Hacker News Reader

Comment by ddalex | Hacker News Reader

Aren't we (almost) all working for billionaires ?

No. Even if you work for a Fortune 500 company (which 80% of the workforce doesn't), your CEO likely isn't a billionaire unless they also founded the company. The vast majority of these companies aren't lead by the only 770 billionaires in the US. Even making 15 million a year (typical Fortune 500 CEO total compensation), it would take a long time to hit a billion.

You’re not working for your CEO, or at least not for his CEO quality (but his shareholder one)

So this depends on your definition of "working for": Are you working for the CEO or for the owner of the company?

It still not even close to the majority of Americans no matter your definition. The vast majority of the stock market isn't held by billionaires either. The total net worth of all US billionaires is ~5 trillion and the stock market is worth ~40 trillion.

Even if you start counting anyone that works for a company even partially owned by a billionaire, about half of us employees work for small businesses: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/small-business-stati...

You are still working for them, just not 100%

You could also say you're working for pension funds as well. This is a silly line of reasoning.

You work for both but only one is good.

And it's not silly just reality.

> only one is good

Er ... which one?

The one where fund managers who get bonuses for quarterly performance decide stuff?

Seriously, we're getting into "banality of evil" territory ...

> Seriously, we're getting into "banality of evil" territory ...

And what? That means it's fine to just dismiss as if it's not a problem?

I've somehow created a thread that's attracted presumably independently wealthy people who think pension funds are evil.

You COULD say that, if you define "working for" in a particular way.

But if define it that way, then "working for" becomes a phrase that has no real use. "X is working for Y" just means "Y has a lot of influence in the world" and says nothing about the relationship between X and Y. So I don't recommend using that definition.

You don't work for the CEO, you work for people owning the company, which means the share holders.

That's why I buy a share of any company I go to, so I'm a share holder, which means I'm working for myself.

Are there people that can outvote you consistently? Then you do not work for yourself.

I always vote with the majority, on principle, so I come up on top everytime

I asked if they can, regardless of what you or they do. If they can, then you have no power and you do not work for yourself.

And I replied, no, the CANNOT, because I always vote the majority.

But the CEO works for the owner, who could be a billionaire

At the time I worked for intuit, it was Brad Smith, but you could make the case we were BOTH really working for Scott Cook, who IS a billionaire

If you say Fortune 500 you also say Black Rock etc.

So billionaires.

I was assuming the commenter was referring to how billionaires basically control everything through influence, government and regulatory capture, etc. So we're basically their little pawns and compute resources.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com