> it's not exactly the cause... American corporations exist only because shareholders/VC firms invested capital in them. There's a pretty big difference. Share

> 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.