Professor Calls To Abolish Business Schools For Failing Society (nytimes.com) 202
joshuark writes: Professor Christopher Marquis makes a provocative argument about business schools: "We need to abolish them." A 20-year business educator at Harvard, Cornell and Cambridge, Marquis argues in The New York Times and on LinkedIn that MBA programs sanctify profit-driven dealmaking at the expense of public life. "That's not the institution failing," he writes. "Sadly, it's the institution working." "Business school doesn't just hand out skills and a network," argues Marquis, "it quietly reshapes how people see the world, rewarding dealmaking, simplification, and optimization for financial metrics, while workers and communities become afterthoughts."
Marquis points to research suggesting that business-school-trained CEOs often benefit shareholders at the expense of workers, without delivering measurable improvements in company performance... "[W]hen a business-school-trained CEO takes over a firm, wages fall and labor's share of income drops, with no gain in productivity," writes Marquis. "In both the U.S. and Denmark, what passes for the 'managerial skill' of business-school graduates turns out to be a transfer of wealth away from workers and toward shareholders. Students deserve better than a machine that narrows their sense of what's possible."
Marquis points to research suggesting that business-school-trained CEOs often benefit shareholders at the expense of workers, without delivering measurable improvements in company performance... "[W]hen a business-school-trained CEO takes over a firm, wages fall and labor's share of income drops, with no gain in productivity," writes Marquis. "In both the U.S. and Denmark, what passes for the 'managerial skill' of business-school graduates turns out to be a transfer of wealth away from workers and toward shareholders. Students deserve better than a machine that narrows their sense of what's possible."
my experience among the apes (Score:4, Interesting)
I lived in Schwab for a term back when that was the only air-conditioned dorm at Stanford. Very cool dorm, like the chairs in the rooms were one giant piece of full-grain leather stretched over a wooden frame, nice courtyards and so forth.
Anyway as one of the very few non-GSB students there I felt like Jane Goodall among the chimps. I witnessed milk-drinking contests with "Eye of the Tiger" being blasted on repeat. I was in one of the TV lounges watching "Big Fish" and there was this GSB chick sitting between two GSB dudes, she attempted to seduce one, failed, and without hesitation turned to work on the other one. There was an Easter egg hunt ... all the eggs were filled with jell-o shots. During finals week I didn't see a lot of studying but I did see a lot of people heading off for golf and tennis. And so forth and so forth.
Re: my experience among the apes (Score:3, Insightful)
Totally unique to the business schools. Absolutely none of that behavior among English majors or engineering undergrads. Anywhere. Ever. Born 40, all of them.
Re: my experience among the apes (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I know you think that's profound, but you just described literally every university degree in every country ever.
Re:my experience among the apes (Score:5, Insightful)
you just described literally every university degree in every country ever
I hang around students in the helping professions all the time. As people with empathy and concern for the fellow humans, they find the behavior described above (which is not atypical of the psychopath business students) gross and cringey.
Let's not normalize anti-social behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
Same here. As a millennial, I've been back to school a couple of times as the economy shifted under me (or because I was dumb and did a fine arts undergrad). Across all of my experiences (fine arts, aircraft maintenance, technical writing), I never saw my fellow classmates—who were drawn from the broad backgrounds the above-named subjects imply—do that sort of thing, but I did see it multiple times from the business school students.
I did my undergrad at a state school rather than Stanford, so th
Re: (Score:3)
Let's not normalize anti-social behavior.
Have you looked at TV in the last 30 years???
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Business school is a 2-year cocktail party.
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Wannabe accountants.
The article is correct. Basically, they're taught that greed is good rather than bad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's translate that accurately...
greed = profit
immoral = cheating
success = survival
MBAs are taught to succeed, by the rules until the rules fail them, then without (hopefully) getting caught. Employees, materials, information, technology, all these are resources to be used to generate profit.
Corporations do not exist for any purpose than to continue their existence, and, usually, derive a profit from their activities, whatever those may be, while continuing their existence. Shell and holding corporations a
Re: (Score:3)
If profit is the objective then you've failed already.
Re: Yes (Score:2)
Lots of profitable corporations out there seem to refute your claim.
Re: Yes (Score:3, Informative)
Broken politics, a destroyed environment, debased social fabric, and a degenerate business culture prove his point.
Re: Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
Holy idiotic assumption from hell batman. And a huge side helping of whatabboutism garnished with the biggest lump of straw man I've ever seen.
That's a SHITLOAD of stupid in one reply. I'm honestly impressed.
Re: (Score:2)
What is your proposed alternative to profit driven businesses? How exactly does a construction company seeking to remain profitable cause a debased social fabric?
Re: Yes (Score:3)
Which is worse in Norway?
Note: I don't worship Norway, but I do see it as a place where positive lessons could be learned and integrated.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
... the concept of 'corporation' is for me interchangeable with the concept of 'company', which is literally translated into 'group or gathering'. How you succeed in accomplishing things that require more than a few people in some other fashion is something I cannot fathom.
We don't need "some other fashion" - we need good regulations, and we need effective enforcement of those regulations. That includes brutal fines, the occasional imprisonment of C-levels as required, and the 'execution' of corporations where appropriate.
The basic model is fine - people organizing in a hierarchy to work toward a common goal approved by society for its greater good. The problem is allowing predatory psychopaths to turn the operation into an anti-social wealth-extraction scheme which ends in the psychopaths holding the reins of power.
Now, how best to reverse that psychopathic tide would be the subject of several PhD theses. Too bad the fuckers at the top have already co-opted higher education. And that brings us back to the topic of TFS. Which brings ME back to the torches and pitchforks scenario I mention here fairly frequently. Because make no mistake - this IS a war.
Re: Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Short term profits have been rewarded over long term sustainability of businesses. That's the reason for enshittification.
Re: Yes (Score:4)
Short term profits have been rewarded over long term sustainability of businesses. That's the reason for enshittification.
Probably inline with diminishing long-term loyalties and tenures at companies - by employers and employees.
Why plan for the long-term if you're not going to be there for any rewards.
Re: Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Who else to compare to. South America, the Middle East and Africa aren’t even in the running. Don’t talk about places like Kuwait. They’re a village lucky enough to be floating on an ocean of light crude oil. Anyone can be rich if they’re handed a cheat code. India? They’ve still got a loonngg way to go. The only real contender is Europe. For the most part, they’re capitalist as well.
I would love to see some kinder, gentler economic system displace hard-nosed capitalism. But, so far, nothing else even comes close.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Yes (Score:2)
Re: Yes (Score:3)
Re: Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
I’m pretty sure I lived through some of the best days of the USA. I’m also somehow glad that my WWII grandfather died before the first Trump administration and even that my wannabe-hippie Vietnam war father died before the second so that they don’t have to see the current drastic decline.
Re: (Score:3)
The quality of life has been going downhill since the 1950s, primarily due to the shift in focus from "deliver a better product" to, "say whatever just so improve the stock price" as the focus of management. This is why the whole idea of "Go to school for business administration, get a MBA, and get paid a lot without having any experience or knowledge in a given industry. There are few companies left that focus on delivering the best products/services in the USA, they all became public companies where t
Re: Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
How are you measuring "size": By GDP?. So, it takes 3 Chinese workers to buy the same quantity (in dollars) as 1 US worker. The obvious answer is, Chinese workers are buying less, or the cost of merchandise, is less.
How are you measuring production? In dollar terms? That's GDP, which I explained. In, units produced? The problem there is, many factories don't exist in the USA: The quantity of item X produced in the USA, is zero. How are you resolving this? Simply ignore the workers that don't have a US equal: That certainly explains the 3 to 1 ratio.
Now, let's assume you are correct. What does that mean? Given, the "size" of the economy is similar, the GDP is similar, it means it takes 3 Chinese people to earn Z dollars and 1 US person to earn Z dollars. Why is that a problem? That depends on what China imports. The important CPUs are made in Japan/USA/EU: Anything with modern computing power costs a fortune, from Tvs to laptops. (Cell phones are excluded, strange!) How does China get around that: Internet cafes? Streaming services means a laptop can function as a small Tv. What else: Let's assume management costs 12% of revenue. Thus, a Chinese worker pays 4% to have a job, while a US worker pays 12%. Which country looks unproductive, now?
Re: (Score:3)
How are you measuring "size": By GDP?. So, it takes 3 Chinese workers to buy the same quantity (in dollars) as 1 US worker. The obvious answer is, Chinese workers are buying less, or the cost of merchandise, is less.
How are you measuring production? In dollar terms? That's GDP, which I explained. In, units produced? The problem there is, many factories don't exist in the USA: The quantity of item X produced in the USA, is zero. How are you resolving this? Simply ignore the workers that don't have a US equal: That certainly explains the 3 to 1 ratio.
Now, let's assume you are correct. What does that mean? Given, the "size" of the economy is similar, the GDP is similar, it means it takes 3 Chinese people to earn Z dollars and 1 US person to earn Z dollars. Why is that a problem? That depends on what China imports. The important CPUs are made in Japan/USA/EU: Anything with modern computing power costs a fortune, from Tvs to laptops. (Cell phones are excluded, strange!) How does China get around that: Internet cafes? Streaming services means a laptop can function as a small Tv. What else: Let's assume management costs 12% of revenue. Thus, a Chinese worker pays 4% to have a job, while a US worker pays 12%. Which country looks unproductive, now?
The poster is correct, USA is several times more productive than China. There are two ways to measure labor productivity of a country. (1) - Measuring GDP per hours worked. This is the preferred method. USA is $81.80 GDP per hour worked, China generates $18.50 GDP per hour worked. That makes USA labor over 4 times more productive that China. (2) The second method is GDP per capita. If we adjust for local buying power (PPP), USA productivity is 3 times more productive than China. USA $95,212 GDP per capita a
Re: (Score:3)
In the case of the USA, WWII handed you two. Almost all of the other industrialised countries were rebuilding from having their factories bombed. And the UK handed you the brand new computer industry on a plate by destroying all the computers it had built during the war while not requiring that you do the same with the licensed copies you had built.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
America built the current, highly prosperous world order after WW2 using its Navy to protect international trade and security umbrella to create the political and economic stability necessary to do so. It's not called the "American World Order" for nothing, and we certainly didn't just fall into it.
Oh, and you're welcome for the Marshall Plan, since we were otherwise stealing your computers somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, somehow, our crappy, failing, decaying, corrupt US-style capitalism is at the top of the pack
You're applying false causation. Capitalism isn't the problem here, and capitalism has dominated the economy since long before WWII. The issue is the short time finance aspect of capitalism that is born out of the MBA and business school level of thinking. You can have absolutely true industrial powerhouses without fucking over everyone, even with family owned businesses, and we do. The USA may dominate a numbers game, but within each industry they operate you'll find examples of the worst of business schoo
Re: (Score:2)
You're deluded if you don't see the deep cracks forming and the consequences of short-term profit obsession. For one thing, it has led to our political system being undermined by massive amounts of cash flowing to the least honest politicians. It has also led to massive underinvestment in causes that create long term stability, like renewable energy, other kinds of resource efficiency, results driven healthcare, quality of education, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a defence of capitalism, just of US. China is capitalist, in some ways more so than US - they don't have many worker and environmental protections that US does (for now). So is Russia. You haven't mentioned Japan or South Korea - they're also capitalist of course. I believe the only country in the world that doesn't practice some form of capitalism is North Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, somehow, our crappy, failing, decaying, corrupt US-style capitalism is at the top of the pack, and has been there since ww2.
"Somehow" is war profiteering. We sold supplies to both sides of the conflict and delayed entering the war until our "allies" had been bombed a lot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to defend China - its amoral indefensible blight on the planet - but the average Chinese citizen being one 1/3 as productive is not the only way the math works out. It certainly can be the case that we are not measuring productivity accurately and/or are using the wrong metrics as a proxy.
For on thing productivity is a measure of progress toward a goal, does China have the same goals we do? I am not sure "Biggest GDP" is really what Xi is after.
I think looking at Europe is good example. They are mostl
Re: Yes (Score:3)
Nearly 50% of stocks are held in retirement plans. It's not that the shareholders only care for the next dividend. It's that the shareholders are passive (as you also pointed out), or are one level removed (in index funds).
The fund managers don't want to rock the boat with the companies because the companies get to pick who manages their retirement accounts, so essentially the retirement accounts are yes votes and not ownership oversight.
Re: (Score:3)
This is true in a lot of case.
The other case is where the fund managers and 'market makers' are not tied to the individual companies, they also don't care about long term performance. They only care about the ROI, on their position.
If a 'savvy' analyst determines the latest round of layoffs will mean a huge jump in earnings per-share for the current product cycle, and knows that is usually 2 years or so long. They just put a tickler in to sell 18 months out; before retail an state pension funds work out AC
Re: (Score:2)
> I would love to see some kinder, gentler economic system displace hard-nosed capitalism. But, so far, nothing else even comes close.
Depends on your definition of "displace". Lots of other countries have better standards of living, lower costs of living, better healthcare/welfare, better life expectancy, better happiness index, etc etc. So lots of other places are better at /something/ than the USA. The USA is better at making a profit, that's for sure - but at what cost?
As has been discussed many times
Re: (Score:3)
Funny thing is, enshittification is actually more of a longer term strategy. Sell your product/service at a loss (or give it away) today, and tomorrow once you have grown a user base that's locked in and/or you've driven your competitors out of business, start the monetization (aka the enshittification) phase.
Though nowadays people use enshittification as more of a general things-got-worse thing.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, sounds about right [youtu.be]. Maybe if they brought back the corporate death penalty [salon.com], it would rein in some of the more heinous transgressions of business education and practice.
Most sane suggestion here, so MOD PARENT UP, while I add to this. Corporation were never allowed to change their charter when the idea of a corporation was created. If a corporation was set up to build a bridge, it built that bridge and then the corporation was folded.
Along the way the corporation got to extend their charter and call it "Diversification" on top of the limited liability they were granted to perform their charter.
Next, the corporation decided that, well if black people can have human rights, corporations should have them, so that was piggybacked into the legislation totally against the spirit of the intent of the law - to equalize rights for black people.
ALL the issue we have in modern society - including the current AI race to the bottom, environmental issues - come from the way corporations are legally obligated to produce a profit, long past the original idea of what a corporation should be.
If you want to fix the world, fix corporation law, remove their right to human rights and expose them to the liability they are shielded from whilst being able to use it to beat up anyone who resists them.
Corporate law IS the cancer on society and its an easy fix for many of the issues modern society faces.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm.. do you see any MBAs at all the violent protests ?
No, what we see is the right completely abandoning the position of defending men's and family right in exchange for votes. Useful idiots, for a different master and no better than the arts / liberal arts / DEI studies people you criticize. Same tactic the Oil and Coal industry used to pit Greenpeace against the Nuclear industry.
As for Islamist's MBAs are all for them when they bring in the oil dollars.
Re: Yes (Score:2)
Also, MBA don't violently protest, but they absolutely DO lobby government to send in the military to do their bidding. Which as far as violence goes is worse than a riot.
Re: (Score:2)
No, what we see is the right completely abandoning the position of defending men's and family right
When was it ever for the rights of families? They were controlled by men, so those were men's rights, too. Women weren't even allowed to be separate people in this shithole country until recently. The USA really is a not-so-secret white supremacist religious ethnostate, with all of the oppression of women that entails. Iran was basically where we are plus optional and waning headscarves when we did a coup.
Re: (Score:2)
MBAs are taught to look at the wrong things. But that "wrong thing" is not the profit motive. Profit is the purpose of a business, in its essence. A founder or enlightened CEO might give it purpose beyond that, but at its core, profit is the goal.
The real question is: what agencies and regulations exist to ensure that this profit motive - useful as it is - serves society's higher goals?
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is: what agencies and regulations exist to ensure that this profit motive - useful as it is - serves society's higher goals?
There's always another "real question" behind the question. For example, behind that question it's "who ensures that those agencies do their job" and then it's "who ensure that those people do their job" or maybe it's "who ensures the voters know their asshole from their elbow" ad infinitum.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it's just a question of agencies and regulations. The reason why capitalism works, or maybe used to work, was that it rewarded producing more/better goods and services with profit. So people who started businesses became rich but in turn the wider society got more/better goods and services, so at least in purely material sense the society benefitted.
However now this very basic relationship seems to be breaking down, and I think in part that's due to there being too many MBAs and them becoming
Re: (Score:2)
No. Accountants can have actual utility. Often accounting FIRMS are heavily manipulated and broken ... because they are run by MBAs.
Re: Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
Accounting is the art of counting the right things, once. Harder than it sounds. We need more heroic accountants and less heroic MBAs.
Re: Yes (Score:2)
Requires sociopathic AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MBAs like software devs, taught the right things (Score:4, Interesting)
MBAs have ruined more companies than any other cause. They are just glorified accountants and typically have no understanding of the actual business, products, or customers.
Absolutely untrue. Those CEOs who f'd up companies would have f'd them up MBA or no MBA. Its the individual not business school. People generally leave business school just as they entered business school, it is not an accountant factory, it is not a sociopath factory. The majority of business school students are actually coming from a scientific or engineering background, and they are still scientists and engineers when they leave. And the sociopaths that leave it were sociopaths when they entered.
People do not understand MBA programs. They are NOT like a traditional masters program that dives deeply into some field of study. An MBA program is a shallow survey of a dozen different fields, specialities. They have one to three classes in these various fields. MBA programs do nothing more than let a person understand different departments in an organization. They essentially become translators. And engineer can explain the concerns of the sales and marketing people to fellow engineers in a way engineers can understand, and explain the concerns of engineers to sales and marketing in ways that marketing and sales people can understand, That's it. Those one to three classes in a field just lets you learn enough to see their perspective. Little more.
MBAs are like software developers, they are taught to do the right thing in school. However once in the real world they often succumb to pressure and take shortcuts that f' up their projects. They often even know things will likely go wrong in the long run, but they are human and humans generally do what they are rewarded to do not what is correct. Even when they know what is correct. The quickest way to f' things up is to get the incentives wrong, to reward the wrong thing. Wally and his Minivan, a well loved and well understood cartoon among both engineers and MBAs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect you have an MBA.
From a public state university, not ivy league. Over half my class had scientific and engineering backgrounds. Those with accounting/finance backgrounds rare, when the created permanent teams at the start of the program they had to carefully allocated the accounting/finance people to make sure every 5-6 person team had one.
I understand the popular sentiment being expressed around here. I shared it, I believed it. Then I went to business school and laughed my ass off as I learned how wrong I was. We absol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MBAs have ruined more companies than any other cause. They are just glorified accountants and typically have no understanding of the actual business, products, or customers. They are the heart of the consulting firms that are constantly selling (at a very high price) the latest management fad. That is one profession that I expect could be replaced with an AI and no one would notice.
100% this...
Re: Yes (Score:3)
There was a scene in the show Silicon Valley where a CEO promised the engineers that he would never compromise the product.
In a different scene he clarified that the product is the company stock.
This is the case with any publicly traded company. You are a widget who is a cost. That cost is going to be minimized. The customer is a widget that brings in money. That is going to be maximized.
Thatâ(TM)s what the incentives in the stock market drive.
So there are two kinds of Business schools (Score:5, Interesting)
The one that is a problem are the kind of schools Mitt Romney went to.
What Romney's School taught him is how to break the law without breaking the law. It was a detailed program to teach him how to fleece the public without getting in trouble. That is a very different curriculum then what most of your MBAs walk away with.
Basically the Epstein class gets an entire type of education that is completely beyond anything you would assume is reasonable. It's a focus on the legal aspects of business and teaching people what they can get away with when they're ripping people off.
I don't think we should abolish that degree I think we should abolish the legal system that makes that degree valuable.
Re: So there are two kinds of Business schools (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first isn't a business school, it's a school of economics or a school of accounting. All three a different degrees taught in different ways.
Re: (Score:2)
"What Romney's School taught him is how to break the law without breaking the law. "
Did Harvard Business School teach him that or Harvard Law School? (Mitt Romney has both an MBA and a JD.)
Number Go Up Schools (Score:5, Insightful)
I say we take off and nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Yes, Wallstreet (Score:3)
I stated in a previous thread that Wallstreet is the power behind enshitification in software as well as the forced AI takeover that many do not want. This story seems to agree with my thinking in that the only way to improve society is to fix how business works.
Nowadays the customer of a business is usually the investors, not he people using their products. This creates perverse intensives... thinks like losing the ability to repair your own things, selling of your data, and the general prioritization of short term products.
Unfortunately, 401Ks hook into and enable Wallstreet.... Most people want to be able to retire but our money is being fed into the machine.
Law Schools also (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting rid of law schools but continuing to legislate is like getting rid of engineering schools but continuing to build bridges.
Then explain Tim Cook (Score:2)
Frankly, I don't doubt the general trend from that article. But a relevant analysis would look for and discuss exceptions, too.
tech needs an more trades like school system (Score:2)
tech needs an more trades like school system
Based (Score:2)
He's right, you know, but the demand is self-feeding.
It's necessary to have more successful non-MBA companies outcompete the race-to-the-bottom companies.
We need better social systems to punish the psychopathic impulse. It needs to be more profitable to not exploit people.
I've lost track of how many companies I'm boycotting but most people don"t have time to think abour that.
Yes please (Score:2)
It's the only way to truly save civilization.
Sounds like ... (Score:5, Interesting)
True, some of the bad apple stakeholders will take a zero sum view of the operation (every dollar the employees get is a dollar that the shareholders lose). But being a good CEO is knowing how to deal with such people. Even to the point of letting them go.
Anecdote: A big investor in Berkshire Hathaway went to visit Buffett in his Omaha office to express some concerns. After Warren met him and listened to his input, he asked how many shares the investor held. Upon being told, he turned to his secretary and said, "Cut him a check for his shares." Then turned and walked back into his office.
And then there is Private Equity (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is not the schools (Score:2)
It's the curriculum.
Students are taught to reduce everything to measurable numbers. If it can't be measured with a number, it doesn't exist.
They are taught that endless growth is not only possible, but necessary.
They are taught that the purpose of the corporation is to increase shareholder value.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point being made. That point is that the schools only exist for this type of curriculum.
Side note: isolating small problems to solve separately, instead of looking at things holistically, is being taught in these curricula. It can make sense sometimes, but it's also a way to deflect or avoid social responsibility.
We need more of other school departments (Score:2)
When the MBAs replace the Engineers (Score:2)
It's time to sell.
Selection Effect? (Score:3)
Sounds like those are shitty business schools. When I did an MBA, the focus was building better businesses for all the stakeholders.
I don't think there's any reason to debate this (Score:2)
Abolish
Again, people miss the real problem (Score:3)
In reading all of these comments(so far at least), the common theme is that people don't seem to understand the difference between the pro-Wall Street corporate approach and the pro-business approach. Wall Street and public companies, have a focus on stock price, and that is their way to make the executives their money. The actual health of the company doesn't matter to those people as long as they can talk big to increase the stock price. Who cares about the products/services offered if they can push up the stock price?
It is that focus on Wall Street that has broken the economy, because short term profits are all important, and long term health means very little to those people. Business schools that are entirely focused on Wall Street are the ones that the article are really talking about, because it pushes the short term stock price being the most important, and if the company fails in a few more years, it won't matter as long as those on top sell their shares ahead of the public selling it off.
You see it all over the place, the corporate environment is focused on the short term, and it has poisoned the mentality of the politicians who also don't care about long term, because the politicians will be out of office before the results of bad policies actually show up in reports. That's the USA, and it's a toxic place for those of us who have to work here.
Re:Big business is a check on government power (Score:5, Insightful)
I what world do you live, where big business doesn't profit from war?
Welcome to the Uber/WalMart economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Profit as a destructive force in society is very much in the eye of the beholder. One man's ruthless cost-cutting to make the shareholders happy is another man seeing good returns in his retirement fund or his kids' college fund. To take one example.
You're really reaching there and I know you know this. You're correct that the private sector is a check on big government. However, unregulated and ruthless capitalism is a destructive force for everyone but the 1%. You talk about your retirement/college fund?....OK...what the fuck is your kid going to do? How are they going to make a living? The end result of what this guy bemoans is that every worker is paid the ABSOLUTE minimum they can get by with. Every corner is cut. Every means of exploiting the customer is used. Their only option is either be an investor or MAYBE a medical career...or one of those unique jobs where you're special to the 1%: performer/musician/yacht-designer...IDK...high class butler?
Tech jobs?...nope...replaced by AI...which did an inferior job, but hey, cut another corner. The Republicans passed legislation limiting your liability for data theft. Business management? accounting?...same fate. Lawyer?...same. Will EVERY job be replaced?...of course not, but if the jobs are 10% of what they were, how's your kid going to compete against the ENTIRE globe!?!?!
OK...so maybe it's your retirement fund?...well private equity and MBA CEOs cut every corner and exploited. you every way they can find. Your favorite fast food chain?...cut the quality by half and increased the price by 2x....same for every food product you buy!!! corners cut, more profits to the shareholders, right? OK, you're not into fast food...did you know EVERY local restaurant in the USA relies on 2 suppliers? Sysco and US Foods control nearly the entire market and have been exploiting their customers, your favorite restaurants. The same will apply to literally every product you buy, so all these returns? eaten up VERY quickly for you....Zuckerberg/Musk?...well...they're sitting on a ton of cash, so it doesn't matter. Their children will earn so much, it will easily outpace the cost gains and general enshitffication of the world...will you account??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The war on Americans goes a lot further back then Nixon. Consider the red scares, especially the 1st one from before it was realized that communism led to authoritarianism. Before that, the war on labour, the war between the States which killed more Americans then any other war, etc. Speaking of war, how many wars has America been involved with since the Spanish American war or the wars to steal the land.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Might be easier to see from the outside. As a Canadian, I've always felt the biggest threat to my freedom has been the American government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't think greed is human nature. Greed is taught.
And profit-seeking is always destructive. Nobody should be seeing "good returns in their retirement fund" because we never should have moved away from defined benefit pensions. One economic downturn and that 401k means you don't get to retire for another decade.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't think greed is human nature. Greed is taught.
Yes and no. Greed is very much part of nature in general, not just human nature. Usually it's not greed to pure excess, but greed beyond the perceived need. By that, I mean the line between self-interest and greed can be fuzzy and not everyone is going to agree on where they/others fall. You can want more than you can ever realistically use, but within a range that could also provide for friends and family, for example. Depending on the definition, or who you ask, that could be greedy.
The level of greed so
Re: (Score:3)
Paid for BY the employer, naturally. You know, that mythical thing called a "benefits package" that typically included things like paid sick leave, paid vacations, that kind of thing? As in THE STUFF YOU WORK FOR in the first place, on top of the actual salary or hourly pay?
America used to be pretty good about that kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
One man's ruthless cost-cutting to make the shareholders happy is another man seeing good returns in his retirement fund or his kids' college fund. To take one example.
It sure worked great for Enron.
Re: Big business is a check on government power (Score:2)
Government power is the people's power.
The people's power can be circumvented by wealth or populism if you lack or remove any checks on power. Not unlike the Enabling Act of 1933, which transformed a democratic nation into a unitary fascist state.
Re: (Score:3)
> Capitalism didn't cause any of it.
What do you think capitalism is, or maybe put another way, what don't you want to change about it?
What do you suggest to fix "workers and communities become afterthoughts"?
Re:Building wealth (Score:5, Insightful)
Even though you won't admit it, your position has the direct effect of condemning millions of people of poverty and an early death. The population in the socialist Europe has a better life experience and increasing life expectancy while the US is falling behind. (That is an actual fact so I'm sure it makes you uncomfortable, and you may even try to refute it. I've had others of your ilk on Slashdot ask me to prove IRL facts. Do your homework and don't spread lies.)
You are benefiting from the current corrupt system and you literally don't care if people are dying in the street, as long as doesn't happen in front of you. That's what your professing when you end by saying "but don't change capitalism".
The IRL factual information supporting my position is the graph of the distribution of wealth in the US post 1950. Around the time of Regan the fortunes of normal humans started to go down while the (literal) fortunes of the rich started climbing. Follow the money: for over 50 years there has been a transfer of wealth from the bottom and middle to the top.
(Since you people are so predictable I will reference the riots in France. They have riots every so often, and so do we. However the ongoing daily violence in both urban and rural America dwarfs any similar activity in even the poorer parts of Europe. The statistics on IRL violence, including homicide, are undeniable. Not that that will effect your position.)
Re: (Score:2)
Europe is not socialist, I'm not sure where you got that idea. Having pubic healthcare does not make a country socialist, it just makes it not insane. Europe is capitalist, including countries with centre-left governments. Big private companies employ lots of people, and shareholders make them inhumane with their employees, just like in the US. Europe has business schools. OP does not only apply to the US.
Re: Building wealth (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It took more than capitalism to make that happen, capitalism does not provide equal opportunity to everyone nor does it necessarily d
Re: (Score:2)
What does any of that have to do with modern MBA programs at major institutions like Harvard and Yale?
Re: (Score:2)
Umm.. do you see any MBAs at all the violent protests ?
Why would the machine rage against the machine? You don't turn your thinker on before posting, do ya?
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect there was more than one MBA at the Jan 6th riots, yes. There was a pretty varied group of rich privileged assholes there.