this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
241 points (96.2% liked)

Anti-Corporate Movement

813 readers
55 users here now

This community is the first one on lemmy of its kind. It sits between the idea of anarchism/anti-capitalism and left leaning economic policy.

Our goal is to make people aware of the dangers of corporate control, its influence on governments and people as well as the small but steady abrasion of empathy around the world indirectly caused by it.

Current topics this includes but is not limited to:

Feel free to debate this but beware, corporate rhetoric is not welcome here. If you have arguments, bring them on. If its rhetoric trying to defend the evil actions of corporations, we will know and you will go.

Our declared goal so far is to have all companies and individuals worldwide capped at 999 mil USD in all assets, including ownership of other companies, sister companies and marital assets. The reason for this is that companies (and individuals) are not supposed to resemble small(?) countries with a single leader(-board) and shareholder primacy. Thats why we feel like they must be kept in check indefinitely.

But companies will just wander off The argument that large companies will just wander off is valid, which we embrace. We dont need microsoft, apple, google, amazon and other trillion dollar companies. There are small competitors being kept small and driven into brankruptcy by anti competitive behavior of these giants or simply bought up and closed. If starbucks left tomorrow, we would not have an issue with this.

But then we have x little microsofts that all belong to the same person(s) If in fact nobody was allowed to accumulate more than 999 mil in assets, they would not be able to own all these. And like defending agains burglary, it is not about complete defence but time and effort. You only have to keep the thief occupied long enough for them to be caught, give up or make a mistake.

But these giants have tons of IP which would then limit our growth Thats another topic we must touch on. We will (only this one time) take a page out of russias playbook and demand that IP of non complying companies (assets over 999 mil USD) will be declared invalid, which opens them up to be copied.

But then they will "live" in one country that doesnt accept this Correct, and they should be taken into custody the moment they enter the airspace of a country that supports this act.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com
241
there is no such thing as a labor shortage. only a wage and conditions shortage. (f.uguu.se)
submitted 3 weeks ago by GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee to c/anticorporate@lemmy.giftedmc.com
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://www.tiktok.com/@detroit75kitchen/video/7506253677754060078

Lmk if the video doesn't work. Trying a different host.

all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 56 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

I heard the owner of a local cafe a few years ago complaining about how "he couldn't find any good workers" ... I asked the girl across the counter later if she was willing to state how much she was paid. Minimum wage. Approximately half of what the local government officially acknowledges what a living wage is here to afford a one-bedroom apartment.

If your business can't afford to pay your employees enough to feed, clothe and house themselves with a full-time position, then your business isn't viable. Period.

[–] LouSlash@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It is like with stocks

Sure, you can invest as little as possible (like 3 cents), but don't fucking expect to become a millionaire over the night. It's not impossible, but you're more likely to be lethaly hit by a blanket dropped by high-flying stork that he got from an open luggage compartment of flying Boeing 737.

The more you give, the more you get

[–] AizawaC47@lemm.ee 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If your business can't afford to pay your employees enough to feed, clothe and house themselves with a full-time position, then your business isn't viable. Period.

This exactly. I have never understood how the managers or supervisors who ever is in charge of their pay to make it to where they can’t even afford to live on their own. The audacity of some of these employers. I was looking for a new job and they low balled me tremendously. I looked at them like, how in the hell am I suppose to live off that pay? You know McDonald’s pays much more. Even to McDonald’s pay, it’s still considerably very low but to have a job labeled as a decent occupation with some form of a college degree or experience, and then pay you as low or the same as McDonalds is wild to me. Then you have them complain “We can’t find anyone.” “Why does no one wanna work?” Shit Steve, maybe pay the workers/employees to where they can afford one bedroom apartment and get eggs for starters. It’s absolutely insane with these individuals who are looking to hire and the lack of common sense. Pay people a living wage maybe, and see what happens.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Capitalism doesn't allow ethical business to be viable, though.

So what you're saying is that businesses should pay their workers less. Because the competition that fucks over their workers across the street wouldn't make you viable otherwise.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Capitalism doesn't allow ethical business to be viable, though.

Costco seems to be doing just fine paying their workers a decent wage

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 2 weeks ago

They're paying wages. Don't you see the problem?

Wages are exploitation. Abolish the wage system.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago

cafes are almost a revolving door for college students, to work part time. just like the corporate ones, they dont want to pay benefits.

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

when items are short prices rise. we are told “thats the market”. yet when labor rises in price we are told “omg this is terrible damn workers!”

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 weeks ago

"Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.”

― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There are no shortages of anything.

We illegally sent 200 tons of electronic waste overseas because it's cheaper to do that and have a war over rare earth minerals than just develop a recycling system here.

There are literally dozens of mansions sitting empty because they aren't nice enough for the people who buy mansions.

Everything 'scarce' is scare because it's more profitable that way.

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's more like mansions are incredibly expensive to maintain and are usually customized to the tastes of the original owner. Even converting them to something more useful costs millions.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I'm sorry. If you offered those mansions as dorm housing they'd be filled in seconds. Or homeless shelters, or senior centers, or anything else. Look at Gaza and Ukraine; people turn an empty warehouse into a hospital in an hour.

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 weeks ago

Oh well if we are just going to steal them, then sure. Especially if you don't plan on maintaining the building.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Would people move in and live there if you let them? Yes. They'd figure it out.

Would it be up to code to actually support that? No. Not without extensive retrofitting.

My dorms in college were century old Victorian style "mansions". And they'd had the interiors redone to suit the purpose.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ever heard of "sweat equity?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_equity

People could move in, improve the buildings with hard work instead of paying rent, and then you'd have housed people and given them valuable skills.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes I have heard of that. It didn't apply here. They would not be legally habitable for those purposes UNTIL those changes are made. The buildings are not currently designed for that purpose. We have these housing codes for a reason.

There's an order things need to be done

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

A community can allow people who are rehabbing a building to live on site while improvements are being made.

A homeless person would much rather live in a building without water and power then have to sleep in an open park, or even a shelter where they are cohabiting with mentally ill folk.

Since we'd be changing laws to let people live there in the first place, making other changes would be a minor consideration.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, they could. Then a fire happens, and that community starts pointing fingers at how all these people died. Surely, someone should have prevented that...

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Now you're just pulling things out of thin air.

What's keeping people from having fire extinguishers on hand? Why would they need open fires in the first place?

Might as well bring in a Godzilla attack.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Who the fuck said anything about open fires?

Do you not understand why we have fire codes for buildings, residential or otherwise?

Things catch fire. It happens. It's even more likely if major renovations are occurring, between flammable paint fumes, potentially exposed wiring, power tools strewn around...

Actually try to think through your own proposals for a second before vomiting them into the universe.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Actually try to think through your own proposals for a second before vomiting them into the universe.

Literally laughing out loud when I read that.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Because you know you won't do that?

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

2 of 2

https://triponzy.com/blog/mansions-no-one-wants-to-buy-at-any-price/

Many of these are in move in condition.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Dude. How bad are your literacy skills?

This entire conversation has been about using these houses, instead of as single residence, but multi-"family" housing. They are move in ready AS SINGLE RESIDENCES, NOT the things we've been talking about this entire time. Holy shit, how dumb are you?

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I've never seen anyone as desperate as you in my life.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You've realized I was right and have now attempted to distract from your obvious mess up. Bye

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

Tell yourself whatever you need to.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago

Of course! Because there's no way I could be laughing at you. Everyone admires and respects you and considers you a shining beacon of rationality!

/s

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 7 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Anyone wanna post a synopsis or transcript for the video-impaired?

[–] PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

"don't be a dick to your staff"

That's the abridged version anyway.

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Video-impaired?

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

People who don't want to sit through someone else delivering the information and would rather read it. Or are at work and not able to watch

[–] Walican132@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Pay people more and give them free food.

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago

It's not free if you only give it to people that work for you; then it's part of their compensation.

[–] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No you can definitely have shortages of skilled labor, happens all the time. There is a demand for workers with a certain qualification than there are workers in that field in that location/country.

[–] GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What if, hear me out, we paid the skilled labor more to make the position more attractive and also paid for training.

[–] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well that works in the long run but if you need more, for example, doctors that's like an 8 year pipeline. Over time the free market will correct for these things but you can't just create skilled laborers overnight for any sum of money.

[–] GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago

The free market legalized slavery. The free market can suck it.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 2 points 2 weeks ago

No, abolish the wage system. The problem is capitalists stealing the profits.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

they do it in stem industry, they made a shortage, so they dont need to hire more people. its obvious when they do this by putitng listing that are pretty much exclusive to a scientists with niche skills. if they did starting hiring a ton, then would have to lower sALARIES of researchers, and it would probably scare them off.