[piva00]

> I hadn't heard that it is deserved simply for being a warm body in a chair independent of any productivity, so that's a new one.

A worker was hired by a system, that system decided they needed that worker and as a contract promised said worker a salary. Why is the fault of the worker that the work they perform doesn't add value?

I really can't comprehend why a systemic failure such as hiring people that you think don't add value is supposedly an individual's fault. If the system failed, why is that you point to the worker and not to the system that failed and hired said zero/negative value worker?

> As a shareholder you are part of the machine

That's a new one. What part exactly does a shareholder perform in this machine, given we are discussing a public company? No bullshit about "pricing" and other financial shenanigans, please.

[s1artibartfast]

I'm not saying anything is the employees fault. Good on them for taking advantage of systemic dysfunction to get a salary. I just don't think it is also an argument that they are creating value.

As for the shareholder, If I were to steal man the position I would say the critical role in the machine they provide is the motivation. The equivalent of the animal brain amygdala. Their existence provides the drive to execute and reward pathway.

A different analysis might say that both the useless employee and the shareholders are cancer, sucking up value and providing nothing. In a better designed system both would be surgically removed