4 ms·

Your idea of business and what entrepreneurs want is simplistic. You must know it will be easy to find people who don't fit blanket statements like this. Even

Your idea of business and what entrepreneurs want is simplistic. You must know it will be easy to find people who don't fit blanket statements like this. Even if you think this is the natural inclination of the public corporation, not all companies have to go public and not all investors in public companies care about nothing the company does besides make profit. It's a world of humans we operate in, not some kind of logical optimal point.

triceratops 5y ago
Do you disagree with my central thesis that businesses employ people almost entirely to increase revenue or cut costs? The presence of a few sinecures in some companies doesn't change this basic fact.
- unishark 5y ago
  Yes I disagree and not because of people slipping through the cracks or something. I was referring to people and companies who have a mission. For example to help the blind to see or connect the world. Or the many many small businesses who seek to improve their local region and employ people. Perhaps you're thinking of the pressures on management of the fortune 500 or something, but that's a far cry from sweeping claims like "almost entirely" or "every job". If you want a job at a place with more of a conscience or whatever, they are all over the place. Especially among startups.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    > For example to help the blind to see or connect the world. And if they could lower costs by employing fewer people, they'd have more money to spend on helping the blind see or connect the world. Alternatively, they employ more people because they believe it will allow them to help more blind people or connect the world better. The point is, they don't hire people for the sake of giving them a paycheck. There's something of equal value expected of those people in return. > Or the many many small businesses who seek to...employ people Which ones? Which business has "employ people" as an objective to be maximized? How does it even manage to stay in business working like that? (Note: I'm not talking about businesses that make serious sacrifices to minimize job losses in a downturn; that's praiseworthy. I'm talking about businesses that have headcount as a primary metric of success.) And if pure job creation is soooo morally good, how do you feel about a government job guarantee? They have that under a number of communist or socialist systems. So is communism or socialism morally superior to capitalism? Serious question: if you hire a babysitter for date night with your partner, do you feel virtuous about creating employment? Or do you see it as an exchange of some money for a service? If you do feel virtuous, you should re-think that. Another serious question: is automation immoral? It puts people out of work, after all.
    - unishark 5y ago
      Try using google. Search for companies with a conscience, or companies that give back, or entrepreneurs who's goal is to create jobs in a poor area. I personally know a few. And my point is not to get drawn into an argument about economic systems or morality, but simply point out your lack of accuracy in describing reality.

triceratops 5y ago

Do you disagree with my central thesis that businesses employ people almost entirely to increase revenue or cut costs? The presence of a few sinecures in some companies doesn't change this basic fact.

unishark 5y ago
Yes I disagree and not because of people slipping through the cracks or something. I was referring to people and companies who have a mission. For example to help the blind to see or connect the world. Or the many many small businesses who seek to improve their local region and employ people. Perhaps you're thinking of the pressures on management of the fortune 500 or something, but that's a far cry from sweeping claims like "almost entirely" or "every job". If you want a job at a place with more of a conscience or whatever, they are all over the place. Especially among startups.
- triceratops 5y ago
  > For example to help the blind to see or connect the world. And if they could lower costs by employing fewer people, they'd have more money to spend on helping the blind see or connect the world. Alternatively, they employ more people because they believe it will allow them to help more blind people or connect the world better. The point is, they don't hire people for the sake of giving them a paycheck. There's something of equal value expected of those people in return. > Or the many many small businesses who seek to...employ people Which ones? Which business has "employ people" as an objective to be maximized? How does it even manage to stay in business working like that? (Note: I'm not talking about businesses that make serious sacrifices to minimize job losses in a downturn; that's praiseworthy. I'm talking about businesses that have headcount as a primary metric of success.) And if pure job creation is soooo morally good, how do you feel about a government job guarantee? They have that under a number of communist or socialist systems. So is communism or socialism morally superior to capitalism? Serious question: if you hire a babysitter for date night with your partner, do you feel virtuous about creating employment? Or do you see it as an exchange of some money for a service? If you do feel virtuous, you should re-think that. Another serious question: is automation immoral? It puts people out of work, after all.
  - unishark 5y ago
    Try using google. Search for companies with a conscience, or companies that give back, or entrepreneurs who's goal is to create jobs in a poor area. I personally know a few. And my point is not to get drawn into an argument about economic systems or morality, but simply point out your lack of accuracy in describing reality.