TLDR: The CEO is the captain but the board is the admiralty.
The CEO is the face of the company. The board of directors is the what actually sets company policy and usually has the power to remove the CEO if they aren’t managing the company the way they want.
CEOs may agree with the board’s vision but if you want to know who’s pushing anti-human policy you should look first at the board. They choose the CEO and they can remove them with a vote.
There are many people that we don’t see in the news everyday that sit on multiple boards and direct policy across industries. When a firm or bank buys out a controlling interest in a company’s public stock they usually put someone on the company’s board. Why do you think a United CEO getting killed didn’t slow UHC down all that much? The CEO is a face, a captain, but the board are the admirals. CEOs aren’t without blame. They usually have freedom of implementation but they are always acting with oversight of some kind from the board.
It’s easy to point at the CEO because it’s one person, but really if you want to make any kind of lasting change you need to target the people who are sitting on multiple boards and pushing the anti-human policy.
The board of directors is also chosen by the shareholders and typically the entities with the most stock to vote aren’t people (or at least aren’t good people.) Think of anyone who could have the money to buy a controlling share of a major publicly traded company.
Circling back, The CEO is the company face, The board is the interface between the company and the rich unknowns. Usually those unknowns are other organizations that have controlling stock. It gets incestuous pretty fast.
Majority of the US is owned by old people and boomers are such a wealthy class, they outweigh the billionaire class 8 to 1 (though there is a lot of overlap). People over 55 own 52% of all assets from real estate to cash to stock.
Boomers and their 401ks and pensions need to be a target too. It’s a natural consequence of an aging society: the young need to work more and keep less so the old don’t have to work.
That’s fair but also keep in mind that the most accurate statement is that it works for ‘the shareholders’ and over time ‘the shareholders’ have become less and less people and more and more entities that are holding the stock. Various Funds, Institutions, and other organizations. It’s a democratic council that is dictated by whoever holds the majority of voting shares. When we talk about millions of shares more often than not the voting majority is housed in one way or another within an institution. It’s not ‘A’ boomer, it’s a management fund holding the retirement portfolio of thousands of boomers if not just another company that managed to secure 15% or more of voting weight.
I push back because the focus should always be on the system and on the wealthy class. Not the demographic of some retired asshole that’s benefiting from the system itself.
TLDR: The CEO is the captain but the board is the admiralty.
The CEO is the face of the company. The board of directors is the what actually sets company policy and usually has the power to remove the CEO if they aren’t managing the company the way they want.
CEOs may agree with the board’s vision but if you want to know who’s pushing anti-human policy you should look first at the board. They choose the CEO and they can remove them with a vote.
There are many people that we don’t see in the news everyday that sit on multiple boards and direct policy across industries. When a firm or bank buys out a controlling interest in a company’s public stock they usually put someone on the company’s board. Why do you think a United CEO getting killed didn’t slow UHC down all that much? The CEO is a face, a captain, but the board are the admirals. CEOs aren’t without blame. They usually have freedom of implementation but they are always acting with oversight of some kind from the board.
It’s easy to point at the CEO because it’s one person, but really if you want to make any kind of lasting change you need to target the people who are sitting on multiple boards and pushing the anti-human policy.
The board of directors is also chosen by the shareholders and typically the entities with the most stock to vote aren’t people (or at least aren’t good people.) Think of anyone who could have the money to buy a controlling share of a major publicly traded company.
Circling back, The CEO is the company face, The board is the interface between the company and the rich unknowns. Usually those unknowns are other organizations that have controlling stock. It gets incestuous pretty fast.
And the board works for… Boomers. Seriously.
Majority of the US is owned by old people and boomers are such a wealthy class, they outweigh the billionaire class 8 to 1 (though there is a lot of overlap). People over 55 own 52% of all assets from real estate to cash to stock.
Boomers and their 401ks and pensions need to be a target too. It’s a natural consequence of an aging society: the young need to work more and keep less so the old don’t have to work.
That’s fair but also keep in mind that the most accurate statement is that it works for ‘the shareholders’ and over time ‘the shareholders’ have become less and less people and more and more entities that are holding the stock. Various Funds, Institutions, and other organizations. It’s a democratic council that is dictated by whoever holds the majority of voting shares. When we talk about millions of shares more often than not the voting majority is housed in one way or another within an institution. It’s not ‘A’ boomer, it’s a management fund holding the retirement portfolio of thousands of boomers if not just another company that managed to secure 15% or more of voting weight.
I push back because the focus should always be on the system and on the wealthy class. Not the demographic of some retired asshole that’s benefiting from the system itself.
Thank you for the long explanation, I had no idea about this :)