[quote=@catchamber]

They don't just sit down and receive money. They manage the division and efficiency of labor, ensure that the facility meets certain standards, and that everyone is compensated as their contracts dictate. If you consider this an effortless set of tasks, you should totally become a CEO.

[/quote]


This isn't really necessary though. There are entire organizations that operate without the operational head, and the members - the employees - can and do drift between projects as they see fit. Valve, for all the shit they get, operates on the same basis. They're a very flat organization and people float between development teams as they wish. They're only weakness is that they actually don't hire all that much because they like to keep themselves tight-knit.

But beyond that, the larger Bostwick-Braun company - who is the main supplier for my dad - is very much an employee owned company. The people who work there are a voice in company operations.

But when you get to it, any company with a CEO has actually lost the internalized control a CEO or owner might provide. When you get to the point of Corporate Executive Officers and Corporate Financial Officers you're so large you're catering to outside stockholders who actually end up managing the policy decisions of a company on votes based on the size of the stockholder's share. And these stockholders have absolutely NOTHING to do with the company on a day-to-day basis. They only care enough about it to see revenues rise so their holdings in the company grow more valuable so they can turn around and sell them at two or three times the cost at which they bought those shares at. Most of the time it's not individuals that hold these stocks but organizations or banks even and they got entire [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_trading_system]automated systems dedicated to buying and selling stake holdings.[/url]

On a managerial level the boss or CEO may not be so much an issue. But it's the outside owner or owners that are the issue in this situation. The fruits of the labors of Ford or GM aren't going to the workers in the company and the company isn't making decisions to the benefits of its own people - the workers and the associated communities - but shareholders in New York or Boston who just want to see Ford and GM do whatever the hell it takes to raise revenues so they can sell their shares at ever inflating costs down the road and make heavy bank on it. And democratically these share-holders votes are weighed the same, those who own more of the company have more say in the company to the point that if they own enough of it, they can literally vote someone they hate out and then vote themselves in.

Shareholders have no point to be a part of this if they're not producing anything for the greater whole.

Remove the borgies.

[quote]
In my view, everyone on this planet is poor, as they are dependent on the rest of society to provide them with goods and services necessary for them to survive and prosper.
[/quote]

We wouldn't really have an issue with the unemployed poor either if we didn't make such a push towards automation. Arguably, we wouldn't have an issue with them when we moved away from the independent neighborhood craftsman and the mom-and-pop store. But we did. So we rendered people poor. To pull from the Grapes of Wrath even: pay a man with a tractor a wage and take the crop, and you can do more work than twelve families.

Well, you just made twelve families homeless and unemployed, and taking the entire labor of one man with a pitiful fraction of compensation for work equal to that which supported twelve independent, individual families.