4 ms·
There are many companies that are so wealthy that they could just stop all revenue completely and coast no for decades while management continues to skim out th
by nullc 3y ago
There are many companies that are so wealthy that they could just stop all revenue completely and coast no for decades while management continues to skim out their fat paychecks. Some theorize that this has already occurred.
Besides, -- if you think how some companies work is fugly, go take a look at biology or politics. Companies are evolved systems. Once they're old enough they're almost always messy even when they aren't especially dysfunctional.
The human body is full of almost vestigial parts and dead end metabolic pathways... huge chunks of our DNA are just self replicating repeating sequences.
In reality the cruft in companies is often not even non-functional, but sometimes it serves some more complex purpose. Lots of large companies, for example, have some useless figurehead security position that exists for the actual purpose of having someone to fire when there the inevitable serious security issue occurs, without putting anyone actually productive at risk.
Companies are built out of and owned by people. Like anything else they have to respect the the limitations of the building material and the needs of their owners. The resulting requirements are no less real even though they might not exist in a world populated by homoeconomicus instead of man kind. If man kind wants a blood sacrifice for security incidents then it's reasonable and good for a company to have one.
- RandomLensman 3y agoFor investors winding down and returning money fast might be preferable to a company without profits.
- nullc 3y agoSure, and for a period corporate raiders took advantage of companies like that-- but standard defenses against raiding have become well known and widely deployed. Like life learning how to make cellulose suddenly the landscapes were littered with the husks of things that nothing knew how to digest. But the value to society at large isn't just a profit (much less an ever growing profit). It's good that we have businesses which simply satisfy the involved parties (their customers, their employees, and their owners)-- even if they don't perform well on any external metric of efficiency.
- RandomLensman 3y agoInvestors certainly look at winddown scenarios for companies not performing. Sometimes broader considerations win out, sometimes a change in management is all that is needed, sometimes more aggressive things happen.
- fallingknife 3y agoHow is there value to society in zombie corps that no longer make a profit?
- pjc50 3y agoThe employees are still getting paid! Quite often the product is genuinely useful. It may be a beloved brand. Companies don't vanish the microsecond they cease to be profitable and nor should they. It's only when they run out of cash. I don't think it's anyone's job to be "euthanizing" low-profit businesses that might recover if there is a turn in the economy. The "zombie" concept is economically illiterate. Occasionally you will get a private equity firm doing this and the result is widely unpopular (Toys R Us, Maplin, etc)
- rightbyte 3y agoThe employees and customers are surely a part of society. More offent than not, not making enough profit is overreaching the profit goals to justify unfair stock prices. And the executives and board make bad gambles since they lose the owners money if they lose and win the owners money of they win.
- waveBidder 3y agoWish I could double upvote this over all the political commentary.
- ludicity 3y agoThis is an incredible comment. The part that drives people to absolute frustration is that you might be in some weird vestigial organ, either with no purpose or with a purpose not at all aligned with what the organization is saying, and then waste years trying to "fix it". It's a bursting appendix, don't worry about it - or well, maybe this is a bit stretched now, remove it.
- lesuorac 3y agoYou might enjoy reading the external version [1] of View from Above [2] on apenwarr's blog. The internal version is much better if you can get a copy of that as it goes into his actual experience with trying to improve Google. Although IIUC you both read High Output Management so it might just be nice to know that even within fang people think things are wrong. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34385570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34385570 [2]: https://apenwarr.ca/log/20190926 https://apenwarr.ca/log/20190926
- willismichael 3y agoWell, if you find yourself as an individual contributor in some weird vestigial organ, I feel like you have a few choices: * Stay put to collect the money, with the morale cost of feeling like you don't have a purpose and the risk of getting axed if/when the bursting appendix gets removed * Proactively seek a lateral transfer to a position doing something more meaningful * Get out. Find a different employer. The latter two are likely better, but have their own risks.