To be fair, they DO bare all the risk of violent deposition and decapitation. Let's honor their sacrifice.
edit: and of course by "honor", I mean ensure...
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
465 points (98.7% liked)
Political Memes
2495 readers
523 users here now
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh, you didn't hear? They do the most work of all, and have the hardest job.
That's what they tell everyone constantly, anyway...
They are the easiest people to replace with AI. Come on society, do the thing. Make this bullshit end.
They control AI. So no, they won't replace themselves sadly
I get the sentiment but do you really want to spend your workday taking orders from an AI? maybe instead we can elect leaders in our companies who are real people and not exploitive monsters
do you really want to spend your workday taking orders from an AI?
Probably depends on the work I'm doing and the AI itself.
I'd have no problem implementing AI driven solutions as long as they made sense and were good - honestly I might even have more respect for the AI than the CEO. At least one of them isn't pretending to be a morally upstanding member of society.
honestly I might even have more respect for the AI than the CEO.
That is a crazy stance to take. It's like saying you prefer Beezelbub over Satan. I mean, you want to give your self-agency over to a machine? Really?
I didn't say I have to listen to it anymore than I listen to a human.
I mean I'd rather not give my self agency away at all but almost all of us proletariat do on some level since we're wage slaves. I don't really care if it's an AI or a human CEO when it comes down to it they're interchangeable except one probably just is an intermediary between the AI and you at this rate where execs are slobbering over AI and eating up tech bro lies like candy. CEO probably just asking the AI anyways and saying what it says.
Yes it's a wildly myopic view, and I'm being a little tongue in cheek, but in all reality I genuinely think executives are almost all dead weight once you get high enough in an org but your opinion may differ.
So yeah doesn't really matter to me if the master is silicon or flesh if the result is all the same.
I genuinely think executives are almost all dead weight once you get high enough in an org but your opinion may differ.
Sure, I mean the wide array of shitty execs we have nowadays certainly. But a strong project leader with the backing of the organization they lead is a powerful combination and I don't discount it when I think about how things should be run.
In other words, I do think it's a good idea to have an especially qualified person "in charge" of getting shit done, but our current system of capitalist self-enrichment only works in a "broken clock is right twice a day" sorta way.
They are the easiest people to replace with AI.
Why aren't you doing it, then?
This argument against socialism has always made no sense, the only way it holds is as a critique of capitalism.
Money doesn’t disappear, either its circulation in a sustainable way…
Or someone is hoarding it.. like a capitalist.
Yeah money actually does disappear. Banks don’t need to hold all of their deposits in reserves, they can lend them out. So 1 real dollar can act as multiples of that in the economy by people depositing and loaning it out in succession. This only works if there is confidence that borrowers can pay back their loans. When that confidence breaks down, as we saw in 2009, then businesses are unable to borrow for payroll and other expenses and the whole economy contracts. You can then try to print money to stimulate the economy, but that will lead to inflation.
This is sometimes called fountain pen money and it usually not disappears money but is how new money is created.
Banks can create new money with a proverbial stroke of a pen, lend it out and when the loan is paid destroy it again.
The bank of England has a pretty honest flyer about it.
A quote specifically about this misconception:
When households choose to save more money in bank accounts, those deposits come simply at th expense of deposits that would have otherwise gone to companies in payment for goods and services. Saving does not by itself increase the deposits or ‘funds available’ for banks to lend. Indeed, viewing banks simply as intermediaries ignores the fact that, in reality in the modern economy, commercial banks are the creators of deposit money.
The total absurdity of this situation, is that its very common for such loan to be paid off with a new loan, which is called “refinancing”
Yeah but it isn’t something new. When you lend friends or family money, you still count that as your money and expect it to be paid back (whether with interest or not). But the person you loaned that money to also counts it as their money and spends it as needed. Ideally, the borrower is able to make better use of it than the lender, and the arrangement leads to a net positive for both parties.
This is a failure of thinking known as "zero-sum bias".
Because our planet famously has infinite resources...
Meanwhile, biggest cooperatively owned businesses around the world usually switched to that form of ownership due to withdrawal of state subsidies, like New Zealand's farmer cooperative, or Argentinian businesses where workers just all chimed in to buy out their "bankrupt" workplaces and set them back on feet.
Silly rabbit, welfare is for the rich.
Clearly this is wrong.
The last frame should say 95%.
I dont get it, why dont everyone start their own companies and rake 100% of the profit for oneself, then?
Pretending this is a good faith argument.
Because the market is already saturated, capitalism is not the freedom of business, it is the freedom for business.
No mom and pop can compete against walmart, they already have too much money, walmart is free to lower prices at locations around the mom and pop store until it runs out of business.
One example because like... If it's in good faith you just straight up lack the prerequisite knowledge to discuss economics.
Or rather the average person doesn't have the capitol to front the cost of making something expensive.
Because capitalists made it so that competing with them is extremely risky.
Money barrier/immediate life threat/limited market.
Economies to scale is a hell of a thing
Well 15% of bigger paycheck vs 100% of everything one accomplishes on own, I think economy of scale works in worker's benefit here
Some things that workers make are impossible without large groups and lots of Capitol. Basically any motor vehicle (planes, trains, trucks, cars) fit that.
Because they're mostly wrong about their premises and thus conclusions. It makes perfect sense that they keep being poor until they fix those.
Sounds more like crapitalism to me tut tut tut
If the company owners aren’t making money they’ll shut down and we’ll all be out of a job so we should be happy they’re only charging eighty-five percent.
They seem to shut down companies if they can save a cent per hour opening another one in another state/country. So they do not only shut down if they aren't making money, but also if they could make marginally more somewhere else.