572
TIL that Elon Musk controls 90 companies. When he buys land, when he orders food, or when he gives money to politicians, he uses shell companies
(www.nytimes.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
572 points (99.0% liked)
Today I Learned
28491 readers
1073 users here now
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
IMO, in a overhauled America, no person should be able to own more than one company. Every company's workers vote for who the leadership and their pay is, while retaining voting power for one year after being fired.
No person should own any company unless they are the sole employee. Ownership should be shared with workers in equitable stakes as the company expands.
So a lawyer hires a secretary, they each get 50% of the company. Or are you cool with uneven ownership shares in your model?
To be fair, I bet there's some lawyers that couldn't function without a secretary.
Equitable != equal. Shares can and should be distributed commiserate to input. If I work 50-60 hours a week and hire you to do 10 hours of work then obviously equal share is unfair.
However, at the same time, why do you inherently value the lawyer over the secretary? Both do a full weeks work, both are essential to the companies success. You are just attached to consumerism and the idea of hierarchy; that you should be able to be “better than” people you deem as peons. Does the janitor not deserve a fair share either because you will use some bullshit framing like “unskilled labor” to dismiss their essential contributions?
There's clearly a varying degree of education, continuing professional development, risk profile between these two jobs. The two people need to be in their distinct role to make the place function.. but it doesn't mean that their work is equal.
I think the word you're looking for is "commensurate." To commiserate is to feel or express sympathy for someone's suffering or unhappiness.
To point, who decides the value of input? You or them? Hours worked != value. Some people work faster and are more skilled. They're obviously providing more value. I like to work hard and go home at a reasonable hour. Some of my colleagues like to fuck around on Facebook and spend longer hours at the office. Our work is not the same. Then you have the question of different skills. You can't tell me a secretary's skills are as valuable as that of a specialised attorney with 40 years of experience.
The problem with your command economy approach is that it's impossible to dictate the value of each person's labour. That's why we leave it up to individuals and companies to reach an agreement on the value of their labour themselves. I like unions to balance negotiating power, but they're also imperfect. Ultimately it's the customer who decides the value of labour. They buy products and services they think are worth it. I know how much remuneration Tim Cook receives and yet I till buy iPhones because I think the value he provides is extremely high. I bet you also purchase products and services from companies in which executives are paid a lot. You're free to stop, but you won't, because you believe the products and services are valuable and you support the remuneration packages of their executives, even when you LARP as a communist on Lemmy.
Do you know of many law firms that only consist of secretaries?
You can fuck off with this.
Do you know many successful law firms that don’t have administrative support?
Have fun finding ways to arbitrarily make yourself feel superior to people that are working just as hard if not harder
In your example, if I don't personally know them then they must not exist? In my example, they cannot exist.
Again, you don't know me well enough to get my idea of fun. Were I you, I'd stop trying to cast random strangers on the internet as your personal demons.
Idea is not flawless, therefore it is worthless.
Another medal contender for Conclusion Jumping, but I honestly can appreciate the sentiment. I was just asking the dude to figure out how crazy his idea really was.
I can think of a dozen ways around that, and I'm sure a competent lawyer could find a million more.
What might work better, and something that Americans can wrap their head around, is tax implications around ownership base for publicly owned companies, and every company over $1 million in non-asset value or 50 employees becomes publicly owned. This would only be around 6-7% of companies in the United States - 96% of American companies are smaller than 50 people.
A good example is the Green Bay Packers, which is a fan-owned non-profit, and fans are the shareholders. Americans can comprehend fractional ownership like that. So you start with the lowest tax implications for modest profits per year as long as no individual holds more than 2% of stocks, and tax incentives to operate as a non-profit. So two potentially different tracks for a company to operate which is simply about employing people and doing a job well, with worker ownership fundamental to the company itself.
Then, once you get into Succession-style stock grabbing BS, taxes quickly skyrocket as the company grows. Taxes go up for the whole company if an individual owns more than 2%, 5%, 10%, etc. Once an individual is holding 51% of a company, the company gets taxed at a high rate proportionally to profits, (worker median salary-worker mean salary), and number of workers. So small and medium-sized companies don't get trashed and are incentivized to pay people better, and hire more people, before laying people off simply to make money. Then the incentives structure would grow proportionally for large companies where factors like CEO pay and CEO stock ownership or stick dividends are what trigger taxes.
I'm sure competent lawyers would also also find ways to loophole that structure, but the for-profit-only-at-all-costs business model is not sustainable or even all that beneficial anymore other than for TV drama.
Limited liability corporations should be outlawed. The only kind of legal organization structure should be fully mutual co-operatives.
This destroys the stock market (maybe that's the goal) because you would only be allowed shares in one company.
"Majority own" is more practical.
The stock market as it is currently structured, shouldn't exist. It is ripe with corruption and perverse incentives. IMO, a stock market should serve the purpose of allowing society to judge whether a company is making good moves over a medium or long timespan, which in turn allow companies to judge the practical value of partnerships or exchanges with other corporations.
I have concepts for UBI, and how income can work. Part of that is absolute caps on liquid wealth and assets, with company stocks being towards the asset cap. Ownership of stock takes away from one's capacity to have a house, car, yacht, and so forth. The idea is that people initially invest in stocks to build up their money reserves, then get rid of the stocks and invest into their personal living conditions. This shifts the stocks to younger workers, who then build up their future. Each piece of stock costs a set amount, has a guaranteed ROI provided by the company, and can't be sold off for profit until a certain time has passed. That way, people have to choose their stocks carefully, as they will be holding onto them for awhile. The more valuable a single piece of stock is, the longer it has to be held. Bigger ROI is paired with the expensive stocks, but you have to put up more money upfront, and the biggest stocks take years to mature before you can sell it on the market or return it to the company. Stocks can only be sold to citizens of the nation, to prevent foreign manipulation of the economy, and to help prevent loopholes.
Mind, if that is too complicated or can be gamed, simply banning stocks would be preferable. Corruption is the killer of civilization, if the last decade is anything to go by.