5 ms·

Is that really the case though? Do the leaders of such companies really have other options which still accomplish their goals? People are hired to accomplish

by vokep 9y ago

Is that really the case though? Do the leaders of such companies really have other options which still accomplish their goals? People are hired to accomplish the goals of the company, not the other way around. Seems to me like its not so much that companies are run by sociopaths but that workers have trouble empathizing with a CEO and understanding that nothing is guaranteed. Rarely are they going to be happy to lay people off, they know it causes problems for people. They're human too. Sometimes there isn't much of an option which preserves their interests. Some might react going "but that's just the problem, they only care about their interests" but...do you really care about theirs? Does anyone work long ours putting passion into a project because they hope to make the executives rich so they can feel good about how rich they made the executives? I certainly don't, I work passionately on something because I believe in what it does/what I'm doing/making, and secondarily for my own gain of wealth. A good CEO runs a company because s/he believes in an idea, and secondarily for their own wealth, and perhaps finally for the ability to create jobs and benefit people that way. But that is a final result of the process, not a primary goal. Of course there are CEOs which just want wealth but in tech space at least they are unlikely to go too far, more likely to fuck up in their greed.

maxxxxx 9y ago
I think with the rise of shareholder capitalism it has become OK to treat workers like disposable items. I grew up during a time when it was not OK to lay off people while giving a bonus to the CEO. Now that's normal practice.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- lliamander 9y ago
  I'm a little confused about what you mean by shareholder capitalism, and how that would pertain to an employer's loyalty to their employees. Joint-stock corporations have been around for several hundred years, and limited liability has been a legal concept in American law for almost 200 years. Employer loyalty may have gone down in the past few generations, but attributing that to shareholder capitalism seems vague and unfounded. Perhaps you mean something else?
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    I was around in the 80s when suddenly shareholder value was the main driver of companies. Before that there was more of an understanding that the relationship between employer, employees and community was mutual and should benefit all. Then slowly the attitude became that the only responsibility of a company was to the shareholders and nobody else (and no, there is no legal obligation for a company to do this. Their only obligation is to engage in lawful business). This led to underfunding of pensions, layoffs and wage stagnation. Essentially shifting of benefits from employees to shareholders. I think in the 50s a lot of CEOs would have been embarrassed to announce layoffs while raising their own pay. Now that's normal.
    - lliamander 9y ago
      Fair enough, but the notion of "shareholder primacy" has been around since the early 1900s. My understanding of the shift that occurred in the latter part of the 20th century was that businesses became less dependent upon fixed local communities. Part of it was that the communities themselves were dispersing (increased geographic mobility among the populace). But other factors include: - a shift from capital-intensive industries like resource extraction and manufacturing, to service industries - the opening of foreign labor markets
      - maxxxxx 9y ago
        " Fair enough, but the notion of "shareholder primacy" has been around since the early 1900s." I started hearing about it with Jack Welch ("neutron jack"), GE and others. There was a noticeable change in attitude. "Greed is good". Layoffs were good for the share price.
        lliamander 9y ago
        Interesting. I'll have to look into those references.
        maxxxxx 9y ago
bllguo 9y ago
I really appreciate this comment, for offering an alternative perspective. It's easier to dehumanize someone after labeling them as a psychopath. I believe there are a few studies that claim psychopathy is overrepresented in the business world, so it is a thing, but sometimes it does feel like people latch onto this and take it to an extreme. No, not all business leaders are psychopathic! Most simply can't be, statistically speaking. I think there are real problems with the current economic system, but that it would be easier to discuss solutions/alternatives when people aren't so eager to demonize each other.
lliamander 9y ago
I don't think the notion of "sociopath" used in the Gervais Principle has the same moral connotation that we typically associate with the word. That's why I prefer Eric Dietrich's term "opportunist" instead[0]. I agree with you sentiment regarding whether many line-level employees[1] really understand what is involved in running a company. [0] https://www.daedtech.com/book/ https://www.daedtech.com/book/ [1] I include myself in that category
s73v3r_ 9y ago
"Seems to me like its not so much that companies are run by sociopaths but that workers have trouble empathizing with a CEO and understanding that nothing is guaranteed." I don't think it's this, but it's that, while a CEO may face troubles, they're nowhere near the troubles that a worker would face. When a CEO fucks up, at the very worst, they're going to get their golden parachute, and land on their feet. They can still get a job if they want, but they likely don't have to. Their families are not going to starve or go homeless. Compare that to the average worker, who, even if they do everything right, has a decent chance of getting laid off simply because the executives fucked up. Now, they run the real risk of not being able to make their rent/mortgage. Their families might not be able to eat. And, on top of that, the executives will get bonuses. So I recognize that a CEO is human. But I also recognize that they very rarely face the consequences of their actions, and that those consequences are usually nowhere near as drastic as the consequences that normal people face.

by vokep 9y ago

maxxxxx 9y ago

I think with the rise of shareholder capitalism it has become OK to treat workers like disposable items. I grew up during a time when it was not OK to lay off people while giving a bonus to the CEO. Now that's normal practice.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
lliamander 9y ago
I'm a little confused about what you mean by shareholder capitalism, and how that would pertain to an employer's loyalty to their employees. Joint-stock corporations have been around for several hundred years, and limited liability has been a legal concept in American law for almost 200 years. Employer loyalty may have gone down in the past few generations, but attributing that to shareholder capitalism seems vague and unfounded. Perhaps you mean something else?
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I was around in the 80s when suddenly shareholder value was the main driver of companies. Before that there was more of an understanding that the relationship between employer, employees and community was mutual and should benefit all. Then slowly the attitude became that the only responsibility of a company was to the shareholders and nobody else (and no, there is no legal obligation for a company to do this. Their only obligation is to engage in lawful business). This led to underfunding of pensions, layoffs and wage stagnation. Essentially shifting of benefits from employees to shareholders. I think in the 50s a lot of CEOs would have been embarrassed to announce layoffs while raising their own pay. Now that's normal.
  - lliamander 9y ago
    Fair enough, but the notion of "shareholder primacy" has been around since the early 1900s. My understanding of the shift that occurred in the latter part of the 20th century was that businesses became less dependent upon fixed local communities. Part of it was that the communities themselves were dispersing (increased geographic mobility among the populace). But other factors include: - a shift from capital-intensive industries like resource extraction and manufacturing, to service industries - the opening of foreign labor markets
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      " Fair enough, but the notion of "shareholder primacy" has been around since the early 1900s." I started hearing about it with Jack Welch ("neutron jack"), GE and others. There was a noticeable change in attitude. "Greed is good". Layoffs were good for the share price.
      - lliamander 9y ago
        Interesting. I'll have to look into those references.
        maxxxxx 9y ago

bllguo 9y ago

I really appreciate this comment, for offering an alternative perspective. It's easier to dehumanize someone after labeling them as a psychopath. I believe there are a few studies that claim psychopathy is overrepresented in the business world, so it is a thing, but sometimes it does feel like people latch onto this and take it to an extreme. No, not all business leaders are psychopathic! Most simply can't be, statistically speaking. I think there are real problems with the current economic system, but that it would be easier to discuss solutions/alternatives when people aren't so eager to demonize each other.

lliamander 9y ago

I don't think the notion of "sociopath" used in the Gervais Principle has the same moral connotation that we typically associate with the word. That's why I prefer Eric Dietrich's term "opportunist" instead[0]. I agree with you sentiment regarding whether many line-level employees[1] really understand what is involved in running a company. [0] https://www.daedtech.com/book/ https://www.daedtech.com/book/ [1] I include myself in that category

s73v3r_ 9y ago

"Seems to me like its not so much that companies are run by sociopaths but that workers have trouble empathizing with a CEO and understanding that nothing is guaranteed." I don't think it's this, but it's that, while a CEO may face troubles, they're nowhere near the troubles that a worker would face. When a CEO fucks up, at the very worst, they're going to get their golden parachute, and land on their feet. They can still get a job if they want, but they likely don't have to. Their families are not going to starve or go homeless. Compare that to the average worker, who, even if they do everything right, has a decent chance of getting laid off simply because the executives fucked up. Now, they run the real risk of not being able to make their rent/mortgage. Their families might not be able to eat. And, on top of that, the executives will get bonuses. So I recognize that a CEO is human. But I also recognize that they very rarely face the consequences of their actions, and that those consequences are usually nowhere near as drastic as the consequences that normal people face.