Investing, shareholders, workers and business.

[onan]

Why wouldn't a company outsource some of the work to save money?

That is a question that is very interesting to me. The simple answer is put your business wherever you want. But, if we are a society, isn't there some thought to one's compatriots? Or shouldn't there be? If it is just about who can get all the gold most of us are left to a rather dismal world.

[stevesh]

Late to the party again (don't you guys ever sleep?). Two points to start with:

Morality aside, the officers of public companies have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of their shareholders, and can be (and too often are) sued if they don't. No one can effectively serve two masters with opposing intentions, and it's unreasonable to put CEOs in a position where no matter what they do, they're wrong.

Outsourcing is a good example. If you send your manufacturing to China, you're anti-American scum selling out your own workers. If you intentionally keep your operations here, and say so, you're a flag-waving Tea Partier.

I described myself in our previous discussion as a near-fanatic supporter of 'the market'. When the market is allowed to operate as it needs to, it will smooth out the inequities that human nature creates. Is there a place for government regulation of business ? Of course, but with as light a hand as possible and only in those areas where human failings render the market ineffective (I'm thinking mainly about anti-monopoly laws) and the regulation should be done at the state level, not federal.
If consumers want cars that get 54 miles to the gallon, the market will eventually see that they get them. No need for an EPA to mandate fuel milage.

Same thing works for labor. Don't want to work for Walmart ? Move, if you have to, and work somewhere else. Most labor laws and all labor unions just twist the employer-employee relationship into something that mostly benefits (surprise!) the government entities and the unions.

[Yorkshire pud]

In simple terms; money is the crux to the problem and the required result. We as society measure success with money. Shareholders measure success with how big or little (or not at all) their annual dividend is. Boardrooms are appointed on how much monetary value they bring to whatever it is they represent. We live in economies that demand instant gratification; one of the complaints of company directors is the diabolical standard of students leaving school unable to do basic things, yet have a certificate to say they can!


That need extends to investors of companies; Think of the greatest inventions ever in the past, and how many would have fallen by the wayside if the bean counters had pulled the plug?


The alternative (but unrealistic) answer would be to eliminate currency completely. Go back to bartering, and have a meritocracy..What it would mean of course is such as the Kardasian bitches would be homeless, as by all meaningful measures, they have no merit.


No easy answers boys and girls.


2p supplied.

[Juan]

Morality aside, the officers of public companies have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of their shareholders,

Agreed, but, per my earlier post, what is in the best interest?  We've come to a time where bottom-line quarterly profits is considered the best interest, but I'm not sure about that.  As in my news media example, short term profits have meant long-term decline.

[stevesh]

Agreed, but, per my earlier post, what is in the best interest? 

I'd guess it's whatever the shareholders say they want it to be. Not all companies pay dividends, but most shareholders, I think, mostly want an increase in the share price and thus in their stake in the company. What's good for society doesn't enter into it, nor should it, in my opinion. A free market will take care of that.

[Yorkshire pud]

I'd guess it's whatever the shareholders say they want it to be. Not all companies pay dividends, but most shareholders, I think, mostly want an increase in the share price and thus in their stake in the company. What's good for society doesn't enter into it, nor should it, in my opinion. A free market will take care of that.

What if society has no say in the free market? Such as arms? Or the recent scandal with a private contractor spying on it's own population for the government by proxy? Free market only works if the society has a say in it's structure, otherwise it's just a dictatorship. For instance, I could with enough resources and backing, build a huge chemical plant next to where you live; The 'free market' let me build it. But is it fair and moral to you, or don't you care?

[PB the Deplorable]

What if society has no say in the free market? Such as arms? Or the recent scandal with a private contractor spying on it's own population for the government by proxy? Free market only works if the society has a say in it's structure, otherwise it's just a dictatorship. For instance, I could with enough resources and backing, build a huge chemical plant next to where you live; The 'free market' let me build it. But is it fair and moral to you, or don't you care?

Over here we have laws, regulations, zoning, and other such that rein in the excesses of the free market.  Can that be assumed, or does it need to be spelled out and included in every post?

[West of the Rockies]

Well, Yorkie, that phrase "morality aside" has been used a couple of times now...  Maybe therein is the answer to your last question when it comes to "biness".

I want to bigger my business! (from The Lorax)

Now, putting my own moralizing aside, yes, it is probably very challenging running a company in terms of investor profits.  Investors are demanding buggers to be sure.

[Yorkshire pud]

Over here we have laws, regulations, zoning, and other such that rein in the excesses of the free market.  Can that be assumed, or does it need to be spelled out and included in every post?

Of course! And how many bankers are doing time? The laws are there, they're just not enforced.. Yep..regulations... Isn't that government shit? I thought this thread was putting the scenario of being politics free? Or wasn't that spelled out t you? As an aside I went to a zoning meeting when I was in Georgia..how anyone didn't lose the will to live is anyone's guess.

What if society has no say in the free market? Such as arms? Or the recent scandal with a private contractor spying on it's own population for the government by proxy?

...was the original question..explain please how the laws and regulations addresses this? And how society at large can get redress?

[stevesh]

What if society has no say in the free market? Such as arms? Or the recent scandal with a private contractor spying on it's own population for the government by proxy? Free market only works if the society has a say in it's structure, otherwise it's just a dictatorship. For instance, I could with enough resources and backing, build a huge chemical plant next to where you live; The 'free market' let me build it. But is it fair and moral to you, or don't you care?

All good questions, but I'm not sure they (and the anecdotal stuff I'm sure will follow) belong in this 'big picture' thread. Not every participant in every circumstance is going to get what he wants. If you can get all the proper permits (several years worth in the case of a chemical plant, which is a big part of the problem) and build and operate your plant to code, do you really think I should just be able to raise my hand and say, "Nope"?