like I went to taco bell and they didn’t even have napkins out. they had the other stuff just no napkins, I assume because some fucking ghoul noticed people liked taking them for their cars so now we just don’t get napkins! so they can save $100 per quarter rather than provide the barest minimum quality of life features.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
18 points

Yep.

Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. They have to make money. And how much money do they have to earn? MORE.

To grow, they offer good food at a reasonable price. It seems cheaper to put the drink machine out for customers to make their own drinks choices… but then we need those extra pennies, so behind the counter it goes, so customers don’t get free refills… then how can we source cheaper stuff, beef beans etc. there will be c constant demand to squeeze every penny from the system… Bob is making too much; better fsck his schedule until he quits so we can hire Alice as she make only minimum wage.

I’m not sure where napkins fall in the chain but yes the quality likely will continue to spiral down.

There are very few companies who recognize that there is a quality floor they should not go below. Where they acknowledge that we can’t get any worse, but they have to raise prices. And depending on the managers this cycle will continue back and forth

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Dumb question: did the laws change or was it a change in trends to maximize shareholder returns?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

There was a cultural shift in the 1970s:

From the end of World War II until the late 1970s, a retain-and-reinvest approach to resource allocation prevailed at major U.S. corporations. They retained earnings and reinvested them in increasing their capabilities, first and foremost in the employees who helped make firms more competitive.

See https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/08/22/so-long-to-shareholder-primacy/#:~:text=The shift to shareholder primacy,increase its profits.” Subsequently%2C

permalink
report
parent
reply

Why did that change?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

A shift in corporate mindset to maximize growth and profit. Go research Jack Welsh.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/part-one-jack-welch-is-why-you-got-laid-off/id1373812661?i=1000612309266

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Not at all is that a dumb question.

See the other comments.

It is much more cultural than anything else.
As the stock market moved from buy and hold for the long term to the more manic trading we see today where shit like robinhood allows everyone to trade options

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Can we stop with the myth that “corporations/board members have a fiduciary duty to share holders for maximum profit”

It’s not true and never has been! It’s just some bullshit that was said in the 80s that sounds good but has no basis in reality

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I mean, they do though? I’m totally against that, but hear me out: if we infiltrated for instance, and tried to do the opposite approach of only screwing the shareholders while providing maximum value to workers and consumers, we wouldn’t last long enough to bring it to a vote at the corrupted board. If you don’t provide a solid plan on how you’re gonna fuck consumers in the coming quarter, they won’t even let you stay on as CEO. It’s literally not possible to do good in this system, you can either not participate and keep getting fucked as consumers/workers, or you can trade class and provide value for shareholders, there is no in between anymore. The only option that will change this without another Teddy, is revolution. Hopefully a peaceful one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

According to your statement there must be someone getting fucked. An trade where all parties are satisfied does not seem possible.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

No?

As long as upper level management receives bonuses based on share price, and the board reenforces that…

The stock market is a voting machine not a weighing machine.

I simply disagree Management generally must keep increasing ARPU average revenue per user or else the market punishes the stock price

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

What? Everything you just said has nothing to do with fiduciary duty.

The reason the board acts that way is because of this myth. Also many companies have nothing to do with APRU. The stock market is not just Tech stocks and crypto.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Asklemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Create post

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de

Community stats

  • 8.2K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.5K

    Posts

  • 302K

    Comments