Summary
Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot in a premeditated attack outside the New York Hilton Midtown before speaking at an investor conference.
The gunman, still at large, fired multiple times, leaving shell casings marked with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.”
Authorities suggest Thompson was targeted but remain unclear on the motive. His wife confirmed prior threats against him.
Analysts speculate a possible vendetta tied to his company. The case raises questions about executive security, as Thompson lacked personal protection despite known risks.
Sounds like you’re making e/acc-like (effective altruism) arguments. Which basically is to make as much money as possible to use that money for positive change. It’s very flawed, because 1) to make as much money as possible, you need to exploit workers, customers, or investors, and 2) it’s authoritarian in nature. The wealthy are extremely out of touch with reality, and their priorities and ideal of what “positive change” is generally don’t align with the populace, or what’s needed most.
I don’t think murdering CEOs is the answer, but I do hope the working class becomes more class conscious; the wealthy class sure is, and has never stopped waging class war.
Did I say make as much money as possible?
A business should make as much money as needed to cover overhead and make enough profit to meet their business plan. The better that company is at achieving that goal, the more valuable that company is.
I reject this notion that all businesses exist to exploit workers.
The wealthy people I know are all very involved with helping the poor and sick. They’re genuinely good people from what I personally know of them. Are they doing what the people need most? I don’t know. I know my own city has often invested in programs that weren’t really helping those it intended to help. From what I learned this past year, it’s striking how little government knows who is in need of what.
This is what we should be having more conversations about. How is it that we have this powerful tool to speak our minds yet so many people are being ignored? Or voting against their own interests.
That’s because you don’t understand the basic economic principles under which businesses operate. You think value is created out of thin air and is not a product of human labor.
It’s almost like governments do not operate in the democratic interests of the civilian populations they govern…. So strange. I wonder why that could be?
Value of a brand is created from consumer perspective. Value of a company is created by balancing operational expenses. There is nothing explicit in either of these that is exploitive and to suggest so is a broadly uninformed claim.
If human labor is involved in a company, why are you all so stuck on the concept that people are not being paid for their work? How is it that simply by being an employer, you are exploiting staff? I mean, I admit I’m totally being exploited at my current job but I’ve had other jobs where I was paid extremely well and given great opportunities. Are you talking about specific industries? Specific corporations? Is the guy selling kabobs down the street from me exploiting his staff?
You guys are either being dishonest with me or dishonest with yourselves. Or you really have no idea what you’re talking about and just regurgitating what you’ve heard other people say.
Again, it seems like you have a really vague notion of what value actually is which is what makes you incapable of understanding the concept of labor exploitation. You need to understand the difference between marginal theories of value, which is defined by a circular logic where price determines value and value determines price, and labor theories of value, where people interact with the material world to modify it in some way that gives it added utility.
It’s not that simple. You can be an employer and not exploit the people that work for you. However, doing that means you will not have a profitable business. Profits come from exploitation. Please understand that when I use the word exploitation I’m not making an inherently moral argument about whether exploitation is good or bad. Exploitation is simply a material phenomena. I believe it only becomes a moral issue when undue suffering occurs as a result of said exploitation.
He might be. Small business are often some of the most exploitive workplaces because of how unprofitable they can be. It’s not uncommon for a small business to be forced into situations where they really have no choice but to exploit their staff if they want to continue operating. This is why so many restaurants in the US rely on undocumented immigrants who they can pay less than the minimum wage. It’s a flaw in the way our economy works.
This happens to a lot of people in industries where profitability declines. When profits are high, workers in those industries often get paid that they can afford their basic needs. However, as profits wane investors look to bolster them by taking more from their employees. What’s happening in the tech sector is a prime example of such a phenomenon. Unfortunately, this is a tendency that’s baked into the our economy. It prevents long term sustainable from being achieved in industries that are key to our economy but where the opportunities for new markets or innovations are lacking.
Have you thought that maybe you’re the one who’s more confident that you really should be? I get that a lot of what I’ve said may contradict vague notions about how the economy works that you may have absorbed simply because you exist within a world steeped in corporate propaganda. However, your beliefs are not ones that any worthwhile economist would take seriously.
I’ve known and know business people as well (not extremely wealthy; most have probably < $10M net worth). I don’t think I’ve ever met one that wasn’t trying to make the most money possible (for the businesses they had equity in, and for themselves). They certainly think of themselves as good people, and are interpersonally decent people, but the ideologies they adopt allow them to justify anti-social actions. They brag about being able to secure low-wage labor (third-world workers, unpaid internships, etc), and employing anti-consumer and predatory practices in their products. Anytime they do good, they either have ulterior motives, or it’s just nepotism. Every social interaction they have seems to have a transactional sub-text.
Profit is literally the surplus value of the worker’s labor. The workers generate it, and the business appropriates it in whatever way the business owners see fit. This is exploitative, anti-democratic, and damaging to society, imo. Eventually, the owners may take a big payout by selling the company (whose value was generated by the workers), and possibly throw some crumbs to the workers, who may get laid off soon after.
Many of the problems with government is it’s beholden to the wealthy, imo. In regards to the U.S., I think the next administration will preside over an almost complete capture of government by oligarchs. I think we will become like Russia or East Asian oligarchies. I’m an anarcho-leaning leftist, so I don’t think large powerful governments are the answer either.
Most media is controlled by the wealthy/corporations, who either purposely use it to advance their own interests (divide the working class, selective reporting, purposely biased algos, and spinning narratives), or are just damaging as a side-effect of pursuing profits. Honestly, at this point in time, I think most of it is purposeful, and not a side-effect. In “new media” the far-right seems to have an awful lot of money, to the point they’re doing theatrical releases of movies. It’s already came out that some far-right “new media” was directly funded by Russia (an oligarchal nation with ties to the wanna-be oligarchs of the upcoming administration).
Interesting. The people I now brag about hiring the best people. Bringing them in from top universities around the world and bragging about how well they pay them. Perhaps the people I know are the exception because they are setting the bar for being known as well paying organizations. They’re explicitly paying well to entice people out of other competing organizations.
No it’s not. Profit is dictated by the business. Any business sets the price of their good or service in order to cover overhead and expand the business. If you’re sitting at home writing code all day as Ian independent contractor, how are you going to set your hourly wage? Are you going to just calculate what it costs to pay for electric and buy lunch for the eight hours you’re working? I would hope not. You’re going to calculate your expenses and multiple that to reach a figure that pays for the rest of your life plus money for expanding your operations. Are you exploring yourself in order to purchase health insurance or save up for a new computer?
I’m sorry but I’m tired explaining basic business concepts to people. This shouldn’t be hard. I understand people like Walmart workers and coalminers are treated like shit but this concept that every human who works for a living is being exploited is just trash. You need a better argument.
As much as the market will bear, which is what my work is worth according to market principles. What’s just needed to expand operations or whatever only plays the role of setting a minimum price. You seem to keep arguing that people and businesses only charge what’s needed and no more; and very few people or businesses do that (those working for passion, like academic scientists and non-profits).
Einstein may explain it better than me: