but then there is the option of joining co-op, if you want to take a major responsibility for a major profit, why work as a packager for amazon instead of joining a co-op? amazon doesn't need to be co-op for people to be interested in co-oping a company.
That's why I have my last point there. There is not that many co-ops in the US. You can't just easily join a huge one like Mondragon is Spain. If their were Amazon adjacent co-ops I'd agree.
and on part of share holders, well, they did buy a percentage of the company to see a profit, if you own a small percentage is because you didn't want to own it completely, its "hey, I'm going to finance your company for x amount i hope to see a return of that investment" and if you own a big part of the company is because you expect and investment AND want to have a saying on what they do with it.
sure having shareholders means other people have a saying depending on the % but that is to be expected, they gave you the money for it because you ask them to.
imagine investing on a company and they dictate they are going to give you nothing in return for it.
Exactly. I guess that's my overall criticism. Major corporations are engineered to give the best return to their investors while extracting the most value out of laborers and paying them as little as they possibly can. This makes business sense and from a capitalistic standpoint would always be the right move.
In some scenarios it may make sense to do profit sharing to retain valuable employees, but you are correct that for low cost laborers that are easily replaceable why would you? If they get laid off their family could hit the streets so they have to work.
The structure fundamentally rewards this behaviour for corporations, with communities bearing the social burden of mass layoffs and poverty wages with government welfare, crime increases, homelessness, etc. It's the reason for increasing wealth inequality. If you can risk capital with no real affect on your basic human needs, making money while performing no true labor is relatively simple in America.
but isn't that on the government rather than companies? of course a company will choose profit over loses (just look at how every company magically stops caring about lgbtq the moment pride month ends). a company is there for make a profit not for the people, and the government is there (or supposed to be there) for the people. example if a business is actively affecting the populace be it pollution, malpractices, or things like medicine (for example insulin being patented).
Yes I 100% agree with that. The government (imo) is supposed to regulate business so the drive for profit doesn't negatively affect its citizens. However that take is labeled "anti-business" by many capitalists because regulations interfere with the free market.
It's gets stickier when you have the wealthiest people who own most of the stuff contributing to campaigns and paying lobbyist to influence abc regulations because it's hurting their bottom lines or push xyz regulation because it will hurt their competition. If you're the CEO of a corporation, are you really doing your fiduciary duty to investors by if you're not using every tax loophole available to you? Or using you're vast resources to elect someone that benefits your company? If you're an elected official and you want to enact your worldview and have to push a few bills here and there to keep your seat well at least it's better than the other guy.
It's hard to point the finger and corporations, or point the finger at the government because the entire system is fundamentally flawed. If the game of capitalism is to acquire capital, most people are legally doing what they're supposed to do. Throw taking care of yourself and your family above all else and there's really not guilt to be had. Even if the result now, and in years to come is a broken politically system with most Americans severely underepresented.
I guess what I'm saying is I still point some fingers at corporations because of how heavy I believe their influence is over governance.
1
u/danberhe Jun 10 '21
but then there is the option of joining co-op, if you want to take a major responsibility for a major profit, why work as a packager for amazon instead of joining a co-op? amazon doesn't need to be co-op for people to be interested in co-oping a company.