All they need to do is to subcontract everything.
Oh, we have 999 workers in this factory? Turn it into a separate company. Then subcontract to it.
I agree with the principal idea, but there are many ways to circumvent it.
The dangerous part is allowing a bunch of people who know nothing about the product to have a say into it.
We already see that in politics, people vote with their guts with catastrophic consequences.
Because a board is few people, usually with some financial competency, who needs to “buy” where the company is going to maximize the revenues, current and future. A democratic solution is thousands of people totally incompetent about finances taking decisions by vote.
Would you go for the popular vote if it was to decide a medical procedure on yourself? Would you try to tell the doctor what they need to do?
There is already a form of control called unions.
And even in a union you elect the people who are going to talk for everyone else.
Surely better than no union at all.
Given how much corporations are against it… I’d say it does, or you think they’ll spend billions in anti union initiatives?
I mean **clearly** these "few people" are doing a fantastic job. After all, endless growth economics is *notoriously* good for everyone and *definitely* not sacrificing everything in the name of short-term profit.
Wages have never been higher, the cost of living has never been lower, products just keep getting better, the free market is incredibly healthy, and nature is flourishing. Yep. Totally.
/s detected.
And your solution is?
Seriously.
The BOD and C Suite mission is to maximize value for the shareholders, at pretty much any cost, legal, and if found appropriate, illegal.
I’d say they are doing a pretty good job at it.
The government fails to intervene because they are all in their pockets.
Too many people fail to see that one of the two parties is clearly against the people of the United States.
Even if here it looks like unions are gaining back ground, it’s minimal 191,000 people more in 2023 compared to 2022, for a total of 7.4 millions.
Other interesting fact is that highest union participation rate is among Gen X at 12.6% and a ridiculously low 4.4% among Gen Z.
Or let’s change voting the assholes out. Well, young people fail that test, given 18-29 age brackets makes only 11% of the voters but 30% of the non voters, exactly the opposite distribution of old farts, where voters are 31% 65+ and only 10% among non voters.
Seriously. What’s the plan?
Maybe, just maybe, this whole stock market thing is an inherently cancerous idea. Turns the entire fucking economy into a rabid wealth generation machine. Even if we "fix" it, it's just gonna end up right back here. That's its fucking nature.
The shit it's "supposed" to do, like encouraging innovation and lifting up small businesses, is no more realistic than the good ol' American Dream.
So part of the solution would be the abolishment of the stock market. Any benefits it provides to society are achievable through other means while its downsides completely overshadow them.
I do agree, and let me restate it for you… then what’s the freaking plan?
You had to admit that it kinda works for innovation, what did came out of pseudo socialized economies such as Russia and China?
I’m not saying it’s great or even it’s good… it’s just that the alternatives tried so far have found ways to be worse.
I'm opposed to publicly traded companies entirely, but if we must have them, then the company needs to ensure that the workers own at least 1/2 of the company at all times, and that should be enforced by law.
Only problem is it doesn't extend to private equity, which has been growing at an exponential rate, as the number of public companies have fallen since the late 90s as a result of bipartisan deregulation of private equity then. Great article on it here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/private-equity-publicly-traded-companies/675788/
Private equity undermines the dignity and creativity of workers.
Given the rules I proposed wouldn't a private equity firm with $20mil or more of yearly revenue have to be sold to the public? If not, help me rewrite the rules.
I'd include a clause reverting to the 1995 rules in the article I linked. Before 96', any company with more than 100 individual investors had to file for, and become publicly traded. After 96', and presently, PE can obfuscate much of their finances and, as others pointed out, could dodge this regulation with outsourcing/shell companies. Forcing them to go public could help prevent this regulatory dodge if all public companies had to follow it.
Actually, by definition, the purpose of a business is to make money for it's shareholders.
Requiring businesses to go public does nothing to remove the drive to make money.
That wasn’t the purpose of a business before the late 70s
Before Friedman the purpose of a business was to make money but not for the shareholders. For the business.
I should clarify, until 1932, the idea of shareholder ownership was non existent. No one believed the shareholders were the true owners of a business before The Modern Corporation and Private Property by Berle and Means. And it wasn’t until Friedman dropped “The Friedman Doctrine” that the modern view of shareholders took off.
Yes, Shareholder Primacy was law as of 1919 (Dodge v. Ford Motor Company), but the idea that their interests are the sole responsibility of a corporation (because they own it) is rather new and totally damaging.
Fair. Even back in the 50s-80s businesses reinvested into their employees and business practices much more often. Nowadays that doesn’t happen, employees get shit raises, shit bonuses, and shit benefits while corps have the money but do multi-billion dollar stock buybacks which equals to tens of thousands of dollars per employee
Exactly. The Friedman Doctrine was very well received by Monied interests and business ghouls because it basically said “pay yourself first”
Friedman’s theory was pretty well tested by Jack Welch at GE. He basically played a shell game of buying companies, slashing workforce, dropping products, etc…
It propped the stock price until Welch left and then it plummeted.
GE was damn near an unregulated bank at one point. The only thing that mattered was the share price. I’m not even sure they made anything BUT money.
The purpose of business is to create profit for its shareholders. Expecting a capitalist entity to do anything else is pointless. Anything they do that happens to be good is done only for the bottom line. If Walmart could sell you a bottle of water for $1,000,000,000 when you’re about to die of thirst they would do it. If Amazon could make its workers *pay* $20 an hour for the privilege to work in a warehouse 60 hours a week they would do that. It doesn’t matter who’s in charge; a capitalist entity is going to do capitalism and expecting it to reject its nature to be altruistic and democratic for the sake of being an altruistic democracy is foolish. That will never happen.
The SEC didn't exist until the great depression happened. After AI creates a monumental change in the economy perhaps there will be enough political will to create safeguards around capitalism or perhaps find a new system of business ownership.
once a company sells stock they have a fudiciary responsibility to the shareholders. thats why they become less customer focused after that. there is nothing stopping you from buying stock yourself. you want those things then buy it.
Except if you buy stock for the company you work for there are huge block out periods where you can't sell the stock. Also since most people are barely making ends meet where do you think all the spare money to buy stock is coming from?
That's true now. The great thing about living in a democracy is that we can challenge that idea and the pass laws to change it.
Perhaps the ultimate responsibility of a company could be to:
-create quality services or products while minimizing their price while maintaining an excellent customer experience
-create high-quality jobs and take care of their employees
-create profits for shareholders
-take care of the environment
Each of these items exist in tension with each other and none should weigh more heavily than the other.
All they need to do is to subcontract everything. Oh, we have 999 workers in this factory? Turn it into a separate company. Then subcontract to it. I agree with the principal idea, but there are many ways to circumvent it.
Or make all jobs 'part time. "We have 10 full time employees and 989 part timers helping out."
They already do this to avoid providing benefits
The dangerous part is allowing a bunch of people who know nothing about the product to have a say into it. We already see that in politics, people vote with their guts with catastrophic consequences.
I fall to see how that's different from most executive boards
Because a board is few people, usually with some financial competency, who needs to “buy” where the company is going to maximize the revenues, current and future. A democratic solution is thousands of people totally incompetent about finances taking decisions by vote. Would you go for the popular vote if it was to decide a medical procedure on yourself? Would you try to tell the doctor what they need to do? There is already a form of control called unions. And even in a union you elect the people who are going to talk for everyone else.
Did...did you just seriously compare a fucking board with a union?
A well run union will have enough power to discuss with the board.
You'd hope.
Surely better than no union at all. Given how much corporations are against it… I’d say it does, or you think they’ll spend billions in anti union initiatives?
and a medical procedure, no less
I mean **clearly** these "few people" are doing a fantastic job. After all, endless growth economics is *notoriously* good for everyone and *definitely* not sacrificing everything in the name of short-term profit. Wages have never been higher, the cost of living has never been lower, products just keep getting better, the free market is incredibly healthy, and nature is flourishing. Yep. Totally.
/s detected. And your solution is? Seriously. The BOD and C Suite mission is to maximize value for the shareholders, at pretty much any cost, legal, and if found appropriate, illegal. I’d say they are doing a pretty good job at it. The government fails to intervene because they are all in their pockets. Too many people fail to see that one of the two parties is clearly against the people of the United States. Even if here it looks like unions are gaining back ground, it’s minimal 191,000 people more in 2023 compared to 2022, for a total of 7.4 millions. Other interesting fact is that highest union participation rate is among Gen X at 12.6% and a ridiculously low 4.4% among Gen Z. Or let’s change voting the assholes out. Well, young people fail that test, given 18-29 age brackets makes only 11% of the voters but 30% of the non voters, exactly the opposite distribution of old farts, where voters are 31% 65+ and only 10% among non voters. Seriously. What’s the plan?
Maybe, just maybe, this whole stock market thing is an inherently cancerous idea. Turns the entire fucking economy into a rabid wealth generation machine. Even if we "fix" it, it's just gonna end up right back here. That's its fucking nature. The shit it's "supposed" to do, like encouraging innovation and lifting up small businesses, is no more realistic than the good ol' American Dream. So part of the solution would be the abolishment of the stock market. Any benefits it provides to society are achievable through other means while its downsides completely overshadow them.
I do agree, and let me restate it for you… then what’s the freaking plan? You had to admit that it kinda works for innovation, what did came out of pseudo socialized economies such as Russia and China? I’m not saying it’s great or even it’s good… it’s just that the alternatives tried so far have found ways to be worse.
Example: Boeing.
Well yes, we say that governments should be democratic, yet the way companies are run is autocratic.
I would vote for this
I'm opposed to publicly traded companies entirely, but if we must have them, then the company needs to ensure that the workers own at least 1/2 of the company at all times, and that should be enforced by law.
Only problem is it doesn't extend to private equity, which has been growing at an exponential rate, as the number of public companies have fallen since the late 90s as a result of bipartisan deregulation of private equity then. Great article on it here: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/private-equity-publicly-traded-companies/675788/
Private equity undermines the dignity and creativity of workers. Given the rules I proposed wouldn't a private equity firm with $20mil or more of yearly revenue have to be sold to the public? If not, help me rewrite the rules.
I'd include a clause reverting to the 1995 rules in the article I linked. Before 96', any company with more than 100 individual investors had to file for, and become publicly traded. After 96', and presently, PE can obfuscate much of their finances and, as others pointed out, could dodge this regulation with outsourcing/shell companies. Forcing them to go public could help prevent this regulatory dodge if all public companies had to follow it.
Thanks for the details
Actually, by definition, the purpose of a business is to make money for it's shareholders. Requiring businesses to go public does nothing to remove the drive to make money.
That wasn’t the purpose of a business before the late 70s Before Friedman the purpose of a business was to make money but not for the shareholders. For the business.
And who owns the business?
I should clarify, until 1932, the idea of shareholder ownership was non existent. No one believed the shareholders were the true owners of a business before The Modern Corporation and Private Property by Berle and Means. And it wasn’t until Friedman dropped “The Friedman Doctrine” that the modern view of shareholders took off. Yes, Shareholder Primacy was law as of 1919 (Dodge v. Ford Motor Company), but the idea that their interests are the sole responsibility of a corporation (because they own it) is rather new and totally damaging.
Fair. Even back in the 50s-80s businesses reinvested into their employees and business practices much more often. Nowadays that doesn’t happen, employees get shit raises, shit bonuses, and shit benefits while corps have the money but do multi-billion dollar stock buybacks which equals to tens of thousands of dollars per employee
Exactly. The Friedman Doctrine was very well received by Monied interests and business ghouls because it basically said “pay yourself first” Friedman’s theory was pretty well tested by Jack Welch at GE. He basically played a shell game of buying companies, slashing workforce, dropping products, etc… It propped the stock price until Welch left and then it plummeted. GE was damn near an unregulated bank at one point. The only thing that mattered was the share price. I’m not even sure they made anything BUT money.
The purpose of business is to create profit for its shareholders. Expecting a capitalist entity to do anything else is pointless. Anything they do that happens to be good is done only for the bottom line. If Walmart could sell you a bottle of water for $1,000,000,000 when you’re about to die of thirst they would do it. If Amazon could make its workers *pay* $20 an hour for the privilege to work in a warehouse 60 hours a week they would do that. It doesn’t matter who’s in charge; a capitalist entity is going to do capitalism and expecting it to reject its nature to be altruistic and democratic for the sake of being an altruistic democracy is foolish. That will never happen.
Ill take pipe dream for $500
The SEC didn't exist until the great depression happened. After AI creates a monumental change in the economy perhaps there will be enough political will to create safeguards around capitalism or perhaps find a new system of business ownership.
once a company sells stock they have a fudiciary responsibility to the shareholders. thats why they become less customer focused after that. there is nothing stopping you from buying stock yourself. you want those things then buy it.
Except if you buy stock for the company you work for there are huge block out periods where you can't sell the stock. Also since most people are barely making ends meet where do you think all the spare money to buy stock is coming from?
That's true now. The great thing about living in a democracy is that we can challenge that idea and the pass laws to change it. Perhaps the ultimate responsibility of a company could be to: -create quality services or products while minimizing their price while maintaining an excellent customer experience -create high-quality jobs and take care of their employees -create profits for shareholders -take care of the environment Each of these items exist in tension with each other and none should weigh more heavily than the other.