3 ms·

This business thinking is not a law of nature, it's a choice. Putting investors as the most important cohort of all the people involved in a business (workers,

by piva00 2y ago

This business thinking is not a law of nature, it's a choice. Putting investors as the most important cohort of all the people involved in a business (workers, society, and investors) is a relatively new invention from the 80s after Jack Welch's tenure at GE. So talking about it is important, we don't need to have business causing damages just to please investors. Even more when said investors in a public company have not contributed to the bottom line of a business, they bought some papers expecting that those papers would yield them some value, they haven't participated in the business to actually create the value they expect. They haven't directly funded the business for product research and/or expansion. This way of thinking has been disseminated as being "The Truth" of business while... It actually isn't, returning money to investors used to come only after taking care of your workers and after providing a benefit to society, training workers used to be a thing so your company could keep its edge in the long-term. The way you believe business should be is completely taken over by the financialisation of everything, businesses should be returning value to investors because they provide value to society, because they employ and train good people, not to just suck out the most value possible in the short term. Discussing this is necessary, Google isn't a jobs program but it also doesn't need to be a purely return-to-investors machine, a business is much more than that, reducing it to that point is what gave the USA what Boeing has become, I don't think you would like more of that.

FredPret 2y ago
> This way of thinking has been disseminated as being "The Truth" of business while... It actually isn't, returning money to investors used to come only after taking care of your workers and after providing a benefit to society, training workers used to be a thing so your company could keep its edge in the long-term. Business always has and always will be investor focused. Because they own it. Because the whole thing is literally made up out of their money. Likewise, the tradeoff between short-term cashflow and long-term viability always has and always will be a choice investors have to make. The optimal choice depends on the business and where it is in the business cycle. A wise investor ends up with Berkshire Hathaway; a foolish one ends up with Boeing and loses his shirt.
- mordae 2y ago
  > Because the whole thing is literally made up out of their money. No. Waaaaaast majority of it is made of employee work and customer's money. Owners merely started it in the right time and place to match the demand.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    No. Employee value and customer money can only contribute to a system once investor money and entrepreneurship construct that system. “Merely started in the right time and place to meet demand” is something of an understatement. Try it sometime before you gloat about how easy it must be versus the employment end of the business.
    - piva00 2y ago
      It's all interdependent, investors without workers and customers would never make money, workers without someone with capital injection to start the business would not have places to be employed at. Most of the value was generated by labour though, not by investments, do you agree? There's no value generated by a pile of cash somewhere, you need someone to do something so it can increase in value somehow.
      - FredPret 2y ago
        Of course it’s interdependent. > Most of the value was generated by labour though, not by investments, do you agree? Not sure how this seems logical to you. Both components are required, so you can’t really compare numerically. Given how many people start and fund successful businesses from the ground up, versus how many people have successful careers, it seems clear to me that the start is by far the hardest part. This lines up with my experiences as an employee, investor, and entrepreneur.
        piva00 2y ago
        Both components are required but as much as you want to start a business if you don't have labour to actualise the idea/business, ramp it up, etc. you simply don't have a business. There's no value without labour, that's a given not much up for discussion. The start can be the hardest part but it's definitely not where most of the value comes from, that's what I'm saying.

by piva00 2y ago

FredPret 2y ago

> This way of thinking has been disseminated as being "The Truth" of business while... It actually isn't, returning money to investors used to come only after taking care of your workers and after providing a benefit to society, training workers used to be a thing so your company could keep its edge in the long-term. Business always has and always will be investor focused. Because they own it. Because the whole thing is literally made up out of their money. Likewise, the tradeoff between short-term cashflow and long-term viability always has and always will be a choice investors have to make. The optimal choice depends on the business and where it is in the business cycle. A wise investor ends up with Berkshire Hathaway; a foolish one ends up with Boeing and loses his shirt.

mordae 2y ago
> Because the whole thing is literally made up out of their money. No. Waaaaaast majority of it is made of employee work and customer's money. Owners merely started it in the right time and place to match the demand.
- FredPret 2y ago
  No. Employee value and customer money can only contribute to a system once investor money and entrepreneurship construct that system. “Merely started in the right time and place to meet demand” is something of an understatement. Try it sometime before you gloat about how easy it must be versus the employment end of the business.
  - piva00 2y ago
    It's all interdependent, investors without workers and customers would never make money, workers without someone with capital injection to start the business would not have places to be employed at. Most of the value was generated by labour though, not by investments, do you agree? There's no value generated by a pile of cash somewhere, you need someone to do something so it can increase in value somehow.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      Of course it’s interdependent. > Most of the value was generated by labour though, not by investments, do you agree? Not sure how this seems logical to you. Both components are required, so you can’t really compare numerically. Given how many people start and fund successful businesses from the ground up, versus how many people have successful careers, it seems clear to me that the start is by far the hardest part. This lines up with my experiences as an employee, investor, and entrepreneur.
      - piva00 2y ago
        Both components are required but as much as you want to start a business if you don't have labour to actualise the idea/business, ramp it up, etc. you simply don't have a business. There's no value without labour, that's a given not much up for discussion. The start can be the hardest part but it's definitely not where most of the value comes from, that's what I'm saying.