[lotsofpulp]

> but what is broken is that the people who have ultimate control of large public companies (in 90% of cases - founder controlled companies are a prominent exception) are the shareholders. And these are typically not domain experts, their main interest is in making money. So they generally see fit to appoint executives whose main objective is to make money and to remove those who care about anything else.

What alternatives are there?

> Not everyone is doing that. But those who are often making the most money, and as money = power in capitalist economy, the people who are doing this are continually increasing their control of our companies over time.

The most profitable public companies seem to invest quite heavily in long term investments and have long term planning. This does not seem to square with your statement.

[nicoburns]

> What alternatives are there?

Worker representation on boards is one example. Imagine if the board of public companies was 50% shareholders and 50% workers.

> The most profitable public companies seem to invest quite heavily in long term investments and have long term planning. This does not seem to square with your statement.

The most profitable companies yes, but not necessarily the ones making the most money for their investors. Part of this pattern is that the companies typically end up dying a slow and painful death, meaning that they never get to be as big as the largest companies. But money in investing is made on change in value/profits, not on profits themselves.

I guess I would say that the pattern I have described doesn't describe the entire economy. There is more traditional long-term investing going on too. But it's there. And it's harmful.

[taffer]

Workers have their own interests that are not necessarily aligned with those of the users/society, such as support working hours only from nine to five on business days, higher pensions and fewer new hires, more job security.

If you really want to align the interests of the company with those of the users, you need something like a cooperative where the users are also the shareholders and you have to buy a membership to use the product.

[nicoburns]

I don't want to align the interests of the company with users. I want to align them with society. And I think it's worth noting that members of society are not just users but also workers.

[southerntofu]

> Workers have their own interests that are not necessarily aligned with those of the users/society

Usually you will find that they are, because workers are also users and vice-versa.

> support working hours only from nine to five on business days, higher pensions and fewer new hires, more job security

I guess you're from the US? "Higher pensions" should have nothing to do with a company: that's a public policy matter and pensions can be mutualized across employers as is the case in France (despite past & present governments doing their best to dismantle that public service).

The 8h workday is established minimum standard across industries for over a century now (several centuries in some industries/places), and even when it was not (see Haymarket affair) it was considered a pretty weak/useless demand, more symbolic than anything. Thinkers of the time advocated that given the established technological progress at the time, it should be possible for everyone to work just a few weeks every year and still enjoy modern comfort. Some more modern thinkers believe the same applies today, considering how many resources/efforts are wasted annually.

Moreover, "fewer new hires" is not necessarily correlated to "more job security". It may be true on the scale of a single company, but on the scale of a whole society, a public policy of everyone finding opportunity for their contributions to humanity (that rarely yet sometimes overlaps with what's called a "job") leads to better "job security" for everyone and anyone.

If a government really wanted to tackle unemployment, there's many areas of life that need considerably more workers and resources, including education & health which are pillars of a healthy (pun intended) society. But capitalist policy is to generate misery in order to pit everyone against everyone else so a tiny minority can profit... and in this regard, capitalism works excellently.

> you need something like a cooperative where the users are also the shareholders and you have to buy a membership to use the product

That's how many non-profit organizations operate. You have to be a member (free or < 20€/year) to benefit from services provided by the association.

[taffer]

> Usually you will find that they are, because workers are also users and vice-versa.

I am sure that the owners and managers of Discord are also Discord users themselves, so I don't see any difference here.

> The 8h workday is established minimum standard across industries for over a century now An 8-hour workday does not rule out employees working shifts so that customers don't have to take a day off to interact with the company.

My point is that, contrary to OP's assumption, the interests of workers and customers are often at odds with each other. Another example would be when more employees are needed to meet increased demand, but the employees do not want their votes and wages to be diluted by the new hires.

[southerntofu]

> the interests of workers and customers are often at odds with each other

I've never heard any such stories from an actual workers coop. I'm not saying it can't exist from a theoretical perspective, but i don't think workers/users interests are "often at odds" since i can't think of a single real-life example.

[q-big]

> Worker representation on boards is one example. Imagine if the board of public companies was 50% shareholders and 50% workers.

You are free to found a company with such a board structure. You are also free to either bootstrap it or crowdsource the necessary capital for it.

[nicoburns]

I'm also free to give all of my money away to the poor, but that's not going to help solve poverty in any major way because my influence on society as an individual is limited. There can be a much greater benefit in coercing everyone to follow a rule that isn't realised by allowing individuals to choose something.

[lotsofpulp]

> Worker representation on boards is one example. Imagine if the board of public companies was 50% shareholders and 50% workers.

Sure, that is an interesting option. But what about Discord, since it is not public? Does anyone that starts a business have to give half of the decision making power to workers from day 1?

I cannot parse the concept you are trying to explain in your second paragraph.

[southerntofu]

> Does anyone that starts a business have to give half of the decision making power to workers from day 1?

It could be mandated by law, indeed. Or the shareholding model could be outright removed because it's poison for society as a whole, as the history of workers/consumers coops shows.

[vimy]

Nothing stops workers right now to buy shares and appoint someone to the board.

[mahogany]

On the contrary, something very obvious stops workers from buying enough shares to appoint someone to the board: access to capital. What you say is true in theory, I suppose, but is far from true in practice for any reasonably-sized publicly-traded company. How can an average worker at Walmart practically voice any opinion via shares?

[AussieWog93]

>What alternatives are there?

Just spitballing, but an independent auditor that puts a dollar value on the expected long term gains/losses to a company's brand portfolio based on recent management decisions could help reduce certain types of short-term "cashing in" behaviour.

>The most profitable public companies seem to invest quite heavily in long term investments and have long term planning. This does not seem to square with your statement.

Maybe not the largest companies, but he's basically described the default behaviour of private equity firms.