But They are clearly not employee focused, which is half of that social equation and most of the “half your waking hours” comment.
More and more they are “customer-focussed” in the sense that cheetahs are antelope-focused. The way Facebook and Google have turned out.
They provide valuable jobs, otherwise employees wouldn't agree to it
Re:What Companies Are For
by TaylorAlexander on Sunday August 25, 2019 @03:06PM
(#20794831)
They provide shitty jobs for a lot of desperate people. If we don't work towards a world with good working conditions, we won't work in good conditions.
Improving conditions has a cost. Would you rather see them unemployed?
Re:What Companies Are For
by egypturnash on Sunday August 25, 2019 @04:09PM
(#20795222)
Paying them more and having Bezos and the other people at the top of Amazon not be rich enough to buy entire countries is an option, too.
Re:What Companies Are For
by TaylorAlexander on Sunday August 25, 2019 @08:58PM
(#20796744)
false choice. I would rather see the profits to shareholders reduced sufficiently to pay for fair working conditions.
Actually I lied. I would rather see a network of cooperatively owned companies replace Amazon where all workers in that system have good jobs, no one is a billionaire, and money spent stays more local.
What’s stopping you build it then? Bezos built his vision, now it’s your turn!
Re:What Companies Are For
by TaylorAlexander on Monday August 26, 2019 @12:42PM
(#20801289)
I’m working on it.
Great! Good luck
Re:What Companies Are For
by garethgriffiths on Sunday August 25, 2019 @06:14PM
(#20795960)
A level playing field would be better. As is bosses of companies a being paid huge multiples of what their employees can expect to earth
Re:What Companies Are For
by WalterBright on Sunday August 25, 2019 @09:03PM
(#20796764)
> They provide shitty jobs for a lot of desperate people.
I know many millionaire employees of Amazon.
Re:What Companies Are For
by TaylorAlexander on Sunday August 25, 2019 @09:08PM
(#20796779)
I’m not talking about every employee. I’m talking about certain jobs amazon offers that are anti-human.
So did slavers, or parents wouldn't have agreed to sell them their children.
Yes, children can be put in a more productive environment thanks to this
That is assuming those employees aren't desperate for work. Had we adequate social welfare, or a glut of unfulfilled good jobs, I might agree, but when your choice is "die or work at the level we want", they aren't really given a real choice.
This is incredibly naive (or disingenuous?). When the alternative is just not having a job people will take a lot of shit, that doesn't mean it's okay.
And if the company didn't exist they wouldn't have the option of having that job. How is it not beneficial to have the company to those people?
Good thing that theres plenty of other options on the scale between uncaring capitalist monster and no company at all.
This is something that the market can sort out, isn't it? Amazon is famous for being customer-focussed, not shareholder-driven, and they dominate the industries they compete in -- to the benefit of their shareholders. Nobody needs to pass a law telling companies not to focus on short-term shareholder gains if companies that do are naturally out-competed.
Nothing here is "contrary to the theory of shareholder maximization" in any way.
> As such, corporations are best structured and operated with the wellbeing of all involved stakeholders.
Grammar notwithstanding, the same goes for this statement. It is not clear that a focus on stakeholders benefits stakeholders. Maybe healthy, profitable and competitive companies better serve employees and consumers in the long run than companies that directly optimise for those people.