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.
Not sure I entirely agree with that. I do benefit from it to an extent, but who do those profits benefit the most? The selfsame corp execs and other businesses? I don't see that as such a great thing when it comes at the expense of so many other people.
Not sure I entirely agree with that. I do benefit from it to an extent, but who do those profits benefit the most? The selfsame corp execs and other businesses? I don't see that as such a great thing when it comes at the expense of so many other people.
They benefit all with a 401K or IRA, tens of millions of Americans. That is why the DJ remains sky high, p/e(s) are not out of touch with terrific earnings reports.
That's a throwaway sentence. It is precisely what those who are too lazy or too afflicted by feelings of futility would say to rationalize their misdirected outrage. Your outrage, therefore, is only rational if directed at the laws and regulations that foster the kind of corporate behavior that you oppose, and fail to motivate the kind of corporate behavior you prefer.
Again: Businesses are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Corporations, specifically, are doing what they are required by law to be doing: to act in the best interests of their shareholders to the extent that the law allows. You said it yourself later in your message.
A comment which indicates clearly that you do not understand the viewpoint I am sharing.
That's an excuse; furthermore, it is specifically something for society to take responsibility for, rather than to ascribe to your favorite scapegoat.
But you aren't talking about these things. You're talking about how corporations should act against their nature, against their owners' best interests, and against the rules, instead of talking about changing the rules.
No there isn't a "movement", and no it isn't a "great place to start". There are a few corporations that turn "social conscience" into a profitable marketing ploy. Guess what - as soon as it no longer literally earns dividends in that way, no other corporations will follow along, and what's worse, as soon as social conscience starts adversely affecting shareholder value there will be a shareholder suit to throw out the leadership unwilling to scrap "social conscience".
Social conscience is society's responsibility, not businesses'.
Precisely. If you don't like the ramifications of that, then that bond is what you need to break, and that change has to happen in the law.
You are trying to hide behind the argument that they are simply adhering the the law. Or maybe you are arguing that corporations should make the rules (the law) in their favor if they are able?
We should be setting the rules by which our businesses operate, not the other way around. You are attempting to separate social conscience from the actions of the business community. You cannot separate them. There is a business lobby to fight raising the minimum wage, repeal davis-bacon, repeal the ACA, weaken labor organizations, repeal worker's compensation laws, repeal overtime laws, reduce environmental regulations. If corporations really are separate from societies' conscience then they would simply play by the rules we the people set. You and I both know that is not reality.
I'm addressing things locally, at my own workplace, in my own community where my actions have more consequence. It's not an excuse, it's an acknowledgment that I am small and insignificant to the scale of this issue. Maybe it will translate into something more but there is no telling. Unlike a lobbyist, I don't get paid anything extra for the additional time and effort I put forward.
. There is a business lobby to fight raising the minimum wage, repeal davis-bacon, repeal the ACA, weaken labor organizations, repeal worker's compensation laws, repeal overtime laws, reduce environmental regulations.
As they should. And we need to decide if we want to listen, or if we prefer incredibly high unemployment with far less than world's largest GDP, and a nation more flee from then enter if we destroy business in the USA..
It is not democratic to wish to stifle voices of those you disagree with. That is fascist.
While executives do make bad decisions sometimes, they do so far less often than random anonymous pundits on the Internet claim, and their decisions are far less the cause of what goes wrong than random anonymous pundits on the Internet claim. Generally, especially in publicly-owned companies, executives have demonstrated capabilities that, if left to their own devices, given the flexibility and resources they need, and barring unforeseen categorical impediments to success, will pay dividends for the company far in excess of their outrageous compensation packages. As such, they generally have a lot of leeway in terms of determining how to respond to problems.
Translated-- unless something goes wrong, executives in publicly traded companies do a good job. Generally. Sometimes.
You are trying to hide behind the argument that they are simply adhering the the law.
Why use the word "hide". I'm saying that what they're doing is what the law requires them to do. Why not just reply to my comment with intellectual integrity rather than trying to change it into something easier to argue against? Seems to me that you realize that you don't have a legitimate justification for your comments and you're seeking a way to justify them regardles..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings
Or maybe you are arguing that corporations should make the rules (the law) in their favor if they are able?
That's part of your problem perhaps: You're thinking I'm arguing for or against something, instead of what I'm actually doing: outlining the reality. Your criticisms aren't without merit because I "feel" that what corporations are doing is "good"; your criticisms are without merit because you are misdirecting your outrage at corporations rather than at the actual root cause of that which you find offensive. I've already said that to you several times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings
We should be setting the rules by which our businesses operate, not the other way around.
Fine. That's our responsibility to make happen. Our failure if we cannot. Stop trying to evade your share of the blame for our collective failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings
You are attempting to separate social conscience from the actions of the business community.
No: I'm making clear that the business community is doing what we've ordered them to do, and that your rationalizations and excuses don't hold water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings
I'm addressing things locally, at my own workplace, in my own community where my actions have more consequence.
And yet that's not enough for you. You still seem to be driven to lash out and cast blame randomly rather than directed at the source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrano
Translated-- <snip>
No. No "translation" was necessary. What I'm saying was clear enough without any modifications.
Why use the word "hide". I'm saying that what they're doing is what the law requires them to do. Why not just reply to my comment with intellectual integrity rather than trying to change it into something easier to argue against? Seems to me that you realize that you don't have a legitimate justification for your comments and you're seeking a way to justify them regardles..
That's part of your problem perhaps: You're thinking I'm arguing for or against something, instead of what I'm actually doing: outlining the reality. Your criticisms aren't without merit because I "feel" that what corporations are doing is "good"; your criticisms are without merit because you are misdirecting your outrage at corporations rather than at the actual root cause of that which you find offensive. I've already said that to you several times.
Fine. That's our responsibility to make happen. Our failure if we cannot. Stop trying to evade your share of the blame for our collective failure.
No: I'm making clear that the business community is doing what we've ordered them to do, and that your rationalizations and excuses don't hold water.
And yet that's not enough for you. You still seem to be driven to lash out and cast blame randomly rather than directed at the source.
No. No "translation" was necessary. What I'm saying was clear enough without any modifications.
Why use the word "hide". I'm saying that what they're doing is what the law requires them to do. Why not just reply to my comment with intellectual integrity rather than trying to change it into something easier to argue against? Seems to me that you realize that you don't have a legitimate justification for your comments and you're seeking a way to justify them regardles..
The problem is that the professional manager class, in theory, is supposed to optimize for the return of the shareholders. The reality is they often mostly optimize for their own personal gain and that is often at cross-purposes with taking care of the shareholders. The board of directors is often a bunch of cronys who are more interested in propping up each others compensation than looking out for the shareholders. They adopt poison pill measures to ward off activist shareholders who would axe the lousy management team.
The initial question in this thead asks why the executive team doesn't suffer very much when a company goes on the rocks. In many cases it's because they've rigged the game to line their pockets no matter how poorly they're running the company.
As they should. And we need to decide if we want to listen, or if we prefer incredibly high unemployment with far less than world's largest GDP, and a nation more flee from then enter if we destroy business in the USA..
It is not democratic to wish to stifle voices of those you disagree with. That is fascist.
Garbage. Maintaining a reasonable living wage, offering health insurance to those who can't get it from the workplace, offering a safe working environment, etc, are the very basis of a just and fair society.
If any political party currently operating in the US resembles fascism, it's the GOP.
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.
