3 ms·

Friedman wasn't the least bit sympathetic to non-management workers' plight. All he cared about was the owners. And executives usually own a disproportionate nu

Friedman wasn't the least bit sympathetic to non-management workers' plight. All he cared about was the owners. And executives usually own a disproportionate number of their company's shares.

robertlagrant 2y ago
Executives are not owners. They may not own anything. An owner could also be a plumber working for himself. That's not at all like Jack Welch. To my limited understanding, Friedman's approach to workers was we should make it so competitors can spring up, as your best job security and working conditions and salaries come from the existence of other companies. And additionally that when companies do well, their customers (also most non-management workers for most companies) get better and/or cheaper products, as people are customers of other businesses as well as employees of their own company.
- sydbarrett74 2y ago
  Shareholders are owners. If you have equity in something, you are literally an owner. Maybe not the sole owner, but an owner nonetheless. Also, please note my use of the adverb 'usually' to qualify my assertion re: executives and corporate ownership.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    I agree that shareholders are owners. I saw "usually", but given the minor overlap it didn't seem sufficient to support a full assertion that MF sides with executives. Given that owners don't have to be executives and executives don't have to be owners.
    - sydbarrett74 2y ago
      We may disagree in some particulars, but we're in broad agreement. :)
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Yes! Tl;dr: Jack Welch - executives are valuable. Milton Friedman - regular staff benefit from competition (in their own industry to keep wages high, and elsewhere to keep products cheaper/higher quality); owners are important because you made an agreement with them when you took their money; executives exist, but are not particularly valuable.

3 ms·

Friedman wasn't the least bit sympathetic to non-management workers' plight. All he cared about was the owners. And executives usually own a disproportionate nu

by sydbarrett74 2y ago

Friedman wasn't the least bit sympathetic to non-management workers' plight. All he cared about was the owners. And executives usually own a disproportionate number of their company's shares.

robertlagrant 2y ago
Executives are not owners. They may not own anything. An owner could also be a plumber working for himself. That's not at all like Jack Welch. To my limited understanding, Friedman's approach to workers was we should make it so competitors can spring up, as your best job security and working conditions and salaries come from the existence of other companies. And additionally that when companies do well, their customers (also most non-management workers for most companies) get better and/or cheaper products, as people are customers of other businesses as well as employees of their own company.
- sydbarrett74 2y ago
  Shareholders are owners. If you have equity in something, you are literally an owner. Maybe not the sole owner, but an owner nonetheless. Also, please note my use of the adverb 'usually' to qualify my assertion re: executives and corporate ownership.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    I agree that shareholders are owners. I saw "usually", but given the minor overlap it didn't seem sufficient to support a full assertion that MF sides with executives. Given that owners don't have to be executives and executives don't have to be owners.
    - sydbarrett74 2y ago
      We may disagree in some particulars, but we're in broad agreement. :)
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Yes! Tl;dr: Jack Welch - executives are valuable. Milton Friedman - regular staff benefit from competition (in their own industry to keep wages high, and elsewhere to keep products cheaper/higher quality); owners are important because you made an agreement with them when you took their money; executives exist, but are not particularly valuable.