undefined | Better HN

0 pointsroenxi3y ago0 comments

The two main differences:

1) Nobody pretends that business skills are especially hereditary. It is common for people to enter and exit the 'class' of business owner.

2) Success as as a business owner requires steady economic activity where people get what they want. Success as a noble ruling a fiefdom requires kneecapping anyone who challenges your god-given right to rule.

One big observations:

This is what US government spending has done in the last 2 centuries: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Governme...

That is a pretty solid contender for why people are less generous. I too would be investing more money in my community if I had more control of it. There is a pretty simple correlation between growth in government spending and a reduced ability of businesses to have a positive impact in their community.

It isn't like people were relying on business then business owners got greedy. People took control away from businesses and the businesses stopped being in control.

0 comments

lovich3y ago

> It isn't like people were relying on business then business owners got greedy.

Do you actually believe that? That all these business owners were running their factories out of the goodness of their hearts and that they only stopped because the government took all the money they had to give out as charity?

If that is the case why do we see ultra profitable businesses returning to this form instead of trying to carve out any section of their work base that they can, ex. The FAANGs turning most job positions into contractor filled roles like the janitorial staff?

ravitation3y ago

There is this contemporary absurd narrative that businesses, business owners, and/or corporations only recently became greedy, and that this development (of greed), not the system itself, is the root of essentially all the problems with the modern economic system.

I think it is quite possible that you were more likely to find a benevolent feudal lord (partially because incentives were more directly, and forcibly, aligned) than find a corporation willing to put profits as anything other than first.

lovich3y ago

I’m frankly boggled that this thought is even entertained. We have literal centuries of evidence of corporations oppressing their workers and other peoples in the pursuit of profits, down to actual armies killing striking workers. I agree with you that you’d be more likely to find a benevolent feudal lord as they at least viewed their serfs as theirs and not some sort of cogs to be thrown away once they were worn out.

1 more reply

jokethrowaway3y ago

Being charitable / good to employees is good for business and for retaining workforce in a world where employees don't have anyone else to care for them.

If I need to give 40% of my profits (and your salary) to the government and there is an avenue for getting some of that money back when you're in trouble, then go and ask for the government for help.

The mistake is in allowing the government to gather more resources and in turn making people dependant on them.

Welfare also destroyed the family unit (especially in the black community).

Indirect democracy is a fancy name for "electing" with your 1/100M vote an elite which gets to decide how to spend half of your salary.

seizethegdgap3y ago

> Welfare also destroyed the family unit (especially in the black community).

You sure it wasn't selective enforcement of the War on Drugs (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_the_war_on_drugs) and the criminal justice system in general (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/08/racial-dispariti...), and redlining (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining)?

lovich3y ago

> Welfare also destroyed the family unit (especially in the black community).

All I needed to read to dismiss this

1 more reply

sharken3y ago

Being good to employees is in my experience not that clearcut.

Yes, companies spend money on social events to make the employees feel good about the company.

But they won't spend any significant amount of money to keep valued employees, which of course makes said employees look elsewhere.

As an employee you are nearly always better off switching jobs every 18 months, as staying in the same job loses you money.

I wish companies would be more focused on this.

1 more reply

spacemanmatt3y ago

Can't even take seriously a comment which refers to elected leaders as "elites" and that's against my very harsh criticism of the voting restrictions and average voter apathy here.

andrepd3y ago

>It is common for people to enter and exit the 'class' of business owner.

Not particularly common. Social mobility is low even in developed countries, and getting lower.

aklemm3y ago

If I overlay that spending graph with quality of life during the same timespan, I might conclude government spending is a miracle. A greater success within 200 years can hardly be imagined.

jokethrowaway3y ago

Correlation doesn't imply causation and the pirates disappearing didn't cause global warming.

I'm grateful to entrepreneurs and companies for innovating so much, while the USA is turning into the largest employer in the world (bigger than China).

aklemm3y ago

> Correlation doesn't imply causation

Yes, that's what I said. ;p

From gp: > There is a pretty simple correlation between growth in government spending and a reduced ability of businesses to have a positive impact in their community.

Oh really? I'm somewhat familiar with German companies and the extreme regulation and worker-focused rules they endure as a good comparison to American businesses which I am intimately familiar with. My takeaway is that while it's much much harder to operate and innovate in Germany, the citizens are better off in immeasurable ways. Spectra, pendula, all that...

tr_user3y ago

> 2) Success as as a business owner requires steady economic activity where people get what they want. Success as a noble ruling a fiefdom requires kneecapping anyone who challenges your god-given right to rule.

take out lobbying and id agree

banannaise3y ago

> Nobody pretends that business skills are especially hereditary

Is this a joke? Nepotism is a huge problem in every step of the executive pipeline. The children of executives are often groomed to become executives themselves from basically the time they can talk.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

lovich3y ago

> It isn't like people were relying on business then business owners got greedy.

ravitation3y ago

lovich3y ago

1 more reply

jokethrowaway3y ago

Being charitable / good to employees is good for business and for retaining workforce in a world where employees don't have anyone else to care for them.

If I need to give 40% of my profits (and your salary) to the government and there is an avenue for getting some of that money back when you're in trouble, then go and ask for the government for help.

The mistake is in allowing the government to gather more resources and in turn making people dependant on them.

Welfare also destroyed the family unit (especially in the black community).

Indirect democracy is a fancy name for "electing" with your 1/100M vote an elite which gets to decide how to spend half of your salary.

seizethegdgap3y ago

> Welfare also destroyed the family unit (especially in the black community).

lovich3y ago

> Welfare also destroyed the family unit (especially in the black community).

All I needed to read to dismiss this

1 more reply

sharken3y ago

Being good to employees is in my experience not that clearcut.

Yes, companies spend money on social events to make the employees feel good about the company.

But they won't spend any significant amount of money to keep valued employees, which of course makes said employees look elsewhere.

As an employee you are nearly always better off switching jobs every 18 months, as staying in the same job loses you money.

I wish companies would be more focused on this.

1 more reply

spacemanmatt3y ago

Can't even take seriously a comment which refers to elected leaders as "elites" and that's against my very harsh criticism of the voting restrictions and average voter apathy here.

andrepd3y ago

>It is common for people to enter and exit the 'class' of business owner.

Not particularly common. Social mobility is low even in developed countries, and getting lower.

aklemm3y ago

If I overlay that spending graph with quality of life during the same timespan, I might conclude government spending is a miracle. A greater success within 200 years can hardly be imagined.

jokethrowaway3y ago

Correlation doesn't imply causation and the pirates disappearing didn't cause global warming.

I'm grateful to entrepreneurs and companies for innovating so much, while the USA is turning into the largest employer in the world (bigger than China).

aklemm3y ago

> Correlation doesn't imply causation

Yes, that's what I said. ;p

From gp: > There is a pretty simple correlation between growth in government spending and a reduced ability of businesses to have a positive impact in their community.

tr_user3y ago

take out lobbying and id agree

banannaise3y ago

> Nobody pretends that business skills are especially hereditary

Is this a joke? Nepotism is a huge problem in every step of the executive pipeline. The children of executives are often groomed to become executives themselves from basically the time they can talk.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse