6 ms·

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 n

by 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.
- pindab0ter 4y ago
  I’m in no way qualified to speak on this topic but I would expect that a worker owned company is at least not terrible for the employees, like Amazon is right now.
- rakoo 4y ago
  Employees may want a raise, buy they are the ones who decide about raises and are the ones who know the health of the collective finances. Give them the power to make changes and the information to decide about it and you will see the behavior is not the same. Salary is not everything. Amazon is known for its crude exploitation if its workers to the point they don't have time to go to the toilet and must bring a piss bottle with them everywhere; a worker-owned company can't have the same policy because people won't exploit themselves. Workers are fully aware of the ecological impact of industries, so they can take meaningful actions to live a bit more harmoniously with their environment. They can care more easily about the discriminations, about their place in the city and in society because they are directly part of it and are the first concerned. If you can't maximize benefits without hurting yourself and the environment you live in, there's a food chance you will actually not maximize it and care about the rest

by rakoo 4y ago

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.
pindab0ter 4y ago
I’m in no way qualified to speak on this topic but I would expect that a worker owned company is at least not terrible for the employees, like Amazon is right now.
rakoo 4y ago
Employees may want a raise, buy they are the ones who decide about raises and are the ones who know the health of the collective finances. Give them the power to make changes and the information to decide about it and you will see the behavior is not the same. Salary is not everything. Amazon is known for its crude exploitation if its workers to the point they don't have time to go to the toilet and must bring a piss bottle with them everywhere; a worker-owned company can't have the same policy because people won't exploit themselves. Workers are fully aware of the ecological impact of industries, so they can take meaningful actions to live a bit more harmoniously with their environment. They can care more easily about the discriminations, about their place in the city and in society because they are directly part of it and are the first concerned. If you can't maximize benefits without hurting yourself and the environment you live in, there's a food chance you will actually not maximize it and care about the rest