this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
231 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

59578 readers
3331 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] spudwart@spudwart.com 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Remember, this isn't because they're at record losses, or that they're breaking even.

It's literally because they're not making enough profit.

This is the freemarket system functioning as intended.

A company can still be making money, still be above water, but decide their shareholders need to be even better off and they will decide they deserve money more than people struggling and making it by barely check-to-check.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not quite. Ultimately it's the shareholders making this decision. They twist arms on the board of directors, who in turn twists on the CEO. If the CEO doesn't make a call like this, they simply fire him and find someone who will.

And it's not necessarily that the shareholders want more money. But they sure as hell don't want to lose money. And they are ATM.

NOKIA -6.44% NOK -5.16% ERIC.B -0.80%

Hell, I might be one of those shareholders. Maybe there's a spot of Nokia stock in my Roth IRA, hell if I know. But the people managing my IRA know, and they'll drop Nokia if it keeps losing value. And if Nokia keeps losing value, they won't make payroll, those people are getting fired anyway.

If they were a private firm, there wouldn't be any of this horse shit, but then they couldn't raise capital to expand, take on a major initiative, etc. Sucks either way doesn't it?

[–] BackOnMyBS@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Thank you!!

It's the way the system is designed. That executive had no option but to maximize profits. Otherwise, the stock manager will sell their stock. And, the stock manager has no option but to pick the best stocks. Otherwise, investors would just go with a better performing financial product.

All these "shitty" business decisions made by executives are to increase stock value/dividends because their only goal is to do so. Any products or services a publicly-traded company provides is a side effect. To motivate this further, executives are often heavily paid in stock. Combining all these factors together, society ensures we place the greediest and most ruthless people in charge of our economic decisions.

That's why I never care for news of a particular CEO. If they weren't in that position, another asshole would gladly take their place since that CEO is surrounded by other relentless subordinates that want the position. Basically, our society encourages psychopaths to engage in their deranged egoism. It's also why Trump doesn't trigger me. He's a victim of the system also, because he never faces the consequences he needs to experience in order to develop a healthy, complete, and stable personality. He will always feel deeply insecure, be delusional, and never know mental peace. Unfortunately, we're the ones that have to suffer the consequences of his madness instead.

[–] dingleberry@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 1 year ago

IIUC, profit doesn't include obligations to investors.