4 ms·

The purpose of a corporation is to make money, not jobs.

by mulmen 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago
to play devils advocate, there are different levels one can look at that. From the level of the companies and owners, the goal is to make money. From the perspective of society there are tons of answers. A common answer is that companies provide goods and services that give consumers more value than they cost, thereby enriching the lives of consumers. It seems like some people, especially those who take issue with layoffs, tend to think the social purpose of companies is to give jobs/money to workers. This leads to a lot of frustration for those people because the entire economic system is set up such that jobs are an optional byproduct of making goods, not the other way around.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
duped 2y ago
We live in a society where there are more metrics than money. The entire notion of corporate amorality is a thin veil that people use to hide their own unethical and immoral behavior. That's why I made the comment that layoffs are the trolley problem. It's an ethical question and companies don't always make the ethical choice, for example choosing profit over jobs in a downturn.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  That presupposes an ethical obligation to provide jobs, which is of course at the center of this. If you think companies have a ethical obligation to provide jobs and do so continuously, of course you will find issue with the rest of it. All objections stem from this, and it is controversial.
  - duped 2y ago
    I disagree, and think you're missing the forest for the trees. I think that people have an obligation to keep their promises to other people - that's a virtue called honesty or integrity. When a promise needs to be broken, that presents an ethical dilemma. One example of people making a promise is hiring. A layoff is fundamentally breaking the promise you made to a group of people to keep them employed - whether that's the most ethical choice or not circles back to the trolley problem. If 20% need to be laid off to save the 80% then it's not an unethical choice. If 20% need to be laid off to make up for the mistake of a small group of leaders in order to benefit the small group of shareholders, then it's unethical. > All objections stem from this, and it is controversial. It's only controversial when you pretend that you can absolve an unethical choice by placing it behind the corporate veil. It's not controversial outside of Milton Friedman disciples.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Do you think hiring is a promise? What do you think the promise consists of? I think you are projecting a promise where you want one to be, but nobody is actually under the impression it exists. Neither employers and employees are under the impression jobs are for life. If you're concern is primarily honesty and promise, would this piece satisfied by a written declaration and acknowledgment that the duration of employment is not indefinite and can change based on the arbitrary whims of the employer? If you remove the corporate veil, what do you think the promise is for one human hiring another, and the ethical requirements. If I hire a housekeeper or babysitter, what am I committing to? I dont see how corporations are held to anything but a higher expectation than individuals, not lower. Can you expand on this?
    - Matticus_Rex 2y ago
      Huh? A promise to keep people employed? If it's not in the contract, it hasn't been promised. You're fan-fictioning a promise that was never made to manufacture an ethical issue that's not actually real. If the contract says you'll get 60 days notice and you don't, that is a broken promise (and an actionable breach of contract). Firing someone you hired is not a broken promise. You don't have to be a Milton Friedman disciple to refrain from gaslighting about employment being a promise to keep people employed forever.
- mulmen 2y ago
  > The entire notion of corporate amorality is a thin veil that people use to hide their own unethical and immoral behavior. Do you believe there is no such thing as an ethical layoff?
  - duped 2y ago
    No, but that specific sentence you're quoting is targeting a very specific bit of business ethics teaching that I find great issue with. IME no one making decisions like layoffs really believes in the amorality of corporate decisions, except the morally bankrupt. You don't find solace in the idea that a company only exists to make money when you're telling a father whose kids are about to start college that he needs to look for a new job.
    - mulmen 2y ago
      Ok but you brought it up. I didn’t say anyone should be finding solace in anything. Or even mention ethics. You’re replying to something I didn’t say.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    There are. This isn't one.
    - mulmen 2y ago
      Ah I misunderstood. I thought the comment I replied to was speaking generally.

The purpose of a corporation is to make money, not jobs.

by mulmen 2y ago

The purpose of a corporation is to make money, not jobs.

to play devils advocate, there are different levels one can look at that. From the level of the companies and owners, the goal is to make money. From the perspective of society there are tons of answers. A common answer is that companies provide goods and services that give consumers more value than they cost, thereby enriching the lives of consumers. It seems like some people, especially those who take issue with layoffs, tend to think the social purpose of companies is to give jobs/money to workers. This leads to a lot of frustration for those people because the entire economic system is set up such that jobs are an optional byproduct of making goods, not the other way around.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

duped 2y ago

We live in a society where there are more metrics than money. The entire notion of corporate amorality is a thin veil that people use to hide their own unethical and immoral behavior. That's why I made the comment that layoffs are the trolley problem. It's an ethical question and companies don't always make the ethical choice, for example choosing profit over jobs in a downturn.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
That presupposes an ethical obligation to provide jobs, which is of course at the center of this. If you think companies have a ethical obligation to provide jobs and do so continuously, of course you will find issue with the rest of it. All objections stem from this, and it is controversial.
- duped 2y ago
  I disagree, and think you're missing the forest for the trees. I think that people have an obligation to keep their promises to other people - that's a virtue called honesty or integrity. When a promise needs to be broken, that presents an ethical dilemma. One example of people making a promise is hiring. A layoff is fundamentally breaking the promise you made to a group of people to keep them employed - whether that's the most ethical choice or not circles back to the trolley problem. If 20% need to be laid off to save the 80% then it's not an unethical choice. If 20% need to be laid off to make up for the mistake of a small group of leaders in order to benefit the small group of shareholders, then it's unethical. > All objections stem from this, and it is controversial. It's only controversial when you pretend that you can absolve an unethical choice by placing it behind the corporate veil. It's not controversial outside of Milton Friedman disciples.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Do you think hiring is a promise? What do you think the promise consists of? I think you are projecting a promise where you want one to be, but nobody is actually under the impression it exists. Neither employers and employees are under the impression jobs are for life. If you're concern is primarily honesty and promise, would this piece satisfied by a written declaration and acknowledgment that the duration of employment is not indefinite and can change based on the arbitrary whims of the employer? If you remove the corporate veil, what do you think the promise is for one human hiring another, and the ethical requirements. If I hire a housekeeper or babysitter, what am I committing to? I dont see how corporations are held to anything but a higher expectation than individuals, not lower. Can you expand on this?
  - Matticus_Rex 2y ago
    Huh? A promise to keep people employed? If it's not in the contract, it hasn't been promised. You're fan-fictioning a promise that was never made to manufacture an ethical issue that's not actually real. If the contract says you'll get 60 days notice and you don't, that is a broken promise (and an actionable breach of contract). Firing someone you hired is not a broken promise. You don't have to be a Milton Friedman disciple to refrain from gaslighting about employment being a promise to keep people employed forever.
mulmen 2y ago
> The entire notion of corporate amorality is a thin veil that people use to hide their own unethical and immoral behavior. Do you believe there is no such thing as an ethical layoff?
- duped 2y ago
  No, but that specific sentence you're quoting is targeting a very specific bit of business ethics teaching that I find great issue with. IME no one making decisions like layoffs really believes in the amorality of corporate decisions, except the morally bankrupt. You don't find solace in the idea that a company only exists to make money when you're telling a father whose kids are about to start college that he needs to look for a new job.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    Ok but you brought it up. I didn’t say anyone should be finding solace in anything. Or even mention ethics. You’re replying to something I didn’t say.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  There are. This isn't one.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    Ah I misunderstood. I thought the comment I replied to was speaking generally.