5 ms·

That's any for profit company no matter what anyone believes. Any company its only purpose is profit. It's the same with company HR it's there to protect the c

That's any for profit company no matter what anyone believes. Any company its only purpose is profit. It's the same with company HR it's there to protect the company. It's not personnel anymore it's called human resources for a reason you're just company inventory. And "corporate culture" there is none they are not your family there is no culture they'll fire you in a heartbeat.

mach1ne 5y ago
I beg to differ. The purpose of the company is what those in power of the company decide it to be. While in the absolute majority of cases it is profit, there _are_ exceptions. Most notable exception would be SpaceX, which has its sights set on Mars transportation, with profits mainly serving as the stepping stones.
- e-clinton 5y ago
  Seems they have a fantastic PR department
- _Algernon_ 5y ago
  lol. Must be fun having your tongue so far up Musk's ass.
  - dang 5y ago
    Posting like this will get you banned on HN, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- grsmvg 5y ago
  That works because the purpose — at least currently — doesn't actually cannibalise on the profits.
  - mach1ne 5y ago
    Yes and no. By definition, the company does what those in power make it do, even if it is against the profits. No company can operate independently with zero margin however.
- swypych 5y ago
  In Canada, the duty of care, or fiduciary responsibility of the directors is to the corporation. This can be shareholders, environment, employees, and anything else that makes up the corp. This is a fairly recent ruling and is vague but I think begins to recognize the complexity of the balancing act a director must take into consideration when making a decision. I think it’s easy to throw headlines around “Facebook does not care about you…” and maybe this is true, but I would argue that they do care, and they care a lot, as you are there primary source of income and if they loose you, they will cease to be an operating company. They definitely push the boundaries, and I hope society and FB course correct soon as sometimes it’s hard to put their experiments in the search of new revenue back in the their box. SpaceX is a private venture, with the vast majority of shares being held by one person, who is also the CEO. I would argue SpaceX mission is what ever Elon says it is, as he is the primary shareholder. All that to say, IMO Elon thinks on a different timescale than most, and also with varying priorities over that time horizon, and I would not bet he would do all of this without the eventual long term payoff being part of his plan, even if it is decades away from when he started. Elons formula , build profitable company, take profit from company, repeat
jackdaniel 5y ago
Perhaps after the for-profit company scales and goes ipo it is much less likely to value anything but money, however such absolutist view doesn't apply to many small businesses that are often an extension of interests. Not everybody dreams about making a successful startup and selling it ;-).
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> And "corporate culture" there is none they are not your family there is no culture they'll fire you in a heartbeat This isn’t what corporate culture means. It’s a set of shared behaviours and norms. The language used, approaches taken, behaviours tolerated and condoned and discouraged. Some companies have coherency in this. Others don’t. Facebook does, it’s consistent, and it’s horrifying.
- achenet 5y ago
  Could you please give some examples of this?
- blondin 5y ago
  i read the OP to mean that most companies include in their "culture" that you are part of the "family". but that does not reflect what we came to understand families to be. i.e. your uncle does not get ostracized for underperforming. although, i have to say, dysfunctional families do exist...
tootie 5y ago
Not just for profit companies, most people too. Facebook is just very visiy
Grustaf 5y ago
> Any company its only purpose is profit. This isn't true for any company, not even investment banks. When people start companies, money is seldom a major reason, and as they grow they get a life of their own. Even large companies are run by people, people with feelings, insecurities, ambitions. An incredibly wealthy leader of a large corporation is not really motivated by money, he wants more status, he want to look cool, he wants to indulge his fantasies. Saying companies only exist to make money is just silly.
- Crusoe123 5y ago
  Of course they do. That leader would get the boot ASAP if he chooses any goal other than making money as he is behest to investors who expect a maximized return to their investment. Companies where your scenario can play out are the exception and not the rule. Not that the motivations you wrote are much better for society. I am speaking here about large companies that can have impact on a societal level, not your small mom and pop business.
  - FabHK 5y ago
    > That leader would get the boot ASAP if he chooses any goal other than making money as he is behest to investors who expect a maximized return to their investment. No. See my sister comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28956259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28956259
  - toshk 5y ago
    It's hard for investors to get Management in line of the needs of the investors, they mostly work for their own needs, take a look at the big bonuses and raises they constantly give themselves. Often even after a terrible year. In big corporations there are so many investors that they are hardly organized. And even if they are it's a difficult problem to incentivize a manager correctly. It's a topic with a lot economical scientific research. In theoretical terms it's called the principle-agent problem.
- fidesomnes 5y ago
  your opinions can reliably be laughed at forever.
FabHK 5y ago
> That's any for profit company no matter what anyone believes. Any company its only purpose is profit. That's a myth. See for example 1. this aptly titled article: Corporations Don’t Have to Maximize Profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... 2. Tim Cook at Apple: > The shareholder asked Cook about the company’s renewable energy efforts and told him that Apple should only undertake such efforts if they were profitable. In a rare display of anger, Cook replied that there were many things Apple did because they were right and just. “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” he added, “I don’t consider the bloody ROI.” Then he added, “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.” https://hbr.org/2016/09/the-maximize-profits-trap-in-decision-making https://hbr.org/2016/09/the-maximize-profits-trap-in-decisio...
- nbzso 5y ago
  > Tim Cook at Apple. Please, don't. Pushing CSAM, and removing apps for oppressive governments. We as collective consciousness must stop idolizing corporations. Corporations are for profit. The lack of regulations and effective legislation is the problem. The biggest problem is that a lot of legislative mechanics are affected by shares ownership and lobbing. And we find this "a normal behaviour".
  - kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
    Tim Cook is not a saint. Apple makes some poor ethical choices. That said, I’d still prefer that Cook rather than Zuckerberg ran Facebook.
    - nbzso 5y ago
      There is no saints or sinners. This is naive view of the problem. As I stated it before, the problem is legislative and law enforcement related. Facebook or any other company will use every lawful opportunity to gain ROI. The system in place is the reason corporations to avoid responsibility and this is not Facebook or tech company related. You cannot have expectations of morality or any form of ethics. You can project in your mind or imagination, but this will not make a difference at all. As we can see historically with tobacco companies in the past.

mach1ne 5y ago

I beg to differ. The purpose of the company is what those in power of the company decide it to be. While in the absolute majority of cases it is profit, there _are_ exceptions. Most notable exception would be SpaceX, which has its sights set on Mars transportation, with profits mainly serving as the stepping stones.

e-clinton 5y ago
Seems they have a fantastic PR department
_Algernon_ 5y ago
lol. Must be fun having your tongue so far up Musk's ass.
- dang 5y ago
  Posting like this will get you banned on HN, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
grsmvg 5y ago
That works because the purpose — at least currently — doesn't actually cannibalise on the profits.
- mach1ne 5y ago
  Yes and no. By definition, the company does what those in power make it do, even if it is against the profits. No company can operate independently with zero margin however.
swypych 5y ago
In Canada, the duty of care, or fiduciary responsibility of the directors is to the corporation. This can be shareholders, environment, employees, and anything else that makes up the corp. This is a fairly recent ruling and is vague but I think begins to recognize the complexity of the balancing act a director must take into consideration when making a decision. I think it’s easy to throw headlines around “Facebook does not care about you…” and maybe this is true, but I would argue that they do care, and they care a lot, as you are there primary source of income and if they loose you, they will cease to be an operating company. They definitely push the boundaries, and I hope society and FB course correct soon as sometimes it’s hard to put their experiments in the search of new revenue back in the their box. SpaceX is a private venture, with the vast majority of shares being held by one person, who is also the CEO. I would argue SpaceX mission is what ever Elon says it is, as he is the primary shareholder. All that to say, IMO Elon thinks on a different timescale than most, and also with varying priorities over that time horizon, and I would not bet he would do all of this without the eventual long term payoff being part of his plan, even if it is decades away from when he started. Elons formula , build profitable company, take profit from company, repeat

jackdaniel 5y ago

Perhaps after the for-profit company scales and goes ipo it is much less likely to value anything but money, however such absolutist view doesn't apply to many small businesses that are often an extension of interests. Not everybody dreams about making a successful startup and selling it ;-).

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> And "corporate culture" there is none they are not your family there is no culture they'll fire you in a heartbeat This isn’t what corporate culture means. It’s a set of shared behaviours and norms. The language used, approaches taken, behaviours tolerated and condoned and discouraged. Some companies have coherency in this. Others don’t. Facebook does, it’s consistent, and it’s horrifying.

achenet 5y ago
Could you please give some examples of this?
blondin 5y ago
i read the OP to mean that most companies include in their "culture" that you are part of the "family". but that does not reflect what we came to understand families to be. i.e. your uncle does not get ostracized for underperforming. although, i have to say, dysfunctional families do exist...

tootie 5y ago

Not just for profit companies, most people too. Facebook is just very visiy

Grustaf 5y ago

> Any company its only purpose is profit. This isn't true for any company, not even investment banks. When people start companies, money is seldom a major reason, and as they grow they get a life of their own. Even large companies are run by people, people with feelings, insecurities, ambitions. An incredibly wealthy leader of a large corporation is not really motivated by money, he wants more status, he want to look cool, he wants to indulge his fantasies. Saying companies only exist to make money is just silly.

Crusoe123 5y ago
Of course they do. That leader would get the boot ASAP if he chooses any goal other than making money as he is behest to investors who expect a maximized return to their investment. Companies where your scenario can play out are the exception and not the rule. Not that the motivations you wrote are much better for society. I am speaking here about large companies that can have impact on a societal level, not your small mom and pop business.
- FabHK 5y ago
  > That leader would get the boot ASAP if he chooses any goal other than making money as he is behest to investors who expect a maximized return to their investment. No. See my sister comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28956259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28956259
- toshk 5y ago
  It's hard for investors to get Management in line of the needs of the investors, they mostly work for their own needs, take a look at the big bonuses and raises they constantly give themselves. Often even after a terrible year. In big corporations there are so many investors that they are hardly organized. And even if they are it's a difficult problem to incentivize a manager correctly. It's a topic with a lot economical scientific research. In theoretical terms it's called the principle-agent problem.
fidesomnes 5y ago
your opinions can reliably be laughed at forever.

FabHK 5y ago

> That's any for profit company no matter what anyone believes. Any company its only purpose is profit. That's a myth. See for example 1. this aptly titled article: Corporations Don’t Have to Maximize Profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... 2. Tim Cook at Apple: > The shareholder asked Cook about the company’s renewable energy efforts and told him that Apple should only undertake such efforts if they were profitable. In a rare display of anger, Cook replied that there were many things Apple did because they were right and just. “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” he added, “I don’t consider the bloody ROI.” Then he added, “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.” https://hbr.org/2016/09/the-maximize-profits-trap-in-decision-making https://hbr.org/2016/09/the-maximize-profits-trap-in-decisio...

nbzso 5y ago
> Tim Cook at Apple. Please, don't. Pushing CSAM, and removing apps for oppressive governments. We as collective consciousness must stop idolizing corporations. Corporations are for profit. The lack of regulations and effective legislation is the problem. The biggest problem is that a lot of legislative mechanics are affected by shares ownership and lobbing. And we find this "a normal behaviour".
- kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
  Tim Cook is not a saint. Apple makes some poor ethical choices. That said, I’d still prefer that Cook rather than Zuckerberg ran Facebook.
  - nbzso 5y ago
    There is no saints or sinners. This is naive view of the problem. As I stated it before, the problem is legislative and law enforcement related. Facebook or any other company will use every lawful opportunity to gain ROI. The system in place is the reason corporations to avoid responsibility and this is not Facebook or tech company related. You cannot have expectations of morality or any form of ethics. You can project in your mind or imagination, but this will not make a difference at all. As we can see historically with tobacco companies in the past.