[WSJ] Elizabeth Warren: Companies Shouldn’t Be Accountable Only to Shareholders

Because that's the central idea behind socialism. The thought is that if the workers controlled the means of production, they would be more productive. The exact opposite happens in practice, but it seems we're recycling failed policies from the past these days as if they are new ideas.

 

You are thinking of communism. Socialists countries have private ownership.

 

I think union states need to look towards Germany for inspiration.

 

Bless you, Warren is trying to save the existing capitalist system.

What she is proposing is mainstream in Germany. I know the Germans are authoritarian communists because they tax the rich more than little guy Republicans ,who have been brainwashed to wait for continual tax breaks for the rich to trickle down believe, is just.

 

So if I double the wages of my employees then they will be more productive? What if there simply isn’t work to be done?

Does this apply to every job? Shouldn’t some jobs have more impact on the growth and functioning of the business?

What’s the ratio of wages increases to productivity growth? Is there a point of diminishing returns?

Also, American productivity is at record highs without seeing the same wage growth. If we increased wages significantly would we see outsized productivity growth?

 

government determining who owns and operates a private company just screams capitalism.

 

lol

Since you are so unhappy with our current system, why don't you move to a socialist country? I hear Venezuela is a swell place to be right now.

 

I can agree to Warren's opinion stated in your OP without agreeing to what Warren represents. Consumer capitalism has its merits, and Warren sure as hell doesn't own or represent it. "As an X, I can still consider what Y is trying to say."

That's the ambiguity that you get called out for.

The 2nd link helps clear up intentions to the OP. Thanks for that.

 

The bill she's proposing is about corporate governance, not ownership and not operation. Please keep snide remarks factual.

 

I'm not trying to bust your balls that hard. Just a light graze.

I'm mostly cool with your opinions when you give them.

 

It absolutely involves ownership and operation. It forces certain companies to permit employees to elect 40 percent of the company's board of directors.

 

Imagine staring at 30 years of stagnant middle class wages, the exponentially increased cost of everything from college tuition to healthcare to housing, a concentration of wealth unseen since the Gilded Age or the impending impact of automation on wide sectors of the economy and saying - like cml seems so eager to do - to the richest among us "Please sir, may I have some more?"

 

Board of directors are not owners.

40% is a non majority, they will not have operational influence unless the other 60% is split and needs a tie breaker.

 

BoD are a representation of the owners (shareholders). If shes forcing the BoD to be comprised of non-ownership representation (the employees) shes screwing over ownership.

Just want to quote this so everyone can read it in case you try to remove it.

 

You must hate Anti trust laws too.

 

Some, but I wouldn't describe any anti-trust law as capitalism.

 

Cool, so then you would agree that you were in fact wrong when you say

Do what you need to do chief.

Unlike you, I am able to change my mind and admit when I am wrong.

 

Again, it would not influence who owns the company but how much of the corporate governance is controlled by the owners. Does it screw over owners to allow stakeholders without an equity stake have a say with what's done with the wealth they invested? Arguably. Owners would certainly complain. You can also argue that the worker is screwed over by allowing stakeholders without an employment stake have a say with what's done with the business they've labored to build. These are just different ways for humans to organize themselves and make decisions. I don't think there is anything morally sacrosanct about allowing capital to make all the decisions. The amoral questions should be: will it work? will it drive efficiency? will it grow and distribute wealth in a robust and fair manner? will it increase the public good? And honesty, I have plenty of doubt about that. But, I'm not just going to automatically shrink from the boogieman of socialism or bow automatically before free markets.