5 ms·

There are many many organizations and Institutes that aren't the man. You don't have to work for a soulless corporation. You can do work that helps the greater

There are many many organizations and Institutes that aren't the man. You don't have to work for a soulless corporation. You can do work that helps the greater good of humanity.

nsilvestri 7y ago
The company I work for certainly does overall good, and treats its employees well, but it's still a larger for-profit company, and the work I do isn't exactly my choice. I figure working for anyone other than myself will always have this air of being for "the man".
- adampk 7y ago
  It seems like you independently came to the conclusion of Naval's thesis. https://twitter.com/naval/status/1002103497725173760?lang=en https://twitter.com/naval/status/1002103497725173760?lang=en Maybe you are looking for sovereignty, where you do things not because you "have" to but because you "choose" to. The idea your touching upon might be bigger than just your "day job" but how you spend your time and what decides that.
kd3 7y ago
The thing is, you always end up working for the man since they own part of your income.
henryfjordan 7y ago
Under the current version of American Corporatism, no, you cannot work for a company that isn't soulless. A Corporation is legally required to work only to increase the value of a share, nothing more. Maybe you can work for a non-profit if you're lucky, but how many are there out there that pay market rate?
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  >A Corporation is legally required to work only to increase the value of a share, nothing more. That's just the excuse the CEO's mouth pieces trot out when the company is doing stuff that is shitty and sociopathic. You'll notice the CEO has no problem getting the company to do things that enriches himself at the expense of the shareholders.
- johan_larson 7y ago
  > A Corporation is legally required to work only to increase the value of a share, nothing more. No. That's a misconception. Corporate directors are required to act in the interests of the shareholders, but they have a lot of discretion in determining what those interests are and how they are to be served. Here's a reference from a decent law school: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_law_institute/corporations-and-society/Common-Misunderstandings-About-Corporations.cfm https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_...
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    That reference cites the Hobby Lobby case where they got to opt out of providing insurance for contraception and a Facebook video of an expert explaining how the current corporate system produces sociopathic entities (corporations). I don't believe either fundamentally debunks the idea that the agents of corporations are required to attempt to increase the value of a share. I agree that there's still a lot of lee-way in that, like giving an employee a bonus might hurt shareholders directly in the short-term but you can claim it increases productivity and so is a good decision. You still have to justify all decisions in terms of value to the shareholders though. If you (as CEO) decide to just stop all work and spend every day at Disneyland until the coffers are empty you can be sure you'll lose that suit. And when every single decision has to be viewed through that lens, you aren't able to directly do real good for the world, just indirectly.
krageon 7y ago
> You can do work that helps the greater good of humanity There are many groups that say they do this work, but very few that actually do. Then you have to move yourself internally until you are actually doing work that is the greater good. What is the greater good to begin with? The flexibility of human understanding and the breadth of types of companies with "good intentions" available means that the search for such a mythical group is something that can take a lifetime and still not yield any fruit.

There are many many organizations and Institutes that aren't the man. You don't have to work for a soulless corporation. You can do work that helps the greater good of humanity.

nsilvestri 7y ago

The company I work for certainly does overall good, and treats its employees well, but it's still a larger for-profit company, and the work I do isn't exactly my choice. I figure working for anyone other than myself will always have this air of being for "the man".

adampk 7y ago
It seems like you independently came to the conclusion of Naval's thesis. https://twitter.com/naval/status/1002103497725173760?lang=en https://twitter.com/naval/status/1002103497725173760?lang=en Maybe you are looking for sovereignty, where you do things not because you "have" to but because you "choose" to. The idea your touching upon might be bigger than just your "day job" but how you spend your time and what decides that.

kd3 7y ago

The thing is, you always end up working for the man since they own part of your income.

henryfjordan 7y ago

Under the current version of American Corporatism, no, you cannot work for a company that isn't soulless. A Corporation is legally required to work only to increase the value of a share, nothing more. Maybe you can work for a non-profit if you're lucky, but how many are there out there that pay market rate?

Gibbon1 7y ago
>A Corporation is legally required to work only to increase the value of a share, nothing more. That's just the excuse the CEO's mouth pieces trot out when the company is doing stuff that is shitty and sociopathic. You'll notice the CEO has no problem getting the company to do things that enriches himself at the expense of the shareholders.
johan_larson 7y ago
> A Corporation is legally required to work only to increase the value of a share, nothing more. No. That's a misconception. Corporate directors are required to act in the interests of the shareholders, but they have a lot of discretion in determining what those interests are and how they are to be served. Here's a reference from a decent law school: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_law_institute/corporations-and-society/Common-Misunderstandings-About-Corporations.cfm https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_...
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  That reference cites the Hobby Lobby case where they got to opt out of providing insurance for contraception and a Facebook video of an expert explaining how the current corporate system produces sociopathic entities (corporations). I don't believe either fundamentally debunks the idea that the agents of corporations are required to attempt to increase the value of a share. I agree that there's still a lot of lee-way in that, like giving an employee a bonus might hurt shareholders directly in the short-term but you can claim it increases productivity and so is a good decision. You still have to justify all decisions in terms of value to the shareholders though. If you (as CEO) decide to just stop all work and spend every day at Disneyland until the coffers are empty you can be sure you'll lose that suit. And when every single decision has to be viewed through that lens, you aren't able to directly do real good for the world, just indirectly.

krageon 7y ago

> You can do work that helps the greater good of humanity There are many groups that say they do this work, but very few that actually do. Then you have to move yourself internally until you are actually doing work that is the greater good. What is the greater good to begin with? The flexibility of human understanding and the breadth of types of companies with "good intentions" available means that the search for such a mythical group is something that can take a lifetime and still not yield any fruit.