what is too much and why don't the people that count speak up?

[OrnotBitwise]

Yes, which is why you have the complaceny of the vast majority of corporate stockholders.

Does that change anything at all? If the Board isn't producing then either the shareholders will boot them out or the stock will drop and eventually the board members will loose their jobs. There is an incentive for the Board Members to make sure that a corporation produces and continues to produce.

Immie

Produce what though? Dividends and stock price. That's it. My thesis is that corporate profitability has become progressively more divorced from the real world functions of business.

Businesses exist in order to produce and distribute goods and services. Secondarily, they provide employment and a social niche for, well, everyone. These are their social functions, which are more fundamental and important than anything to do with profit. Profit is merely the carrot dangled in front of the horse's face.

 

[Immanuel]

Produce what though? Dividends and stock price. That's it. My thesis is that corporate profitability has become progressively more divorced from the real world functions of business.

Businesses exist in order to produce and distribute goods and services. Secondarily, they provide employment and a social niche for, well, everyone. These are their social functions, which are more fundamental and important than anything to do with profit. Profit is merely the carrot dangled in front of the horse's face.

Where did you come up with that? Corporations exist for one purpose and one purpose only. To make their shareholders money! Anything else is secondary and may or may not be beneficial.

"Businesses exist in order to produce and distribute goods and services." No, the purpose of the corporation is to produce wealth for the shareholders. This is the method by which the purpose is accomplished.

Immie

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Where did you come up with that? Corporations exist for one purpose and one purpose only. To make their shareholders money! Anything else is secondary and may or may not be beneficial.

"Businesses exist in order to produce and distribute goods and services." No, the purpose of the corporation is to produce wealth for the shareholders. This is the method by which the purpose is accomplished.

Immie

You see? You've put the cart before the horse -- up until your last sentence, in which you pull it out.

Profit is the method by which the purpose of the business is achieved. It is not the purpose in and of itself. Not purpose in the sense of societal function.

If all corporations did was to increase social stratification -- e.g. accumulate power/wealth in the hands of a few -- there would be no legitimate social need for them. We could nationalize everything and have done. That is *not* the true purpose of business, however.

The problem is that the method has become less and less effective. Whether this is a temporary phenomenon, which can be safely ignored, or a more dangerous, long term problem is open to debate. Believe it or not, I'm not yet convinced of the latter.

 

[uscitizen]

Sound familiar?

George W. Bush = CEO

Dick Cheney = COO

and you can just keep going down the line.

The same thing happens in American politics and within the corporate system.

Maybe you think we should go to a different system? A dictatorship?

Immie

Immie we have developed the same problem with that system as well !!

 

[Immanuel]

Immie we have developed the same problem with that system as well !!

That is what I was saying, but do we really want the alternative?

A dictatorship?

Communism?

Fascism?

Monarchy?

It may not be the best system but as far as I can tell it is better than all the rest.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

You see? You've put the cart before the horse -- up until your last sentence, in which you pull it out.

Profit is the method by which the purpose of the business is achieved. It is not the purpose in and of itself. Not purpose in the sense of societal function.

No, you have it backwards. Profit is the purpose of the corporation. Sales is the method by which that purpose is achieved.

At least that is what any business textbook will tell you.

Immie

 

[OrnotBitwise]

You see? You've put the cart before the horse -- up until your last sentence, in which you pull it out.

Profit is the method by which the purpose of the business is achieved. It is not the purpose in and of itself. Not purpose in the sense of societal function.

QUOTE]

No, you have it backwards. Profit is the purpose of the corporation. Sales is the method by which that purpose is achieved.

Immie

LOL! Then why have businesses at all? What's the point? Why should I want to increase anyone's profit?

You're blinded by the structural conventions. Look at the more fundamental level. What is it that a business does? What function does it perform in society? What good is it? That's what really counts. The rest is just detail -- in which one can indeed find the devil, but let's not go there right now.

 

[Care4all]

That is what I was saying, but do we really want the alternative?

A dictatorship?

Communism?

Fascism?

Monarchy?

It may not be the best system but as far as I can tell it is better than all the rest.

Immie

STRAWMAN ALERT!!!! STRAWMAN ALERT!!!!


hahaha!

 

[honorknght]

You see? You've put the cart before the horse -- up until your last sentence, in which you pull it out.

Profit is the method by which the purpose of the business is achieved. It is not the purpose in and of itself. Not purpose in the sense of societal function.

.

you're right and you're wrong, in a Capitalist society such as ours Profit comes first, in a Socialist society the business is there to distribute goods.

which society is the US?

 

[OrnotBitwise]

you're right and you're wrong, in a Capitalist society such as ours Profit comes first, in a Socialist society the business is there to distribute goods.

which society is the US?

Another cart trying to pull a horse.

I'm not talking about the motives of the people running the business. Nor am I talking about economic structural details. I'm talking about the material, functional level of society.

Why do we need business? What's it for? Well, it's a way of organizing people to produce and distribute goods and services. It is one of the most fundamental units of our social system. It also helps to integrate people into society: we tend to define ourselves by what we do.

Now, most business owners don't think of it in these terms. That's fine: they don't need to. As far as they're concerned, they're just trying to make a profit. If the system is working, their profit ensures that goods and services are indeed being distributed and people are indeed gainfully, if not necessarily satisfyingly, employed. Everything is skittles and beer.

What I'm suggesting is that the system may be getting out of kilter. Profit at the top level may no longer ensure that goods and services and employment are all humming along as we all depend upon them doing.

 

[uscitizen]

Too much emphasis on short term profit and lack of proper planning for long term growth.

 

[honorknght]

Another cart trying to pull a horse.

I'm not talking about the motives of the people running the business. Nor am I talking about economic structural details. I'm talking about the material, functional level of society.

Why do we need business? What's it for? Well, it's a way of organizing people to produce and distribute goods and services. It is one of the most fundamental units of our social system. It also helps to integrate people into society: we tend to define ourselves by what we do.

What I'm suggesting is that the system may be getting out of kilter. Profit at the top level may no longer ensure that goods and services and employment are all humming along as we all depend upon them doing.

see now here is the problem, in your opening line you say that we're wrong.....

But in your closing arguement you're saying that we're right

you start off by saying that we're putting the cart before the horse when we say that profit is the main motive for business, but then you conclude by saying the way we have it now "profit at the top level" is "throwing the system out of kilter"

As it stands socially Profit is at the top, the priority for the business itself, as for our social structure, anyone's own business will be motivated for profit, or become a not for profit organization.

You're trying to state as a fact your interpretation(which is a socialist interpretation) of why business should exist.... to cater to society's needs. However the business in of itself(in a capitalist society) is created for profit.... because of such a business can change products over time and rather than always distribute the same product ,even when that product is no longer feasible, to make a profit it can change.

For instance America Online, started off as an Internet Service Provider, while they will keep on providing Internet Service on a much lower scale, they are offering their services as a software programmer(for their GUI) for free, so that they can now recieve a profit from advertising dollars.

If their purpose was to distribute internet service, then they would have changed accordingly, but their purpose is to make a profit, so their product is changing.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

What is too much, if there is such a thing?

Should a man that sits behind a desk, get paid for ONE HOUR of his work, what their average worker gets paid for one FULL YEAR of work?

Why don't stockholders speak out against this, since it is really taking money from them and their profits....

And how does things like this happen, without SOMEONE thinking that perhaps this is not really the right thing to do, for the corporation on a whole?

I am all for getting a good raise and a good salary and fighting for every penny that I deserve, but when does it reach a point where the person receiving and actually ASKING for this kind of salary think that they really might be asking for too much money? That getting paid in one HOUR what your worker gets paid for working one FULL YEAR?

Is this greed on the CEO's part? what is it that could lead a person to ask for this kind of salary?

A CEO makes a lot of money for a company. He is overpaid for what he does, but there's a scarcity of good leaders out there, and the taxcuts to the rich have made it more advantageous to pay ridiculous wages. Out of the total economy however, it really isnt' a large hit. I'd say it's maybe a billion dollars of unnecessary pay out of a 7 trillion dollar economy.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think what bothers me in all of this is the attitude that people who are on the low end of the socio-economic ladder are somehow lazy or don't "deserve" as much as those a few rungs higher.

My wife is now an echo-cardiographer. She spent ten years as a waitress but, luckily, had the intellect, the drive and the inate TALENT to learn a new skill. She readily admits that during her days as a waitress, she worked HARDER and LONGER than she ever does now.

Every day, we go to restaurants and eat off of plates washed by people making minimum wage with NO health benefits for themselves or their families...and they are busting their asses back in that kitchen washing those dishes in hot and humid surroundings for our dining pleasure...every day we come to our office and our offices have been vacuumed, and our waste baskets have been emptied by people making minimum wage with no health benefits and no retirement packages.... our garbage is removed, our lunch orders are taken and delivered, our shirts are washed and starched and ironed, our hotel room bedding is changed by an invisible class of people who are living on the margin of our world. And they work HARD for the pittance society pays them. And for the vast majority of them, they are at the limit of their potential. Many of them are NOT as smart as most of us... many of them are illiterate or nearly so.... most of them are anything BUT lazy.

Our lives are made infinitely easier by the fruits of their labor, yet many of us do not respect them, or reward their HARD work with a living wage.

How can people be all for allowing the filthy rich to become even richer as the ransom for a nearly inconsequential increase in the wage we pay those folks?

It is the callous disregard for that entire segment of society by the republican party that insures that I will NEVER be a republican or vote for a republican.

Waitressing is a difficult job, but anyone on Earth can do it. You need expertise to do be a doctor or such. Hell, I could be a garbage collector, but no a doctor. Although the general profession of grabage collection may be more valuable (I'm serious, the United States would be so diseased without garbage collection doctors would be practically useless), each individual garbage collecter doesn't deserve as much because it requires no expertise and everyone can do it.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Correct Maine. As the basic rule goes, the more money you make the less you work.

Ridiculous.

If I could get more worth in my company out of someone who sprays off cars than someone with a doctorate who directs my expansion then I certainly would pay that person more. The simple fact is that they are not worth as much.

 

[Care4all]

Capitalism is going nowhere and is solid as a rock in this country of ours...

All it would take is self regulation to stop these kind of wasteful and costly to the stock holder salaries in check....

to say we have to turn it in to some sort of fascist or socialist or communist type situation to correct this is just a strawman....

 

[Care4all]

Ridiculous.

If I could get more worth in my company out of someone who sprays off cars than someone with a doctorate who directs my expansion then I certainly would pay that person more. The simple fact is that they are not worth as much.

So in your opinion there are ONLY a hand full of people that could "do the job"?

I beg to differ with you and also, this doctorate crap won't get you the big job...

every ceo that I have worked for over the 26 year period WAS NOT A DOCTORATE, and some were only high school graduates, not even college grads.....but these were the old dogs that came from the old school and worked their way up the ladder through good hard work and business smarts.

(I worked for one vice president that had never even graduated from HIGH SCHOOL.... for 10 years, and he was by far the SMARTEST Business MAN I have ever met!!! or worked for....and I hated him for the longest time because he was an SOB....but heh! he knew what he was doing!)

 

[OrnotBitwise]

see now here is the problem, in your opening line you say that we're wrong.....

But in your closing arguement you're saying that we're right

you start off by saying that we're putting the cart before the horse when we say that profit is the main motive for business, but then you conclude by saying the way we have it now "profit at the top level" is "throwing the system out of kilter"

As it stands socially Profit is at the top, the priority for the business itself, as for our social structure, anyone's own business will be motivated for profit, or become a not for profit organization.

You're trying to state as a fact your interpretation(which is a socialist interpretation) of why business should exist.... to cater to society's needs. However the business in of itself(in a capitalist society) is created for profit.... because of such a business can change products over time and rather than always distribute the same product ,even when that product is no longer feasible, to make a profit it can change.

For instance America Online, started off as an Internet Service Provider, while they will keep on providing Internet Service on a much lower scale, they are offering their services as a software programmer(for their GUI) for free, so that they can now recieve a profit from advertising dollars.

If their purpose was to distribute internet service, then they would have changed accordingly, but their purpose is to make a profit, so their product is changing.

Stop thinking about "motive." Motive is secondary. Motive is method, the carrot, the means to the end. It is not the end in itself. It is the end only from the perspective of the individual. I don't care about why people think they're doing whatever they do. That's not my orientation. What I care about is what they do accomplishes for society as a whole.

Horatio may start a wonderful business building and selling gilt fronuses. The people decide they want to have gilded fronuses and Horatio becomes very wealthy. All is blyth and bonnie and good and gay. The net effect of this business activity is not that Horatio got wealthy, but rather than many people each got a gilt fronus or two and a bunch of workers managed to stay alive by gilding fronuses. Horatio can look out for himself: I don't care about him.

All you've done is to hilight some of the weaknesses of the capitalist economic system -- which I was already well aware of. Note that weaknesses do not invalidate the system unless one can offer a better alternative.

 

[Immanuel]

LOL! Then why have businesses at all? What's the point? Why should I want to increase anyone's profit?

You're blinded by the structural conventions. Look at the more fundamental level. What is it that a business does? What function does it perform in society? What good is it? That's what really counts. The rest is just detail -- in which one can indeed find the devil, but let's not go there right now.

A business provides income for its owners. That is the sole purpose of any for profit business and many not-for-profit businesses.

Maybe you think it should do otherwise because you want to make a business be a good neighbor, but a business is not developed to be a good neighbor. It is developed to make money for its owners. If it can make money and still be a good neighbor fine, but when it gets down to making money or being a good neighbor the owners are going to side with the reason they own the company in the first place an generally that is to provide income.

Why would you want to increase anyone's profits? If you are a shareholder you want that company to provide you with a profit whether it is increased share price, dividends or both. That is why you invest. I have yet to meet an investor that invests to give his money away. As a customer, you would not want to increase the owners' profit. In fact, you want to minnimize it. Those are just market forces. However, the owners will charge you the going price for their product BECAUSE they want to make a profit.

Immie

 

[OrnotBitwise]

A business provides income for its owners. That is the sole purpose of any for profit business and many not-for-profit businesses.

Maybe you think it should do otherwise because you want to make a business be a good neighbor, but a business is not developed to be a good neighbor. It is developed to make money for its owners. If it can make money and still be a good neighbor fine, but when it gets down to making money or being a good neighbor the owners are going to side with the reason they own the company in the first place an generally that is to provide income.

Why would you want to increase anyone's profits? If you are a shareholder you want that company to provide you with a profit whether it is increased share price, dividends or both. That is why you invest. I have yet to meet an investor that invests to give his money away. As a customer, you would not want to increase the owners' profit. In fact, you want to minnimize it. Those are just market forces. However, the owners will charge you the going price for their product BECAUSE they want to make a profit.

Immie

LMAO! This is hysterical. It's like a Marx Brothers routine.

Read my glyphs: motive doesn't matter. I don't care about motive. I'm talking about function. Social function. What does the business accomplish? How does society benefit from its existence? Those are the questions that matter.

Society doesn't really need businesses. Society needs to organize labor. Society needs to have food produced and distributed. It needs to have shelter constructed and maintained. Society needs to support a specialization of labor if people want to live in something more elaborate than hovels. This is what I mean by "function." It has nothing to do with money or motive.

Business is one method of meeting those needs. It happens to be a rather good and elegant method, but one should never confuse method with function: it's a good way to get your horse rear-ended.