Why shouldn't a business consider itself at 0 operating dollars but still have a full account for healthcare or equivalent severance?
Why shouldn't a business consider itself at 0 operating dollars but still have a full account for healthcare or equivalent severance?
That’s like saying a physics simulation is basically an entire sub universe on your computer.
It sounds true, but it’s just not. It’s a gross oversimplification
I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. That’s the nail in the coffin for AGI.
No matter how much data we give it, no matter how big it is, it’ll never be “human intelligent” since it’s impossible for us to describe a loss function for being human or describe being human in a dataset.
We’ll never be able to evaluate it, since we can’t fully describe what it means to communicate because to do that we’d need to communicate it and that process can’t be fully self describing.
Not to say AI isn’t useful or impressive, but it’ll never be comparable to humans, truly.
If the employees really only care about that ratio, then they should accept that outcome from their strike. That's not why they are on strike, they also want to be paid more, just like the CEO.
"If c-suite really only cares about $ spent on labor, they would accept the productivity outcome of their salary proposals to employees. But they don't. They want to get more productivity, just like the workers of [insert competing corp], while not changing or even reducing comp."
The reason your comment is disingenuous is that it assumes that the best place for this money to go is into c-suite/board pockets, and for some reason assumes that workers wouldn't take the couple extra grand the CEO pay split would give them. I challenge any CEO to put it up to a (non-binding, don't shit yourself) company-wide vote.
But let's disregard the salary split. It is an incredibly simple-minded way of approaching what to do with millions/year. Are all of you, who justify these ridiculous ratios, truly unable to think of ways to spend dozens of millions of dollars to improve all employees' qualities of life? Those who spend all this money on consultants to figure out how to squeeze an extra penny of profits can't figure out how to further optimize the health of the workforce instead?
Cue the comments about "no choice, fiduciary duty". Makes me sick.
The point being, a lack of regulations allowed for low quality chocolates that are available and some people purchase. There's no reason to believe the same wouldn't happen in other countries; Germans, French, Japanese, etc aren't somehow more enlightened about food.
But why do government agencies not always have groups focused on financial efficiency? Is it corruption or stupidity?