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.

  • Couplqnd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • ElleChaise@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • redballooon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • TheMongoose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Isn’t that because at the root of greed is the inability to be satisfied? Why don’t billionaires, when they have literally money beyond avarice, more than they could possibly spend in a thousand lifetimes, just say “nope, I don’t need any more, everything else I earn can go to charity”?

          But they don’t. They get richer. And despite the public image of them, they’ll still try and screw the regular workers out of as many toilet breaks as they can get away with in order to maximise how much they earn.

          It’s almost beyond evil.

          • redballooon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think that’s two different things. Billionaires can and do get continuously richer also when there are napkins in a restaurant to satisfy customers.

            Actually, satisfied customers are return customers, which every businessman knows are the best customers. Amazon certainly knows that. The reason why Amazon is so succesful is because they focus intensely on customer satisfaction. They’re fucking their employers, yes, but they wouldn’t need to. They just do because the regulations allow for it.

    • satanmat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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