No, nobody ever says “I’m going to higher you” as a way to indicate they are promoting you. Not in the military, not in non-profits, not in the government, and not in any private or public business in the US.
“Higher” is a homophone with “hire” and “hire” already has a critical role in reference to career management.
At this point I can only assume you haven’t worked somewhere where English is the spoken language.
People say they want to move up the corporate ladder, which implies higher, and brings a visual analogy to the phrase that is compatible with what I said.
There is no adverbial expression using the radical "up". The adverbiality must come from "high".
> “Higher” is a homophone with “hire” and “hire”
This phrase doesn't make sense.
> At this point I can only assume you haven’t worked somewhere where English is the spoken language.
What you assume doesnt't matter. Where I worked or not doesn't matter.
Because English is clearly not a language you have a day to day grasp on. Read the rest of the sentence. You weren’t able to correctly split a compound sentence.
What’s wrong with looking outside? I’m at the point where I treat my phone like it’s radioactive, actively trying to limit each encounter with it. I think we should all be staring out the window more often.
The way the buses are laid out in my city is that the seats are directly facing each other. So staring outside could make it seem like your staring at people if it’s too crowded. So it’s more comfortable to pretend to use your phone.
People have a pretty good sense of whether you're staring at them or something just beside or behind them. Not really from the angle of your eyes but the way you react (or not) when the other person looks back.
I wouldn't worry about that so much. And I worry about a lot of social things :)
> I wish we had a democracy that could prevent this but we do not
Doesn't this rely on us as the individual? We get the government we allow. We, humanity, could've had anything we wanted, this is what we gave ourselves.
‘We’ are animals who have evolved to be a certain way. You could maybe at tremendous effort fix one person but you cannot fix a population. Ever try to get an alcoholic to quit drinking, a junkie to quit drugs, a gambling addict to quit gambling.
Humans have built in innate weaknesses that are easily exploited by the unscrupulous. People have been exploiting others since time immemorial, secret police keep libraries of exploits and you can see them used repeatedly and effectively throughout history. Pied-piper strategy (basket of deplorables), Operation Trust (Q-Anon).
Unfortunately the "first past the post" system used in the USA and UK are effectively a form of prisoner's dilemma. The best thing to do is for everyone to not vote for one of the two oligarchy parties, but if only a small number do that it's meaningless.
It does and yet this seems to highly simplifying things.
Consider the US scoped studies studies showing that the population doesn't get what it wants. They showed that policy follows the whims of the wealthy even in the cases where the population overwhelmingly agrees on a contrary direction. So the data says "no", control has been removed from us.
Part of the complication is that the determined action of a few actors can efficiently spoil the efforts of communities.
First line of the article:
> Jensen Huang, the chief executive of Nvidia, is the 10th-richest person in the United States, worth $127 billion
I haven't been paying attention to the bullshit that is nth-richest person but how the fuck is someone worth that much and is only in 10th place? Wasn't it not too long ago that $127B would have been 1st?
Rich get richer, poor get poorer. Something like that.
But mostly, because technology has ASTOUNDING margins and markets that are, essentially, winner takes all, the richest people are now tech instead of oil or resources like they used to be.
We will see the world's first trillionaire. It will happen in our lifetime.
Unless the trend of murdering the ultra wealthy actually kicks off. Then maybe not.
It thought the CEO of a company is not ultra wealthy by a longshot. He's just an employee, well connected, ex-banker or ex-consulting who happens to be a multi-millionaire. Great gig if you can get it, especially if you avoid divorce -or death from stress.. or murder.
The founder of a company -who may or may not be be CEO- is where the the money is at. That's where the value-creation is, and where the ultra wealthy reside. They also usually have somewhat functional families.
But I wanted to answer this question objectively, so here's what I did:
I suppose you can start with a definition of ultrawealthy[1] which is $30m assets minus primary residence. That seemed low to me, but its on wiki, so OK.
Median CEO pay for publicly listed companies was 16.3M, gross. [2] . Take 50% off the top for taxes (US-avg so aggressive), then you are around ~$8M , before expenses. Factor expenses of $1M (probably low, considering consumption goes up relative to income), that means $7M for assets, meaning the avg CEO is working about 5 years to become hit ultra wealth. However, the average tenure for a CEO is 4.8 years [3]
So i suppose a few of the CEOs are eventually making it into the ultra rich, if they can outlast the average tenure on the job.
It depends on company share ownership. If they created the company (and held on to shares), or if they are mostly paid in shares (and held on to shares), if they kept buying as many shares as they could and got paid in as many shares as they could - and held on to them - and the company got amazingly successful (outliers) - then yes.
If they were content to be salaried CEOs, then no.
Yes but not entirely. Yes in that if the CEO tries to sell 125B dollars of shares, the stock price will take a significant hit.
No in that this is paper wealth that you can borrow liquid cash against. Which makes a decent fraction of that wealth actually accessible (if you don't use this borrowing to just buy more shares.)
All wealth is paper wealth. The value of anything and everything changes with the wind and, as such, can only be measured at a moment in time. The ridiculous mantra that wealth isn't truly wealth until it is turned into cash is absurd since the value of cash itself fluctuates with rates of inflation and one currency against another.
>I haven't been paying attention to the bullshit that is nth-richest person but how the fuck is someone worth that much and is only in 10th place? Wasn't it not too long ago that $127B would have been 1st?
This can entirely be explained by the performance of the broader stock market. In 2005 the the 10th person richest person had $18.3B. If you multiplied that by the total returns of S&P 500[2], you'd get $129.5B, which is actually more than how much Mr. Huang was worth.
All this energy being burned to create shitty images, shitty music, and shitty videos that all amount to essentially shitty memes. I don’t understand how the singular focus isn’t on solving humanity’s problems.
We already have artists, we don’t have a cure for cancer or the climate crisis.
Let's hope he is not the guy that checks the tickets for a roller coaster. They just send people from A to A using an ineficient path that burns a bunch of energy.
I hope he doesn't work at any tech company; I'm pretty sure you could say that about all of them. I also hope he doesn't have a car - that pointlessly burns energy when he could be taking public transit instead.
There’s an episode of Seinfeld that opens with some standup where Jerry is joking how scientists are working on seedless watermelon, and why aren’t scientists working on more important things. And I always think the same thing! “… so the comedian is complaining about how scientists spend their time…”
It’s a fine joke, but deep down the instinct is very top-down and suggest centrally planned economies, dare I say communism!
In some ways it does reduce the climate crisis. A person sitting on their couch browsing memes is less carbon intensive than someone driving to their friend's place or something outdoors.
This is great! I played nearly all the Sierra games when I was a kid and currently showing playing them with my wife. The CD talkie versions are much easier to play together though so this is perfect!
If you’ve never lived in a major urban area in the US, I imagine this might seem strange. People drive around with music playing loud enough that a crappy mic would easily pick it up.
