4 ms·

At this point in history, if anyone honestly thinks that maximizing shareholder value is a good highest goal for a corporation, they are just blind. It's clear

At this point in history, if anyone honestly thinks that maximizing shareholder value is a good highest goal for a corporation, they are just blind. It's clear in situations like this to see that the only reason Amazon is doing this is for power and money, and probably just money. If we want to survive another 100 years, corporations have be brought to heel somehow, and if that means legislation to curtail stock buy backs instead of re-investment, or altering what fiduciary responsibility means to include the wellbeing of employees, not just shareholders, I'm fine with that. But this current system is taking us nowhere good.

giardini 4y ago
Trying to tweak capitalism per se is a losing cause b/c we have no idea how to. Better to keep the current framework: corporations + unions + laws, which work and have been shaken out by previous generations. Until we see a social system that is better and is time-proven, capitalism is a good "first-order approximation" of what we want in a workplace. It is only an approximation b/c it so often creates/aggravates externalities, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful.
- qubex 4y ago
  The combination that seems to have struck the best balance so far is Ordoliberalism as enshrined in Germany.
- mercer 4y ago
  But how does any other approach, entirely novel or otherwise, become time-proven without testing and tweaking on a society-level scale? Much of the social change we've seen, happened despite enormous pushback from the status quo, and was in no way 'time-tested'.
rakoo 4y ago
The _only_ goal of a corporation is to maximize revenue for their owners, all else be damned. It's a tool designed to do that. It's what capitalism wants, and no tool that was built for capitalism will change that, even with all the regulations you put in it. If we want work places to care for employees, care for the environement, care for the neighborhood, then corporations are just not the correct tool so we have to use another one. Workers-owned coops are good, voluntary associations are another one. > But this current system is taking us nowhere good. Indeed, but it's specifically by knowing what the "system" is, what are its tools, its methods, its proponents, and what to do instead that we can go forward.
- giardini 4y ago
  I agree: capitalism is good for businesses but not designed to consider the welfare of employees, environment, neighborhood, etc. Those tasks must be taken up by other organizations. History has shown that a system or interlocking organizations and laws can work, although there are inefficiencies. [There may also be social structures used in other countries that are more efficient for both corporations and workers but that is a story for another day.] Amazon has shown us once again that despite best intentions, given a chance, employers will squeeze employees for all they can and that employees need protection. Otherwise, to a corporation a worker is just a part, a cog in the machine, as replaceable as a beam of wood or a piece of pipe or an item in a spreadsheet, to be used up and discarded once worn out. Amazon might as well be one of the coal-mining companies from the union-busting era (like the movie "Fire In the Hole"). The only part missing from the original story are the gun thugs, and even here Amazon is trying (as was done before) to use police and political influence to coerce workers.
- alickz 4y ago
  How are the incentives any different between an investor owned corporation and a worker owned corporation? Surely the worker owned corporation will also try to maximise revenue for the owners too? Just the owners are now the workers instead of the investors. Even if Amazon was fully worker owned right now I suspect most employees would want a raise eventually, meaning either profits must grow or other employees must leave. So you're back at the "maximise growth all else be damned", just now with the incentive spread across all workers instead of just the investors.
  - blamestross 4y ago
    Because the workers actually have skin in the game. If a worker owned collective considers policies that will hurt the workers quality of life more than the new revenue is worth to them, then they won't do it! An "Owner" ironically lacks real skin in the game that workers have.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > How are the incentives any different between an investor owned corporation and a worker owned corporation? Surely the worker owned corporation will also try to maximise revenue for the owners too? Just the owners are now the workers instead of the investors. The difference of incentives would probably be mainly internal to the organization, but the effects of that would not be insignificant. By far, most people are workers not capitalist owners after all [1]. [1] Having a 401k does not make you a capitalist owner, it's just a clever trick to get to you make some decisions like one.

giardini 4y ago

Trying to tweak capitalism per se is a losing cause b/c we have no idea how to. Better to keep the current framework: corporations + unions + laws, which work and have been shaken out by previous generations. Until we see a social system that is better and is time-proven, capitalism is a good "first-order approximation" of what we want in a workplace. It is only an approximation b/c it so often creates/aggravates externalities, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful.

qubex 4y ago
The combination that seems to have struck the best balance so far is Ordoliberalism as enshrined in Germany.
mercer 4y ago
But how does any other approach, entirely novel or otherwise, become time-proven without testing and tweaking on a society-level scale? Much of the social change we've seen, happened despite enormous pushback from the status quo, and was in no way 'time-tested'.

rakoo 4y ago

The _only_ goal of a corporation is to maximize revenue for their owners, all else be damned. It's a tool designed to do that. It's what capitalism wants, and no tool that was built for capitalism will change that, even with all the regulations you put in it. If we want work places to care for employees, care for the environement, care for the neighborhood, then corporations are just not the correct tool so we have to use another one. Workers-owned coops are good, voluntary associations are another one. > But this current system is taking us nowhere good. Indeed, but it's specifically by knowing what the "system" is, what are its tools, its methods, its proponents, and what to do instead that we can go forward.

giardini 4y ago
I agree: capitalism is good for businesses but not designed to consider the welfare of employees, environment, neighborhood, etc. Those tasks must be taken up by other organizations. History has shown that a system or interlocking organizations and laws can work, although there are inefficiencies. [There may also be social structures used in other countries that are more efficient for both corporations and workers but that is a story for another day.] Amazon has shown us once again that despite best intentions, given a chance, employers will squeeze employees for all they can and that employees need protection. Otherwise, to a corporation a worker is just a part, a cog in the machine, as replaceable as a beam of wood or a piece of pipe or an item in a spreadsheet, to be used up and discarded once worn out. Amazon might as well be one of the coal-mining companies from the union-busting era (like the movie "Fire In the Hole"). The only part missing from the original story are the gun thugs, and even here Amazon is trying (as was done before) to use police and political influence to coerce workers.
alickz 4y ago
How are the incentives any different between an investor owned corporation and a worker owned corporation? Surely the worker owned corporation will also try to maximise revenue for the owners too? Just the owners are now the workers instead of the investors. Even if Amazon was fully worker owned right now I suspect most employees would want a raise eventually, meaning either profits must grow or other employees must leave. So you're back at the "maximise growth all else be damned", just now with the incentive spread across all workers instead of just the investors.
- blamestross 4y ago
  Because the workers actually have skin in the game. If a worker owned collective considers policies that will hurt the workers quality of life more than the new revenue is worth to them, then they won't do it! An "Owner" ironically lacks real skin in the game that workers have.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > How are the incentives any different between an investor owned corporation and a worker owned corporation? Surely the worker owned corporation will also try to maximise revenue for the owners too? Just the owners are now the workers instead of the investors. The difference of incentives would probably be mainly internal to the organization, but the effects of that would not be insignificant. By far, most people are workers not capitalist owners after all [1]. [1] Having a 401k does not make you a capitalist owner, it's just a clever trick to get to you make some decisions like one.