Not explicitly, maybe, but implicitly, absolutely, and in multiple ways:
In so, so many ways, people say they prefer the latter over the former. Usually just with the caveat that the homeless people also be invisible.
*croaks* Bud...
Because it's scheduled. He probably just has a "sell all of my stock bonuses as I receive them" order to his broker. If he doesn't actually get involved in the day-to-day decision making of his stock portfolio, then there's no special knowledge involved in the sale.
it would be really amazing for a company that is asking everyone to follow the new rules to ignore the well established laws at the same time
Eh. The whole foundational element of capital is "I own it, therefore I get to make the rules". The laws are for us "human capital", who exist to do what the rich want. This is what they think of us, and they behave in perfect coherence with this line of thinking.
Canada* geese.
Many different geese are Canadian. But Canada geese are the specialist little assholes.
"I joined a social media space founded on anti-capitalism and opposing the enshitification of life, and I'm annoyed by all of the anti-capitalism and discussions about the enshitification of life" sure is a hell of a take.
It makes sense if the company had agreed to buy the shares off of him at market rates and then sell him stock back at a significant discount. Doing this would allow him to claim the money gained as capital gains rather than employment income, and it wouldn't count as insider trading if it was an arrangement made and timelines settled upon before the bullshit was planned.
It could be something like having his contract say that the company will buy back X shares when the share price hits $Y in value, for instance.
When you sell your time and labour for a living, you tend to not have any idea about how people who own property for a living get paid. And the ownership class does a pretty good job at misinforming the working class about those details, since it benefits them to be seen as just doing the same things at a different scale. Insights into the actual process of their compensation will look like some sort of conspiratorial scheme because... Well, because it is. It's just not the one people will tend to tie it to. And it's not an illegal one.
They want us to believe they're playing baseball in the major leagues while we're on the company softball team, instead of highlighting that they're actually playing poker with a stacked deck against a casino they own.
The entire factory industry, worldwide, uses the assembly line model invented by Ford, an American company. This system also brought prices down on cars, making them a staple of life rather than a luxury.
Right, but if you have the motivation to make things affordable for people, you can and will get to the same place. The profit motivation and the centralization of wealth are not the key motivators here.
They're just the ones that made Ford rich and famous enough to aggressively publicize himself.
Oh, I imagine working conditions there have gotten worse in recent times, too. The kind of leadership that fucks over their clients like this don't start with those clients. They treat everyone as a resource to be exploited, and employees are the ones they can abused most readily.
The public furor over the pricing model is the opportunity, not the motive.
Yeah, not only will people send death threats, but they'll send them to random people they see on LinkedIn who happen to have the company in their bio.
Instead of, like, to the CEO's house.
Because too many people are both angry reactionaries, and also cowards.
Ooo, I haven't had Velveeta in like 20 years. Now I'm going to go and eat a whole block of it, and I refuse to shoulder any of the blame or responsibility for that!