Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

34th Chaos Communication Congress Live Streams

streaming.media.ccc.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: 34th Chaos Communication Congress Live Streams

#21

Post by xyzzyz »

beefield wrote: post #16
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there an alternative? Corporations were invented. Could we invent something better? Or is it just human nature to devolve into the current state of affairs?

> Could we invent something better? How about making just a small tweak to the limited liability corporation legislation/rules? Currently the main purpose of a corporation is to maximize the (long term) shareholder value. What if the purpose was to maximize the long term goods sold, taxes paid or salaries paid instead? Note that you would still need to pay a decent return to shareholders in order to maximize these ot…

Note that you would still need to pay a decent return to shareholders in order to maximize these other things, just like currently you need (usually) to sell goods, pay a salary and pay your taxes to maximize the shareholder value.

No, you would still need to grow to a large company with lots of revenue, but if the metric to optimize is salaries paid, then paying shareholders anything at all is in direct conflict with paying salaries to workers. The problem here is designing set of incentives that would encourage appropriate results, and the difficulty is that not all incentives work equally well, or even at all.

Re: 34th Chaos Communication Congress Live Streams

#22

Post by beefield »

xyzzyz wrote: post #21
beefield wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could we invent something better? How about making just a small tweak to the limited liability corporation legislation/rules? Currently the main purpose of a corporation is to maximize the (long term) shareholder value. What if the purpose was to maximize the long term goods sold, taxes paid or salaries paid instead? Note that you would still need to pay a decent return to shareholders in order to maximize these ot…

Note that you would still need to pay a decent return to shareholders in order to maximize these other things, just like currently you need (usually) to sell goods, pay a salary and pay your taxes to maximize the shareholder value. No, you would still need to grow to a large company with lots of revenue, but if the metric to optimize is salaries paid, then paying shareholders anything at all is in direct conflict wit…

> paying shareholders anything at all is in direct conflict with paying salaries to workers

Paying workers anything at all is in direct conflict with generating shareholder value.

Key is "long term". If you want to maximize long term salaries, you must pay a decent return to equity.

Re: 34th Chaos Communication Congress Live Streams

#25

Post by pdkl95 »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #11
louithethrid wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Treating cooperations like paper-clip optimizers who try to hack ones brain sounds very reasonable.

Is there an alternative? Corporations were invented. Could we invent something better? Or is it just human nature to devolve into the current state of affairs?

How about limiting maximum number of people in any corporation to ~80%[3] of the Dunbar Number[2][3]?

It wouldn't fix everything, but it would guarantee more competition and hopefully keep corporations comprehensible.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

[2] Vsauce2 has a good introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2qjRG6iV8M

[3] Why 80%? To allow room for family/etc. This number is merely a suggestion; better values require actual research.

Re: 34th Chaos Communication Congress Live Streams

#26

Post by xyzzyz »

beefield wrote: post #22
xyzzyz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that you would still need to pay a decent return to shareholders in order to maximize these other things, just like currently you need (usually) to sell goods, pay a salary and pay your taxes to maximize the shareholder value. No, you would still need to grow to a large company with lots of revenue, but if the metric to optimize is salaries paid, then paying shareholders anything at all is in direct conflict wit…

> paying shareholders anything at all is in direct conflict with paying salaries to workers Paying workers anything at all is in direct conflict with generating shareholder value. Key is "long term". If you want to maximize long term salaries, you must pay a decent return to equity.

No, the difference is that you need to pay salaries in order for company to continue operating. If you don't, the employees will just quit.

On the other hand, there's absolutely no need to pay anything to shareholders for a company to operate, other than legal obligation. Shareholders going on strike makes absolutely no difference for the company.

Re: 34th Chaos Communication Congress Live Streams

#27

Post by mooneater »

xyzzyz wrote: post #26
beefield wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> paying shareholders anything at all is in direct conflict with paying salaries to workers Paying workers anything at all is in direct conflict with generating shareholder value. Key is "long term". If you want to maximize long term salaries, you must pay a decent return to equity.

No, the difference is that you need to pay salaries in order for company to continue operating. If you don't, the employees will just quit. On the other hand, there's absolutely no need to pay anything to shareholders for a company to operate, other than legal obligation. Shareholders going on strike makes absolutely no difference for the company.

Promise of investor returns is what gets the company off the ground. Remove that and how do you get early investment?

Re: 34th Chaos Communication Congress Live Streams

#28

Post by StavrosK »

Does anyone know how you can actually attend? The talks look interesting and I'd like to look into going next year, but I spent a few minutes online and on their site, blog and wiki, and couldn't even find where the damn thing is, let alone a ticket website!

It's like they don't want people discovering it, I can't figure out why they don't have a more accessible marketing website.

Re: 34th Chaos Communication Congress Live Streams

#29

Post by hamilyon2 »

xyzzyz wrote: post #26
beefield wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> paying shareholders anything at all is in direct conflict with paying salaries to workers Paying workers anything at all is in direct conflict with generating shareholder value. Key is "long term". If you want to maximize long term salaries, you must pay a decent return to equity.

No, the difference is that you need to pay salaries in order for company to continue operating. If you don't, the employees will just quit. On the other hand, there's absolutely no need to pay anything to shareholders for a company to operate, other than legal obligation. Shareholders going on strike makes absolutely no difference for the company.

Technically, you can tie dividends to, say 5% of salaries and make that unchangable clause in company rules. So, legal obligation, yes.

Re: 34th Chaos Communication Congress Live Streams

#30

Post by rodavelino »

StavrosK wrote: post #28

Does anyone know how you can actually attend? The talks look interesting and I'd like to look into going next year, but I spent a few minutes online and on their site, blog and wiki, and couldn't even find where the damn thing is , let alone a ticket website! It's like they don't want people discovering it, I can't figure out why they don't have a more accessible marketing website.

https://events.ccc.de/congress/2017/wiki/index.php/Static:Tr...
Post reply on HN