Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by elaus 1095 days ago
So this depends on your definition of "working for": Are you working for the CEO or for the owner of the company?
1 comments
anywhichway 1095 days ago
It still not even close to the majority of Americans no matter your definition. The vast majority of the stock market isn't held by billionaires either. The total net worth of all US billionaires is ~5 trillion and the stock market is worth ~40 trillion.

Even if you start counting anyone that works for a company even partially owned by a billionaire, about half of us employees work for small businesses: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/small-business-stati...

link
croes 1095 days ago
You are still working for them, just not 100%
link
robertlagrant 1095 days ago
You could also say you're working for pension funds as well. This is a silly line of reasoning.
link
croes 1095 days ago
You work for both but only one is good.

And it's not silly just reality.

link
B1FF_PSUVM 1095 days ago
> only one is good

Er ... which one?

The one where fund managers who get bonuses for quarterly performance decide stuff?

Seriously, we're getting into "banality of evil" territory ...

link
guerrilla 1095 days ago
> Seriously, we're getting into "banality of evil" territory ...

And what? That means it's fine to just dismiss as if it's not a problem?

link
mcherm 1095 days ago
You COULD say that, if you define "working for" in a particular way.

But if define it that way, then "working for" becomes a phrase that has no real use. "X is working for Y" just means "Y has a lot of influence in the world" and says nothing about the relationship between X and Y. So I don't recommend using that definition.

link