Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by wombatpm 1186 days ago
I propose a weekly lottery. Each week we select 1 billionaire and one person making less than 50k. The peasant gets a gun, 1 bullet, and a free shot from 30ft. Lottery continues until the social contract is restored.

There was a time when corporations had principles ahead of maximizing stock holder value. Maybe we should re-examine that.

1 comments

Which principles would you like the companies that you are invested in to maximize ahead of stockholder value?
While I think the original comment on a CEO, a peasant, and a gun to be crass, I want to note that society wasn't always valuing "shareholder value" so much.

First, I want all companies, regardless of who invests in them, to hold some level of social responsibility to the society around them. Sometimes layoffs are necessary, and companies can't maintain excess costs forever, but there's some value to society to maintain employment.

Second, investments that return a profit to their investors is great, and as an investor, it's something I would want. That said, it's unreasonable to expect exponential growth forever, AND it compromises their ability to focus on other principles. How much return on investment is enough before a company can focus on being a force of good? 10%, 100% 1000%, 1M%?

Third, as an investor, I question if paying execs so much more than rank-and-file employees is good. So thats another example principle. I assume a well paid exec is incentivized to increase short term value, while as an investor I value long-term growth. Having a healthy employee base full of bright talented workers (incentivized by top-tier salary) seems a better solution.

This is fucking twitch.tv not something society should actually value. I'd be angry if doctors or teachers get fired.