist. Norway is capitalist. Denmark is capitalist. They have extensive welfare programs, strong labor protections, and social safety nets, but they are still capitalist economies.
Even the United States, despite its very real problems, remains one of the wealthiest and most prosperous countries on Earth. You don't have to like that fact, but disliking it doesn't make it untrue.
There is nothing inherently virtuous about hating an economic class. There is certainly nothing virtuous about fantasizing about killing people because of the economic system they support.
“Kill the capitalists” isn't a serious political argument. It is virtue signaling dressed up as revolutionary rhetoric, a way for people to feel morally superior without having to articulate an actual solution to the problems they're angry about.
If your political philosophy requires you to start by deciding which group of human beings deserves to die, perhaps the problem isn't capitalism.
Disclaimer: None of this should be interpreted as me claiming that capitalism is some flawless or inherently virtuous economic system. I fully acknowledge its massive faults, including exploitation, wealth concentration, monopolistic behavior, and the increasingly corporatocratic nature of the United States. I simply reject socialism as an economic model and don't believe that acknowledging capitalism's failures requires pretending that socialism is the answer. You can criticize capitalism and we absolutely should without advocating for its abolition or fantasizing about killing the people who participate in it.
Additional disclaimer: I am not oblivious to the violence happening around the world right now. I am fully aware of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the massive war between Russia and Ukraine, the conflict involving Iran, and the numerous wars, insurgencies, and other forms of violence occurring across Africa and elsewhere. None of that should be minimized or dismissed. My point is a comparative historical one: even with these horrific conflicts occurring today, humanity as a whole is still living through one of the least violent and most peaceful periods in recorded history when measured against the enormous scale of human history and global population. That does not make today's suffering any less horrific, nor does it excuse any of it. It simply puts the present into its proper historical context.
Edit: You know what the funny thing is? I completely understand why people support what Luigi Mangione did. I consider the executives responsible for so much of the American healthcare system to be among the most reprehensible and morally bankrupt people on the planet. There is certainly an argument to be made that some of them have caused so much harm that they deserve to die. I won't pretend that argument doesn't exist. But that's precisely where I have a problem with what happened. If we resort to their tactics, deciding that human lives are expendable when someone has caused enough harm, then we've adopted the very logic we're condemning. We should be better than that. What I find genuinely disheartening is how many people seem to believe that killing another group of people is perfectly acceptable simply because they believe that group deserves it. Apparently, we've moved beyond MAGA and its dehumanizing rhetoric and finally achieved enlightenment: now we're just deciding who is morally acceptable to kill.
Ya. There's always one of you. Don't read it. I'm not going to force you to do anything. But thanks for wasting your time by telling me you wont read it.
But I'll still leave you with my default response to this: go fuck yourself.
You announcing your anger over TLDR guarantees TLDR. You have a big red button on your head that that says "press me". Metaphorically speaking.
As to what you posted, I didn't read it. Too long.
Haha! Not really. Milquetoast, you need an editor... unfortunately, part of the editor's job is to tell you "TLDR", so you'll tell them to fuck off, so now you don't have an editor and here we are.
I have no clue what the hell you’re talking about.
And as for the people who say they didn’t read it because it was “too long”, my personal favorite, I can tell them to go fuck themselves. They’re among the most useless and intellectually incurious people in any demographic, and their refusal to engage with something simply because it requires more than a few seconds of their attention makes them eminently dismissible.
Because it is defensible. Capitalism isn't a living entity that personally insulted you or wronged your family. It doesn't have intentions, feelings, or a moral compass. It is an economic system. The people operating within that system are the ones capable of abusing it, exploiting it, or using it to enrich themselves at someone else's expense.
And yes, capitalism has historically produced better outcomes than many of the alternative economic systems we've actually attempted. That's not a defense of every aspect of capitalism; it's a statement of historical fact. You don't get to dismiss an empirical observation simply because you dislike the conclusion.
What I find particularly amusing is how you people seem to think that confidently declaring something makes it an argument. You haven't actually refuted anything I've said. You haven't provided evidence, addressed the historical record, or even engaged with the distinction between an economic system and the people abusing it. You've simply produced a handful of indignant declarations, apparently mistaking the intensity of your feelings for the strength of your argument. That's not analysis. That's ideological ventriloquism with the critical-thinking portion conveniently removed. If you want to disagree with me, by all means bring an argument. But if all you've got is "capitalism bad" repeated with increasing levels of outrage, you're not actually contributing anything to the discussion.
They're talking about the actual capitalist borgeousie though ... They can go. Rich people been fucking the rest of us since forever and it's some bullshit.
Like, if you're working a job to earn money you're by definition not a capitalist. It's not about killing a ton of people but these lecherous monsters who steal our value and give us a fraction and say "you're welcome for being exploited" have got to go.
brother, there r people out there who r being exploited so badly, their lives and full human potential perpetually curtailled to such a degree... I dont see how them taking drastic actions could be seen as anything other than self-defense. Evidently u r not one of those people, but maybe try to see it from they point of view, how would u feel ? Capitalism is working out ok for u ? there r some people who is really not working. thats all
First of all, thank you. Your response was well-mannered and thoughtful, which puts it several multitudes above the usual riffraff on this platform who encounter criticism of a belief they hold and immediately start foaming at the mouth.
Let me be perfectly clear about what I am arguing against: the wholesale slaughter of an entire group of people.
That is not revolution. That is not justice. That is not liberation. It is simply another form of barbarism, dressed up in whatever ideological language makes the person committing it feel righteous.
Human history is littered with the corpses of people who were convinced that this time the mass killing was justified because their victims were the right people to hate. It has never ended well. One hatred does not magically become virtuous because you attach a political theory to it.
There is already more than enough hatred in this world.
And no, I am not opposed to violence in every conceivable circumstance. There are political leaders in the Middle East and Russia whom I would have very little sympathy for if they were violently removed from power. There are people who commit such extraordinary acts of cruelty that I have no moral objection to the idea that they should face the ultimate consequence.
I can even understand the moral argument behind what Luigi Mangione did, regardless of where someone ultimately draws the legal or ethical line.
But there is an enormous difference between saying some individuals have forfeited their moral claim to our sympathy and saying an entire class of human beings deserves to die.
That distinction matters.
I understand why people are angry. I understand the plight of people being crushed by the economic and political systems we have constructed. I understand the desire to smash a system that appears fundamentally indifferent to the people trapped beneath it.
And I am not even particularly enthusiastic about capitalism. I see its failures. I see its contradictions. I see the suffering it can produce and the ways in which wealth and power concentrate themselves.
But here's where I draw the fucking line:
"Kill the capitalists."
No.
Because the moment your solution to oppression becomes finding another category of human beings to exterminate, you haven't transcended the system you despise. You've simply inherited its worst characteristics.
You have become the thing you claim to be fighting.
And that's the part nobody seems to want to hear.
If your revolution requires you to dehumanize an entire population before you can justify killing them, then congratulations—you haven't built a better ideology. You've just found a new excuse for the oldest human vice imaginable.
We have to be better.
Someone has to be willing to say the quiet part out loud: killing people because they belong to the wrong class does not make us morally superior to the people we condemn for doing the same thing to someone else.
You don't get moral absolution simply because your victims are different from theirs.
If the only thing separating your politics from the atrocities of the past is that you have chosen a different group of people to hate, then you haven't learned a damn thing from history.
even with these horrific conflicts occurring today, humanity as a whole is still living through one of the least violent and most peaceful periods in recorded history when measured against the enormous scale of human history and global population.
Across the globe, humanity is gearing up for an enormous war over dwindling/ shifting resources, as we deplete the liveability of the planet thanks to the consumerism fostered by your beloved Capitalism.
I also really hate how all of these Capitalism apologists like to attribute advances in the standard of living to an economic system. No. Improvements in quality of life and the standard of living were made possible by technological advancement. The scientific, rational thinking that enabled that technology began with the Enlightenment, which predates 'The Wealth of Nations' by several hundred years. The most Capitalism can claim is providing the motivation for distribution of those advancements.
And any examples of non-Capitalist countries that suffer from impoverishment, should be evaluated for whether the Capitalist West has been engaged in economic warfare/ exploitation against them for a half century.
You're making a prediction about a hypothetical future and presenting it as though it disproves a statement about the historical present. It doesn't.
Yes, climate change, resource scarcity, geopolitical competition, and environmental degradation create serious risks. Nobody is disputing that. But “therefore humanity is gearing up for an enormous war” is a prediction, not an established fact. There is no evidence that some inevitable apocalyptic conflict is waiting for us around the corner.
And the capitalism argument is just as selective. I'm not claiming capitalism single-handedly created modern prosperity. Technology, science, medicine, education, infrastructure, and countless other factors obviously contributed. But pretending that economic systems have nothing to do with how those advancements are financed, produced, distributed, and adopted is equally ahistorical.
More importantly, you seem to have conveniently ignored the enormous number of countries that are both capitalist and extraordinarily successful. Countries such as Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Canada, Japan, and South Korea aren't prosperous because they somehow escaped capitalism. They have different varieties of capitalist economies combined with different levels of taxation, regulation, social welfare, labor protections, and public investment.
That's actually the interesting question: not “capitalism good” or “capitalism bad,” but which institutions produce the best outcomes and under what circumstances.
And yes, Western economic exploitation and economic warfare have contributed to poverty in some countries. That's a legitimate historical argument. But “this country is poor because the West exploited it” cannot simply become a universal explanation for every impoverished country that doesn't fit your preferred narrative.
Ultimately, you're replacing one simplistic historical explanation with another. Capitalism doesn't deserve sole credit for human progress, but neither can its critics simply remove it from the history of that progress because it complicates the argument.
And the accusation that I'm somehow a “capitalism fanboy” is particularly lazy, considering I explicitly stated that I do not outright support capitalism. You are arguing against a position I never expressed because it's considerably easier than engaging with what I actually said. Recognizing that capitalism has contributed to economic growth, technological development, and improvements in living standards is not the same thing as worshipping the system or believing it is inherently good. If your argument requires you to invent my position before you can attack it, that's not a particularly strong argument.
If you must know I support social democracy and further down the line democratic socialism. Which I assume you'll
Financial obesity is neurotoxic, an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but trillionaires should be forced to transition into billionaires, and billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.
Euthanized by taxation can't work. Even if you pull it off, the wealth simply leaves and reinvests in a less restrictive country. Capital flight. Race to the bottom.
Overcoming capital would mean the victims of capitalism---all of us---coordinating on the scale at which capital operates: the global scale. We can't even agree at national scales.
Worse, capital owns the communications infrastructure and controls which messages get amplified and which dampened. They can actively manipulate our "common knowledge", our sense of what everyone else takes for granted. They can, and do maneuver us into two mutually antagonistic factions, each convinced of their moral righteousness, their justified hatred of the other half of the population.
To actually defeat capital and institute a better, stable, fair system, we'd need to first reconcile with the arbitrary political faction we've been trained to hate. Then we'd have a shot at globally coordinating in a world where the five richest men in earth own media networks.
But I don't get it. Wealth doesn't really increase by working more. For skilled jobs, working longer means you are producing the same output in more time and feel worse. If you want to increase production, you need to invest in research and technology.
Hundreds of years ago, one farmer could feed a hand full of people, today it's probably thousands, thanks to modern technology. If the farmers back then would work twice as much, they could still only feed a hand full of people, but they would probably die a lot sooner.
I imagine the same thing which finished off heavy industry in the U.K. is hurting DE a lot also, high energy prices.
Less of a direct effect on assembly businesses, but for heavy production where your process is largely to convert energy to product its devestating. Then you lose those job while also having to pay another county for the product. It fucked us over here for sure
Yeah, that's the fairy tale they try to tell us because it sounds logical if you don't look closer.
In reality those high energy prices are just a narrative (at least for Germany). Heavy industry pays average amounts in European comparison. It's the private end consumer who's getting poor from all the taxes and fees to subsidize cheap energy for the industry. Those are the same people whose real wages increased by ~25% in the last few decades while their real economic output in the same time frame increased by ~250%. And all that money is funneled off to a few ultra rich while pensions, social benefits and health care are linked to the stagnating wages.
The actual problem of Germany's economy is that they systematically fucked over Germans for decades to optimise their trade output. So now when global demand is shifting there is no domestic demand to compensate because they are all fucking poor (compare: average wealth with median wealth) and squeezed by constantly increasing costs that in many cases just increase the profit margins of the very same companies they already subsidize with their taxes.
Added some charts for comparison (data from 2024-2025):
Shush! You are not supposed to think about massively increasing productivity.
If you realize that one worker's real economic output is now 10 times as high as a few decades ago, you won't be properly scared about their screaming of demographics and how it's totally unsustainable that now one worker has to "pay" for more than 3 times the amount of non-working people.
Wait? So real economic output per capita is up by ~ +250% and still we somehow don't have any money to keep up with health care or social costs and can't even afford to keep our infrastructure from crmbling away? I wonder were all that money is going...
The family entrepreneur from Waiblingen in southern Germany does not mince his words...
Family businessman Stihl takes a long-term view...
STIHL: €5.48bn in revenue and more than 20,000 employees
Just a small FAMILY businessman... The stilted way these pieces always try to humanize the people calling for more worker exploitation always creeps me out. Do they think the workers don't have families or something?
This shit is always so funny to me - the name implies its about some humble family-run business.
You look inside and well - Volkswagen, Schwarz (the group behind Lidl, Kaufland, STACKIT, ...), Audi... you know - small, harmless businesses.
I especially laugh at the arguments they make for working at those "family-run businesses". If you were looking for a definition of gaslighting, you would have it right there.
Translated to english:
Family togetherness: Work in an environment full of trust and appreciation. Secure job: Benefit from long-term stability and high crisis resistance. Meaningful tasks: Take responsibility in projects with real purpose. Rapid advancement: Use flat hierarchies for your personal career.
I think they're trying to justify his lack of compassion for workers because his company's profitability is so personal for him and central to his identity (d'awww).
In almost every episode, there's the super obese person that can't do a thing for themselves. They couldn't possibly get to and maintain that kind of weight on their own.
There is always an enabler. A spouse, partner, caregiver, whatever, that is feeding them and keeping them in that condition.
Sometimes the enabler doesn't even realize they are doing it. Actually, a lot of the time.
I don't see sarcasm in your parents answer. I see them realizing that having a middle-class lifestyle is unknowingly enabling the billionaires. They exist, in part, because we allow them to.
The enabler is not keeping them in that condition. The 600-pounder is keeping themselves in that condition through the choices that they make every day. Should that enabler leave... another will take their place. Because many people feel gratification from caring for others, and feeding those we love is a fundamental part of being human, it's as natural as feeding ourselves.
You can find many 400 pounders and up on social media, still caring for themselves without an enabler. Perhaps they'll get to 600 pounds some day... but to blame an enabler, the person who cares for them, is madness. The blame lies with the person consuming 10,000 calories a day, you can't get to 600 pounds by making a few bad choices. It's YEARS of daily bad choices, and they made those decisions. Only they are keeping themselves in that condition.
A few worker-bees can strike but as long as there's someone else willing to work for a shit wage then we drive ourselves down further.
A handful of consumers can boycott a platform or product on idealistic values but there's still going to be millions of other consumers blissfully ignorant of those values.
No, they don't. They are just openly lying at this point because they get high on fucking over people.
Pensions, social security and health care are all linked to wages. Proposing less pay for the work you do to save the welfare state is like proposing to smash your head with a hammer to increase cogntive abilities.
The cruelty is the point, not the increased productivity. Far-right work moralists think I should slice open my hand, not in an attempt at self harm, but while working with a faulty machine, to prove I am a man and better than the non-workers.
Not exactly; fatigue affects pretty much everything. If I don't get enough sleep, I just watch cartoons at work. I'll take my time to fix a machine that can flatline me if I make a mistake. Being unpaid only fuels my motivation to not do anything and in certain cases watch it all crumble.
Also the security guard example is an interesting choice to reference. You know what they do? Look pretty and call the PD. Unless it's special detail, it's generally for appearance. Even in emergencies, the liability cost isn't worth it as well as jail time and court costs. I hate to break it to you but the security guard isn't going to stick their neck out for you unless they want to kill or are extremely altruistic.
I mostly meant emergency as in does nothing 99% of the time and the other one percent does something that requires almost no skill other than remaining calm.
I find it amusing the CEO of a company whose employees - at a bare minimum - are awash in chainsaws has any opinion on their pay that is not in line with the employee idea of fair wages
I find it amusing they aren't afraid of us anymore. Give it more time, we'll get them afraid again. When their greed reaches the tipping point a flood of luigis will come for them.
Due to tragic, predictable and entirely preventable circumstances we are currently OVERSTOCKED on billionaires and they're passing the misery on to YOOOOUUUUU!
Are you broke? Depressed? Working your ass off and still struggling to make ends meet? Then you my friend just need to take out the billionaire class! It's free and good for you! WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE???
I don’t disagree with the point of this post, but the image of the chainsaw in the article was completely incorrectly captioned.
It is actually a photo of an electric powered (not electric start) 2 man chainsaw (not one man) that weights 48 kg (106 lb).
So is the author not careful, or did a slop machine make it?
Also I’ve never seen of an electric start chainsaw in person and there were only a couple models in the 70s that made it to consumers and had weird removable batteries.
He's making some points that might be valid, depending on how long a german work week is. Last I heard a friend from Bavaria was making thrice my salary doing a similar job. If he's working a 15h week, that'd be extreme.
I'm from Sweden where a 40 hour work week is the norm.
35-37 hours is standard in Germany. Bavaria is one of the most expensive regions so depending on where you live in Sweden it might be like comparing yourself to silicon valley or Switzerland.
Productivity is high enough to support living wages for people and those wages need to keep up with whatever is the cost of living in an area. A rich asshole who has never worked a day in his life telling everyone else to work more for nothing is completely removed from any truth or reality.
OK. I know nothing about Germany and I’m willing to bet an unreasonable amount of money that they do not have a standard 15 hour work week. If they have anything less than 30 hours a week I would be able to hear the histrionics from the WSJ editorial board all the way on the other side of the continent.
Regardless, if the company is making money without ripping off their customers and suppliers then why would a short work week be unreasonable? The founders and investors can reap all the benefit from the company doing well but the people investing their time and energy can kick rocks?
No. It’s a trade union deal that makes the basis hours 35 a week. Then if you work 40 you get paid more and on top you get some bonus once a year.
It is little nuts but in the end we don’t even earn that much more than the rest of industry so it’s more like a cultural phenomenon by now in my eyes.
Source: I do programming but for a company that runs under IgMetall trade union deal.
117 Comments
wasabi_noir@lemmy.zip · 120 pts · 1d
MutantTailThing@lemmy.world · 87 pts · 1d
I am entirely convinced that if every billionaire drops dead today, there will be peace on earth tomorrow.
PancakesCantKillMe@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 1d
Cynic here. I love the sentiment, but without an effective societal rule change the battle for their wealth would be insane. Does each new billionaire drop dead too? That could work out….
MutantTailThing@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1d
I never said it would be a longlived peace!
Zarobi@aussie.zone · 6 pts · 1d
Anyone with individual access to more than 1% of the wealth in each country gets a 7 day warning before Krueger crawls out their spyware always-recording television and cuts their head off while they sleep.
Doesn't stop people from having loopholes like 80 friends each owning 0.9%, but at least then they have to work for it and manage internal politics more carefully. Also higher chance one of them accidentally turns out to be a decent human instead of a
.pdf.turtlesareneat@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 1d
So much simpler. Make banks illegal. Cash smelling dogs. Everyone is on their own. Let's see who makes it.
nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 9m
If any new billionaire would drop dead too, then that might make a change, though I’m sure families would get together and make $999,999aires in short time.
The problem would still be the sociopaths who want to control more than their sociopath “competitors” (in the biggest number game, not competitors in markets, which none of them want).
Most of them care about either the biggest number, most power, or most fame, or mixes of the 3.
scarabic@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 20h
Tis mere fantasy. No need to work it out realistically.
foodandart@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 1d
Ehhh, no. The millionaires right below them will erupt in a frenzy to take the top spot and assert control of as much as they can.
Say what you will, but those most vicious ones at the top spend a lot of energy keeping the ones who are just below them, in their places. I see that a ton of misery would spring loose as the multi-millionaires fight each other to get to the top.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · 4 pts · 1d
Maybe, but I'd still love to see them dead. I say it's worth it.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 4h
capitalism would still be a thing
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 23h
This is such a shallow view of the world. No, if every single billionaire died tomorrow, literally nothing will change. The people below them will rise to the top. People who think like you also think that if they got rid of the hierarchy, then surely the problem will be solved... But no, when one hierarchy is gone another will take its place. This is because humans are social animals, and like all the other great apes, we evolved to exist in hierarchal societies.
Babalugats@feddit.uk · 58 pts · 1d
Undoubtedly never worked a day in his life. Which also, undoubtedly he would argue about and tell us about that day when he was seven, his grandfather made him carry a sack of nuts and bolts from one side of the factory to the other.
I'll bet that one day still sticks in his memory as if it was some form of torture.
But he thinks everyone that does it daily for hours should do it more for free.
I hope that this badly affects their company before he dies.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1d
Probably can't even work one of those chainsaws either.
Frozengyro@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
That was my first thought. I don't work a blue collar job but I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty. This guy looks like he's never been near a running chainsaw.
lostoncalantha@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 1d
Kill capitalists. Save the planet. Simple.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 23h
"If we just kill all the people we don't like, the world will surely be a better place" - All the most evil people in history
Bluedragon012@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 22h
Not liking has nothing to do with it. It's verified evidence that these people don't see others as humans, they see us as product. Not even counting the massive human rights violations. These type of people are the ones we should be chanting murder to, because they Choose to do this.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11h
You would have to be an actual lobotomite to think that killing all the billionaires is going to change anything. All the people under them would just take their place? Are you just going to keep killing people endlessly, what's exactly is that 200 iq play here?
mechoman444@lemmy.world · -26 pts · 1d
you are not required to read my comment if you believe it to be too long. Please feel free to skim passed it. You have no responsibility to engage or even agree with me but if you are one of the lazy fucks that thinks themselves clever by leaving a comment: too long didn't read - let me go ahead and simply respond to you here: go fuck yourself. There now you don't have to leave any comment.
“And replace them with socialists, right?”
“Kill the capitalists.” What an absolutely deranged thing to chant as though it were some kind of political slogan worth celebrating. Apparently we’ve reached a point where people can casually advocate killing an entire class of people and then congratulate themselves for being morally enlightened.
For all the advancements humanity has made in medicine, philosophy, science, and morality, we still manage to say incredibly stupid shit like this and other people cheer it on because they seem to have forgotten what the word kill actually means.
And before anyone starts: no, capitalism is not perfect. Of course it isn't. But pretending that capitalism has produced nothing but misery requires ignoring an enormous amount of history.
We are living through one of the most prosperous and peaceful periods in human history. The countries that consistently rank among the world's most prosperous, stable, and livable are overwhelmingly capitalist economies. Germany is capitalist. Sweden is capitalist. Norway is capitalist. Denmark is capitalist. They have extensive welfare programs, strong labor protections, and social safety nets, but they are still capitalist economies.
Even the United States, despite its very real problems, remains one of the wealthiest and most prosperous countries on Earth. You don't have to like that fact, but disliking it doesn't make it untrue.
There is nothing inherently virtuous about hating an economic class. There is certainly nothing virtuous about fantasizing about killing people because of the economic system they support.
“Kill the capitalists” isn't a serious political argument. It is virtue signaling dressed up as revolutionary rhetoric, a way for people to feel morally superior without having to articulate an actual solution to the problems they're angry about.
If your political philosophy requires you to start by deciding which group of human beings deserves to die, perhaps the problem isn't capitalism.
Disclaimer: None of this should be interpreted as me claiming that capitalism is some flawless or inherently virtuous economic system. I fully acknowledge its massive faults, including exploitation, wealth concentration, monopolistic behavior, and the increasingly corporatocratic nature of the United States. I simply reject socialism as an economic model and don't believe that acknowledging capitalism's failures requires pretending that socialism is the answer. You can criticize capitalism and we absolutely should without advocating for its abolition or fantasizing about killing the people who participate in it.
Additional disclaimer: I am not oblivious to the violence happening around the world right now. I am fully aware of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the massive war between Russia and Ukraine, the conflict involving Iran, and the numerous wars, insurgencies, and other forms of violence occurring across Africa and elsewhere. None of that should be minimized or dismissed. My point is a comparative historical one: even with these horrific conflicts occurring today, humanity as a whole is still living through one of the least violent and most peaceful periods in recorded history when measured against the enormous scale of human history and global population. That does not make today's suffering any less horrific, nor does it excuse any of it. It simply puts the present into its proper historical context.
Edit: You know what the funny thing is? I completely understand why people support what Luigi Mangione did. I consider the executives responsible for so much of the American healthcare system to be among the most reprehensible and morally bankrupt people on the planet. There is certainly an argument to be made that some of them have caused so much harm that they deserve to die. I won't pretend that argument doesn't exist. But that's precisely where I have a problem with what happened. If we resort to their tactics, deciding that human lives are expendable when someone has caused enough harm, then we've adopted the very logic we're condemning. We should be better than that. What I find genuinely disheartening is how many people seem to believe that killing another group of people is perfectly acceptable simply because they believe that group deserves it. Apparently, we've moved beyond MAGA and its dehumanizing rhetoric and finally achieved enlightenment: now we're just deciding who is morally acceptable to kill.
apprehensivecrab1@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 1d
mechoman444@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 1d
Ya. There's always one of you. Don't read it. I'm not going to force you to do anything. But thanks for wasting your time by telling me you wont read it.
But I'll still leave you with my default response to this: go fuck yourself.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 22h
You announcing your anger over TLDR guarantees TLDR. You have a big red button on your head that that says "press me". Metaphorically speaking.
As to what you posted, I didn't read it. Too long.
Haha! Not really. Milquetoast, you need an editor... unfortunately, part of the editor's job is to tell you "TLDR", so you'll tell them to fuck off, so now you don't have an editor and here we are.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21h
I have no clue what the hell you’re talking about.
And as for the people who say they didn’t read it because it was “too long”, my personal favorite, I can tell them to go fuck themselves. They’re among the most useless and intellectually incurious people in any demographic, and their refusal to engage with something simply because it requires more than a few seconds of their attention makes them eminently dismissible.
Maeve@kbin.earth · 1 pts · 2h
You defended capitalists. Nuff said.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1h
Because it is defensible. Capitalism isn't a living entity that personally insulted you or wronged your family. It doesn't have intentions, feelings, or a moral compass. It is an economic system. The people operating within that system are the ones capable of abusing it, exploiting it, or using it to enrich themselves at someone else's expense.
And yes, capitalism has historically produced better outcomes than many of the alternative economic systems we've actually attempted. That's not a defense of every aspect of capitalism; it's a statement of historical fact. You don't get to dismiss an empirical observation simply because you dislike the conclusion.
What I find particularly amusing is how you people seem to think that confidently declaring something makes it an argument. You haven't actually refuted anything I've said. You haven't provided evidence, addressed the historical record, or even engaged with the distinction between an economic system and the people abusing it. You've simply produced a handful of indignant declarations, apparently mistaking the intensity of your feelings for the strength of your argument. That's not analysis. That's ideological ventriloquism with the critical-thinking portion conveniently removed. If you want to disagree with me, by all means bring an argument. But if all you've got is "capitalism bad" repeated with increasing levels of outrage, you're not actually contributing anything to the discussion.
LePoisson@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
They're talking about the actual capitalist borgeousie though ... They can go. Rich people been fucking the rest of us since forever and it's some bullshit.
Like, if you're working a job to earn money you're by definition not a capitalist. It's not about killing a ton of people but these lecherous monsters who steal our value and give us a fraction and say "you're welcome for being exploited" have got to go.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · 10 pts · 1d
Now generate me a poem about how we should hang all billionaires from their balls.
tourist@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
I don't know how to rhyme 'apply clamp to testicles and suspend'
too many syllables
idk how to write haikus either
mechoman444@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1d
mortalblade@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 1d
its only self defense, no big deal
mechoman444@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 1d
No it's not. Advocating for the wholesale slaughter of an entire group of people is morally reprehensible on every level.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
mechoman444@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1d
You're an idiot.
mortalblade@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 13h
brother, there r people out there who r being exploited so badly, their lives and full human potential perpetually curtailled to such a degree... I dont see how them taking drastic actions could be seen as anything other than self-defense. Evidently u r not one of those people, but maybe try to see it from they point of view, how would u feel ? Capitalism is working out ok for u ? there r some people who is really not working. thats all
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 12h
First of all, thank you. Your response was well-mannered and thoughtful, which puts it several multitudes above the usual riffraff on this platform who encounter criticism of a belief they hold and immediately start foaming at the mouth.
Let me be perfectly clear about what I am arguing against: the wholesale slaughter of an entire group of people.
That is not revolution. That is not justice. That is not liberation. It is simply another form of barbarism, dressed up in whatever ideological language makes the person committing it feel righteous.
Human history is littered with the corpses of people who were convinced that this time the mass killing was justified because their victims were the right people to hate. It has never ended well. One hatred does not magically become virtuous because you attach a political theory to it.
There is already more than enough hatred in this world.
And no, I am not opposed to violence in every conceivable circumstance. There are political leaders in the Middle East and Russia whom I would have very little sympathy for if they were violently removed from power. There are people who commit such extraordinary acts of cruelty that I have no moral objection to the idea that they should face the ultimate consequence.
I can even understand the moral argument behind what Luigi Mangione did, regardless of where someone ultimately draws the legal or ethical line.
But there is an enormous difference between saying some individuals have forfeited their moral claim to our sympathy and saying an entire class of human beings deserves to die.
That distinction matters.
I understand why people are angry. I understand the plight of people being crushed by the economic and political systems we have constructed. I understand the desire to smash a system that appears fundamentally indifferent to the people trapped beneath it.
And I am not even particularly enthusiastic about capitalism. I see its failures. I see its contradictions. I see the suffering it can produce and the ways in which wealth and power concentrate themselves.
But here's where I draw the fucking line:
"Kill the capitalists."
No.
Because the moment your solution to oppression becomes finding another category of human beings to exterminate, you haven't transcended the system you despise. You've simply inherited its worst characteristics.
You have become the thing you claim to be fighting.
And that's the part nobody seems to want to hear.
If your revolution requires you to dehumanize an entire population before you can justify killing them, then congratulations—you haven't built a better ideology. You've just found a new excuse for the oldest human vice imaginable.
We have to be better.
Someone has to be willing to say the quiet part out loud: killing people because they belong to the wrong class does not make us morally superior to the people we condemn for doing the same thing to someone else.
You don't get moral absolution simply because your victims are different from theirs.
If the only thing separating your politics from the atrocities of the past is that you have chosen a different group of people to hate, then you haven't learned a damn thing from history.
You've just changed the uniforms.
NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 22h
Across the globe, humanity is gearing up for an enormous war over dwindling/ shifting resources, as we deplete the liveability of the planet thanks to the consumerism fostered by your beloved Capitalism.
I also really hate how all of these Capitalism apologists like to attribute advances in the standard of living to an economic system. No. Improvements in quality of life and the standard of living were made possible by technological advancement. The scientific, rational thinking that enabled that technology began with the Enlightenment, which predates 'The Wealth of Nations' by several hundred years. The most Capitalism can claim is providing the motivation for distribution of those advancements.
And any examples of non-Capitalist countries that suffer from impoverishment, should be evaluated for whether the Capitalist West has been engaged in economic warfare/ exploitation against them for a half century.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21h
You're making a prediction about a hypothetical future and presenting it as though it disproves a statement about the historical present. It doesn't.
Yes, climate change, resource scarcity, geopolitical competition, and environmental degradation create serious risks. Nobody is disputing that. But “therefore humanity is gearing up for an enormous war” is a prediction, not an established fact. There is no evidence that some inevitable apocalyptic conflict is waiting for us around the corner.
And the capitalism argument is just as selective. I'm not claiming capitalism single-handedly created modern prosperity. Technology, science, medicine, education, infrastructure, and countless other factors obviously contributed. But pretending that economic systems have nothing to do with how those advancements are financed, produced, distributed, and adopted is equally ahistorical.
More importantly, you seem to have conveniently ignored the enormous number of countries that are both capitalist and extraordinarily successful. Countries such as Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Canada, Japan, and South Korea aren't prosperous because they somehow escaped capitalism. They have different varieties of capitalist economies combined with different levels of taxation, regulation, social welfare, labor protections, and public investment.
That's actually the interesting question: not “capitalism good” or “capitalism bad,” but which institutions produce the best outcomes and under what circumstances.
And yes, Western economic exploitation and economic warfare have contributed to poverty in some countries. That's a legitimate historical argument. But “this country is poor because the West exploited it” cannot simply become a universal explanation for every impoverished country that doesn't fit your preferred narrative.
Ultimately, you're replacing one simplistic historical explanation with another. Capitalism doesn't deserve sole credit for human progress, but neither can its critics simply remove it from the history of that progress because it complicates the argument.
And the accusation that I'm somehow a “capitalism fanboy” is particularly lazy, considering I explicitly stated that I do not outright support capitalism. You are arguing against a position I never expressed because it's considerably easier than engaging with what I actually said. Recognizing that capitalism has contributed to economic growth, technological development, and improvements in living standards is not the same thing as worshipping the system or believing it is inherently good. If your argument requires you to invent my position before you can attack it, that's not a particularly strong argument.
If you must know I support social democracy and further down the line democratic socialism. Which I assume you'll
nonentity@sh.itjust.works · 31 pts · 1d
Financial obesity is neurotoxic, an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but trillionaires should be forced to transition into billionaires, and billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.
Arctic_monkey@leminal.space · 1 pts · 9h
Euthanized by taxation can't work. Even if you pull it off, the wealth simply leaves and reinvests in a less restrictive country. Capital flight. Race to the bottom.
Overcoming capital would mean the victims of capitalism---all of us---coordinating on the scale at which capital operates: the global scale. We can't even agree at national scales.
Worse, capital owns the communications infrastructure and controls which messages get amplified and which dampened. They can actively manipulate our "common knowledge", our sense of what everyone else takes for granted. They can, and do maneuver us into two mutually antagonistic factions, each convinced of their moral righteousness, their justified hatred of the other half of the population.
To actually defeat capital and institute a better, stable, fair system, we'd need to first reconcile with the arbitrary political faction we've been trained to hate. Then we'd have a shot at globally coordinating in a world where the five richest men in earth own media networks.
It's a hard problem.
StillAlive@piefed.world · 28 pts · 1d
> Chainsaw maker STIHL chief calls for longer hours without extra pay
> Chainsaw maker
Let's update that saying about capitalists selling us ropes.
meathorse@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 1d
Business: we need "additional incentives for research and development"
Govt: ok, this will help grow the economy.
Employees: we need additional incentives to work due to eroding wages and increasingly shitty work conditions. This will also help grow the economy.
Business & Govt: Get fucked!
justsomenetizen@lemmy.today · 25 pts · 1d
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 22 pts · 22h
I'm sure the timing is very coincidental and has nothing to do with the recent AFD win
People like this will happily burn the world so that they can rule over the ashes
horsesaysweird@feddit.org · 11 pts · 21h
He said the same thing a month ago: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmer-nicolas-stihl-35-stunden-woche-nicht-mehr-zeitgemaess-a-a69431e3-905a-4c8a-ba45-abdaa6dfceff
But I don't get it. Wealth doesn't really increase by working more. For skilled jobs, working longer means you are producing the same output in more time and feel worse. If you want to increase production, you need to invest in research and technology.
Hundreds of years ago, one farmer could feed a hand full of people, today it's probably thousands, thanks to modern technology. If the farmers back then would work twice as much, they could still only feed a hand full of people, but they would probably die a lot sooner.
locahosr443@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 20h
I imagine the same thing which finished off heavy industry in the U.K. is hurting DE a lot also, high energy prices.
Less of a direct effect on assembly businesses, but for heavy production where your process is largely to convert energy to product its devestating. Then you lose those job while also having to pay another county for the product. It fucked us over here for sure
Ooops@feddit.org · 1 pts · 2h
Yeah, that's the fairy tale they try to tell us because it sounds logical if you don't look closer.
In reality those high energy prices are just a narrative (at least for Germany). Heavy industry pays average amounts in European comparison. It's the private end consumer who's getting poor from all the taxes and fees to subsidize cheap energy for the industry. Those are the same people whose real wages increased by ~25% in the last few decades while their real economic output in the same time frame increased by ~250%. And all that money is funneled off to a few ultra rich while pensions, social benefits and health care are linked to the stagnating wages.
The actual problem of Germany's economy is that they systematically fucked over Germans for decades to optimise their trade output. So now when global demand is shifting there is no domestic demand to compensate because they are all fucking poor (compare: average wealth with median wealth) and squeezed by constantly increasing costs that in many cases just increase the profit margins of the very same companies they already subsidize with their taxes.
Added some charts for comparison (data from 2024-2025):
locahosr443@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 30m
What fairy tale? I was making an assumption based on watching the industry die in the UK for the reasons backed up by your graph.
Looks like Germany is different from what I assumed
Ooops@feddit.org · 2 pts · 2h
Shush! You are not supposed to think about massively increasing productivity.
If you realize that one worker's real economic output is now 10 times as high as a few decades ago, you won't be properly scared about their screaming of demographics and how it's totally unsustainable that now one worker has to "pay" for more than 3 times the amount of non-working people.
Wait? So real economic output per capita is up by ~ +250% and still we somehow don't have any money to keep up with health care or social costs and can't even afford to keep our infrastructure from crmbling away? I wonder were all that money is going...
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 19 pts · 13h
Yeah. Because self-regulation and no taxes certainly worked for, for example, America's skills and education level.
DelnitaCrane@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 23h
Just a small FAMILY businessman... The stilted way these pieces always try to humanize the people calling for more worker exploitation always creeps me out. Do they think the workers don't have families or something?
wdx@feddit.org · 5 pts · 20h
https://www.karriere-familienunternehmen.de/warum-familienunternehmen
This shit is always so funny to me - the name implies its about some humble family-run business.
You look inside and well - Volkswagen, Schwarz (the group behind Lidl, Kaufland, STACKIT, ...), Audi... you know - small, harmless businesses.
I especially laugh at the arguments they make for working at those "family-run businesses". If you were looking for a definition of gaslighting, you would have it right there.
Translated to english:
Family togetherness: Work in an environment full of trust and appreciation.
Secure job: Benefit from long-term stability and high crisis resistance.
Meaningful tasks: Take responsibility in projects with real purpose. Rapid advancement: Use flat hierarchies for your personal career.
NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 22h
I think they're trying to justify his lack of compassion for workers because his company's profitability is so personal for him and central to his identity (d'awww).
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2h
Unfortunately he's not an annoying leftist streamer, so we must pretend he got there through hard manual labor, and nothing else.
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 12h
It's always the fucking Swabians... They have a talent of growing really awful people around Stuttgart :(
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 16 pts · 1d
Some of you will die however that is the risk that I prepared to take.
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 1d
Eat the rich.
Diddlydee@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 1d
Diddlydee@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 1d
Diddlydee@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 1d
Diddlydee@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 1d
Diddlydee@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 1d
IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com · 13 pts · 1d
All of our entire lifestyles and culture support and fund them.
We are the problem and nothing is going to change until people can admit it.
AfterlifeAdventures@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Forget the /s at all?
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 1d
You ever watch "My 600lb Life"?
In almost every episode, there's the super obese person that can't do a thing for themselves. They couldn't possibly get to and maintain that kind of weight on their own.
There is always an enabler. A spouse, partner, caregiver, whatever, that is feeding them and keeping them in that condition.
Sometimes the enabler doesn't even realize they are doing it. Actually, a lot of the time.
I don't see sarcasm in your parents answer. I see them realizing that having a middle-class lifestyle is unknowingly enabling the billionaires. They exist, in part, because we allow them to.
AfterlifeAdventures@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
Nah I think all billionaires need to be [redacted] ceos need same treatment
xtr0n@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 1d
That is one way to stop enabling them.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21h
The enabler is not keeping them in that condition. The 600-pounder is keeping themselves in that condition through the choices that they make every day. Should that enabler leave... another will take their place. Because many people feel gratification from caring for others, and feeding those we love is a fundamental part of being human, it's as natural as feeding ourselves.
You can find many 400 pounders and up on social media, still caring for themselves without an enabler. Perhaps they'll get to 600 pounds some day... but to blame an enabler, the person who cares for them, is madness. The blame lies with the person consuming 10,000 calories a day, you can't get to 600 pounds by making a few bad choices. It's YEARS of daily bad choices, and they made those decisions. Only they are keeping themselves in that condition.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 20h
The analogy still stands.
A few worker-bees can strike but as long as there's someone else willing to work for a shit wage then we drive ourselves down further.
A handful of consumers can boycott a platform or product on idealistic values but there's still going to be millions of other consumers blissfully ignorant of those values.
We're all crabs in a giant bucket.
foggy@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1d
The CEO of Stihl chainsaws wants the chainsaw makers to work more for less.
Bold strategy.
90s mosh pit intensifies
AstralPath@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 1d
"GIVE ME SOMETHING TO BREAK! HOW 'BOUT YOUR FUCKIN' FACE!?"
The 90's were awesome.
myyass@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 10h
They STIHL think that more hours lead to more productivity. All I know is no pay leads to finding alternative pay.
Ooops@feddit.org · 3 pts · 2h
No, they don't. They are just openly lying at this point because they get high on fucking over people.
Pensions, social security and health care are all linked to wages. Proposing less pay for the work you do to save the welfare state is like proposing to smash your head with a hammer to increase cogntive abilities.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2h
The cruelty is the point, not the increased productivity. Far-right work moralists think I should slice open my hand, not in an attempt at self harm, but while working with a faulty machine, to prove I am a man and better than the non-workers.
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 9h
If the productivity is dictated primarily by machine hours it does, same with security guards that are mostly there for emergencies.
myyass@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 9h
Not exactly; fatigue affects pretty much everything. If I don't get enough sleep, I just watch cartoons at work. I'll take my time to fix a machine that can flatline me if I make a mistake. Being unpaid only fuels my motivation to not do anything and in certain cases watch it all crumble.
Also the security guard example is an interesting choice to reference. You know what they do? Look pretty and call the PD. Unless it's special detail, it's generally for appearance. Even in emergencies, the liability cost isn't worth it as well as jail time and court costs. I hate to break it to you but the security guard isn't going to stick their neck out for you unless they want to kill or are extremely altruistic.
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 8h
I mostly meant emergency as in does nothing 99% of the time and the other one percent does something that requires almost no skill other than remaining calm.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1d
Parasite leeches. All of them. They use far, far more than their share of resources, and give zero in return.
Fuck em.
culprit@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 20h
Chainsaws could be turned into very effective guillotines. Just saying.
ElChinchilla@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 12h
I find it amusing the CEO of a company whose employees - at a bare minimum - are awash in chainsaws has any opinion on their pay that is not in line with the employee idea of fair wages
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 9h
Well he's expecting chainsaws. He'll be ready for that.
Hupf@feddit.org · 5 pts · 8h
doenietzomoeilijk@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 2h
I was utterly unready for this.
Then again, I'm not a CEO.
TrollTrollrolllol@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2h
I find it amusing they aren't afraid of us anymore. Give it more time, we'll get them afraid again. When their greed reaches the tipping point a flood of luigis will come for them.
Frenchgeek@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 21h
If he likes free stuff so much, why does he charges for his chainsaws?
AfterlifeAdventures@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 21h
Cause that's socialism and when he gets free stuff, well that's just a good deal! LMAO
Eternal192@anarchist.nexus · 8 pts · 1d
Sure, a rich lazy piece of shit like that is going to tell ME i need to work more for less money, fuck off!
Amuro_eat@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 1d
I call for quartering CEOs and billionaires with chainsaws
pdxfed@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
mildly?
AfterlifeAdventures@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Didn't know where else to post it
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
It doesn't get as much traffic as this one, but there's !actually_infuriating@lemmy.world
kylie_kraft@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
CEO said a thing
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 1d
Translation to objective reality: "arrow not go up steeply enough for a while, which makes me shiver in my silken tighty whities"
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 4h
I call for us all to quit, and go back to the trees.
SamsquanchOfficial@discuss.online · 2 pts · 3h
Bonobos have it all figured out. Eat, sex, sleep and repeat. We should all aspire to be more like them
heartSagan5@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 11h
I mean, keep deporting your workforce totally works. (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
TrollTrollrolllol@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2h
It works for them, look at how fat those pockets are
AfterlifeAdventures@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11h
Makin ya slave labor that's all
TheCriticalMember@aussie.zone · 6 pts · 15h
I'll add it to the list of reasons I'm a Husqvarna man.
semperverus@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 16h
MBAs too, while we are at it. They like to play cookie clicker with the global wealth distribution and it is insane.
vegafjord@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 2h
all corporations are bad
all billionaires are bad
SippyCup@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1h
Closeout sale all billionaires must go!
Due to tragic, predictable and entirely preventable circumstances we are currently OVERSTOCKED on billionaires and they're passing the misery on to YOOOOUUUUU!
Are you broke? Depressed? Working your ass off and still struggling to make ends meet? Then you my friend just need to take out the billionaire class! It's free and good for you! WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE???
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 21h
Florida is the new billionaire magnet. America's great class divide state.
Widdershins@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 20h
keropoktasen@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
Who is going to do business and services? You poor people?
OldChicoAle@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 12h
Shit stain human
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 2h
All of that CEO bonus money could provide free healthcare for the whole world!
TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
Fucking insanity.
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 1h
A+ at saying a lot of words that only have meaning to a select class and no one else.
Bieren@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 2h
Replace ceo’s with ai.
blackshirt@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22h
I'm all for the $999,999,999.99 cap. One cent more should go the
statepeople.nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 13m
I don’t disagree with the point of this post, but the image of the chainsaw in the article was completely incorrectly captioned.
It is actually a photo of an electric powered (not electric start) 2 man chainsaw (not one man) that weights 48 kg (106 lb).
So is the author not careful, or did a slop machine make it?
Also I’ve never seen of an electric start chainsaw in person and there were only a couple models in the 70s that made it to consumers and had weird removable batteries.
whaleross@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 1d
I don't care if they are fucking, as long it isn't raping children on Epstein island.
dracc@discuss.tchncs.de · -3 pts · 1d
Wait a minute, how short is a german work week? O.o
AfterlifeAdventures@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
Does it matter?
dracc@discuss.tchncs.de · -13 pts · 1d
He's making some points that might be valid, depending on how long a german work week is. Last I heard a friend from Bavaria was making thrice my salary doing a similar job. If he's working a 15h week, that'd be extreme.
I'm from Sweden where a 40 hour work week is the norm.
AfterlifeAdventures@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
40hrs a week is too much, sick of the enabling i live in the USA where if you're sitting while you work(labor) you're considered lazy
Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1d
35-37 hours is standard in Germany. Bavaria is one of the most expensive regions so depending on where you live in Sweden it might be like comparing yourself to silicon valley or Switzerland.
Productivity is high enough to support living wages for people and those wages need to keep up with whatever is the cost of living in an area. A rich asshole who has never worked a day in his life telling everyone else to work more for nothing is completely removed from any truth or reality.
xtr0n@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
OK. I know nothing about Germany and I’m willing to bet an unreasonable amount of money that they do not have a standard 15 hour work week. If they have anything less than 30 hours a week I would be able to hear the histrionics from the WSJ editorial board all the way on the other side of the continent.
Regardless, if the company is making money without ripping off their customers and suppliers then why would a short work week be unreasonable? The founders and investors can reap all the benefit from the company doing well but the people investing their time and energy can kick rocks?
NichtElias@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 1d
40 hours equally split over five days (Monday to Friday) usually, if you work full time
dracc@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 1d
Dr Stihl is complaining about 35h workers. Seems white collar work is less hours?
sznowicki@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
No. It’s a trade union deal that makes the basis hours 35 a week. Then if you work 40 you get paid more and on top you get some bonus once a year.
It is little nuts but in the end we don’t even earn that much more than the rest of industry so it’s more like a cultural phenomenon by now in my eyes.
Source: I do programming but for a company that runs under IgMetall trade union deal.
dracc@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 1d