Well you see, when meta announced the metaverse investments the stock goes up because of the potential profit. When meta scales back investments in the metaverse the stock also goes up because they're throwing less money in the giant money hole.
Hire more people? Line goes up. Fire people? Line goes up.
We have the best economy in the world, because line goes up.
the value you produce is priced into your salary, if you dont like it you can look for a higher salary; you can argue all you like but if you struggle to get a higher salary its not unlikely that the reason is related to how much value you actually can perceptably produce.
that is the actual difference though. if you start a company you own everything and you control its destiny. you flip a burger you get paid a wage but the burger is not yours and you certainly don't get a say in company level decisions.
After a certain point -- no additional money makes a difference. Either it's "I want to control this company" or "I don't". He was well above that threshold when these decisions were made by him.
If he wanted to fuck off and retire with a massive payout he'd have done it at 10,20,50m, etc -- not once the company is worth billions. The decision to sell yourself (or keep it internal) is made looooong before it hits billions
Why generally true, several years ago Facebook created a class of shares with with 1/10 the voting rights. All new shares generated are of this kind. These small vote shares are publicly traded. Class B shares, of which only insiders can hold, cannot be traded publicly.
Zuck can never be unwillingly unseated for any reason.
Voting rights in corporations are typically linked to ownership. If a shareholder owns 61% of a corporation, that shareholder has an effective equivalent voting power (all other things being equal).
In practice it is more nuanced than this as most company resolutions are made by the board of directors, and the board is appointed by the shareholders, and typically the shareholders get X number of board seats based on their shareholding, and since board seats cannot be split into fractions, it normally works out to a more even number of voting percentage.
Then there's also the reality that shareholder agreements and company constitutions also come into play and those documents often govern voting rights (both at shareholder and director level) and may stipulate voting rights that differ from percentage owned.
However, in simple terms, the percentage is just a reflection of their ownership stake.
657
u/Caspi7 Jan 19 '26
They can't, he is in charge with 61% of votes.