Wells Fargo fired 5,300, executive in charge is retiring with $125M

This should be the top story on all the major US news broadcasts tonight, along with the presidential candidates reactions to this news.

But instead American media is obsessed with the stupidest, most unrepresentative parts of the two candidate's campaigns, like beating a dead horse over Hillary's emails and Trump's small percentage of supporters who beat up protesters at his rallies.

The media are tools and so is Congress. The real "elites" aren't in the media and aren't politically partisan toward the democrats or republicans. The real "elites" work in finance and control the banking and retirement accounts of those public servants and celebrities with big egos who think they are important. Stories like this prove they will never get more than a slap on the wrist for their crimes.

Robbing muthafuakers.

>>72218
>I don't understand how mass media works
>I also don't know how executives are more important than shitty low level workers
Take an economics class nigger faggot.

>>72218
yeah dude that's how it's been since, well, ever. Since civilization started there have been people in power who weren't elected, because letting the masses decide how a nation is run is the most destructive and inefficient possible path. After kings fell out of fashion the world's business elite simply filled the niche. The reality is that most people (myself included) are too stupid and/or ignorant of geopolitics and global economics to actually handle power, so to keep us from using our vastly superior numerical power, they give us everything we need to keep ourselves entertained and distracted. I think that most people actually want to keep themselves distracted, because the reality is too much.

>>72297
Executives aren't more important than shitty low level workers. They only tell themselves they are to stroke their own huge egos. Without the workers the company grinds to a halt. Without the CEO nothing happens.

>>72312
by default executives are more important than low level workers.
That's why they are called executives. Their labor/ decisions in labor produce infinitely greater wealth than a low wage worker does. Him singing a buisness deal that brings in $100 billion in profitable investment is better than some desk clerk moving money around.
If what you said was true, it would be reflected in reality. But it isn't true, and so it is not reflected in reality.
Sure the company grinds to a halt, but so does the workers income. We will see how long they last without income m8, because there is always someone else willing to work.

>>72313
>We will see how long they last without income m8
Not very long because the competitors would hire the best and fire their inhouse worst.

BTW Einstein was correct when he called Economics the most useless science.

>>72314
And then there is freed labour for wells Fargo to hire that is still profitable.
You didn't even respond to the argument, you just moved goalposts.

The executives position produces a vastly greater amount of wealth than the low wage worker, why should he
A. provide his decisions and labour for less than they are worth
B. pay low wage workers more than what they produce?

>>72317
There isn't an argument. There is only your ridiculous assertion that the executive is more important than the workers. I guess it really depends on what you consider important.

When the worker gets fired he goes to work for a competitor or switches fields. When the CEO gets fired he gets a golden parachute severance package with cash and stock options. Which is better for someone with a profit motive?

When people like Trump or Hillary talk about the growing income gap, this is why it happens. The intrinsic value of management is way over-inflated in today's corporate environment and the value of workers is marginalized.

>>72319
>There is only your ridiculous assertion that the executive is more important than the workers.
And there is only your equally as ridiculous and opiniated assertion that the workers are more important than the executives.

>The intrinsic value of management is way over-inflated in today's corporate environment and the value of workers is marginalized.
Let us know when executives can be replaced by computer kiosks. If you assert they already can, explain their job duties and functions. We both know you can't, but try anyway.

Also, "Muh all jobs will be automated! I seent it!"= not a counter point.

>>72319
>ridiculous assertion that someone who is payed more and has the title "executive" is worth more to the company than an low wage "worker"
You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Workers will only be payed at a profitable point at which they can produce labour. If they are payed more than they produce, then they are fired.
Executives have much larger bargains and deals to handle, and severance packages may be apart of their employment contract etc.
What you're asking for is for a company to unwillingly pay workers more than what they produce, or that the company can afford.
Those 5k workers were most likely "convinece" workers of types, who don't produce anything more than a convince or a service that makes the consumer feel better. Firing them costs less than the severance package that is payed to the executive in the long run.

>>72328
No you don't get it. Workers can't be automated either, as the major American automakers are finding out now. If they could they wouldn't need to build factories in Mexico where the work is cheap.

>>72330
What I am asking for is income equality, which I agree is a pie in the sky fantasy.

>>72332
>income equality
You want slavery. Go to North Korea, most all of the country is equal in income there besides the small elite.
Income equality never has, never will, and should never exist. It bears no concept in reality. The free market decides how workers are paid, including executives; all attempts to regulate this market cause massive shortages or surpluses within the system that are infinitely more damaging and inefficient than if income was "unequal".
Some people are richer than others, go cry about your 30k credit card debt somewhere else faggot.
>workers can't be automated
tons of jobs already have. ATMs, fast food restaurants, and so on. The only reason companies outsource to third world countries is because idiots like you want wage laws passed that pay a worker more than his labour is worth.

>>72332
>What I am asking for is income equality
The man who delivered my baby should make the same amount of money who fucked up my order of cheese fries?

>>72338
Actually that's a good example because the man who delivers your baby is allowed to charge whatever the fuck he wants for the service and can legally collude with his colleagues and peers to fix a price on the entire industry... while the man who fucked up your order of fries is most likely getting minimum wage at 30 hours a week (a profitable company doesn't want to pay overtime) and is only making as much as he does because it's federally mandated.

>>72339
Do you even read what you type?
Anyone can charge what they want for their labour, it doesn't mean someone will buy it for that price. You're thinking of the market as a simple thing that is controlled by individuals rather than a perpetuation of a greater market force.
The guy who fucked up my order could easily go start his own buisness with a loan, but he doesn't, because he doesn't have the skills necessary to do so. He is fucking up my order and still being paid more than his labour is worth due to federally mandated wage laws.

There is no federal mandate on how much someone can be paid. Especially not some no life cashier.

>>72218
While you're still very much correct, this is a bad example, these are just small level bank workers trying to meet quotas, regular desk people.

And while the E-mail incident with HRC is a dead horse, she hasnt been charged with a felony yet, so I dont want to see it slide like everything else

>>72335
look i dont give a fuck about equality
i just want nice roads and shit
pay your taxes rich guys jeez

>>72340
cashiers have lives too anon

>>72197
>It is also less than the more than $200 million that the stock in the company held by company's chief executive, (((John G. Stumpf))) is worth.

>The fines also are not that much more than the $125 million one of its top executives, (((Carrie Tolstedt)))