There is no balance in Capitalism?

anonymous23456

Well-Known Member
The question from the internet:
'
when company financials improve with fewer humans.

I for one would like social duties baked into the legal definition of a corporation, and not just duties to the shareholders. Something like the - exceedingly rare - two lines in the mission statement of the small company I work for:

- Provide values to the community by doing well and pay taxes
- Provide a means of living to the employees that enriches their lives

I kid you not: that's literally written in the company's foundational documents, and the company has been doing very well since the 1980s. It's not growing at an extraodinary rate, and it's not producing obscene billionnaires that regularly make the news. But the 55 of us working there have a happy work life, and the company consistently exceeds its targets and hires - slowly - all the time.

What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't some of what my employer choses to focus on be legally mandated? It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.
------------------------------------

The answer from the internet:

What's wrong with that? . . .It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.

It costs money.

------------------------------------
The rebuttal:

Does it?

I would argue that it doesn't. At least if you consider society as a whole and not just what the company can't externalize.

If employees aren't as stressed out, they're healthier: they cost less in healthcare.

They keep their jobs for a long time: they cost less in unemployment benefits.

Remember, I'm talking companies that have performance requirements for society here, not just for the owners.

Ruthless and cutthroat corporate behaviors certainly have a very real and very high cost: it's just that the cost is borne by someone else other than the company shareholders in today's capitalism, and I argue that it doesn't have to be that way.
 

anonymous23456

Well-Known Member
"The big players in every industry own the government and it's a revolving door of money and influence to maintain power."

"Which is a shame. Shareholders could receive even more value by trimming the fat in the c-suite. But thanks to overt collusion on corporate boards, executives protect one another, and the gubment turns a blind eye."
 

Turdferguson

Just a turd
The question from the internet:
'
when company financials improve with fewer humans.

I for one would like social duties baked into the legal definition of a corporation, and not just duties to the shareholders. Something like the - exceedingly rare - two lines in the mission statement of the small company I work for:

- Provide values to the community by doing well and pay taxes
- Provide a means of living to the employees that enriches their lives

I kid you not: that's literally written in the company's foundational documents, and the company has been doing very well since the 1980s. It's not growing at an extraodinary rate, and it's not producing obscene billionnaires that regularly make the news. But the 55 of us working there have a happy work life, and the company consistently exceeds its targets and hires - slowly - all the time.

What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't some of what my employer choses to focus on be legally mandated? It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.
------------------------------------

The answer from the internet:

What's wrong with that? . . .It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.

It costs money.

------------------------------------
The rebuttal:

Does it?

I would argue that it doesn't. At least if you consider society as a whole and not just what the company can't externalize.

If employees aren't as stressed out, they're healthier: they cost less in healthcare.

They keep their jobs for a long time: they cost less in unemployment benefits.

Remember, I'm talking companies that have performance requirements for society here, not just for the owners.

Ruthless and cutthroat corporate behaviors certainly have a very real and very high cost: it's just that the cost is borne by someone else other than the company shareholders in today's capitalism, and I argue that it doesn't have to be that way.
What is with all the "from the internet " from you lately
dr-rick-progressive-commercial.gif
 

BrownSnowFlake

Well-Known Member
The question from the internet:
'
when company financials improve with fewer humans.

I for one would like social duties baked into the legal definition of a corporation, and not just duties to the shareholders. Something like the - exceedingly rare - two lines in the mission statement of the small company I work for:

- Provide values to the community by doing well and pay taxes
- Provide a means of living to the employees that enriches their lives

I kid you not: that's literally written in the company's foundational documents, and the company has been doing very well since the 1980s. It's not growing at an extraodinary rate, and it's not producing obscene billionnaires that regularly make the news. But the 55 of us working there have a happy work life, and the company consistently exceeds its targets and hires - slowly - all the time.

What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't some of what my employer choses to focus on be legally mandated? It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.
------------------------------------

The answer from the internet:

What's wrong with that? . . .It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.

It costs money.

------------------------------------
The rebuttal:

Does it?

I would argue that it doesn't. At least if you consider society as a whole and not just what the company can't externalize.

If employees aren't as stressed out, they're healthier: they cost less in healthcare.

They keep their jobs for a long time: they cost less in unemployment benefits.

Remember, I'm talking companies that have performance requirements for society here, not just for the owners.

Ruthless and cutthroat corporate behaviors certainly have a very real and very high cost: it's just that the cost is borne by someone else other than the company shareholders in today's capitalism, and I argue that it doesn't have to be that way.
yeah i’m not reading all that bro
maybe buy stock instead of Funko Pops
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
The question from the internet:
'
when company financials improve with fewer humans.

I for one would like social duties baked into the legal definition of a corporation, and not just duties to the shareholders. Something like the - exceedingly rare - two lines in the mission statement of the small company I work for:

- Provide values to the community by doing well and pay taxes
- Provide a means of living to the employees that enriches their lives

I kid you not: that's literally written in the company's foundational documents, and the company has been doing very well since the 1980s. It's not growing at an extraodinary rate, and it's not producing obscene billionnaires that regularly make the news. But the 55 of us working there have a happy work life, and the company consistently exceeds its targets and hires - slowly - all the time.

What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't some of what my employer choses to focus on be legally mandated? It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.
------------------------------------

The answer from the internet:

What's wrong with that? . . .It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.

It costs money.

------------------------------------
The rebuttal:

Does it?

I would argue that it doesn't. At least if you consider society as a whole and not just what the company can't externalize.

If employees aren't as stressed out, they're healthier: they cost less in healthcare.

They keep their jobs for a long time: they cost less in unemployment benefits.

Remember, I'm talking companies that have performance requirements for society here, not just for the owners.

Ruthless and cutthroat corporate behaviors certainly have a very real and very high cost: it's just that the cost is borne by someone else other than the company shareholders in today's capitalism, and I argue that it doesn't have to be that way.
ralph nader is an expert on this.


theres a documentary called the corporation you can check out.
 

P£INinY0uR***UnionGuy8564

Work now, Grieve later.
The question from the internet:
'
when company financials improve with fewer humans.

I for one would like social duties baked into the legal definition of a corporation, and not just duties to the shareholders. Something like the - exceedingly rare - two lines in the mission statement of the small company I work for:

- Provide values to the community by doing well and pay taxes
- Provide a means of living to the employees that enriches their lives

I kid you not: that's literally written in the company's foundational documents, and the company has been doing very well since the 1980s. It's not growing at an extraodinary rate, and it's not producing obscene billionnaires that regularly make the news. But the 55 of us working there have a happy work life, and the company consistently exceeds its targets and hires - slowly - all the time.

What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't some of what my employer choses to focus on be legally mandated? It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.
------------------------------------

The answer from the internet:

What's wrong with that? . . .It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.

It costs money.

------------------------------------
The rebuttal:

Does it?

I would argue that it doesn't. At least if you consider society as a whole and not just what the company can't externalize.

If employees aren't as stressed out, they're healthier: they cost less in healthcare.

They keep their jobs for a long time: they cost less in unemployment benefits.

Remember, I'm talking companies that have performance requirements for society here, not just for the owners.

Ruthless and cutthroat corporate behaviors certainly have a very real and very high cost: it's just that the cost is borne by someone else other than the company shareholders in today's capitalism, and I argue that it doesn't have to be that way.
What small company do you work for? Part time at UPS? The reality is that small companies don't provide middle class wages. Yes, it's less stress but are you going to make enough money on that income alone to provide. The cost of stress is high but the elite don't give a :censored2: as long as they're making money. They make the government foot the bill which we pay taxes for (and accumulate a deficit) while living in luxury.

Could be worse. You can have a Soviet style government where you're given a rashion for vodka and bread. Pick your poison.
 
Last edited:

JL 0513

Well-Known Member
What small company do you work for? Part time at UPS? The reality is that small companies don't provide middle class wages. Yes, it's less stress but are you going to make enough money on that income alone to provide. The cost of stress is high but the elite don't give a :censored2: as long as they're making money. They make the government foot the bill which we pay taxes for (and accumulate a deficit) while living in luxury.

Could be worse. You can have a Soviet style government where you're given a rashion for vodka and bread. Pick your poison.

It's true, people like to demonize large corporations and tout small business. I'm all for small businesses but it is a fact that the average worker has much better pay and benefits working for a large business. Could a small business pay us $45/hr with full health coverage and a pension and 6 weeks paid vacations to make deliveries?
 

KearsargeCoop

Baseball, dart board
It's true, people like to demonize large corporations and tout small business. I'm all for small businesses but it is a fact that the average worker has much better pay and benefits working for a large business. Could a small business pay us $45/hr with full health coverage and a pension and 6 weeks paid vacations to make deliveries?
This is just it.
As a former small business owner with around 20 employees the best I could muster for my full time best employees was about $48k a year, simple IRA 3 percent match and 8 weeks off in the fall for a shut down, unpaid. Salary was broken up over 48 weeks of pay.

And I wasn't making much more than that. The realization made me exit the business and that's how I got in at Brown.
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
It's true, people like to demonize large corporations and tout small business. I'm all for small businesses but it is a fact that the average worker has much better pay and benefits working for a large business. Could a small business pay us $45/hr with full health coverage and a pension and 6 weeks paid vacations to make deliveries?
yes lol

ppl demonize large corporations because theres no difference between you following orders from your boss to construct a death star on time and what you currently do.

large businesses kill small biz and act as monopolies
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
What small company do you work for? Part time at UPS? The reality is that small companies don't provide middle class wages. Yes, it's less stress but are you going to make enough money on that income alone to provide. The cost of stress is high but the elite don't give a :censored2: as long as they're making money. They make the government foot the bill which we pay taxes for (and accumulate a deficit) while living in luxury.

Could be worse. You can have a Soviet style government where you're given a rashion for vodka and bread. Pick your poison.
you just need equal employee ownership and voting power
 

JL 0513

Well-Known Member
yes lol

ppl demonize large corporations because theres no difference between you following orders from your boss to construct a death star on time and what you currently do.

large businesses kill small biz and act as monopolies

And why do you suppose big business kills small business? I'll answer for you - because they offer more at better prices. Simple and plain. Small businesses need to find a niche or location they can thrive. It's the reason you don't do all your groceries at the corner convenience store vs the large grocery store. I'll cost twice as much to eat. It's there to get something quickly so they stay in business for that convenience.
 
Top