"Ask not what the share-holders can do for you--ask what you can do for the share-holders" was always going to be our ticket onto this shit show of a train ride folks
"Ask not what the share-holders can do for you--ask what you can do for the share-holders" was always going to be our ticket onto this shit show of a train ride folks
Seriously, I think this has been one of our biggest problems. It's not that I don't think investment is important, and I'd like to hear some economists weigh in on the problem. But it's hard not to feel like we're doing something wrong when a company's shareholders become more important than their customers. Once a company goes public, it's only a matter of time before they abandon any pretense of having any sort of ethics beyond a commitment to growing profit margins. It's why everyone wants to be your everything these days - and monopolies are becoming the norm. And we're all made to be complicit, because our retirement funds depend on the continued fattening of our stock portfolios. I feel like there has to be a better way to generate economic growth, even if I have no idea what it is.
Employees used to be considered company assets, even if their salaries were an expense against profit because of their contribution to the profit. At some point, companies and their shareholders began seeing employees as not only liabilities on the balance sheet, but actual liabilities. It might have contributes to the divergence between production and wages that started in the 1970s. https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/15558/productivity-vs-real-earnings-in-the-us-what-happened-ca-1974
That is soooo true. I remember reading articles about it from principled businessmen and some pundits about the change. I have talked about it with people since, but many accept it and say, " that's business". The problem is for democracy to work, there must be a feeling of responsibility to the public.
Of course. I just can't imagine running a business and constantly feeling like "I've got to get bigger!! BIGGER!!!" Isn't it healthier for a market to grow via more suppliers and greater competition, rather than having everything sucked into the dark mass of a single behemoth? When you're a public company, every successful quarter sets a new standard for what you have to accomplish the next time. Just listening to quarterly earnings presentations depresses me.
My family's business was chugging along nicely. Then a magazine came by and wrote a very nice article about us. Overnight we had five times the number of clients, and had to hire more people. We learned that growth can lead to loss of quality, and mediocrity becomes acceptable. After a while, we cut back on clients through attrition, laid off the extra staff and returned to chugging along nicely. The concept of enough is unpopular.
"Ask not what the share-holders can do for you--ask what you can do for the share-holders" was always going to be our ticket onto this shit show of a train ride folks
Seriously, I think this has been one of our biggest problems. It's not that I don't think investment is important, and I'd like to hear some economists weigh in on the problem. But it's hard not to feel like we're doing something wrong when a company's shareholders become more important than their customers. Once a company goes public, it's only a matter of time before they abandon any pretense of having any sort of ethics beyond a commitment to growing profit margins. It's why everyone wants to be your everything these days - and monopolies are becoming the norm. And we're all made to be complicit, because our retirement funds depend on the continued fattening of our stock portfolios. I feel like there has to be a better way to generate economic growth, even if I have no idea what it is.
They used to run businesses on “three legs,” - customers, employees, stockholders. That model started disappearing in the 80s.
Employees used to be considered company assets, even if their salaries were an expense against profit because of their contribution to the profit. At some point, companies and their shareholders began seeing employees as not only liabilities on the balance sheet, but actual liabilities. It might have contributes to the divergence between production and wages that started in the 1970s. https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/15558/productivity-vs-real-earnings-in-the-us-what-happened-ca-1974
That is soooo true. I remember reading articles about it from principled businessmen and some pundits about the change. I have talked about it with people since, but many accept it and say, " that's business". The problem is for democracy to work, there must be a feeling of responsibility to the public.
In that order, I assume?
The business of business is profitability or something like that.
Of course. I just can't imagine running a business and constantly feeling like "I've got to get bigger!! BIGGER!!!" Isn't it healthier for a market to grow via more suppliers and greater competition, rather than having everything sucked into the dark mass of a single behemoth? When you're a public company, every successful quarter sets a new standard for what you have to accomplish the next time. Just listening to quarterly earnings presentations depresses me.
My family's business was chugging along nicely. Then a magazine came by and wrote a very nice article about us. Overnight we had five times the number of clients, and had to hire more people. We learned that growth can lead to loss of quality, and mediocrity becomes acceptable. After a while, we cut back on clients through attrition, laid off the extra staff and returned to chugging along nicely. The concept of enough is unpopular.
That's refreshing to hear. 😄
laughing thru my tears...