this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
927 points (94.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
622 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yep.
Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. They have to make money. And how much money do they have to earn? MORE.
To grow, they offer good food at a reasonable price. It seems cheaper to put the drink machine out for customers to make their own drinks choices… but then we need those extra pennies, so behind the counter it goes, so customers don’t get free refills… then how can we source cheaper stuff, beef beans etc. there will be c constant demand to squeeze every penny from the system… Bob is making too much; better fsck his schedule until he quits so we can hire Alice as she make only minimum wage.
I’m not sure where napkins fall in the chain but yes the quality likely will continue to spiral down.
There are very few companies who recognize that there is a quality floor they should not go below. Where they acknowledge that we can’t get any worse, but they have to raise prices. And depending on the managers this cycle will continue back and forth
Can we stop with the myth that "corporations/board members have a fiduciary duty to share holders for maximum profit"
It's not true and never has been! It's just some bullshit that was said in the 80s that sounds good but has no basis in reality
I mean, they do though? I'm totally against that, but hear me out: if we infiltrated for instance, and tried to do the opposite approach of only screwing the shareholders while providing maximum value to workers and consumers, we wouldn't last long enough to bring it to a vote at the corrupted board. If you don't provide a solid plan on how you're gonna fuck consumers in the coming quarter, they won't even let you stay on as CEO. It's literally not possible to do good in this system, you can either not participate and keep getting fucked as consumers/workers, or you can trade class and provide value for shareholders, there is no in between anymore. The only option that will change this without another Teddy, is revolution. Hopefully a peaceful one.
According to your statement there must be someone getting fucked. An trade where all parties are satisfied does not seem possible.
Isn't that because at the root of greed is the inability to be satisfied? Why don't billionaires, when they have literally money beyond avarice, more than they could possibly spend in a thousand lifetimes, just say "nope, I don't need any more, everything else I earn can go to charity"?
But they don't. They get richer. And despite the public image of them, they'll still try and screw the regular workers out of as many toilet breaks as they can get away with in order to maximise how much they earn.
It's almost beyond evil.
I think that's two different things. Billionaires can and do get continuously richer also when there are napkins in a restaurant to satisfy customers.
Actually, satisfied customers are return customers, which every businessman knows are the best customers. Amazon certainly knows that. The reason why Amazon is so succesful is because they focus intensely on customer satisfaction. They're fucking their employers, yes, but they wouldn't need to. They just do because the regulations allow for it.
No?
As long as upper level management receives bonuses based on share price, and the board reenforces that…
The stock market is a voting machine not a weighing machine.
I simply disagree Management generally must keep increasing ARPU average revenue per user or else the market punishes the stock price
What? Everything you just said has nothing to do with fiduciary duty.
The reason the board acts that way is because of this myth. Also many companies have nothing to do with APRU. The stock market is not just Tech stocks and crypto.
Dumb question: did the laws change or was it a change in trends to maximize shareholder returns?
There was a cultural shift in the 1970s:
See https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/08/22/so-long-to-shareholder-primacy/#:~:text=The%20shift%20to%20shareholder%20primacy,increase%20its%20profits.%E2%80%9D%20Subsequently%2C
Why did that change?
I think it was a self-beneficial fad. All the rich shareholders think it's a great idea, as do many on boards (since the shareholders elect them), so it becomes dogma. All fads eventually lose their shine, as this one is.
But I'm neither an economist, nor a historian, so take my guess with a big grain of salt.
A shift in corporate mindset to maximize growth and profit. Go research Jack Welsh.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/part-one-jack-welch-is-why-you-got-laid-off/id1373812661?i=1000612309266
Not at all is that a dumb question.
See the other comments.
It is much more cultural than anything else.
As the stock market moved from buy and hold for the long term to the more manic trading we see today where shit like robinhood allows everyone to trade options