this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
510 points (98.9% liked)
Work Reform
17031 readers
1602 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I love the message and didn't catch it on first read but on seeing it again:
"They didn't get 351x smarter or work 351x harder."
Assuming the baseline was 30x, which is still wild, 30x to 351x would only be a 10-fold increase. So the line should be "They didn't get 10x smarter or work 10x harder" no?
351 / 30 = 11.7 = 1,170%
But I think the implications are that the CEO doesn't work 351x harder or smarter than a menial labourer, rather than their past equivalent.
OK, but hear me out. What if they got 3x smarter and worked ~3.666x harder? Seems plausible right?
3x~3.666≈11x
Still doubtful they ever did even that, but it sounds more plausible.
Considering most of the bosses and bosses bosses etc I've worked for in my life are the laziest dumb fucks I've ever met ... I have my doubts. There were definitely exceptions but not the majority.