726
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HappyCatLuvs_U@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago

I love the message and didn't catch it on first read but on seeing it again:

"They didn't get 351x smarter or work 351x harder."

Assuming the baseline was 30x, which is still wild, 30x to 351x would only be a 10-fold increase. So the line should be "They didn't get 10x smarter or work 10x harder" no?

[-] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

351 / 30 = 11.7 = 1,170%

But I think the implications are that the CEO doesn't work 351x harder or smarter than a menial labourer, rather than their past equivalent.

[-] Aedis@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

OK, but hear me out. What if they got 3x smarter and worked ~3.666x harder? Seems plausible right?

3x~3.666≈11x

Still doubtful they ever did even that, but it sounds more plausible.

[-] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Considering most of the bosses and bosses bosses etc I've worked for in my life are the laziest dumb fucks I've ever met ... I have my doubts. There were definitely exceptions but not the majority.

this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
726 points (98.8% liked)

Work Reform

17031 readers
1967 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS