Marc Benioff: We Need a New Capitalism • Hacker News Board

Re: Marc Benioff: We Need a New Capitalism

#81

Post by easytiger » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

jadell wrote: post #47

dev_dull wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Killing the rich and seizing their property always turns out well for the everyday joe and never creates a generation of ultra wealthy and corrupt ruling class /s Wait you didn’t think YOU were going to get that stuff did you?

People who cry loudest for revolution are usually the ones who don't ever study the history of successful revolutions. Especially: who the actual revolutionaries were, what positions they held in society before and after the revolution (hint: most successful revolutions aren't peasant uprisings), and what happens to people who weren't either the revolutionary leaders or the ruling class before, during, and after the…

And you can pick 2 dozen African "revolutions" that left everyone way worse off than a small elite.

Sell people the idea you will strip the rich of everything and give it to them (requires a fundamental removal of freedom)... Take power... Profit.

Re: Marc Benioff: We Need a New Capitalism

#82

Post by jadell » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #77

jadell wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it can be driven by those companies. Companies in the US have a huge influence on the educational pipeline, and in turn, who gets encouraged in that pipeline.

I live in Silicon Valley, and I've yet to see any major tech company representatives show up at our local school board meetings. Occasionally they kick in a small grant for a specific program. But their influence on the really important stuff like budgets, curriculum, and hiring is nearly zero.

Their influence is more at the level of university and higher-education. My personal opinion is that they should be doing more for K-12, but I hesitate to let large corporations be involved in deciding what gets taught and who gets hired in public schools. I'm not sure what their role is at that level.

Re: Marc Benioff: We Need a New Capitalism

#83

Post by nradov » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 4:20 PM UTC

BigJ1211 wrote: post #43

kolbe wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many do overs does socialism get? You can only say "that's not how REAL socialism is supposed to happen" so many times.

Most socialistic societies fell due to outside interference in an already weaker society. (Weaker because of their starting position, not because of socialism). This was for example the case with Venezuela, to name a recent one. See: https://www.ozy.com/flashback/venezuelas-downfall-isnt-about... You'd need a country with an already strong economy to try socialism to see where it goes. We have western civilisations w…

Venezuela's failures were primarily due to the usual incompetence and corruption. Outside interference was a relatively minor factor. In fact they actually received significant assistance from some other countries.

Re: Marc Benioff: We Need a New Capitalism

#84

Post by geebee » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 4:27 PM UTC

easytiger wrote: post #79

geebee wrote: post #75

I agree with Marc that many of the things he'd like to do will take money. Solving homelessness in San Francisco, for instance, will cost a lot. But that doesn't mean all we need to do is spend some money. We've tried that - we're already up to a conservatively estimated $300 million a year. But plenty of people, hardly all on the right - including Gavin Newsom, who admits he was behind some of these failed attempts,…

It's literally impossible to "solve homelessness". You can't stop someone walking I to your town and sitting down on the street. Thats not even getting into what you allude to, in that "solving it" creates more homelessness

I agree. There's also a huge ambiguity in the term "homeless". This ambiguity was not an accident, I believe it is deliberate and is designed to serve a political purpose.

What I mean is, currently there is a large population of mentally ill and drug addicted people on San Francisco's streets, and many of San Francisco's residents and visitors are frequently berated, threatened, harassed, stalked, and even assaulted as they go about their business or vacations.

By "solve" I mean a humane and effective plan to greatly reduce this phenomenon. In spite of the intense and angry disagreements about what a humane and effective plan will be (must be?), I do think we (almost) all can agree on this as our objective. And in spite of my frustrations with Benioff, I do believe he sincerely wants the same thing I do.

Re: Marc Benioff: We Need a New Capitalism

#85

Post by iroo9fkn » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

bschne wrote: post #72

remarkEon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're supposing that women all want or aspire to the same types of positions that men do, which isn't true.

If that is the case, it might still be problematic to have a society that economically disadvantages ~50% of its members for what they naturally strive for. Of course this gets philosophical and idealistic fast, but I think it's still worth considering even though it's not a simple design/engineering problem with some obvious perfect solution.

That’s fine that it gets idealistic fast. It’s been shown again and again we buy products and services that we think help us be our ideal self. Improving ours situation is an innate motivator.

It’s a fools errand to keep slicing this up into finer grained stats like we seem keen to do.

A simple question: does my ideal self involve being a material consumer of disposable shit to prop up the gambling habits of others or is there another way for me?

That’s about all it takes.

Assuming we’re inventing long lasting discoveries for the future of humanity by iterating on smartphone design, and web apps is contemporary social vanity.

Like the piousness wars of old, we’re battling each other for more attention of those higher up the ladder. Forgetting they’re only in charge because we allow it.

If the environment is on the brink, and they continue to refuse to negotiate a better deal in good faith, it’ll be up to the public to take control of the political discourse via government again.

I wonder if that’s why they spend so much time indoctrinating is against that.

Re: Marc Benioff: We Need a New Capitalism

#86

Post by jiveturkey » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

sigh. Benioff again with his convenient philanthropy. Berating the system he was happy to and remains happy to take advantage of. Whilst shaming others, that are in in less to much less good positions to demonstrate largesse, to act.

Honest question, why do people listen to this guy?

OK, he does try to start off strong: "Capitalism, I acknowledge, has been good to me." But it's not quite true, is it. It's not as if he was a disinterested 3rd party, strong in his belief of equality (socialism if we take it to extreme), that had capitalism foisted upon him.

Sorry, but for me the messenger has tainted the message. It's a clear do-as-I-say, not-as-I do.

https://www.businessinsider.com/salesforce-ceo-marc-benioff-...

It's behind a paywall, sorry. The headline is: Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff made $4,653,362 for fiscal year 2018 — a total made up of $1,550,000 in base salary, and $3,100,000 in non-equity insentive compensation. This means that the median employee got paid at a rate of 1-to-30, raking in about 3% of what Benioff made.

Re: Marc Benioff: We Need a New Capitalism

#87

Post by jiveturkey » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #29

croon wrote: post #3

> When government is unable or unwilling to act, business should not wait. I hope this is all based in good intentions, and have no real reason not to believe so, other than past experience. I just had this idea though: Seeing the current state of US regulatory capture; I wonder what would happen if companies that felt the way Marc Benioff claims he does (as well as the other companies in that roundtable) would just…

If you don't lobby for your selfish interests, you'll get out-regulated by companies who do. Lobbying is not an optional luxury. You have to do it. At least in politically sensitive industries. As a partially made up example, I'm guessing the plastic straw industry didn't think they had to lay a groundwork lobbying for their existence over the decades. And now they're dead.

I see your point, but bad example. There isn't a plastic straw industry. There is a plastic industry and a restaurant supply industry. There is no single focus on straws ...

And no they are not dead. Get our of your bubble. The places where plastic straws are not allowed is tiny, tiny tiny.

Re: Marc Benioff: We Need a New Capitalism

#88

Post by peterwwillis » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 5:24 PM UTC

Digory wrote: post #78

peterwwillis wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this kind of misses the point. Even if there's only an 8% gap, the question isn't just "what causes the gap". Assume you can rationalize it. Is rationalized inequity OK? Why or why not? Women aren't the only group this applies to, of course. There's lots of inequity in our society. But I don't think anyone in modern-day times would agree that this is "the way it's supposed to be", as if women are supposed to…

You can't get rid of "inequity" if inequity reflects different desires and choices by human beings. Beauty, strength, intelligence, youth and health are wanted by most men and women. But they are not distributed or desired equally. That unequal distribution of desires and characteristics among people will lead to some kinds of inequality.

Sure we can - we did it with slavery! The inequity of slavery reflected the desires and choices of human beings. But over time (nearly 200 years) we changed our ethics so that these desires and choices were no longer acceptable, and eventually outright abolished the practice.

Lots of people said it couldn't be done. Not only because it was "natural" to own slaves, but because our nation's economy was deeply tied to the practice. We changed it anyway, purely out of deference to our moral philosophy.

Inequality is inherent in nature, sure, but our moral philosophy can be used to change our desires and choices to create greater equity. So before we settle on "people just do what they do", let's ask ourselves: should we be doing something different?

Re: Marc Benioff: We Need a New Capitalism

#89

Post by jiveturkey » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

_edo wrote: post #70

> ...we need businesses and executives to value purpose alongside profit. Profit is purpose. Profit means the value of the outputs of your business exceeds the value of its inputs. It means you've added something to society, it means you've provided a service to the public. It means when people actually have to choose what's important to them they value what your business has done for them.[0] > ...where businesses..…

> Profit is purpose.

Only in a capitalistic system, which he is arguing needs revision. Your argument is therefore tautological.

Re: Marc Benioff: We Need a New Capitalism

#90

Post by jasonlfunk » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

bschne wrote: post #23

jasonlfunk wrote: post #16

Sure it would be great for business leaders to change their ways, but the beauty of capitalism is that consumers can force businesses to change by their actions. Mark Zuckerberg could change Facebook overnight, but what incentive does he have? It’s still one of the most populous websites in the world. It’s easy to blame to rich and wealthy for the problems but they cannot force us to give them money. Every time I buy…

If you take a very simplistic model of how the economy works, this is true. The problem is when you get into a situation/equilibrium where enabling business practices that you consider to be bad for society as a whole is the rational choice because anything else will just leave you out-competed by someone else who doesn't care. I am not saying that this makes it OK to do whatever because "everyone does" or "if I don'…

> I'm just saying that appealing to individuals to just "do the right thing" has almost never worked

Which is exactly what Mr. Benioff is trying to do with this article. Companies change when it's in their financial interest to do so; and rarely before then.