This isn’t what corporate culture means. It’s a set of shared behaviours and norms. The language used, approaches taken, behaviours tolerated and condoned and discouraged. Some companies have coherency in this. Others don’t.
Facebook does, it’s consistent, and it’s horrifying.
although, i have to say, dysfunctional families do exist...
That's a myth. See for example
1. this aptly titled article: Corporations Don’t Have to Maximize Profits
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
2. Tim Cook at Apple:
> The shareholder asked Cook about the company’s renewable energy efforts and told him that Apple should only undertake such efforts if they were profitable. In a rare display of anger, Cook replied that there were many things Apple did because they were right and just. “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” he added, “I don’t consider the bloody ROI.” Then he added, “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.”
https://hbr.org/2016/09/the-maximize-profits-trap-in-decisio...
Please, don't. Pushing CSAM, and removing apps for oppressive governments.
We as collective consciousness must stop idolizing corporations. Corporations are for profit. The lack of regulations and effective legislation is the problem. The biggest problem is that a lot of legislative mechanics are affected by shares ownership and lobbing.
And we find this "a normal behaviour".
As I stated it before, the problem is legislative and law enforcement related. Facebook or any other company will use every lawful opportunity to gain ROI. The system in place is the reason corporations to avoid responsibility and this is not Facebook or tech company related. You cannot have expectations of morality or any form of ethics. You can project in your mind or imagination, but this will not make a difference at all. As we can see historically with tobacco companies in the past.
Second, a random statement from Tim Cook, which itself is the subject of numerous forces and incentives, is hardly a strong case against the argument that, almost universally, corporations act to maximize profits (which, we as Americans, also often pretend is a universally pro-social motivator).
I'll also note that both of your sources focus on short-term profiteering (e.g. ignoring long-term benefits of renewable energy in favor of short-term profits), but are actually supportive of long-term investments, which are, of course, made with the purpose of increasing future profits (e.g. " it is [...] not corporate law [...] that [drives] so many of today’s public companies to myopically focus on short-term earnings; cut back on investment and innovation [...]" and "thinking in terms of long-term profit and returns is an important way of putting society’s resources to their best uses"). Focusing on long-term investments, in both cases, is obviously also motivated by profit (with the second arguing that long-term profits are actually a social good, which is the case only when compared with short-term profits).
However, that is just a broad and fast rule, and it is neither empirically true, nor desirable, nor legally required that every firm at every opportunity "maximises profit". It is this over-simplification that I argue against [0].
If Facebook is shown to pursue profit at the expense of teenager health, or at the expense of democratic institutions, or Shell is shown to pursue profit at the expense of the environment, the appropriate response is not to shrug and say "doh, that's what companies do (and must do)!".
Instead, one ought to discuss whether A) the legal/regulatory framework within which the firm operates should be tightened (eg with rules that just prohibit certain things, or internalisation of externalities), or B) whether a firm should refrain from doing certain things even though they're (still) legal and increase profits.
[0] GP didn't state, as you sensibly do, that "profit maximization should be taken to be the default", but rather (my highlights) "That's any for profit company no matter what anyone believes. Any company its only purpose is profit.", which is just the facile statement I argue against.
[1] Note that these Econ 101 arguments for the primacy of profit maximisation rest on many assumptions that don't hold, see for example James Kwak's book Economism: Bad Economics and the Rise of Inequality.
That profit maximization is not legally obligated (or even "desirable") is not a particularly compelling counterpoint, many things are done that are both legally forbidden and undesirable (of course "desirable" for who is another discussion). Additionally, your Tim Cook quote, which I assume was your attempt at disproof by counterexample, is not particularly compelling either, primarily because it's simply a quote (especially considering there is abundant anecdotal evidence that corporations have the ability to do things for superficial intent other than profit, and many examples where that superficial intent is more defensible).
Also, what you read as "doh, that's what companies do (and must do)," I read as "it's naive to assume a for-profit company would prioritize anything over profit by choice." The second (but also the first) implies the necessity of a discussion about "the legal/regulatory framework within which the firm operates." They also both imply that expecting firms to simply "refrain" is naive, even if it superficially occurs.
That anti-profit dollar, that's a good dollar.
The example of a small feature here or there is a deflection since, like any do-good public effort, it's just good PR to do them when they're relatively low cost.
I mean, CEOs are allowed to do spend money in ways that improve the company's image. They're allowed to perform experiments that may not bear fruit, and gambles that may not pay off. They're allowed to do things that improve employee morale and retention.
CEOs can spend shareholders' money on buying other companies the CEO owns ("I thought it would be a good investment"), outfit themselves with a super-luxury office ("We need it for meetings"), even have the shareholders buy them a private jet ("I'm paid so much, the time savings are worth it") - with the right fig leaf, it's all legal.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon...
Apple, in this case, is one of many companies that generally supports various lobby groups for various causes. In this article, they note that some (unspecified) groups that Apple supports oppose the current budget bill.
Nowhere in this article can you conclude that APPLE specifically opposes this bill BECAUSE of the climate change clauses in it. Nowhere. That's garbage reporting.
The Bill is massive with literally thousands of provisions - most having NOTHING to do with climate.
The title is so misleading, it's comical. Pure clickbait - and frankly, you should be more careful about posting misleading garbage like this on HN.
> Nowhere in this article can you conclude that APPLE specifically opposes this bill BECAUSE of the climate change clauses in it.
That is a lot of caps.
Apple gives money to group A. Group A opposes a bill that contains environmental provisions. Apple will not refute the actions of group A.
Who cares if group A says their objection is for other reasons. They are still trying to sink a bill with environmental provisions while saying they are in favour of said bills. Apple can't have it both ways.
This is the idiotic argument the article is making.
You are better than this.
This isn't true for any company, not even investment banks. When people start companies, money is seldom a major reason, and as they grow they get a life of their own. Even large companies are run by people, people with feelings, insecurities, ambitions.
An incredibly wealthy leader of a large corporation is not really motivated by money, he wants more status, he want to look cool, he wants to indulge his fantasies.
Saying companies only exist to make money is just silly.
Companies where your scenario can play out are the exception and not the rule. Not that the motivations you wrote are much better for society.
I am speaking here about large companies that can have impact on a societal level, not your small mom and pop business.
In big corporations there are so many investors that they are hardly organized. And even if they are it's a difficult problem to incentivize a manager correctly. It's a topic with a lot economical scientific research. In theoretical terms it's called the principle-agent problem.
No. See my sister comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28956259
I think it’s easy to throw headlines around “Facebook does not care about you…” and maybe this is true, but I would argue that they do care, and they care a lot, as you are there primary source of income and if they loose you, they will cease to be an operating company. They definitely push the boundaries, and I hope society and FB course correct soon as sometimes it’s hard to put their experiments in the search of new revenue back in the their box.
SpaceX is a private venture, with the vast majority of shares being held by one person, who is also the CEO. I would argue SpaceX mission is what ever Elon says it is, as he is the primary shareholder. All that to say, IMO Elon thinks on a different timescale than most, and also with varying priorities over that time horizon, and I would not bet he would do all of this without the eventual long term payoff being part of his plan, even if it is decades away from when he started. Elons formula , build profitable company, take profit from company, repeat
It's the same with company HR it's there to protect the company. It's not personnel anymore it's called human resources for a reason you're just company inventory.
And "corporate culture" there is none they are not your family there is no culture they'll fire you in a heartbeat.