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

Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 435 posts

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#361

Post by palsecam »

Mbwagava wrote: post #356
tim333 wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link mentions a dispute between 12 unions and 6 rail companies one of which is amongst the dozens of companies owned by Berkshire, run by Buffett. I see no mention of Buffett personally getting involved?

...more personally involved than owning a large part of the company and directly running it? How much more personally involved can you get? Otherwise corporations would be above accountability. The whole system falls apart if executives and the board (and ideally, shareholders) can't be considered personally responsible.

> and directly running it? How much more personally involved can you get?

Ms. Farmer is the CEO of BNSF Railway[1], she is the one “directly running it”.

Moreover, Berkshire/Buffet is notorious for _not_ micro-managing, for letting its subsidiaires enjoy greater autonomy than they would in an usual conglomerate.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Farmer

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#362

Post by lurk2 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #327
lurk2 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ironically, it’s often the opposite party that actually pushes for policies that would materially benefit the working class. Such as?

All the Democrat led states have paid leave and higher minimum wages/overtime exempt laws. And higher unemployment benefits. And longer leave times for new moms. It’s also the Dem states that have free school lunches for kids and more robust Medicaid funding. Democrats passed ACA, which made insurance even possible to purchase if you weren’t offered it by employer, and the annual out of pocket maximum, ban on pre exi…

> All the Democrat led states have paid leave and higher minimum wages/overtime exempt laws. And higher unemployment benefits

They also have significantly higher unemployment rates.

> Build Back Better bill a couple years ago

This bill was named after policy advanced by people who want to turn the general population into a class of permanent renters.

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#363

Post by sofixa »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #360
sofixa wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that profits are more important than basic humanity is preposterous. The unions wanted sick leave, because under the current system, employees were scheduled weeks in advance with zero margin. If the employee was sick, they had to ask for PTO which would get denied because of lack of notice and any margin (other employees to cover the job)

When a company loses money year after year it goes bankrupt. The company disappears. The workers lose their jobs. It is important for a company to earn a profit. You'll find companies like google and facebook, who are making fat profits.... pay fat salaries to their workers.

> When a company loses money year after year it goes bankrupt. The company disappears. The workers lose their jobs.

If the company operates in such razor thin margins that it can't provide for sick leave for employees, something is terribly wrong.

> It is important for a company to earn a profit. You'll find companies like google and facebook, who are making fat profits.... pay fat salaries to their workers

And you'll find that most companies pay as little as they can get away with. Google and Meta need to compete to get a limited (until recently) amounts of top talent.

A railway couldn't care less about the employees.

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#364

Post by solarkraft »

heresie-dabord wrote: post #28
riffraff wrote: post #5

He's 94 years old, it's honestly impressive he was still there. Still, end of an era.

> Still, end of an era. That is an enormous understatement. At 94, Buffet has witnessed history and has represented a vision of betterment, a just society, and sound economic stewardship. These things were not and are not hallucinations. But for many, it seems, the lessons about co-operation, stable economic growth. the sane application of democratic principles, and the rule of law must be learned again. It's the end…

> a vision of betterment, a just society, and sound economic stewardship

Please point out one case in which he wasn’t firmly on the side of capital over societal advancement. As far as I can tell he is deeply invested in oil and keeps shilling Coca Cola (and that’s probably only the surface).

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#365

Post by linotype »

nandomrumber wrote: post #306
linotype wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don’t buy this argument. By global standards, even the poorest Americans (with obvious exceptions like the homeless) are relatively wealthy. Comparison is the theft of joy.

You say comparison is the theft of joy, and then ask us to compare to an irrelevant metric. If living standards are falling, grocery prices have increased, rents have gone up, wages have stagnated, what does the price of eggs in China have to do with my assessment of the local conditions.

Over what period of time have prices at grocery stores and rents not increased? Food and clothes are cheap by historical standards as a percentage of income.

https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/Charts/...

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#366

Post by bloodyplonker22 »

bamboozled wrote: post #126
apexalpha wrote: post #82

I’m not sure if it’s originally his but a small talk by him about getting a car made an impression on me and since watching it it’s become a good motivator to stay in shape. This seems like a good moment to share it. https://youtu.be/0fMRHpguTPM?si=75lLHzDynMCKhT9H

Real talk.

Charlie would scorn this "real talk."

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#367

Post by Mbwagava »

palsecam wrote: post #361
Mbwagava wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...more personally involved than owning a large part of the company and directly running it? How much more personally involved can you get? Otherwise corporations would be above accountability. The whole system falls apart if executives and the board (and ideally, shareholders) can't be considered personally responsible.

> and directly running it? How much more personally involved can you get? Ms. Farmer is the CEO of BNSF Railway[1], she is the one “directly running it”. Moreover, Berkshire/Buffet is notorious for _not_ micro-managing, for letting its subsidiaires enjoy greater autonomy than they would in an usual conglomerate. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Farmer

Right, but what is the point of letting companies own other companies if this also doesn't imply transitive accountibility? It's hard to imagine we can't find reasons to imprison the board of blackrock, for instance. Such a massive company has disproportionately small social responsibility.

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#368

Post by danielmarkbruce »

sofixa wrote: post #363
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a company loses money year after year it goes bankrupt. The company disappears. The workers lose their jobs. It is important for a company to earn a profit. You'll find companies like google and facebook, who are making fat profits.... pay fat salaries to their workers.

> When a company loses money year after year it goes bankrupt. The company disappears. The workers lose their jobs. If the company operates in such razor thin margins that it can't provide for sick leave for employees, something is terribly wrong. > It is important for a company to earn a profit. You'll find companies like google and facebook, who are making fat profits.... pay fat salaries to their workers And you'l…

It's called competition - it's the reason you get to sit there and type away on an incredible machine at a very low cost and eat food at a very low cost... The vast majority of businesses are operating on thin margins. Get in the real world, not some fantasy land.

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#369

Post by sofixa »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #368
sofixa wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When a company loses money year after year it goes bankrupt. The company disappears. The workers lose their jobs. If the company operates in such razor thin margins that it can't provide for sick leave for employees, something is terribly wrong. > It is important for a company to earn a profit. You'll find companies like google and facebook, who are making fat profits.... pay fat salaries to their workers And you'l…

It's called competition - it's the reason you get to sit there and type away on an incredible machine at a very low cost and eat food at a very low cost... The vast majority of businesses are operating on thin margins. Get in the real world, not some fantasy land.

I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro, which is made by Apple with their net profit margin of 24.3% for Q4 2024. BNSF, one of the companies which is the topic of this conversation, has an operating ratio of 68% for 2024 (how much of their revenue goes towards operational costs). Their net income was $5 billion. They can afford to have a little extra employees to cover fucking sick leave.

> Get in the real world, not some fantasy land

Get out of a libertrarian's wet dream and look around you, read up a little bit on various companies financials.

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#370

Post by TFYS »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #360
sofixa wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that profits are more important than basic humanity is preposterous. The unions wanted sick leave, because under the current system, employees were scheduled weeks in advance with zero margin. If the employee was sick, they had to ask for PTO which would get denied because of lack of notice and any margin (other employees to cover the job)

When a company loses money year after year it goes bankrupt. The company disappears. The workers lose their jobs. It is important for a company to earn a profit. You'll find companies like google and facebook, who are making fat profits.... pay fat salaries to their workers.

They pay fat salaries because the talent they need is in high demand, not because they have fat profits. In any industry where that is not the case, a union is a must.
Post reply on HN