4 ms·
>lol...maximizing shareholder value is a cause of sagging productivity? Here's the longer paper the author wrote a couple years ago that explains his reasoning
by aslkdjaslkdj1 8y ago
>lol...maximizing shareholder value is a cause of sagging productivity?
Here's the longer paper the author wrote a couple years ago that explains his reasoning. You may disagree with his argument, but to dismiss it outright as having no merit says more about you than it does about the author or the NYT.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/lazonick.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/lazonic...
>Once the problems of strategic control have been addressed, the process of taking back the corporation can turn to
the critical role of organizational integration. Productivity in an advanced economy depends on the extent to which
members of the labor force have the opportunity to engage in collective and cumulative learning over the course of
careers that may span 40 years or more. Under the Old Economy business model, major corporations supported
this social condition through the norm of a career with one company, albeit almost exclusively for white males. It is
unrealistic to assume that in a world of open-systems technologies and intense global competition the norm of a
career with one company could, or should, be restored. That does not, however, lessen the need for collective and
cumulative careers as the employment foundation of a highly productive economy. It is reasonable to believe that
in the provision of lifelong learning through on-the-job experience, government agencies and civil society organizations,
including universities, will have to continue to play important, and perhaps even growing, roles. The business
corporation, however, will have to anchor a national system of career employment through a retain-and-reinvest
resource-allocation regime. Jettison the downsize-and-distribute ideology of MSV, and U.S. business corporations
can focus on becoming learning organizations once again.
>If hundreds of billions of dollars annually stop flowing out of the nation’s major corporations to do buybacks, then
vast amounts of resources will become available to provide the financial commitment that innovation requires.84 Ban
buybacks, and companies will be able to use these funds not only, or even primarily, to finance capital expenditures
but more importantly to attract, train, retain, and motivate their career employees. In high-tech companies a significant
proportion of these employees will be engaged in R&D, but the innovative enterprise needs experienced and
motivated employees in a range of other functions as well. And some of the funds made available by a buyback ban
can flow to the government as tax revenues to enable it to invest in physical infrastructure and human knowledge
that can underpin the next generation of innovation.
- darawk 8y ago> Here's the longer paper the author wrote a couple years ago that explains his reasoning. You may disagree with his argument, but to dismiss it outright as having no merit says more about you than it does about the author or the NYT. I criticized him for not making an argument in the article. He didn't, nor did he link to this paper. But sure, let's address this argument: > >If hundreds of billions of dollars annually stop flowing out of the nation’s major corporations to do buybacks, then vast amounts of resources will become available to provide the financial commitment that innovation requires.84 Ban buybacks, and companies will be able to use these funds not only, or even primarily, to finance capital expenditures but more importantly to attract, train, retain, and motivate their career employees. In high-tech companies a significant proportion of these employees will be engaged in R&D, but the innovative enterprise needs experienced and motivated employees in a range of other functions as well. And some of the funds made available by a buyback ban can flow to the government as tax revenues to enable it to invest in physical infrastructure and human knowledge that can underpin the next generation of innovation. If the problem with buybacks is that they return capital to shareholders then you're going to have to do a lot more than ban buybacks to stop it. If you want to argue against buybacks, you need to argue that they are worse than other methods of returning cash to shareholders. Arguments that they are bad because they return capital to the people who invested the capital are arguments against capitalism itself. And by all means, if you want to make an argument against capitalism, go for it. But don't pretend it's got something to do with buybacks.
- aslkdjaslkdj1 8y ago>I criticized him for not making an argument in the article. He didn't, nor did he link to this paper. But he did make that argument in the article. It's a short-oped so he didn't make it in the same amount of detail, but it is in the article. Did you read the entire article? >A company’s profits are, however, the financial foundation for investments in productive capabilities, first and foremost in employees. Investment in training and retaining employees is the key to productivity growth and innovation, for individual companies and for the economy. I'm not saying the argument is right or not. I'm saying your outright dismissal of the entire premise as garbage and a meme not worth considering is wrong.