Fearing enshittification is one reason I want to keep my company private. If I have to answer to stockholders, then I’m not answering to customers, and that’s shitty.

[–] Corgana@startrek.website 19 points 1 year ago

Fearing enshittification is one reason I want to keep my company private. If I have to answer to stockholders, then I’m not answering to customers, and that’s shitty.

I get it. His most recent post talks about how enshittification isn't just limited to digital platforms, it's inevitable whenever monopolies are allowed to form.

[–] agentsquirrel@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

Avoid private equity as well. PE is equally shitty.

[–] hiddengoat@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well good news... you don't have to fucking answer to stockholders. That's a fucking lie perpetrated by Harvard Business sociopaths and their bootlicking bitchboys.

All you have to do is what's in the best interest of the business. If someone doesn't like it they can sell the fucking stock.

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

“The best interest of the business” is far too lenient in its wording. Some of the shareholder derivative lawsuits out there are fucking wild.

Simple things such as “paying your workers too much”, “acting with too much emphasis on morality over capital gains”, it all does have to come back to shareholder profits, ever since Dodge Vs. Ford.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's not what was decided in Dodge v. Ford. That case decided that corporations are allowed to act in the interest of majority shareholders even if it hurts the interests of minority shareholders. The Dodge brothers owned Ford shares and were trying to use their position to force Ford to stop competing with Dodge.

Further:

"In fact, courts have consistently refused to hold directors liable for failing to maximise shareholder value."

"In 2014, the United States Supreme Court voiced its position in no uncertain terms. In Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., the Supreme Court stated that “Modern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”.

https://legislate.ai/blog/does-the-law-require-public-companies-to-maximise-shareholder-value

The idea that corporations are hamstrung and simply must do evil things to maximize profit is actually just corporate propaganda.

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

Re the second part: this works differently in delaware, where over half of all fortune 500 companies were incorporated.

Willfully ignoring the minor detail about ford being sued to stop enriching the lives of their workers says enough about how productive this conversation’s going to be.

[–] hiddengoat@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

“The best interest of the business” is far too lenient in its wording.

And yet that's how it works, because business is not a linear thing. Do you have any idea how long "MUXEMOOSE PROOFITS!!!!" types have been whining about the price of Costco's hot dog?

[–] wewbull@iusearchlinux.fyi 5 points 1 year ago

I've noted over the past few years, how any company that invests in R&D rather than pays dividends is labelled as "loss making" by the press.

[–] wiki_me@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

100%. I never wanna work for public company again. I left a huge one after constant thrashing of canceling projects and trips so the accountants could move money around for the quarterly earnings reports only to revive after. Went to a couple small private ones then yr ago employer went public. Been so downhill so fast. Company isn’t recognizable to the one I accepted offer from. I’m leaving when I find a private fit.

I would consult a lawyer, basically iirc you can add to the bylaws that you are not just about making money and then you are only obligated to share dividends if you keep the majority of the voting rights.