Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
  1. #141
    Titan
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    13,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Breaking up big companies like Google and Amazon has wide support across the spectrum...it's inevitable.

    Google needs to be regulated, as do the social media companies, as much as any other company. The issue with Google is more that they have way too much power with curating information, and even Google Search will always prioritize either big tech, big media or any other large corporation relating to what you are searching. So all the big companies keep benefiting from the page visits and as revenue. Doesn't help that you also have social media outright influencing elections in many countries around the world now, which needs to stop.

  2. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    Very good point.

    But what is a the remedy for that specifically, cap how big companies are allowed to get along with not being a monopoly? I wouldn’t object to that depending on where you’re going.

    I say good point because I have over looked that economic environmental impact you raised so that’s an entirely valid argument.

    Because yes being so big one company or even industry can collapse the entire nations economy is a problem.

    Because to be honest I’m still not sure how I feel about bailing fucking banks out.

    Let people starve and panic vs bail banks out.

    No it’s not communism and still socialism but it does really hedge fucking close.

    By communism I’m not saying it as some sort of boogie man. But only that while huge corporations can and do get corrupt so to can government.

    I’m always for independent systems of checks and balances.
    Regarding the bolded part about bailing banks out i say nah let the bank crash and burn. BUT i would bailout individual customers to that bank that have savings in that same bank. Especially as it was in 2008-2009 when those responsible first got away with doing unethical/illegal shit and made a profit. AND noone got punished afterwards

  3. #143
    Isn't a thing just let them fold.

  4. #144
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    41,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Deianeira View Post
    Regarding the bolded part about bailing banks out i say nah let the bank crash and burn. BUT i would bailout individual customers to that bank that have savings in that same bank. Especially as it was in 2008-2009 when those responsible first got away with doing unethical/illegal shit and made a profit. AND noone got punished afterwards
    Considering I trust the banks more than the average random getting a stimulus check, you have a great point here. Honestly before Covid I never thought of that as an option I am not a fan of Obama not putting most of these people in prison.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Tentim View Post
    Isn't a thing just let them fold.
    This would punish people who ultimately had nothing to do with any of this the great majority of those that had nothing to do with this. I think any bail out should have come along with prosecutions.
    #ANTIFA "Intellect alone is useless in a fight...you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone" Khan Singh

  5. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Next time you use an uber, ask them if they're doing it because they WANT to be a contractor, or if it's just a side gig because their primary work doesn't pay enough.
    And after that ask the people at Andersen consulting that are contracted to another company the same question. Or someone who retired but still consult at their previous employer.

    Then you might realize that it differs. Until you do realize this it isn't meaningful to continue this conversation.

    Oh, and I haven't used Uber as far as I know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    You have yet to answer why democracy is good for governments and bad for businessses.
    Employee-controlled companies have a tendency to not work well; because there's more to a company than just putting together a bunch of employees (both in terms of figuring out what work is needed and in terms of financing). Especially for the innovative companies in this thread.

    Or in short: I'm not the one preventing you from forming an employee-controlled company with others and making it successful.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    Google needs to be regulated, as do the social media companies, as much as any other company. The issue with Google is more that they have way too much power with curating information, and even Google Search will always prioritize either big tech, big media or any other large corporation relating to what you are searching.
    Possibly.

    But it isn't unproblematic as it might mean that government will control it instead (and effectively censor other voices - I'm sure many countries would love that); or they decide to prioritize different things for different people to avoid that criticisms - and instead leading to an even more fragmented society.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    While not all employee-owned businesses are like this, most in the US are set up this way. This is coming from personal experience and only pertains to myself.
    Calling it employee-owned almost seem like a scam to fool the gullible.

    In general employee-stock-ownership (in normal companies - lots of them have such programs) is a bit problematic for the employees: you are basically putting too many eggs in the same basket - if the company goes bankrupt you lose your job and some savings. I guess it's good for the company (as people actually work harder due to that small percentage they own), and the terms are often so favorable that it makes sense despite the extra risk.

  6. #146
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    35,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Employee-controlled companies have a tendency to not work well; because there's more to a company than just putting together a bunch of employees (both in terms of figuring out what work is needed and in terms of financing). Especially for the innovative companies in this thread.

    Or in short: I'm not the one preventing you from forming an employee-controlled company with others and making it successful.
    You do realize that basically every successful company was owned by its employees, until it got too successful and they sell it off or turn it into a publicly traded company? Rich assholes buying successful businesses and banking on their success is nothing new. Blizzard started off as a small studio owned and run by employees and they made some of their best games during that time.

    You say employee companies don't do well, but you're just wrong. Just go look up a list of employee owned and operated businesses. While none of them are ultra massive corporations, they're all very successful. There's nothing inherent to employees owning a business that makes them unsuccessful. There's plenty of companies owned by one guy that fold as well. So you're going to have to provide reasoning, not just statements.

    So you just saying "Employee-controlled companies have a tendency to not work well" is a statement without backing to it. So you'll excuse me if I laugh at your lack of any supporting evidence. It's almost expected of you at this point, like one just expects Blizzard to make games that are all cash grabs now.

    And after that ask the people at Andersen consulting that are contracted to another company the same question. Or someone who retired but still consult at their previous employer.

    Then you might realize that it differs. Until you do realize this it isn't meaningful to continue this conversation.

    Oh, and I haven't used Uber as far as I know.
    Yes, I'm sure contractors that make big money off their contracting work are just fine with it. As are the contractors of companies that provide employee benefits. A long time ago I did some contract work for FEMA and was paid based on the work I did and could easily make north of $10k/month. That work dried up and the contractor folded eventually. But the government pays contract workers extremely well. Or it used to back in the 2005-2009 era. I couldn't comment on now.

    Doesn't change the FACT that most contracting done these days is done by businesses to pay shit wages and not provide any benefits. Contracting also allows them to advertise their average salary as far higher than in reality because they only have to include the people on their payroll, not the contractors. It's a loophole that's being massively abused and has become a major problem in the US. While it started out as "Oh hey, we don't have to hire our own X because we don't need them to work full time for us" it's quickly become the go-to for cheap labor.

    We even know that many contracting companies are now just middle men to contract work brought to them out to other contractors, and they take a cut of the money. We call those kinds of people "leeches".

    See, if I was posting like you, I would have just said "Contracting is bad" and not provided any supporting argument. But there's plenty of easy reasons and examples as to why contracting is abused by the likes of Uber, or really any big company that you want to think of.
    Plenty of people have been holding their breath waiting for me to fail. I think they all suffocated years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Just came here to remind people that the right has no moral conscious. If they ever try to morally scold you, it's not because they think what you're doing is wrong. Is because it's effective, and want to discourage you from doing it.

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    You do realize that basically every successful company was owned by its employees, until it got too successful and they sell it off or turn it into a publicly traded company?
    No, since that is false. If you truly believe that your understanding of the world is really messed up.

    The truth is more complicated. Yes, many of the most successful companies were originally part-owned by some of the original founders/"employees" that also worked there, but that doesn't necessarily include all employees - and often there are also outside investors such as when Apple, Inc, Google, and Facebook was founded.

    Sometimes people leave before the company is founded and get nothing, allegedly like the one who wrote the first google search engine before Google was a company.

    And the founders are usually just a handful of persons - stretching the very definition of "employee". Sometimes others that joined later get some shares in the company, usually less and mostly because such companies cannot afford to pay competitive salaries to employees (in case the company fails: too bad for the employee).

    E.g., I cannot see that the first employee (or intern) at Facebook got a significant share in the company.
    But the first employee at Uber (not to be confused with founders) got about 1% of the shares I think - but he was also named CEO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Rich assholes buying successful businesses and banking on their success is nothing new. Blizzard started off as a small studio owned and run by employees and they made some of their best games during that time.
    It was started by three founders who borrowed money to found it. Do you really think that the employees they hired (artists like Samwise, the secretary etc) got a similar amount of shares as the ones who provided the cash?

    If so I have a bridge to sell.

    And can you list the amazing games released by the company named Blizzard before they were bought by outside investors?
    Trick question: They weren't called Blizzard until after Davidson & Associates bought them. One of the founders selected the name from the dictionary.

    So: once more - there are legitimate questions whether mega-corporations should be regulated based on their impact on society. The number of employees and employee-ownership is just a distraction from that. The problem with them isn't really that they are 'too big to fail' - but their impact while continuing to be successful.
    Last edited by Forogil; 2022-08-18 at 06:20 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •