What do corporate board conversations about executive pay sound like? Do they really think that at the top they have to pay more to make the business run better, but that paying less makes perfect sense for all lower level employees? Or then what's with the lack of competition for the CEO jobs? #economics
@wjmaggos they don't have conversations. They hire an executive HR consultant to recommend the pay, and then they rubber stamp it. My daughter used to be one such consultant.
I've heard that basically these people are all friends. They sit on multiple boards and go in and out of CEO positions. That there's basically no pressure to save money on this part of the business. Any of that true?
This is how the rich and powerful get rich and powerful: once they get into government, they can do favors for industry, and then take positions on various boards and rake in the dough.
this should be transparently bad market policy. how does it persist?
Profit-orientated Capitalism is stronger to keep some people talking and working together more often...
@wjmaggos @amerika @JeffC1956 If you mean something like "why doesn't it stop" or "how does it go on for so long" it's because it's based on need / dependency of people in order to keep their positions - best done by talking / corralling together.
The same as we could do at the bottom by talking to each other, forming friends, knowing we can do favours to coral and manipulate reality - they just have money as their focus which we don't have as strongly in any similar empire-building conversation or as investment in time etc to pay off somehow...
They / the capitalists are a good example of what we could do in many ways, but don't always manage it or let our triggers and fear mostly get in the way, and remain shallow in depth from replying / believing there is a way.
re: Profit-orientated Capitalism is stronger to keep some people talking and working together more often...
I tend to be really skeptical of any theory based on mass enlightenment, e.g. everyone wakes up tomorrow and is a Christian, humanitarian, or libertarian.
People do what rewards them more than other things, contingent on their knowledge.
I think we could do a lot more with dialogue, but it has to be bottom up... we need people able to handle all viewpoints before we try to bring politics into it!
People talking and working together more often, naturally brings more personal politics - it's almost inseparable as part of being human and imperfect (we gotta live with that)... and practise it better... (not the Hollywood stuff I mean personally more)... (less all the Hollywood type politics sold to us / distracting us)
@amerika @wjmaggos @JeffC1956
It's a long one but worthy I hope and can be the basis of audio chat anytime (almost).
Some of those things ring true and at the same time sound mutually exclusive which I don't think it is always.
So there is a middle or fluctuating balance from both ends we can do as learn / teacher / share as experiences and balancing things out...
For example or ways I mean
(that correspond to each of your paragraphs):
1█ People can "wake up" tomorrow or slowly work on it - but without guidance or proper place to go or ping pong board then for sure we are individually all a lot less effective / potentially lost / just in our limited selves measurably limited without others.
2█ And the rewards, people also learn what is more rewarding as many don't know now at all or rely on system to 'tell them' (they have given up their power or own system" so they might think it's money as that is everywhere the bar and almost only measurement - not time and listening as most rewarding and solving thing - but buying into bad solutions.
If slowly people get the participational respect (thank you for being here in the audio chat) and like learning or already ahead, then growth and logic of mind can improve *because we made space* (there is a reason governments cut funding spaces to talk / centres as it fuels expression / feelings shared / revolution)... The rewards are not always material unless we keep it material... If we put some kudos into it, some shout outs, show the learning, the progress, the consented sparring / even affection etc then this is the reward people are looking for as humans (again measurably we need all this and act up out of not getting it).
So without this being a lecture (even though some would want that) we all want to be witnessed and loved and all that :) And I think there are 5 people out there that can give it to them!!
1.______________
2.______________
3.______________
4.______________
5._FreeSchool__
3 █ Yes bottom up, but top-down also at the same time (!) like a well oiled machine with solid feelings behind it and anchored in various solid ways like manifesto lines we can point to and even give exclusions to in collected comments for situations (like no force but if you're calculated without killing then maybe force).
We all need healthy management around these ideas and need things to do / options / goals / destinations, so while bottom up we grow in various ways... top-down is your wise master who can correct your chess moves if there are that solid.
4█ And lastly without big statement...
IT'S ALL POLITICS ! (such is the nature of mankinid!)
It's near impossible to handle viewpoints *before* we try to bring politics into it... or it's both at the same time, or even the same thing magnified or smaller version.
Meaning humans all have a personal perspective and that roots out into various kinds of politics that grow or are taught from that / duped into (personal beliefs are people's own politics once you scratch the surface but many were not asked or given space in theory of how they would organise or run things.
Usually people who get angry don't know how to express it or never had been tested but the more you're tested the more comfortable you are and can even take from others who say their politics and say "hey yeah that's what I meant all this time" and finally the write their own manifesto so they remember it (and others can see it). People need that "well what do you think?" and start from there (and yes people will do their homework if they want to so that is also what I mean by doing all politics and everything as it's simply the human experience or condition and can be something new). Ask people how approximately even they don't have all the answers can help and observer too. - that's part of doing it all at the same time, We see good points via text but text doesn't cut it for humanism... so finding audio as low-footprint and lower demand than video, I think it's the perfect balance and ticks very big accessible boxes.
(Happy to talk more in audio and I'll wrap up this text soon)
I'm quite sure politics is not separate, the same as the brain is connected to body and body needs others... and our existence is based on, well everything or too many thing not to be political (or what we think way to do things, why, what for etc)... so better make a start is how I feel with some random people as parents probably done the best they could! And a bit of skill or pure togetherness can guide people themselves a lot further than on their own. We all have seen nice parents / teachers that let us do our own thing and want that from others (between our family life or whatever) and to be able to say things like "I don't know" and not an authoritarian thing is a great things for the next generations to also do...
So I'd be happy to do a test run or even fake argument with someone / 2 other people or whatever questions you'd have via audio chat... and admit if it measurably fails. (I think it can all be measured without it being the only focus)
We can't leave individuals to it - who are lost without others and then we can reward ourselves / learn with other just to do the best we can :)
Personal #Politics #Viewpoints
#SlowCooking #FastCooking #P2P #Wisdom #Quotes #Individualism #Together lol
re: People talking and working together more often, naturally brings more personal politics - it's almost inseparable as part of being human and imperfect (we gotta live with that)... and practise it better... (not the Hollywood stuff I mean personally more)... (less all the Hollywood type politics sold to us / distracting us)
In my simple mindset, I think we need culture: this creates the meeting place and public space of actual discussion.
That is the hippie side. The monarchist side also realizes that leaving things up to the bourgeois herd always results in the same answer, i.e. pave over the problem and go chase some illusory symbols somewhere else.
As far as "it's all politics," I must wax Nietzschean... no, it's all about power. This is a proxy for something else but Tolkien was right when he translated human intentions to a "will to power" as Nietzsche did.
re: People talking and working together more often, naturally brings more personal politics - it's almost inseparable as part of being human and imperfect (we gotta live with that)... and practise it better... (not the Hollywood stuff I mean personally more)... (less all the Hollywood type politics sold to us / distracting us)
@amerika @wjmaggos @JeffC1956 More of the middle I think is possible here with us on Fediverse, and without pushing so hard in either direction. Just in our spare time even, just jump into chat.
I accept the more hard "no" there, but just a small check...
Isn't power, politics?
So when you say it's all about power, that prompts me to say yes that's a type of politics isn't it? It's also a way of thinking / being or whatever...
And the will for something else so it's not all "will to power" is another type of variation of the same power / politics (we all want some power or determination of what's around us) so including power but toning it down with sharing / enjoying it as focus is possible and amping those nice things up a bit for a better balance *with* existing power reduced / given back as we go or at least though our arguments struggling less).
So I think there is another kind of power or will that needs examples and practice of else people will think power and money is the only way because it isn't made time for or even respect by a bunch of onliners, what else as example exists?... We have a lo of listening to hollywood stuff and watching shit-shows
...but doing better personally ourselves with a few others? (it's almost a question of "Which is it?" for you or people - which do you choose or would like to see?
If there is only 1 kind of food in town people might not imagine or want much more. But the human palette and emotion is a lot more than that (which obviously system doesn't want us to take control as monopoly monster, distraction-maker and inaction breeder)
If power is not a type of politics or people's "will to something else" is not a valid goal then I would have to take that as your answer as much as I like to push for a chat to really have that more conclusive and human exchange. What you say say things that make sense. Time to test it no?
re: People talking and working together more often, naturally brings more personal politics - it's almost inseparable as part of being human and imperfect (we gotta live with that)... and practise it better... (not the Hollywood stuff I mean personally more)... (less all the Hollywood type politics sold to us / distracting us)
IMHO politics is a way of managing power.
Sorry for the short responses; the #fediverse is a scroller so it's not good for in-depth discussion (no persistence).
re: People talking and working together more often, naturally brings more personal politics - it's almost inseparable as part of being human and imperfect (we gotta live with that)... and practise it better... (not the Hollywood stuff I mean personally more)... (less all the Hollywood type politics sold to us / distracting us)
@amerika @wjmaggos @JeffC1956 I gotcha buddy, no probs. How about the planned audio talking for a bit one time?
@freeschool well, I can expound a bit more than @amerika as I agree with that brief statement, and at the risk of laying out reasoning that they wouldn't actually agree with...
I do think politics is a way of managing, organizing, and even generating power. Politics is a tool that we can use to give more structure and hopefully use power in a more constructive way. But the power exists outside of politics, separately from it.
If your neighbor is big and strong and could beat you up, then he has the power to walk over and take your money, make you cut his lawn, etc. He has that power.
So politics offers an alternative to that violence. It says you'r strong neighbor might refrain from stealing your money if, in the alternative, you both agree that you'll give up some of your money in taxes to do some of the things that your neighbor would like done. And that would happen in the context of compromise and mutual benefit where you'll get some things from him in the process.
So power that people otherwise have over each other through violence might be redirected by politics into hopefully pro-social directions.
One reason this is so important is because while politics offers an alternative to that violence, it only works if your neighbor agrees to take the deal. He still has the power to walk over and beat you up to force you to work for him, so politics must work to get his buy-in or it just fails.
When talking about politics with regard to social media like this, it's always important to realize what politics actually is in the social order. Folks quipping at each other over here might not actually have anything to do with seeking buy-in from those who really want to use force to get their way in the real world.
IF ONLY people higher up in Politics and Power had the will for encouraging collective happiness....
@volkris @amerika @wjmaggos @JeffC1956
Ideal power and politics for me is:
*IF* people higher up in Politics and Power had the will for better for others - the will to encourage people to speak and listen, so more often they could all work from and towards collective "happiness" (or just less and less suffering if not happiness).
That would be my ideal power and politics.
Force, manipulation, control with and without consent is probably good to mention.
But power and politics only used for more soft war (force, manipulation, control) and more of the other types of passive force, then it's almost worse than direct violence because direct violence is a lot clearer.
At least for you die for something as direct violence and at the hands of un-carers / neglecting controllers, soft types draws things out as people multiply.
So living now is not as clear, meaningful or even useful apart from "feeding my family" by almost any means necessary.
P.S
Volkris can you say more what your last sentence is saying / meaning. Thanks
@freeschool but a politician ONLY has power to the extent that his rhetoric is accepted by others.
A politician can say whatever he wants to the public, can pass whatever laws he wants, can sign whatever proclamations he wants, but if others don't buy in to what he's saying, he's utterly powerless. Like so many laws that are blatantly ignored, so the politician is blatantly ignored.
Because politics doesn't have power on its own.
So it's not really about politicians telling people to do things like listen to each other, but about politicians seeing people willing to listen to each other, and maybe acting on that to invite them to follow that urge that they would accept, if that's really what you want them to be doing.
But mainly I don't think politicians have all that much room to act in that space. It's a lot different for a politician to ask people to pay taxes than to get people to have a chat. One is public, the other private.
When you mentioned violence and consent, I don't think it's really so much about consent. It's more that the politician cannot instigate any violence, consent or not, if others aren't interested in whatever the politician has asked them to do. It's more than consent to political violence, it's active participation in that use of force.
I emphasize that to emphasize the point: politics and politicians don't have power, power is a separate thing that politics and politicians can try to engage with based on the interest of members of the public in what they have to say.
Politicians only have the power that we are interested in lending them, and one instance at a time. We have the power in the end.
Politics has a system and rolling people behind it which we pay for and go to jail for potentially if we don't follow... that is power!
@volkris @amerika @wjmaggos @JeffC1956 Not sure it's that simple - and politics tends to use and snowball previous power, law, rules, people, etc so I think there is existing systematic power which rolls on each generation each year,,,
And people tend to 'listen' because it's really a 'threat' and often ultimatum. backup often with jail time- so it's not just words (maybe seems so at first but enforced isn't just words).
The people can say what they want but they are paying for their oppression so that loop means we pay for the policing!
So while it's true we have to believe or go along with it to a certain extent, the physical policing is undoubtedly there and often to shocking levels or at least annoying intervention against it's own population it should be listening to (measurably all leader don't really do that).
When you have to work so hard to live (soft-slavery) we do have some power but as individuals lack snowballing much again a system that have been doing it for centuries.
This is a great illustration of what I'm talking about.
You go to jail? How does that happen exactly? Think about it literally.
If a politician declares that you go to jail, what happens? Nothing. He writes it on a scrap of paper or he says it into a microphone, but pfft, those are just words.
Now you might decide to voluntarily go to jail, I guess, but that's your own power that you're executing, not the politician's.
Or maybe an officer of some sort comes around and picks you up and puts you in jail, but again, that wasn't the politician, that wasn't the politician's power, that was the power of the individual officer who decided to use that power to put you in jail.
So it all comes back to, politics really doesn't have power. It isn't power. It can help organize power, it can help to get you to submit a tax payment that is then offered to the officer in return for his agreeing to use HIS OWN POWER to round you up and put you behind bars.
But that's his power, that's your power, that's not politics, that's our agreeing to accept the political invitation to use our power in such a way.
Politics is not power. It's only an invitation for us all to contribute our power in ways that represent the political consensus, if we want to.
@volkris@qoto.org @freeschool @volkris@mastodon.sdf.org @amerika @JeffC1956
the society we take for granted requires that most people agree to go along. otherwise, we'd need totalitarianism to make it function at all. and if everybody agreed to go along all the time, we could have a workable ancapistan. the first would be a nightmare, the latter boring as hell.
@wjmaggos No I would reverse that.
It’s not that the society we take for granted requires that most people agree to go along, but the opposite: the society we see before us is required by what the people have agreed to go along WITH.
The society is what the people have come up with. It doesn’t require the people, but the people created it. It doesn’t exist separate from the people.
In the same vein, it’s not true that otherwise we need totalitarianism to make it function at all, because it doesn’t exist separate from us. We wouldn’t need totalitarianism to enact society, rather we would require a different society based on what we agreed to create in a distributed way.
Because politics is not power. We each contribute power as we see fit, with politics being just one expression of how we are ourselves organize our own use of our own power.
We don’t need this, we don’t need totalitarianism, we don’t need super bowl tickets, we don’t need Yoko Ono albums 🙂
We decide what we want from society collectively and what society ends up being is the reflection of what we all decide to do with our power.
It’s not the other way around.
@volkris@qoto.org @wjmaggos @freeschool@qoto.org @volkris@mastodon.sdf.org each person, with their eyes closed, is holding a different part of the elephant. One describes it as a big snake, the other describes it as a log.
@volkris@qoto.org @wjmaggos @volkris@mastodon.sdf.org all philosophies are nonsense, if you ride them home. But some philosophies are great or nonsense than others. #quote
@JeffC1956 @volkris@qoto.org @volkris@mastodon.sdf.org
exactly. which is why I do my podcast with the tagline "liberal values are worth fighting for". we're all limited in understanding and have different philosophies. there has to be a base level of agreement that we will accept other's understandings of the world and perspectives, or action becomes impossible. like the physical world, we have a set of assumptions that our social world will respond within certain bounds. the simplest example might be language.
The problem is that I think you guys are talking about philosophy when we are talking about application.
You can philosophize all you want about what might be or what could be or what should be, but at the end of the day, you might also be more concerned with what is as you may or may not be led into a jail cell.
And that is emphatically my point here. It doesn’t matter what politicians might say, the power rests with the jailer leading the person into the cell.
The abstract is not so important when it comes to that sort of thing.
@wjmaggos I 100% agree that this issue is exactly where philosophy meets reality. The problem is that I think you’re on the wrong side of it 🙂
You’re doing an awful lot of speculating about what’s in the jailer’s head. In reality people have a ton of different motivations, that vary from person to person, but we don’t have to make any assumptions about it, as we can simply say he’s acting in his best interests to do it, using his personal power to do it based on whatever might be in his head, and we don’t have to assume any more than that. We don’t have to philosophize any farther than that reality.
The politician has asked him to use his power to jail a person, and for whatever reason he has agreed to use his power that way, with the end result being exactly what I’m trying to stress, that the politician himself isn’t exerting any particularly significant political power in the jailing.
And so it is that politics has no power in itself, but rather, it invites us to use our own power in ways that we agree to use it.
The threat of being jailed is not an expression of political power but of the power of the jailer, even if the jailer decides to cooperate with a political decision.
@volkris @JeffC1956
this issue is exactly where philosophy meets reality. society runs on shared subconscious notions that lay the foundations for our actions. the jailer is acting partly at least cause he thinks the system is legitimate, not just because he is getting paid. even if it was just that, he wouldn't care about the money if he didn't think others would take the currency for food etc. he assumes others see his work as legitimate, not partaking in criminal hostage taking. on and on.