5 ms·

> Companies are for making money Smart companies realize that their profits do not exist in a vacuum. In Germany it's a long standing view that capitalism must

> Companies are for making money Smart companies realize that their profits do not exist in a vacuum. In Germany it's a long standing view that capitalism must be balanced and that companies have a social function in society and must act accordingly. This is one of the secret powers of what we call "Mittelstand" which employs the majority of people in Germany and produces a huge share of the social product. Those companies are often family owned and pride themselves in taking good care of their workforce - a trait that often pays off when times are turning worse since the employees reward good treatment with loyalty. It's not uncommon for a complete workforce to accept pay cuts across the board instead of firing people which in turn allows the company to keep well trained and educated workers on the payroll until things get better. Both sides profit here. So yes, companies are for making money, but smart companies think further than next years profit statement.

davidw 13y ago
> So yes, companies are for making money, but smart companies think further than next years profit statement. I won't disagree with that - I think it's sensible - but what you have written is different from "concerned about inequality".
- Xylakant 13y ago
  > but what you have written is different from "concerned about inequality". I don't think so. Henry Ford for example realized that paying solid wages allows people to buy more cars [1], in turn increasing the profits for Ford. Reducing inequality in a society strongly correlates with social peace and happiness, which in turn fosters the economy. Good social equality also helps a larger part of the population to achieve good education, broadening the pool of skilled labor. Certainly, a single bad actor in a good environment can reap benefits from behaving "anti-social", but in the long run that's a spiral to the bottom. So I think that smart companies should be concerned about a raise in inequality, even if it's only for their own good. And making sure that you keep inequality low in your own workforce is the first step. [1] http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/677-5-dollar-a-day http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/...
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    Henry Ford for example realized that paying solid wages allows people to buy more cars [1]... More precisely, Henry Ford convinced a bunch of innumerate reporters and politicians that paying solid wages allows people to buy more cars. Showing that high wages alone [1] only hurt Ford is simple math. Say a car costs X to build and Ford can sell them for X+P. If Ford gives a worker X+P in wages, and the worker spends X+P on a Ford car, Ford winds up losing X. [1] Higher wages helped Ford to poach more productive workers from the competition.
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      > Showing that high wages alone [1] only hurt Ford is simple math. If Ford is the only company paying high wages - yes. However, somebody needs to buy the products and services that companies offer and the more people can afford a service, the broader the potential customer base. A high inequality concentrates a huge share of the income and capital at the upper end of the scale. However, there's only so many cars a person can buy and drive, only a limited amount of phones you'll buy, only a strictly limited amount of haircuts you'll need, not matter how high your income is. The trickle down effect that's always promoted is a myth.
  - davidw 13y ago
    Keep in mind that there are a couple ways of achieving inequality: * Rich people at the top and extremely poor people at the bottom. I generally think this is a bad thing. * People who are ok at the bottom, and really, really rich people at the top. I'm less convinced this is a problem. In any event though, this is swerving into kind of philosophical terrain about what we all view as the best society. I too got out of Silicon Valley because I didn't like it, but that's fine, the world is a big place and there is room for different ways of doing things without hating on some large, successful companies because they don't have a political view that you happen to like.
    - room271 13y ago
      I don't hate these companies. But I do think their existence is damaging to society. The world is a big place, but these companies operate in the country I live in, invariably pay no tax (or little enough so as not to be meaningful), and generate/perpetuate inequality - which itself is associated with a host of problems from crime to mental well-being to economic growth itself.

davidw 13y ago

> So yes, companies are for making money, but smart companies think further than next years profit statement. I won't disagree with that - I think it's sensible - but what you have written is different from "concerned about inequality".

Xylakant 13y ago
> but what you have written is different from "concerned about inequality". I don't think so. Henry Ford for example realized that paying solid wages allows people to buy more cars [1], in turn increasing the profits for Ford. Reducing inequality in a society strongly correlates with social peace and happiness, which in turn fosters the economy. Good social equality also helps a larger part of the population to achieve good education, broadening the pool of skilled labor. Certainly, a single bad actor in a good environment can reap benefits from behaving "anti-social", but in the long run that's a spiral to the bottom. So I think that smart companies should be concerned about a raise in inequality, even if it's only for their own good. And making sure that you keep inequality low in your own workforce is the first step. [1] http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/677-5-dollar-a-day http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/...
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Henry Ford for example realized that paying solid wages allows people to buy more cars [1]... More precisely, Henry Ford convinced a bunch of innumerate reporters and politicians that paying solid wages allows people to buy more cars. Showing that high wages alone [1] only hurt Ford is simple math. Say a car costs X to build and Ford can sell them for X+P. If Ford gives a worker X+P in wages, and the worker spends X+P on a Ford car, Ford winds up losing X. [1] Higher wages helped Ford to poach more productive workers from the competition.
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    > Showing that high wages alone [1] only hurt Ford is simple math. If Ford is the only company paying high wages - yes. However, somebody needs to buy the products and services that companies offer and the more people can afford a service, the broader the potential customer base. A high inequality concentrates a huge share of the income and capital at the upper end of the scale. However, there's only so many cars a person can buy and drive, only a limited amount of phones you'll buy, only a strictly limited amount of haircuts you'll need, not matter how high your income is. The trickle down effect that's always promoted is a myth.
- davidw 13y ago
  Keep in mind that there are a couple ways of achieving inequality: * Rich people at the top and extremely poor people at the bottom. I generally think this is a bad thing. * People who are ok at the bottom, and really, really rich people at the top. I'm less convinced this is a problem. In any event though, this is swerving into kind of philosophical terrain about what we all view as the best society. I too got out of Silicon Valley because I didn't like it, but that's fine, the world is a big place and there is room for different ways of doing things without hating on some large, successful companies because they don't have a political view that you happen to like.
  - room271 13y ago
    I don't hate these companies. But I do think their existence is damaging to society. The world is a big place, but these companies operate in the country I live in, invariably pay no tax (or little enough so as not to be meaningful), and generate/perpetuate inequality - which itself is associated with a host of problems from crime to mental well-being to economic growth itself.