While it’s very unlikely that someone has a definitive answer, this question popped into my head after the assassination of the UHC CEO and it’s been bothering me that I can’t shake off this feeling that more is likely to happen (maybe not in higher frequency but potential).
Usually I could provide counter-arguments to myself in a realism/(should I buy apples or oranges comparison) kind-of sense but this one I feel more unsure about.
I wish I had more diverse exp in systems analysis as these kinds of questions that linger in my head really irritates my OCD brain as I just want to know what’s the most likely answer.
You might feel happy about this in your far left wonderland. But in the real world, the consequence of stuff like this spreading will be that CEOs will acquire better security, nobody will ever be able to even glance at them without getting tasered and you the consumer are going to pay for all of it.
Changing the social security system into a centralized one might work, but note that scandinavia (the place that has championed such systems) is having pretty big problems with their health care systems as well.
Perhaps IT work has tarnished my political mind as well, but I tend to think more and more that it’s not about the ideology, but about the implementation that matters.
Yeaaaah that upward mobility isn’t a feature of the system, it’s a bug, and they’re working on patching it constantly.
It’s never been easier to be a billionaire. It’s never been harder to be a millionaire.
We’re already paying for their private jets and super yachts. At least making them paying for a security team means some more jobs for regular people. And they will need to pay their Praetorians well if they don’t want those guys to turn on them.
If capitalism were working correctly, this would be a great business opportunity for smaller companies which wouldn’t have CEOs with expensive private jets and praetorians. But capitalism isn’t working so well at the moment.
No its just one event. The first time I’ve seen this on Lemmy and I can’t blame people for not being sad about it.
Anything else would be Stockholm syndrome.
Nah, we’re going to see more anon violent terrorists, some of them might even do a little good, but for the most part it’s not going to change a single thing about our system of laws or how the majority of people navigate that system.
White supremacists groups have been kidnapping, holding government buildings hostage, and threatening politicians for decades and they don’t get their way, don’t expect it to be any different from any other groups or individuals.
Never underestimate the laziness of a disaffected but mostly not quite yet starving population.
tl;dr: Patience, grasshopper.
Aren’t we primarily ok with this guy being assassinated because he was the face of a terrible company not because he was CEO in general? If someone from middle management or even low level worker who personally denied this guy′s insurance claim would have been assasinated, would we suddenly feel sorry?
Also remember that people like surgeons or dentists also can be considered ″filthy rich″ by your average Joe standards.
“If someone from middle management or even low level worker who personally denied this guy′s insurance claim would have been assasinated, would we suddenly feel sorry?”
Absolutely! Who is making the decisions that lead to a mass loss of life? Not a random worker at the company.
Absolutely! Who is making the decisions that lead to a mass loss of life? Not a random worker at the company.
I would argue anyone participating in the company, even someone washing the floors at night is helping to perpetuate it. Definitely not to the degree of the CEO, but every single worker there is helping to sustain the system.
Not just CEO. I would say he might have known even less of procedures in detail than middle management. You wouldn’t pardon all Nazis just because Hitler was on top, would you? If what you do willingly is non-ethical even if you don’t call the shots, you are just as bad.
Well yeah there is a gradient of culpability but it roughly follows the gradient of power and compensation, which is an exponential curve with the lion’s share of the area under the curve contained within the very very top.
If you want to get technical about it, if the average CEO earns 300 times the average (not the lowest) pay of employees at the company than sure, the average employee has culpability but it is 1/300th or less of the culpability of the people truly at the top and that is likely a conservative estimate of gulf between those two values.
Obviously one doesn’t somehow nullify the other but the structure of culpability here has to be taken into account in order to make an honest analysis.
