4 ms·

> The point of a company is to make a product that customers want, and make it as accessible as possible. Who says? What if we said the point of a company was

> The point of a company is to make a product that customers want, and make it as accessible as possible. Who says? What if we said the point of a company was to make its employees' lives better? > In the US a vast majority of adults now own index funds in proportion to their wealth. That's the problem - ownership is distributed unevenly, and the inequality causes social problems.

pembrook 2y ago
What if we said the point of a company was to make its employees' lives better? Good news. The world spent the entire last century experimenting with that idea. It did not work out well. I’ve already explained why. But, you are of course free to start a company doing that. If it turns out to produce better outcomes for customers (the world), you will win and society will win! I’m guessing you won’t test your ideas though, and will instead vote for authoritarian central planners who will deploy this straight to production via laws. Then your country will cease growing, and will be forced to slowly dismantle this worker-optimized system as a result. See Europe over the next 50 years for more info.
- Draiken 2y ago
  What? We're into late stage capitalism and you're telling me the world was experimenting with making employees lives better? I must be living under a rock! Where are these so called experiments? I only see employee conditions getting progressively worse. If you go back long enough, we did get a few wins like weekends and some limits on hours after a lot of people died for it, but that's about it. The last change we had was probably WFH which only affects a small portion of people and, realistically, is only being accepted because it's cheaper for companies. >But, you are of course free to start a company doing that. I argue nothing different than the status quo can ever succeed without deep structural change. It's like trying to be a pacifist in the middle of a war zone. You will be killed. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with being a pacifist, but it simply cannot work under those conditions. The part that people seem to forget is that we chose to value profits above all else. We can also choose to change that. Even if it's extremely hard to imagine this with all the propaganda we've been bombarded with in the past century, it's possible.
  - danaris 2y ago
    > We're into late stage capitalism and you're telling me the world was experimenting with making employees lives better? They're repeating propaganda about communism and socialism. It's tiresome, really, the degree to which Americans have bought the propaganda that countries like the Soviet Union themselves spread, that they were communist, when in fact they were authoritarian dictatorships with a few very-badly-thought-out planned-economy features.
    - blackhawkC17 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - tempfile 2y ago
        It is easier to have a productive conversation if you actually address the points being argued, rather than dismiss them out of hand with no justification.
        blackhawkC17 2y ago
        The GP boldly said the Soviet Union wasn’t communist. Please then, what was it? Capitalist? Feudal? Democratic socialism? I need a clear answer..
        tempfile 2y ago
        I'm not sure why you think there will be a clear answer, since communism is not a word with a clear definition. It means many things to many people. It's no different to "capitalist" in this respect (and you often see lib-right people claim the US is "not real capitalism" because things like social security and govt bailouts exist). It's obvious that "communist" policies don't entail that you have the same government as the USSR, so I think it's fair to call arguments that suggest so propaganda. It's probably meaningless to argue about whether the USSR had "true communism".
- underbiding 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - pembrook 2y ago
    Cuba still exists today and is ostensibly being run for the benefit of all workers. Why don’t you go visit a Cuban state-run grocery store and tell me how much you’d enjoy living there?
    - tempfile 2y ago
      Mentioning Cuba as a failed example while omitting that they have been embargoed by the biggest economy in the world for over 60 years seems willfully dishonest.
      - Jensson 2y ago
        That argument worked 10 years ago, but not today that Cuba actually started to move towards capitalism and we really see that the embargo isn't such a hinderance as you argue it is.
    - pyth0 2y ago
      I wouldn't want to live anywhere that the US has decided to economically decimate through sanctions and embargo.
    - Qwertious 2y ago
      The Democratic People's Republic Of Korea is ostensibly a democracy. Words are cheap, how much political power do the people actually have?
    - underbiding 2y ago
      Crazy, who would've thought that a country being fully embargoed for 50+ years by the world's biggest economy might have difficulty obtaining goods?
- tempfile 2y ago
  It's not authoritarian to outlaw unjust systems of power. I'm sure slave owners considered the US "authoritarian central planners" when they outlawed slavery. Doesn't make it wrong.
  - pembrook 2y ago
    This is a non sequitur. I'm not saying central planning in general is bad. Companies are an example of central planning. So are families. I'm saying communism is bad.
    - tempfile 2y ago
      It is not a non sequitur! You called them "authoritarian central planners". Am I supposed to think you consider "authoritarian central planners" a totally neutral phrase with no connotations? It's telling you mention central planning in your response, when I objected to your use of authoritarian. If you had originally said "you will vote for <legislators> who will <implement laws>" your original comment is not quite as punchy, I think.
EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Says the reason we have laws to enable companies to even exist. Society want them and it wants them because of the value they provide to everyone else. > in proportion to their wealth. That's the problem - ownership is distributed unevenly, and the inequality causes social problems. Maybe we should work on helping people to manage their tendency towards jealousy. One way is to have a culture of personal responsibility so that if you're poor, you believe (rightly or wrongly) that it's your own fault so you're not filled with hate for people who have more money than you.

pembrook 2y ago

What if we said the point of a company was to make its employees' lives better? Good news. The world spent the entire last century experimenting with that idea. It did not work out well. I’ve already explained why. But, you are of course free to start a company doing that. If it turns out to produce better outcomes for customers (the world), you will win and society will win! I’m guessing you won’t test your ideas though, and will instead vote for authoritarian central planners who will deploy this straight to production via laws. Then your country will cease growing, and will be forced to slowly dismantle this worker-optimized system as a result. See Europe over the next 50 years for more info.

Draiken 2y ago
What? We're into late stage capitalism and you're telling me the world was experimenting with making employees lives better? I must be living under a rock! Where are these so called experiments? I only see employee conditions getting progressively worse. If you go back long enough, we did get a few wins like weekends and some limits on hours after a lot of people died for it, but that's about it. The last change we had was probably WFH which only affects a small portion of people and, realistically, is only being accepted because it's cheaper for companies. >But, you are of course free to start a company doing that. I argue nothing different than the status quo can ever succeed without deep structural change. It's like trying to be a pacifist in the middle of a war zone. You will be killed. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with being a pacifist, but it simply cannot work under those conditions. The part that people seem to forget is that we chose to value profits above all else. We can also choose to change that. Even if it's extremely hard to imagine this with all the propaganda we've been bombarded with in the past century, it's possible.
- danaris 2y ago
  > We're into late stage capitalism and you're telling me the world was experimenting with making employees lives better? They're repeating propaganda about communism and socialism. It's tiresome, really, the degree to which Americans have bought the propaganda that countries like the Soviet Union themselves spread, that they were communist, when in fact they were authoritarian dictatorships with a few very-badly-thought-out planned-economy features.
  - blackhawkC17 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tempfile 2y ago
      It is easier to have a productive conversation if you actually address the points being argued, rather than dismiss them out of hand with no justification.
      - blackhawkC17 2y ago
        The GP boldly said the Soviet Union wasn’t communist. Please then, what was it? Capitalist? Feudal? Democratic socialism? I need a clear answer..
        tempfile 2y ago
        I'm not sure why you think there will be a clear answer, since communism is not a word with a clear definition. It means many things to many people. It's no different to "capitalist" in this respect (and you often see lib-right people claim the US is "not real capitalism" because things like social security and govt bailouts exist). It's obvious that "communist" policies don't entail that you have the same government as the USSR, so I think it's fair to call arguments that suggest so propaganda. It's probably meaningless to argue about whether the USSR had "true communism".
underbiding 2y ago
[flagged]
- pembrook 2y ago
  Cuba still exists today and is ostensibly being run for the benefit of all workers. Why don’t you go visit a Cuban state-run grocery store and tell me how much you’d enjoy living there?
  - tempfile 2y ago
    Mentioning Cuba as a failed example while omitting that they have been embargoed by the biggest economy in the world for over 60 years seems willfully dishonest.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      That argument worked 10 years ago, but not today that Cuba actually started to move towards capitalism and we really see that the embargo isn't such a hinderance as you argue it is.
  - pyth0 2y ago
    I wouldn't want to live anywhere that the US has decided to economically decimate through sanctions and embargo.
  - Qwertious 2y ago
    The Democratic People's Republic Of Korea is ostensibly a democracy. Words are cheap, how much political power do the people actually have?
  - underbiding 2y ago
    Crazy, who would've thought that a country being fully embargoed for 50+ years by the world's biggest economy might have difficulty obtaining goods?
tempfile 2y ago
It's not authoritarian to outlaw unjust systems of power. I'm sure slave owners considered the US "authoritarian central planners" when they outlawed slavery. Doesn't make it wrong.
- pembrook 2y ago
  This is a non sequitur. I'm not saying central planning in general is bad. Companies are an example of central planning. So are families. I'm saying communism is bad.
  - tempfile 2y ago
    It is not a non sequitur! You called them "authoritarian central planners". Am I supposed to think you consider "authoritarian central planners" a totally neutral phrase with no connotations? It's telling you mention central planning in your response, when I objected to your use of authoritarian. If you had originally said "you will vote for <legislators> who will <implement laws>" your original comment is not quite as punchy, I think.

EnigmaFlare 2y ago

Says the reason we have laws to enable companies to even exist. Society want them and it wants them because of the value they provide to everyone else. > in proportion to their wealth. That's the problem - ownership is distributed unevenly, and the inequality causes social problems. Maybe we should work on helping people to manage their tendency towards jealousy. One way is to have a culture of personal responsibility so that if you're poor, you believe (rightly or wrongly) that it's your own fault so you're not filled with hate for people who have more money than you.