3 ms·

I think there is some value in providing jobs to 10,000 people (currently more, soon a little less) even if there's no extra profit for shareholders on top of t

by jpetso 11y ago

I think there is some value in providing jobs to 10,000 people (currently more, soon a little less) even if there's no extra profit for shareholders on top of that. Maybe these kinds of companies should just be given to employees for free and run as a co-op instead of getting shut down.

adevine 11y ago
Wut? There are charities, and there are businesses. If you expect Yahoo to be run as a charity, why should Yahoo's owners be the ones who must provide this? Put it another way. Let's say you had 100k that you were able to invest in your own startup. After a number of years, you found that you could support 5 employees at your startup, but you weren't, and had no hope of, being profitable - there was no "extra profit" for you. Would you be willing to just turn over your investment as charity to your employees?
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  I agree a business is not a charity, but if there is no hope of a return on your investment, what value is there in doing literally anything else with it? There's is definitely value in making it possible for thousands of people to keep food on the table for their families and pay the mortgage and continue providing services to existing users.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    Opportunity cost. Better to extract the capital and chase another investment. Liquidate the pig.
stvswn 11y ago
Ha. This is precious.
tomp 11y ago
> I think there is some value in providing jobs to 10,000 people Sure there is, but it's not the purpose of companies to provide that, but should be done by the society (government) if the society decides there's value in that.
- jpetso 11y ago
  > Sure there is, but it's not the purpose of companies to provide that, but should be done by the society (government) if the society decides there's value in that. I like how this contrasts really nicely with a different view, where the ideal state of society is small government that leaves everything to the market, often mentioned in the same breath with keeping taxes as low as possible. I think the whole basic income thing is interesting, but unless/until that's implemented, a society that mainly relies on companies to power and own the country should also demand from companies to ensure that people are doing well. Anyway that's going off-topic, my initial point was only that the default move for companies without sizeable profits or losses doesn't have to be to wind them down. I care less whether you call the result a charity, a non-profit or something done by the government.

by jpetso 11y ago

adevine 11y ago

Wut? There are charities, and there are businesses. If you expect Yahoo to be run as a charity, why should Yahoo's owners be the ones who must provide this? Put it another way. Let's say you had 100k that you were able to invest in your own startup. After a number of years, you found that you could support 5 employees at your startup, but you weren't, and had no hope of, being profitable - there was no "extra profit" for you. Would you be willing to just turn over your investment as charity to your employees?

TallGuyShort 11y ago
I agree a business is not a charity, but if there is no hope of a return on your investment, what value is there in doing literally anything else with it? There's is definitely value in making it possible for thousands of people to keep food on the table for their families and pay the mortgage and continue providing services to existing users.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  Opportunity cost. Better to extract the capital and chase another investment. Liquidate the pig.

stvswn 11y ago

Ha. This is precious.

tomp 11y ago

> I think there is some value in providing jobs to 10,000 people Sure there is, but it's not the purpose of companies to provide that, but should be done by the society (government) if the society decides there's value in that.

jpetso 11y ago
> Sure there is, but it's not the purpose of companies to provide that, but should be done by the society (government) if the society decides there's value in that. I like how this contrasts really nicely with a different view, where the ideal state of society is small government that leaves everything to the market, often mentioned in the same breath with keeping taxes as low as possible. I think the whole basic income thing is interesting, but unless/until that's implemented, a society that mainly relies on companies to power and own the country should also demand from companies to ensure that people are doing well. Anyway that's going off-topic, my initial point was only that the default move for companies without sizeable profits or losses doesn't have to be to wind them down. I care less whether you call the result a charity, a non-profit or something done by the government.