4 ms·

>We don't measure well performance of a company in terms of hiring people. I feel like you're implying we should. But people having to work is a cost, both to

>We don't measure well performance of a company in terms of hiring people. I feel like you're implying we should. But people having to work is a cost, both to the company and to society as a whole. It's like suggesting we measure the effectiveness of an engine by how much smoke it emits. The measure of an engine is the power it's generating, and the measure of a company is whether it can produce something that's more highly valued than the sum of costs, an attribute that is pretty tightly knit to shareholder value (certain modern era tech companies notwithstanding...).

Spooky23 8y ago
The goal of society should be to maximize employment.
- fiter 8y ago
  Is there any particular reason you think this should be the goal of society?
- twblalock 8y ago
  No, the goal of society should be to maximize wealth, which can then be distributed as we see fit. If companies had to maximize employment they would need to automate fewer things, which would lower productivity and result in less wealth being produced. The entire society would end up being poorer. This happened in the Communist bloc within living memory and we don't need to make the same mistake again. It's not a coincidence that the countries with the best quality of life are the ones that allow corporations to pursue wealth creation over other goals and then redistribute the wealth through taxation and social benefits. If you want to redistribute wealth it's good to actually have some wealth.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  Really? I'd rather maximize quality of life.
- airstrike 8y ago
  No, it shouldn't. The goal of society is to maximize access to goods and services. Employment is just a simpler proxy to optimize for, but there's a difference between the two.
- EliRivers 8y ago
  Surely the (unattainable) ideal should be full unemployment?
- brandonmenc 8y ago
  In the realm of work, the goal should be (is) to maximize productivity. The problem is that we haven't come up with a way to properly pay people in a system where productivity has increased past the point that "full employment" - in the traditional sense - is no longer needed, or possible.
- imgabe 8y ago
  Everyone is employed in a hunter gatherer society. Do you find that preferable?
stormbrew 8y ago
I didn't see a value judgement in GP's post, more a highlighting of the conflict between structuring corporations around maximizing shareholder value on one hand and society placing life or death value on full employment on the other. Where you land on how that conflict should resolve is going to depend on your views.
- airstrike 8y ago
  Full employment is not a goal. Our society's goal is to ensure people have access to goods and services. Unfortunately, that's hard to optimize for, so we optimize for full employment as a proxy.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > Full employment is not a goal. Our society's goal is to ensure people have access to goods and services. Unfortunately, that's hard to optimize for, so we optimize for full employment as a proxy. I disagree, at least if democracy is also a goal. Full employment gives individual citizens economic power to go with their political power. Merely "ensur[ing] people have access to goods and services" turns them into economically disempowered dependents.
    - philipkglass 8y ago
      In the USA, the 65-and-over age group appears to have significantly more political power than the 18-to-24 age group, even though the latter group is much more likely to be employed. The explanation seems straightforward: older people vote at significantly higher rates than young people. In fact the economic dependency of older people seems to be a rallying cry for considering their interests; both parties will invoke "grandmothers living on fixed incomes" when they want to promote or oppose some broader policy.
      - pixl97 8y ago
        Eh, you're incorrectly doing a temporal shift here.... The older group were workers. They earned income. They invested it, and now are attempting to maintain control of their investments with the last power they have, voting. Those same young people that have jobs now, that put it in retirement, will be the old people investing in the future.
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>The measure of an engine is the power it's generating If the engine in my car generates a massive amount of power but also generates so much smoke I can't drive it's still a shitty engine. The measure of all these things is actually much simpler, does it achieve the goals we'd like it to? If corporations are socially created (they are) and society values them not just in terms of shareholder returns but in returns to employees and corporations are failing to give returns to employees then corporations at failing at their goal.
craftyguy 8y ago
A smoking engine has a cost, it's just not an immediate dollar amount. The cost is impact to surrounding environment, and public health. I believe the same cost also applies to companies. There can be (and almost always is) an environmental, societal, etc cost.

Spooky23 8y ago

The goal of society should be to maximize employment.

fiter 8y ago
Is there any particular reason you think this should be the goal of society?
twblalock 8y ago
No, the goal of society should be to maximize wealth, which can then be distributed as we see fit. If companies had to maximize employment they would need to automate fewer things, which would lower productivity and result in less wealth being produced. The entire society would end up being poorer. This happened in the Communist bloc within living memory and we don't need to make the same mistake again. It's not a coincidence that the countries with the best quality of life are the ones that allow corporations to pursue wealth creation over other goals and then redistribute the wealth through taxation and social benefits. If you want to redistribute wealth it's good to actually have some wealth.
jjeaff 8y ago
Really? I'd rather maximize quality of life.
airstrike 8y ago
No, it shouldn't. The goal of society is to maximize access to goods and services. Employment is just a simpler proxy to optimize for, but there's a difference between the two.
EliRivers 8y ago
Surely the (unattainable) ideal should be full unemployment?
brandonmenc 8y ago
In the realm of work, the goal should be (is) to maximize productivity. The problem is that we haven't come up with a way to properly pay people in a system where productivity has increased past the point that "full employment" - in the traditional sense - is no longer needed, or possible.
imgabe 8y ago
Everyone is employed in a hunter gatherer society. Do you find that preferable?

stormbrew 8y ago

I didn't see a value judgement in GP's post, more a highlighting of the conflict between structuring corporations around maximizing shareholder value on one hand and society placing life or death value on full employment on the other. Where you land on how that conflict should resolve is going to depend on your views.

airstrike 8y ago
Full employment is not a goal. Our society's goal is to ensure people have access to goods and services. Unfortunately, that's hard to optimize for, so we optimize for full employment as a proxy.
- 394549 8y ago
  > Full employment is not a goal. Our society's goal is to ensure people have access to goods and services. Unfortunately, that's hard to optimize for, so we optimize for full employment as a proxy. I disagree, at least if democracy is also a goal. Full employment gives individual citizens economic power to go with their political power. Merely "ensur[ing] people have access to goods and services" turns them into economically disempowered dependents.
  - philipkglass 8y ago
    In the USA, the 65-and-over age group appears to have significantly more political power than the 18-to-24 age group, even though the latter group is much more likely to be employed. The explanation seems straightforward: older people vote at significantly higher rates than young people. In fact the economic dependency of older people seems to be a rallying cry for considering their interests; both parties will invoke "grandmothers living on fixed incomes" when they want to promote or oppose some broader policy.
    - pixl97 8y ago
      Eh, you're incorrectly doing a temporal shift here.... The older group were workers. They earned income. They invested it, and now are attempting to maintain control of their investments with the last power they have, voting. Those same young people that have jobs now, that put it in retirement, will be the old people investing in the future.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

>The measure of an engine is the power it's generating If the engine in my car generates a massive amount of power but also generates so much smoke I can't drive it's still a shitty engine. The measure of all these things is actually much simpler, does it achieve the goals we'd like it to? If corporations are socially created (they are) and society values them not just in terms of shareholder returns but in returns to employees and corporations are failing to give returns to employees then corporations at failing at their goal.

craftyguy 8y ago

A smoking engine has a cost, it's just not an immediate dollar amount. The cost is impact to surrounding environment, and public health. I believe the same cost also applies to companies. There can be (and almost always is) an environmental, societal, etc cost.