CEOs are hired by owners/investors for the explicit purpose of maximizing profits. If the CEO were instead, for instance, elected by the workers, or hired by a community cooperative, I think opinions of CEOs would be much higher.
In other words: it’s not the CEO, it’s the system.
If a CEO was elected by thr employees it would be like any other elected official, where it can swing widely from being excellent to awful because large numbers of people are not great at selecting quality leadership. Now a system where an employee elected board selects the CEO and the employees have the power to remove the CEO, that could be pretty solid.
The problem seems to be getting large numbers of people to agree on things. My solution is to simply not have large numbers of people.
The problem seems to be getting large numbers of people to agree on things. My solution is to simply not have
large numbers ofpeople.This but unironically
People are too short sighted and plainly put, fucking stupid, to govern themselves. That’s why democracy is kind of an inherently unstable system until one group manages to consolidate enough power to ignore the others
What is this, the rated-PG version? The classic punchline is “but I would never guillotine the janitor”.
Same here! The janitor is such a badass, he keeps the whole building ruining and is always around.
The CEO sens like a nice guy, but everytime he’s around, it feels like he’s just trying to get people to wave at him.
