5 ms·
> People finding ways to strip out assets from companies. If those people don't own the company, what is the owner doing by allowing this to happen? If those
by chii 3y ago
> People finding ways to strip out assets from companies.
If those people don't own the company, what is the owner doing by allowing this to happen?
If those people _are_ the owners, then there shouldn't be a problem, since it's their own company, and they ought to be allowed to do anything they wish. Including short term reward for long term loss (if it is worth it in their eyes).
So i dont think it's "looting" (implying it's being stolen without knowledge of the owner).
- junofan 3y agoI think fiduciary duties get way more nuanced. You can’t always do anything you wish to a company, even if you own it outright.
- chii 3y ago> fiduciary duties only agents acting on behalf of the owners have fiduciary duty. Of course, if you are a majority owner, but there exists minority owners, you cannot screw the minority owners to profit yourself - i guess this is a form of fiduciary duty. But if you own it outright 100%, then you don't have such a fiduciary duty to yourself.
- junofan 3y agoYou’re missing the concept of foreseeable injury.
- chii 3y agoIt is not an injury to an employee to sell the company's operations overseas and close shop in the US. Forseeable injury is applicable to negligence suits, and it is not negligent to change the business model resulting in the employee being out of work. A company has no legal responsibility to maintain the livelihood of their employees at the cost of the business' profit margins.
- blq10 3y agoLivelihood of employees is also a false start, unionization and the accompanying high wages are also a significant factor in the disparity between Western industry and China.
- sitkack 3y agoYou know this is debunked trope don't you?
- jdk354 3y agoThe big issue on that comes down to minority vs majority rights. If the majority puts in a board that destroys the value of the company because the majority also owns another company that wants to buy it at a bargain price, it destroys the investment of the minority. Some people suspect that could be happening with Disney.
- dwallin 3y agoJust because a behavior may end up profitable for its owners doesn’t mean we should be just accepting it as a society. Also viewing a company as just a collection of assets owned by capital can be somewhat limiting. Companies are generally made up of human employees, and many schools of thought treat employees as one of several stakeholders in a company and assign various rights to them and various responsibilities to the company for them. Looking at it this way, the “owner” of a company can easily be described as looting the company if they are destroying a lot of value in the company for marginal benefit for themselves.
- chii 3y ago> we should be just accepting it as a society. This problem is solved using the court system, and then legislation system. Things which _should_ be unacceptable needs to be made illegal. And over time, this has indeed been the case. Things like environmental regulations etc are the examples. > various responsibilities to the company for them i think the employees are reading too much into this responsibility, because the only responsibility the company has for the employees are the legals ones: such as OSHA, timely payment of wages, safety from harassment etc. Longevity of the job, social responsibilities (such as improving the community etc), are all secondary to the financial success for the shareholders.
- adwn 3y ago> Longevity of the job, social responsibilities (such as improving the community etc), are all secondary to the financial success for the shareholders. I think you're describing the way things are, while dwalling is talking about how things ought to be. There's no law of nature saying that companies can't or shouldn't behave socially responsibly. Edit: I'm not advocating for socialism, not at all. There's a wide spectrum between pure laissez-faire capitalism and nationalization of all private property.
- katbyte 3y agocompanies behaving badly is bad for society as a whole, so allowing the "owners" ie shareholders to make a quick short term buck at the cost of employees or a local factory that supports the town because "it doesn't make ENOUGH" money chips away at society and drags down the country all so a couple people can make a quick buck destroying 1000s or 10,000s of lives and/or entire towns. putting financial success for the shareholders above all is the reason for so many things wrong right now,
- Terr_ 3y agoTrying to introspect the "That's Wrong" feeling... I think it happens when people feel that employees/founders have some kind of vested interest in the company's persistence that is being violated... But that thingamajig is something our legal and financial systems do not adequately capture and model, or else it could be but people aren't aware/proactive about it.
- bryanrasmussen 3y agoI think you have a sort of 1920s view of companies that there are 'owners' instead of investors who don't exercise nearly as much control as the people who are brought in and do the looting. anyway in this case the term "looting" is meant to do things that will be of benefit to the people to the company that will in the short term maybe benefit the company but in the long term destroy it. The short term benefit often aligns with what benefits the looter, but this alignment is not hard and fast.