The erosion of ideals

[king smoothie]

I must have missed the idealistic stage. Well, maybe not entirely I did want to serve my country, I saw that as important. But what I wanted as I graduated high school was to work hard and eventually retire comfortably. I thought about some things, how the world should be, but I never had any agenda to change it. I added FI somewhere along the line. Not so fond of working now, so preparing to add the RE at some point.

[jollystomper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko In the end, I think many of us eventually realize that you can't change the world; we're all just too small. Folks like Gandhi, King or Salk only come around once in a while and none of us here are of that caliber. The best we can do is hope to improve our own little piece of the puzzle, be it our direct family or friends lives. Go to work, do you job and aim to have enough time or money left over to help those we know.

You probably have heard the "starfishes on the beach" story. That is what I try to do. I am happy as I have been able to make a difference in a few peoples lives. Many times doing things that, at the time, I did not realize how much of a difference it made to them, and only found out years later. That is a good feeling.

[happy2bretired]

This is a year old but it’s interesting.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...ticle36584109/

“According to Mr. Jones, the index will highlight and begin a debate about what is the true purpose of a corporation.”

"The companies of tomorrow are the ones that are paying their workers better, are the ones that are creating more jobs, are the ones that actually have more of a social conscience," he said.”

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Quote: Originally Posted by CaptTom And that, to get back to the original title of the this thread, is the problem. Perhaps it is in your view, but doesn't have to be.... there are plenty of companies out there that do a reasonable job of enriching shareholders while at the same time providing good work environments for employees and good experience for customers.... and unfortunately there are plenty that do not.

Can I summarize this as:

Some companies treat people well, some do not.

Some people treat people well, some do not. << imagine that!

In the long term, the 'not nice' companies and 'not nice' people may pay a price. Sometimes, they get away with it for a long, long time.

Why should we expect anything different from companies, when companies are made up of people?

-ERD50

[pb4uski]

Yup.

[CaptTom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by flintnational Why would "enriching the owners and shareholders" (also known as the people who risked/invested their hard earned capital) be a problem?

It's not. The problem is reversing the equation. Thinking that the company exists only to enrich investors.

The company exists because it takes people and resources to provide the products or services. The investors exist because the company needs additional resources, maybe to expand or to buy equipment or other resources needed to achieve its mission.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Perhaps it is in your view, but doesn't have to be.... there are plenty of companies out there that do a reasonable job of enriching shareholders while at the same time providing good work environments for employees and good experience for customers.... and unfortunately there are plenty that do not.

Very good point. My own belief is that companies which go down the path of short-term gain for investors at the exclusion of all else are failures.

Unfortunately, many are large enough to survive for a long time anyway, sometimes due to their sheer political power (and often outright corruption.) The "too big to fail" syndrome comes into play at some point, and the system props up these failing companies, to the detriment of everyone except the investors, attorneys and politicians. I doubt many people consider this a good thing.

I like to think most of us would prefer to benefit society as a whole, not just line our own pockets.

[Dash man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptTom I like to think most of us would prefer to benefit society as a whole, not just line our own pockets.

Here’s the problem. Many in society want to line their own pockets at the expense of others. Isn’t that also true when employees hold an employer hostage in a strike demanding wages and benefits worth more than their labor benefits the company?
Don’t get me wrong, I believe in a fair wage for a day’s work, but pay is usually based on the skill sets of employees and other factors that bring value to an employer. If employees want more compensation, shouldn’t they provide more value to the company?
Demanding companies do more to benefit society is likely to result in lower investor interest and less ability to raise capital to grow. An employer that increases wages without concern for productivity increases or controlling costs will put the company at risk during a downturn, or will hurt incentives to work if given without merit.

[Nemo2]

Equipoise.

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcowan We have passed up profits in tobacco, alcohol and drugs based on principle. Fortunately, there are enough other choices to satisfy us.

I have been responsible for some of that profit!

[morriss003]

Quote:

Originally Posted by albireo13 As I approach my retirement age, I recall the halcyon days when I was graduating college and preparing to change the world. Things were clear .... there were so many opportunities ... awesome careers awaited! Now after about 40 yrs ... it's clear that it has all been about the dollar, specifically the dollar in the pocket of MegaCorp. So many decisions were made based on financial return to the company, rather than being the right thing to do. The optimism and idealism of youth is fleeting and easily undermined by capitalism and greed. Anyway .. just venting ....

First, of course Megacompanies make decisions based on financial return. They have a legal fiduciary duty to do so. If they didn't, the income that huge pension funds receive, such as CALPERS, would be reduced, and they could be sued by stockholders. When they do charitable work, the expense is listed as "good will."

Second, young people are idealistic because they see the world in black and white. To them, there are no shades of gray. That is why it is so important to be honest with them. If you hedge the truth about thing, they will question your answers on other things. As we age, we realize that right and wrong are not so set in stone. Right and wrong still exist. We don't want to slip into darkness, but neither should be blinded by the light of goodness.

[samm]

Totally agree!

[Koolau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by morriss003 First, of course Megacompanies make decisions based on financial return. They have a legal fiduciary duty to do so. If they didn't, the income that huge pension funds receive, such as CALPERS, would be reduced, and they could be sued by stockholders. When they do charitable work, the expense is listed as "good will." Second, young people are idealistic because they see the world in black and white. To them, there are no shades of gray. That is why it is so important to be honest with them. If you hedge the truth about thing, they will question your answers on other things. As we age, we realize that right and wrong are not so set in stone. Right and wrong still exist. We don't want to slip into darkness, but neither should be blinded by the light of goodness.

I've heard it stated as not letting the excellent be the enemy of the good. YMMV

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptTom It's not. The problem is reversing the equation. Thinking that the company exists only to enrich investors. The company exists because it takes people and resources to provide the products or services. The investors exist because the company needs additional resources, maybe to expand or to buy equipment or other resources needed to achieve its mission.

Not sure I follow when you say "...The investors exist because the company needs additional resources, maybe to expand or to buy equipment or other resources needed to achieve its mission...."

After a company's IPO or secondary offering, (all the shares have been made public) there is no more money coming into the company. A rising share price only benefits the investor who sells his share of the company to another investor.

To that end, a company does pretty much exist to enrich the investor (owner) of that company. It's their number one reason for existence. If it provides additional value to the general public, like Amazon that's great. Other companies, like Goldman exist only to enrich their investors with no outside benefit per se to the public other than equally enriching their employees.

But it's not unusual for me to be missing something..........

[Dash man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko Not sure I follow when you say "...The investors exist because the company needs additional resources, maybe to expand or to buy equipment or other resources needed to achieve its mission...." After a company's IPO or secondary offering, (all the shares have been made public) there is no more money coming into the company. A rising share price only benefits the investor who sells his share of the company to another investor. To that end, a company does pretty much exist to enrich the investor (owner) of that company. It's their number one reason for existence. If it provides additional value to the general public, like Amazon that's great. Other companies, like Goldman exist only to enrich their investors with no outside benefit per se to the public other than equally enriching their employees. But it's not unusual for me to be missing something..........

A company can issue new stock to raise capital for expansion, acquisitions or to compensate employees through stock grants or options. They can also issue debt to raise capital. Most large companies do both.

[6miths]

Having taken an interest in reading stories of Big Oii, King Coal, King Cotton, mining industries, VW, the arms industry, Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Medicine, Food Inc, Sugar, etc... I'm left with the impression that there may be some room for improvement.

[Music Lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6miths Having taken an interest in reading stories of Big Oii, King Coal, King Cotton, mining industries, VW, the arms industry, Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Medicine, Food Inc, Sugar, etc... I'm left with the impression that there may be some room for improvement.

There is always room for improvement, but based on that list of one-sided catch phrases, perhaps your reading selection could use a little diversity of opinion...

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6miths Having taken an interest in reading stories of Big Oii, King Coal, King Cotton, mining industries, VW, the arms industry, Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Medicine, Food Inc, Sugar, etc... I'm left with the impression that there may be some room for improvement.

Here's your answer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koolau ....."Capitalism is the worst economic system - except for all the others."....

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6miths Having taken an interest in reading stories of Big Oii, King Coal, King Cotton, mining industries, VW, the arms industry, Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Medicine, Food Inc, Sugar, etc... I'm left with the impression that there may be some room for improvement.

At this point in my life, I only care about the performance of the stock.

[6miths]

Yes we all have our views. I can't agree that 'capitalism' as it is currently practiced in some places is the ideal. There are many degrees and it seems that we currently find ourselves at a time when 'greed is good', 'buyer beware', 'every man for himself', 'screw the other guy' are all the prevailing principles. It is interesting (and saddening to me) to reflect on how we got to here.

As far as one sided catch phrases. VW, Wall street, mining industries? King Cotton was way before my time but it certainly was. I have lunched with executives in the industry who have proudly used the moniker King Coal and I have worked for both Big Pharma and Big Medicine (which isn't really a term anyway). The arms industry? One sided? Would you prefer 'the military-industrial complex'. I was going to single out BP but felt that was unfair hence the more common and generic 'Big Oil' which is only negative if you chose to see it that way. It certainly is big! And looking at another current thread, I can't believe that I forgot to cite 'Big Tobbaco' - but perhaps that is too negative of a term. Let's go with 'The Good People who Bring you Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease because Freedom of "Choice" is the most important thing'.

Marko's statement is bang on - the performance of the stock is all that matters to many (most?) of us. I suspect that we will continue to get just what we deserve.

The title of the thread is 'Erosion of Ideals' and I think we have come quite a way from ideals like 'I am my brother's keeper' and 'there but for the grace of God go I'.

Sincerest apologies if I have offended Porky.

[flintnational]

There is a lot of good news. The world population is better fed, more literate, wealthier and living longer than at any time in history. I attribute most of that progress to capitalism. While capitalism clearly has its flaws, other systems throughout history have resulted in the death of millions from starvation and political instability. So, until someone has a better idea, I will embrace capitalism warts and all. The ideals of youth are intact and because of the expansion of capitalism, life is getting better.