Re:The term ‘quiet quitting’ is worse than nonsense
by danaris on Sunday September 18, 2022 @12:27PM
(#32888845)
This isn't an argument against datavirtue's point: it's an argument that Amazon (and, by extension, the other major tech companies) are just too big for a healthy society and economy.
There's a common trap I've run into in my hobby of game development, that probably has a name that I don't know: trying to solve every problem with a single solution (and also its close cousin, rejecting a proposed improvement because it doesn't solve every problem). This is clearly also applicable to real life, with things like people complaining solar isn't viable at all because it can't provide for every bit of our energy needs on its own.
The idea datavirtue suggests is a good one. It just needs other things to be happening at the same time to support it—like strong antitrust action against the tech giants.
Re:The term ‘quiet quitting’ is worse than nonsense
by timellis-smith on Sunday September 18, 2022 @01:52PM
(#32889678)
i wonder what percentage of shareholders vote and how many shares you need to practically influence a company direction.
Amazon’s market cap is ~$1.25T. Under the conservative (false) assumption that a union bidding for half the shares would not move the price at all, that union would have to spend ~$625B on those purchases, meaning total employee dues would be that much, implying a wage base (at 1% dues) of $62.5T, or more than 3 years of the entire US GDP.
Said differently: if employees could buy half their company for 1% (or even 10%) of their wages, there’d be no need for them to have a union negotiate their wages.