[simula67]

Both of you may be right. The company exists to make money for the shareholders. But to make money for shareholders it has to treat its customers well, it has to treat its employees well, it has to treat its partners well and it has to obey all the laws. Management who value these things are often referred to as having 'high levels of integrity'.

Good shareholders should look for management exhibiting high levels of integrity. Like Warren Buffet said :

"In looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if you don’t have the first, the other two will kill you. If you hire somebody without [integrity], you really want them to be dumb and lazy."

At least in the public's eye, Oracle has lost the perception of having any integrity.

[TheOtherHobbes]

>But to make money for shareholders it has to treat its customers well, it has to treat its employees well, it has to treat its partners well and it has to obey all the laws.

Sadly not. One of the tragedies of capitalism is that it's much easier to run a profitable business by sharking everyone than by being a good citizen.

The optimal ethical position for profit is not the same as the optimal abstract ethical position.

This is why markets are a bad thing. If profit is your only measure of morality, you don't have a working mechanism to protect you - and everyone - from choices that produce short-term gains but long-term disasters.

[arcticfox]

> This is why markets are a bad thing.

... well, that's extreme. The ownership of the company should be working to avoid long term disaster. In most industries this happens all the time.

Actually, some of the main instances they don't (financial industry) is because of government support. If you're allowed to fail and get bailed out, then there's no reason to avoid disaster.

[tremon]

The company exists to make money for the shareholders

Actually, that should be circumstantial. The primary reason for a business to exist is because it provides value to its customers. If the value provided (and monetized) is more than the business' operating costs, it gets to continue to exist.

Shareholders are an artifact of unnatural growth, not a fundamental property of business.

[saiya-jin]

those are some strong assumptions. people don't start companies to serve others, and if by any chance they won't lose money but actually earn something that would be nice.

maybe that's the world you would like to see, and maybe one day we will have it, but it's not the world we currently live in.

why is it so hard for some to accept that money is, overall, by far the strongest motivation force out there? Remove it, and >95% of population will not show up for their crappy work next day. it might not be the best motivator overall and has some drawbacks, but it works so far surprisingly well and we came to this situation by long evolution.

[Angostura]

> why is it so hard for some to accept that money is, overall, by far the strongest motivation force out there?

Because the evidence is circumstantial at best. Money, is of course important. But the strongest motivator? Not for many people.

[saiya-jin]

ok, then do that test of removing salary, indefinitely. since it's not the strongest motivator, maybe secondary one, most would still come, right? now how many would show up next day?

[arcticfox]

I agree that taking extremes is a useful tool, but this isn't the best example.

What if you took away 100% of people's time off? No weekends, no evenings? Nobody is coming back to that either.

[tremon]

Basic income is a great way to test that, yes.