Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The question could also be: Do corporations have a larger responsibility to make the company as profitable as possible so that their investors get dividends?
It depends. Strictly speaking, corporations' only responsibility is to take care of shareholders, whereas a government's responsibility is to ensure that they don't do so at the expense of the the public/nation. These can be conflicting interests.
Besides, responsibility towards shareholders is not a cut and dry situation either. Do people invest in 401K for short term gains, or how the company performs in the long term? Yeah, Regulus may be one of the brightest star out there, but with only a few million years to live, it ain't as friendly to life as our Sun destined to live for over 10 billion years. Consequently, "quick bucks" is not necessarily in the best interests of the shareholder. In fact it rarely is. It also spells crony capitalism.
But likes of Mark Cuban, can put this in words better than I could...
Great CEO White Lie = “We are acting in the best interests of shareholders.”
When a CEO utters this lie, everyone automatically forgives whatever they do. Add 10k jobless to the unemployment rolls ? Sorry, we did it in the BEST INTEREST OF SHAREHOLDERS. Merge or buy a company and cut back across the board ? We did it in the Best Interest of Shareholders.
The problem is that unless the company is losing money and it is the only way to keep the company alive, in this era of 9.1pct unemployment it NEVER is in the BEST INTEREST OF SHAREHOLDERS.
Shareholders , whether they own shares directly or through mutual funds or pensions do not live in a corporate vacuum. Their lives are impacted by far more than the share price of a stock. Every layoff in the name of more earnings per share puts a stress on the economy, on the federal, state and local governments which is in turn paid for through taxes or assumption of government debt by….wait for it.. the same shareholders CEOs say they want to benefit.
And that is exactly what mega mergers and layoffs prove. Capitalism requires a populace that can support it. Unless you're into quick buck schemes promoted as "interests" of the shareholders, you ought to denounce such ideas. At the very least, learn to differentiate rather than generalize.
The poster mentioned that other companies do the same thing. If other companies do the same thing, they HAVE to do it to survive. The company going under would be terrible for the employees.
The poster mentioned that other companies do the same thing. If other companies do the same thing, they HAVE to do it to survive. The company going under would be terrible for the employees.
I'm against corporate welfare, BTW.
A vicious cycle. When companies pay employees so poorly that the majority of their target market can no longer afford their own products, these companies eventually go under.
A vicious cycle. When companies pay employees so poorly that the majority of their target market can no longer afford their own products, these companies eventually go under.
Yes, but unprofitable companies still aren't good for anyone. It's a lot more complex than just blaming Domino's. And Romney did what he was supposed to do with Domino's.
Furthermore, many if not most Domino's employees ARE very happy to have their jobs even with the negatives.
Well then, google "Bain and corporate destruction". I am sure you will find plenty of articles that wont offend you with your personal hot button buzz words.
Yes, but unprofitable companies still aren't good for anyone. It's a lot more complex than just blaming Domino's. And Romney did what he was supposed to do with Domino's.
Furthermore, many if not most Domino's employees ARE very happy to have their jobs even with the negatives.
If the average base pay for the majority of our population keeps falling, there will be a lot more unprofitable companies coming down the pike.
Romney doesn't want to even talk in depth about Bain in a GOP primary. He's really scared to talk about it in a general election. Romney is smart, he knows there is no upside in talking about actual specifics when it comes to Bain. He just wants to talk about how he was a businessman. He doesn't want to talk about everything that went on while he was working at Bain.
Yes, but unprofitable companies still aren't good for anyone. It's a lot more complex than just blaming Domino's. And Romney did what he was supposed to do with Domino's.
Furthermore, many if not most Domino's employees ARE very happy to have their jobs even with the negatives.
If the average base pay for the majority of our population keeps falling, there will be a lot more unprofitable companies coming up the pike.
I agree, but that's really for a different discussion. The point is that Romney made Domino's profitable so that it could employ more people and that, to be profitable and be able to employ more people, it had to be competitive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
