Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation • Hacker News Board

Re: Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation

#81

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 4:48 PM UTC

ohthehugemanate wrote: post #71

RockIslandLine wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This starts with compensating them fairly and providing important benefits." So 51% of corporate profits are reserved for the employee bonus pool? And all employees are eligible for said bonuses? It's not hard to come up with examples of where this fails. Don't give me aspirational pie in the sky. Give me operational policy.

> Don't give me aspirational pie in the sky. Give me operational policy. See, there are three layers of decision making: vision, strategy, and tactics. You set large aspirational goals first (eg Microsoft "empower every person and organization on the planet to achieve more"), then smaller component strategies ("build the a cloud provider that integrates business intelligence into everything you do"), then the concret…

Here's the problem though: there are mechanisms ensuring tactics stay in alignment with strategies. But there don't seem to be - at least noticeably - mechanisms ensuring strategies stay in alignment with visions.

Re: Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation

#82

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 4:48 PM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #68

throwaway2048 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is the more prevalent this stuff becomes, the more the bad drives out the good. Its the same argument about corrupt police departments, all the good cops either leave, or are forced out by their corrupt co-workers.

That's a different argument and doesn't rely upon hyperbole. Yes, I've felt pressure in the business environment to do questionable things because my competitors were doing them.

[deleted]

Re: Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation

#83

Post by pdonis » Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 4:49 PM UTC

wiremine wrote: post #23

You can be cynical about this, and a healthy amount of skepticism is warranted given the authorship. That said, it would be interesting (healthy?) to discuss/debate the merits of the actual statements: * Delivering value to our customers. We will further the tradition of American companies leading the way in meeting or exceeding customer expectations. * Investing in our employees. This starts with compensating them f…

> Curious where people thing they are wrong or incomplete.

The whole premise of the article is wrong. The premise is that the problem with corporations is that they only consider the interests of their shareholders. That's wrong. The actual problem with corporations is that corporate governance has broken down, so that corporations no longer consider the interests of all their shareholders, and the shareholders themselves are no longer involved in determining the corporation's goals. Most shareholders now, in terms of percentage of voting stock ownership, are not individuals but mutual funds, who don't care what the corporation's goals are as long as its stock price and dividends meet targets; and CEOs, even if their share holdings are small as a percentage of the total, can easily get themselves special compensation packages and golden parachutes regardless of whether they improve the corporation's situation or not.

Re: Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation

#84

Post by koonsolo » Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 4:49 PM UTC

As a business owner, I was already scared that they would reveal our unfair advantage. Good thing they do as usual, and keep the focus on non relevant things that keep the masses pleased. Pfew!

Re: Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation

#85

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

ohthehugemanate wrote: post #71

RockIslandLine wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This starts with compensating them fairly and providing important benefits." So 51% of corporate profits are reserved for the employee bonus pool? And all employees are eligible for said bonuses? It's not hard to come up with examples of where this fails. Don't give me aspirational pie in the sky. Give me operational policy.

> Don't give me aspirational pie in the sky. Give me operational policy. See, there are three layers of decision making: vision, strategy, and tactics. You set large aspirational goals first (eg Microsoft "empower every person and organization on the planet to achieve more"), then smaller component strategies ("build the a cloud provider that integrates business intelligence into everything you do"), then the concret…

I don't think "Propose and support legislation to make of all this happen" is really all that challenging as a practical strategy goal.

It's not as if corporations don't do a lot of that already when it's in their interests.

See also: "Actions speak louder than words."

Re: Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation

#86

Post by theandrewbailey » Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 4:51 PM UTC

Am I the only one who noticed that there are no references to 'consumers'? There's plenty of 'customers'. I'd like to see more of that, too.

Re: Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation

#87

Post by mempko » Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 4:51 PM UTC

excursionist wrote: post #70

mempko wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I'm asking you what is the purpose of THIS PR move. Every PR move has a reason behind it. You suggested I misunderstood the purpose of it. What, in your opinion, is the purpose of this PR move?

Your statement is wrong because there is no reason to believe or any evidence to support the following statement: > The point of this statement is to signal to the public, that the elite are ready to give them what they want and understand that the inequality is unsustainable. They are prepared to make concessions now and it's up to the public to take them. Corporations suddenly wanting to tackle inequality and make…

Are you suggesting I had the gullible interpretation? If not, what would a gullible person interpret this as? What action would you suggest is the appropriate one to this PR move?

Re: Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation

#88

Post by rgacote » Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #25

wiremine wrote: post #23

You can be cynical about this, and a healthy amount of skepticism is warranted given the authorship. That said, it would be interesting (healthy?) to discuss/debate the merits of the actual statements: * Delivering value to our customers. We will further the tradition of American companies leading the way in meeting or exceeding customer expectations. * Investing in our employees. This starts with compensating them f…

> Curious where people thing they are wrong or incomplete. Enforcement.

And case law.

Re: Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation

#89

Post by em3rgent0rdr » Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 4:56 PM UTC

wiremine wrote: post #23

You can be cynical about this, and a healthy amount of skepticism is warranted given the authorship. That said, it would be interesting (healthy?) to discuss/debate the merits of the actual statements: * Delivering value to our customers. We will further the tradition of American companies leading the way in meeting or exceeding customer expectations. * Investing in our employees. This starts with compensating them f…

They do have merit...but we already have a legal term for such an entity that is for-profit but also intends to benefit society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation

Re: Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation

#90

Post by pmiller2 » Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 4:58 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #83

wiremine wrote: post #23

You can be cynical about this, and a healthy amount of skepticism is warranted given the authorship. That said, it would be interesting (healthy?) to discuss/debate the merits of the actual statements: * Delivering value to our customers. We will further the tradition of American companies leading the way in meeting or exceeding customer expectations. * Investing in our employees. This starts with compensating them f…

> Curious where people thing they are wrong or incomplete. The whole premise of the article is wrong. The premise is that the problem with corporations is that they only consider the interests of their shareholders. That's wrong. The actual problem with corporations is that corporate governance has broken down, so that corporations no longer consider the interests of all their shareholders, and the shareholders thems…

> Most shareholders now, in terms of percentage of voting stock ownership, are not individuals but mutual funds, who don't care what the corporation's goals are as long as its stock price and dividends meet targets; and CEOs, even if their share holdings are small as a percentage of the total, can easily get themselves special compensation packages and golden parachutes regardless of whether they improve the corporation's situation or not.

You stopped just short of what I think is the real issue here. Corporations these days are simply “financial paperclip maximizers”: amoral entities that do whatever is profitable, consequences beyond the bottom line be damned. There’s literally an episode of Black Mirror about this.

They “privatize profits and socialize costs,” as the saying goes, and they don’t blink at doing things that may be illegal, because the profit reward is so strong.

This is the kind of thinking that had oil companies suppressing climate change research in the 80s and tobacco companies suppressing lung cancer research in the 40s and 50s. A feel good statement by a couple hundred CEOs isn’t going to do anything about that.