5 ms·
> sole focus on the investor does not, on the long run, lead to good outcomes for the investor. This is something that the market can sort out, isn't it? Amazo
by repsilat 7y ago
> sole focus on the investor does not, on the long run, lead to good outcomes for the investor.
This is something that the market can sort out, isn't it? Amazon is famous for being customer-focussed, not shareholder-driven, and they dominate the industries they compete in -- to the benefit of their shareholders. Nobody needs to pass a law telling companies not to focus on short-term shareholder gains if companies that do are naturally out-competed.
Nothing here is "contrary to the theory of shareholder maximization" in any way.
> As such, corporations are best structured and operated with the wellbeing of all involved stakeholders.
Grammar notwithstanding, the same goes for this statement. It is not clear that a focus on stakeholders benefits stakeholders. Maybe healthy, profitable and competitive companies better serve employees and consumers in the long run than companies that directly optimise for those people.
- hinkley 7y agoBut They are clearly not employee focused, which is half of that social equation and most of the “half your waking hours” comment. More and more they are “customer-focussed” in the sense that cheetahs are antelope-focused. The way Facebook and Google have turned out.
- ttoinou 7y agoThey provide valuable jobs, otherwise employees wouldn't agree to it
- svachalek 7y agoSo did slavers, or parents wouldn't have agreed to sell them their children.
- ttoinou 7y agoYes, children can be put in a more productive environment thanks to this
- TaylorAlexander 7y agoThey provide shitty jobs for a lot of desperate people. If we don't work towards a world with good working conditions, we won't work in good conditions.
- ttoinou 7y agoImproving conditions has a cost. Would you rather see them unemployed?
- egypturnash 7y agoPaying them more and having Bezos and the other people at the top of Amazon not be rich enough to buy entire countries is an option, too.
- garethgriffiths 7y agoA level playing field would be better. As is bosses of companies a being paid huge multiples of what their employees can expect to earth
- TaylorAlexander 7y agofalse choice. I would rather see the profits to shareholders reduced sufficiently to pay for fair working conditions. Actually I lied. I would rather see a network of cooperatively owned companies replace Amazon where all workers in that system have good jobs, no one is a billionaire, and money spent stays more local.
- nickpp 7y agoWhat’s stopping you build it then? Bezos built his vision, now it’s your turn!
- TaylorAlexander 7y agoI’m working on it.
- AngryData 7y agoThat is assuming those employees aren't desperate for work. Had we adequate social welfare, or a glut of unfulfilled good jobs, I might agree, but when your choice is "die or work at the level we want", they aren't really given a real choice.
- p1necone 7y agoThis is incredibly naive (or disingenuous?). When the alternative is just not having a job people will take a lot of shit, that doesn't mean it's okay.
- Mirioron 7y agoAnd if the company didn't exist they wouldn't have the option of having that job. How is it not beneficial to have the company to those people?
- p1necone 7y agoGood thing that theres plenty of other options on the scale between uncaring capitalist monster and no company at all.
- Mirioron 7y agoThe more filters you add to companies the fewer successful ones you'll have. Filtering out companies from our current selection would leave you with fewer of them, not more.