4 ms·

>American corporations exist only because the American people grant them charters. I get what she's saying here but it's not exactly the cause. A counter-argum

>American corporations exist only because the American people grant them charters. I get what she's saying here but it's not exactly the cause. A counter-argument to this premise could take this line and re-write it as "American corporations exist only because shareholders/VC firms invested capital in them." And while I don't disagree that CEO pay is nutso today I'm not convinced that employee-elected directors is the way to go. My initial reaction is I don't want to work under populist execs vying for employee votes; I think we get enough political speak from them as it is.

wtvanhest 8y ago
I don't think it would be bad to have an elected board member. It would provide input into decisions that have the potential to negatively impact employees.
- castlecrasher2 8y ago
  I don't disagree with you, I just think the obvious connection between these elected directors' compensation and how well-liked they are would mean less-qualified, less-effective leaders on average.
wffurr 8y ago
>> populist execs vying for employee votes The alternative to democracy is feudalism, which is basically what we have now. You might hold your nose and say "politics" or "populism" but this is how you as an employee can exercise power in the workplace. I certainly prefer "populist execs vying for employee votes" to "brown nosing employees vying for exec favor".
- Brushfire 8y ago
  Surely you aren't serious. Feudalism required working for the landowners near where you lived. In our society you can change jobs, start your own business, move, do freelance work, or not work at all if you so choose. I agree there are problems with the current system, but to equate it to feudalism is insanity.
  - wffurr 8y ago
    Insanity? CEOs seem an awful lot like Kings to me. And everything in a company is essentially at the whim of the CEO or private owners. >> you can change jobs At the whim of the hiring managers and their bosses etc. >> start your own business At the whim of the financiers or by boostrapping yourself with the crumbs the capitalists leave to the working class. >> move In fact often one has to move away from one's home, community, and family to find work, because that's where the bosses decided to employ people. >> do freelance work Again at the whim of those who have money to pay for your services. >> or not work at all If you want to accept a severely reduced lifestyle with the dregs of an under-funded dehumanizing welfare state, designed to force people into employment. I'm absolutely serious.
    - castlecrasher2 8y ago
      > CEOs seem an awful lot like Kings to me. This is such laughable hyperbole that I have to wonder whether you work in a skilled profession or you're just another internet commentator. The only way you could think CEOs have absolute authority over you like a king would is if you have a psychological complex.
    - cabaalis 8y ago
      I think you harmed your claim by elaborating. I have a tendency to do so as well. I often stop myself from replying to those who reply to me, in order to provide someone else a chance who agrees with my position to reinforce.
dclowd9901 8y ago
> A counter-argument to this premise could take this line and re-write it as "American corporations exist only because shareholders/VC firms invested capital in them." And how on earth would that be a valid counter argument? It's patently false! Companies _do not_ require shareholder or VC investment to exist. They require people to work at the company and produce a product ("product" being the most extended notion of a company's deliverable).
- castlecrasher2 8y ago
  We're talking $1 billion+ in sales per year corporations, per the article, most of which are public. Obviously you are correct that companies need people but I don't see "how on earth" it's invalid to suggest most companies getting $1 billion revenue/yr exist as they are because they received some kind of outside funding. Very few companies are 100% bootstrapped.
nv-vn 8y ago
It's also a very short-sighted statement. People should probably have the freedom to incorporate a company whenever they want. We've seen the effects of the opposite and they're not pretty.
- genericid 8y ago
  Are you implying that the Soviet Union was, well, the Soviet Union because of too much democracy?
  - nv-vn 8y ago
    Well I don't think in their case it had much to do with democracy. But a better example might be a country like India or Japan even, where they have a ton of bureaucracy in place that makes it super hard to make any headway when trying to form a company. A lot of these were well-intentioned regulations that people would've voted in support of, but then this ends up stopping the average joe from starting a lemonade stand. An example of this in America is the requirements to become a hairdresser in New Jersey, where you have to go through hundreds of hours of training in things like chemical products when all you want to do is braid hair.
analog31 8y ago
I would change it slightly, by saying that American corporations of any appreciable size exist because we grant them charters and as a result people are willing to invest in them. Without the charter (including entitlements such as limitation of liability), investment would shrink so drastically that we'd be back to mostly mom-and-pop businesses.
null000 8y ago
> it's not exactly the cause... American corporations exist only because shareholders/VC firms invested capital in them. There's a pretty big difference. Shareholders/VC firms investing capital in them allows the company to expand faster or better allocate resources. They're helpful and make the system what it is, but they're pretty interchangeable from an abstract perspective, and corporations would still exist without them in some way shape or form - maybe different structures of ownership and liability, but they'd be there. Corporations could not, meanwhile, structurally exist as a thing or concept without the government's consent. (side note: I acknowledge there is no world where the US decides corporations stop existing, and that in all practicality, such an event would probably not result in the actual dissolution of every single US based corporation, but I'm talking theoretically here to make a point - the Government's participation in a corporation's existence is fundamentally different from shareholder's) > My initial reaction is I don't want to work under populist execs vying for employee votes; I think we get enough political speak from them as it is. How is political pandering to shareholders (stock growth! dividends! profit!) fundamentally different from political pandering to workers (narrower wage gaps! livable working conditions! sick and vacation days!)? Additionally, working at one of the companies that (at least in word) tries to listen to and pander to its employees, it can be a positive, symbiotic relationship. I think you're giving workers too little credit - most people understand fundamental economic realities, and that they're not going to get gold plated toilets, beer drinking fountains, and 7 figure entry level salaries (I'd use 6 figure entry level salaries.... but, well, that's already a thing in Silicon Valley, which in addition to the ridiculously nice working conditions many here benefit from, does quite a bit to throw the whole tone of many of these posts in pretty sharp relief =P). Mostly workers would probably just press corporations to redistribute a historically representative portion of profits to workers, improve working conditions in ways that make sense, and focus on the longer term. After all - workers will be there, ideally, 5-30ish years, while many shareholders are looking to pump the stock price as high as they can in the short term so they can jump ship before the decisions that lead to that point come home to roost.

wtvanhest 8y ago

I don't think it would be bad to have an elected board member. It would provide input into decisions that have the potential to negatively impact employees.

castlecrasher2 8y ago
I don't disagree with you, I just think the obvious connection between these elected directors' compensation and how well-liked they are would mean less-qualified, less-effective leaders on average.

wffurr 8y ago

>> populist execs vying for employee votes The alternative to democracy is feudalism, which is basically what we have now. You might hold your nose and say "politics" or "populism" but this is how you as an employee can exercise power in the workplace. I certainly prefer "populist execs vying for employee votes" to "brown nosing employees vying for exec favor".

Brushfire 8y ago
Surely you aren't serious. Feudalism required working for the landowners near where you lived. In our society you can change jobs, start your own business, move, do freelance work, or not work at all if you so choose. I agree there are problems with the current system, but to equate it to feudalism is insanity.
- wffurr 8y ago
  Insanity? CEOs seem an awful lot like Kings to me. And everything in a company is essentially at the whim of the CEO or private owners. >> you can change jobs At the whim of the hiring managers and their bosses etc. >> start your own business At the whim of the financiers or by boostrapping yourself with the crumbs the capitalists leave to the working class. >> move In fact often one has to move away from one's home, community, and family to find work, because that's where the bosses decided to employ people. >> do freelance work Again at the whim of those who have money to pay for your services. >> or not work at all If you want to accept a severely reduced lifestyle with the dregs of an under-funded dehumanizing welfare state, designed to force people into employment. I'm absolutely serious.
  - castlecrasher2 8y ago
    > CEOs seem an awful lot like Kings to me. This is such laughable hyperbole that I have to wonder whether you work in a skilled profession or you're just another internet commentator. The only way you could think CEOs have absolute authority over you like a king would is if you have a psychological complex.
  - cabaalis 8y ago
    I think you harmed your claim by elaborating. I have a tendency to do so as well. I often stop myself from replying to those who reply to me, in order to provide someone else a chance who agrees with my position to reinforce.

dclowd9901 8y ago

> A counter-argument to this premise could take this line and re-write it as "American corporations exist only because shareholders/VC firms invested capital in them." And how on earth would that be a valid counter argument? It's patently false! Companies _do not_ require shareholder or VC investment to exist. They require people to work at the company and produce a product ("product" being the most extended notion of a company's deliverable).

castlecrasher2 8y ago
We're talking $1 billion+ in sales per year corporations, per the article, most of which are public. Obviously you are correct that companies need people but I don't see "how on earth" it's invalid to suggest most companies getting $1 billion revenue/yr exist as they are because they received some kind of outside funding. Very few companies are 100% bootstrapped.

nv-vn 8y ago

It's also a very short-sighted statement. People should probably have the freedom to incorporate a company whenever they want. We've seen the effects of the opposite and they're not pretty.

genericid 8y ago
Are you implying that the Soviet Union was, well, the Soviet Union because of too much democracy?
- nv-vn 8y ago
  Well I don't think in their case it had much to do with democracy. But a better example might be a country like India or Japan even, where they have a ton of bureaucracy in place that makes it super hard to make any headway when trying to form a company. A lot of these were well-intentioned regulations that people would've voted in support of, but then this ends up stopping the average joe from starting a lemonade stand. An example of this in America is the requirements to become a hairdresser in New Jersey, where you have to go through hundreds of hours of training in things like chemical products when all you want to do is braid hair.

analog31 8y ago

I would change it slightly, by saying that American corporations of any appreciable size exist because we grant them charters and as a result people are willing to invest in them. Without the charter (including entitlements such as limitation of liability), investment would shrink so drastically that we'd be back to mostly mom-and-pop businesses.

null000 8y ago

> it's not exactly the cause... American corporations exist only because shareholders/VC firms invested capital in them. There's a pretty big difference. Shareholders/VC firms investing capital in them allows the company to expand faster or better allocate resources. They're helpful and make the system what it is, but they're pretty interchangeable from an abstract perspective, and corporations would still exist without them in some way shape or form - maybe different structures of ownership and liability, but they'd be there. Corporations could not, meanwhile, structurally exist as a thing or concept without the government's consent. (side note: I acknowledge there is no world where the US decides corporations stop existing, and that in all practicality, such an event would probably not result in the actual dissolution of every single US based corporation, but I'm talking theoretically here to make a point - the Government's participation in a corporation's existence is fundamentally different from shareholder's) > My initial reaction is I don't want to work under populist execs vying for employee votes; I think we get enough political speak from them as it is. How is political pandering to shareholders (stock growth! dividends! profit!) fundamentally different from political pandering to workers (narrower wage gaps! livable working conditions! sick and vacation days!)? Additionally, working at one of the companies that (at least in word) tries to listen to and pander to its employees, it can be a positive, symbiotic relationship. I think you're giving workers too little credit - most people understand fundamental economic realities, and that they're not going to get gold plated toilets, beer drinking fountains, and 7 figure entry level salaries (I'd use 6 figure entry level salaries.... but, well, that's already a thing in Silicon Valley, which in addition to the ridiculously nice working conditions many here benefit from, does quite a bit to throw the whole tone of many of these posts in pretty sharp relief =P). Mostly workers would probably just press corporations to redistribute a historically representative portion of profits to workers, improve working conditions in ways that make sense, and focus on the longer term. After all - workers will be there, ideally, 5-30ish years, while many shareholders are looking to pump the stock price as high as they can in the short term so they can jump ship before the decisions that lead to that point come home to roost.