[KittenInABox]

I feel like the idea that X doesn't owe you Y is fundamentally at odds with the fact that humans are a cooperative species and survive the best when they are cooperating. A choir can hold a note together because individuals can stop singing to breathe, safely covered by peers who will take their turn to breathe later. What is the point of organizing socially if not for the benefit of all society members?

I know we have to balance inefficiency and optimal allocation of resources... but I agree it doesn't seem optimal for social wellbeing to remove people from their access to health and risking their ability to house and feed themselves without a financial need to do so (like Block going bankrupt).

[ahepp]

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to put those responsibilities on individual firms. In the USA, achieving maximum employment has been a mandate for the Federal Reserve to achieve through monetary policy. There are many advantages to allowing individual firms to optimize for productivity. There are also a lot of harms caused by forcing firms to adopt unproductive methods. Even Keynes' joking solution for unemployment was that the treasury might bury bottles of money for private industry to dig up.

[MattGaiser]

> with the fact that humans are a cooperative species and survive the best when they are cooperating.

I dispute that this is a fact. Maybe within a small group, but startups shouldn't be possible if masses of more cooperating people led to better outcomes. A large company should always win there and that does not happen.

> What is the point of organizing socially if not for the benefit of all society members?

We don't come anywhere close to this on a global scale. Most countries aren't this way on a national scale.

[loktarogar]

Startups generally _don't_ end up with better outcomes. Large companies stay stable, startups are volatile and often end in failure.

Stability means removal of volatility, which means to stay stable they end up becoming more generalised, rather than the laser focus a small team like a startup can have. That laser focus can work out when applied to the right problem at the right time, but is very much not a guarantee.

[bananamogul]

"humans are a cooperative species"

Humans are violent, self-centered tribalists. What species are you referring to? Not homo sapiens.

[KittenInABox]

I do mean homo sapiens. Humans are a cooperative species. They will hunt and gather together in loose communities naturally, sharing excess resources even if individuals are not directly contributing to the resource creation due to being too young, too old, sick or injured. Having inter-societal competition doesn't mean we don't still have cooperative society. Just because ants will fight other ants in different colonies doesn't mean ants are not a social species.

[Imustaskforhelp]

I think we Humans can be both cooperative species and violent,self-centered tribalists species and definitely all the grey area between the two at the same time as well.

[johnnienaked]

And every other civilized society except America builds internal power structures that inhibit violent self-centeredism. Maybe it's time we do the same?

[vharuck]

I don't live in a cave, so humans probably cooperated at least a few times over our history.

(This is also my go-to argument against zero sum economics)

[edgyquant]

Tribalism implies cooperation

[hackable_sand]

Telling on yourself

[zimza]

This has always been and always will be an excuse for the person saying it to be a "violent, self-centered tribalist". Humans have worked together for the benefit of the community for the longest time. Rugged individualism is inherently linked to capitalism.

[retinaros]

outside of the west yes.

[simianwords]

fundamentally you see jobs as more important than the end product. this is a tension i keep finding in many minds.

[KittenInABox]

I see fundamentally human wellbeing as more important. Jobs are just the structure society has built as a gateway for this.

[simianwords]

exactly - end consumers like you and me will end up having to pay for their jobs indirectly.

i personally want products i purchase to be cheaper and i don't want to be paying for products that are costly simply because they are hiring people for "human wellbeing".

i would rather people work in productive places than just exist in a company for some reason.

[inigyou]

Alternatively, instead of things being cheaper, you could receive that amount more money.

[simianwords]

who? the employees? for doing what? i don't want to live in a world where people are getting paid when they don't add any value

[inigyou]

you are literally complaining about the idea of having more money

[renewiltord]

I actually don’t think you do. At the least, the question then becomes “is wellbeing most well served by paying a small number of software engineers a lot of money”. That is prima facie absurd.

[singpolyma3]

Then I suggest fixing society or finding a better one

[singpolyma3]

So you think companies should hire and pay employees they don't have any use for out of charity?

[heathrow83829]

that's not the job of a company. companies are suposed to be profit centered, their purpose is to make money.

what you're talking about is the role of government. govt should be supporting policies like you are suggesting, by for example allowing for universal basic income or uniersal basic land or services, etc.

[socksy]

Why? This is asserted throughout this HN thread as an obvious truism, but it seems precipiced on some dramatic right wing free market concept of how the world works that I can't tell is coming from the libertarians of hacker news, or is some kind of USA concept.

Why should society let the concept of a company exist if it is actively detrimental to society at large, for the gain of a very few?

[zimza]

You are trying to pitch marxist theory to a bunchof liberals. It won't end well. (and it's not, judging by the first comments)