4 ms·

The primary purpose of a company is not to take care of employees. It is to make money by providing valuable services to society. Yes, it is good governance to

• no_wizard 3y ago
  It’s also good governance to cut dead weight executives. There is no problem here then, is there
• pydry 3y ago
  >The primary purpose of a company is not to take care of employees. It definitely used to be considered as such. There has been a cultural shift over the last 40 years.
• M2Ys4U 3y ago
  The primary purpose of a company, absent any other overriding objects in its constitution, is to act in the interests of its members (~shareholders, although not all members are always shareholders). That usually means making money, but it's not a certainty that's what the primary purpose will be.
  • cyanydeez 3y ago
    this business was a complicated nonprofit.
• janalsncm 3y ago
  > by providing valuable services to society If cigarette companies could cause 5% less cancer by selling 5% fewer packs of cigarettes (resulting in 5% lower profits) do you believe they would do it? You might say that companies have strayed from the Platonic ideal of a corporation and that cigarette companies have strayed from their “purpose” but the reality is that purely prosocial companies have never been the norm. You might also suggest that the very fact that people are purchasing cigarettes demonstrates that they are providing “valuable” goods/services but this is to water down the definition of value to the point of meaninglessness. The truth is that a corporation is a sort of alien entity that almost entirely operates to maximize profits. I say “almost” entirely because it is possible in extreme cases for their leadership to face personal responsibility, but it’s pretty rare.
  • lamontcg 3y ago
    So you're saying we already invented the AGIs that are taking over the planet, enslaving the human race and don't really care about us or the condition of the Earth?
    • pixl97 3y ago
      Robert miles kinda covers this https://youtu.be/L5pUA3LsEaw?si=b-koyR9ZMoEj17Zo https://youtu.be/L5pUA3LsEaw?si=b-koyR9ZMoEj17Zo
    • monoscient 3y ago
      "We are now living in a global state that has been structured for the benefit of non-human entities with non-human goals. They have enormous media reach, which they use to distract attention from threats to their own survival. They also have an enormous ability to support litigation against public participation, except in the very limited circumstances where such action is forbidden. Individual atomized humans are thus either co-opted by these entities (you can live very nicely as a CEO or a politician, as long as you don't bite the feeding hand) or steamrollered if they try to resist." http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders-from-mars.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders...
• bmitc 3y ago
  > It is to make money by providing valuable services to society. I think you mean "by providing anything anyone will pay for" in this universe you describe. There are a ton of companies that provide zero or even negative valuable services to society. And what you describe is unbridled capitalism. That's not what most people consider viable. A company is not a logical entity that satisfies "if company, then capital at all costs", although there are the few (the super wealthy) that would like it to be that way. A company is part of a complex system and thus it needs to satisfy a wide variety of conditions. And note that my comment is reacting to the idea that firing the CEO is some sort of crime against humanity.