So is enshittification the NATURAL and UNAVOIDABLE outcome of a capitalist society? Or is it specifically only when SHAREHOLDERS get involved?My understanding is that a company can only grow so much until it can’t grow anymore, and by that point rhe profits may or may not be enough for the shareholders. At that point they take over and fire the ceo- cut back quality anywhere they can, and fuck everythinf up to squeeze more profit out of something before it dies and becomes useless. Are shareholders by that logic parasites?
>>544663097If a company dies then its shares become worthless and it no longer pays dividends. No shareholder wants to be left holding the bag, so to speak.
>>544663348I’m not sure what point youre addressing or arguing here. Some people invest to preserve wealth, which makes some sense. Other invest to try and make money by selling those stocks later. If a company is profitable but isn’t growing that ordinarily would be totally fine. They would employee people still and everyone working in the company would be fine and happy. It serves that purpose. In that scenario only the shareholders would be upset because they aren’t seeing growth if they want to flip the stock later like the degenerate gamblers that they are.So they complain and they force the company to change. And often they can’t keep growing anymore and so they do what I said and cut costs by slashing pay- firing employees and doing layoffs, making rhe product shittier, making everythinf shittier for their own benefit.So basically out the people that work for the company, own the company, have share, etc, 99% of those people end up suffering or having things worse to please 1% or less which are the shareholders.Doesnt make sense to me. Not everythinf needs to grow infinitely to have purpose or usefulness and often times these businesses serve a use to rhe city as wel theyre located in by providing a service and paying wages to the employees there so it has a local shockwave effect on that community when a store or business goes o it of business as well.
>>544663097I don’t think enshittification is inevitable.It happens when a company is infiltrated by scoundrels, vagabonds and buccaneers with no original ideas except how to thieve and pillage.
>>544663097Democratization of corporations and businesses is a lot like its political counterpart a failed concept.
>>544663529I should've thought my point was obvious. If you own shares of a company, and that company dies, i.e. ceases to function, then you are no longer going to be paid dividends from that company for your stake in it, assuming that you did previously, and your shares will be worthless, meaning that you can't sell them for any money. This is a bad position to be in because you'll be losing a source of income and/or losing your entire investment.
>>544663686Doesn't matter if you're in critical infrastructure and just can have the government clean up your mess like the scoundrel you are
>>544663097If you want tech that doesn't break down or need batterry replacements, then you're out of luck. But most non-electronical things can last quite a long time. I have never needed to replace furniture or the dishes and cutlery. Clothes last 3 years or more, if you don't mind small holes. Buy smartly, and don't worry about the shareholders.
>>544663828That's irrelevant. I'm talking about when a company dies, not when it survives. How it survives doesn't matter to shareholders.
>>544663686Just because a company isn’t growing doesnt mean that it’s dying though. maybe that’s where I’m not understanding you. Some companies like Coca-Cola arent growing anymore but they stay profitable and somehow haven’t been turned upside down yet like many other company’s are the second they stop growing like a tumor.the vast majority of businesses that stop growing, even if they stay profitable go through that bullshit I told you which ends up eith the company dying because when you squeeze blood from a rock for short term profit rhe company will die which is what we’re seeing where lots of older legacy companies are surviving still on brand recognition but the service they provide has gotten worse year after year and more and more customers are leaving and eventually the company will go under.But none of that seems to matter because before that happens people will sell their stocks. And then maybe a private equity company will buy them and do the same thing where they also ruin the company for short term profit before selling it again or shutting it all down.
>>544663097Venture capitalism,private equity and the entire concept of throwing money at something and then getting profits out of it without doing any labour ergo being an economic parasite aka the stock market is what failed capitalism.Literally close the stock market and regulate the concept of investing to transform into something productive and you have solved much of todays problems. Then again how are the poor Jewish bankers pushing debt gonna make their profits. Maybe something needs to be done about that as well. Hmmmmm...
>>544663097Enshitification happened due to migrants, has nothing to do with capitalism
>>544664028That seems like a chicken or the egg situation, what seems more likely to me is that companies are looking to save money, and so they look for ways to save in expenses. So one thing they do is they hire foreign workers who will work for less money. often these are not the best workers though and so the quality of the product/service fails. (See medical workers like foreign educated doctors often coming from diploma mills) but the conditions that led to them being hired in the first place were the same conditions that lead to all enshittification which is simply cutting cost anywhere a business can do it.
>>544663950>Just because a company isn’t growing doesnt mean that it’s dying though.I never said nor implied such a thing, nor would I.>maybe that’s where I’m not understanding you. Clearly. Many people especially on /pol/ have very weird ideas about what company growth means.
>>544664142I still am not understanding what your original point is or what you were arguing or if you were agreeing with me. it was vague. Are you defending the current system? I think in its current form it ends up creating a profit for smaller groups and causes a wildly disproportionate amount of problems for everyone else involved. All so some guys can flip their stock and 2x.
>>544664275I've been explaining why shareholders don't want the companies they own to die. I'm disagreeing with your assertion that they do although to be fair maybe I misunderstood you too.I'm not defending any system.
>>544663097>muh ebil shareholdersMost Americans own a piece of the stock market and are therefore shareholders. Your parents' 401ks rely on the stock market. All of us benefit financially from "enshitification" aka businesses controlling costs because we get a share of their profits.
>>544664639I don’t think that’s true, if most Americans own stock it’s usually in some form where they don’t know and when they get fired or laid off they lose access to it anyway. whatever messily stocks rhe majority of Americans have probably do not have any tangible benefit. By the way all the constant lay offs and firing today’s are a feature and not a bug of enshittification and shareholders minimizing expenses ie minimizing personnel. enshittification effects everything down to the way youre treated at the hospital or the doctors office and is also why every product tou buy today is a worse quality than it can be or if it’s an electronic why it steals your data etc. whatever smal ways you benefit from it (dishonest argument) are outweighs by the negative effects >>544664467The shareholders may not want a company they hold shares in to fail, but if the company stagnates often times they will fire the ceo and start making changes to increase short term profits which ultimately will lead to the company failing in the long term by alienating the customer base or by other means
>>544664848You're right that growth is generally desirable. Most people want more than what they have no matter how rich or poor they are.Shareholders may demand changes to a company that will result in its death and they may profit by this but there's another side to this coin: the people buying the shares they're selling to profit are doing so because they think they can profit, and they may be right. Alternatively you could disregard the value of your shares and use them to kill the company. This could possibly profit you but there are a lot of factors that can make this unwise. It might be a good idea if you know that the company will die anyway and you can't convince potential buyers otherwise.
>>544665202I’m curious when a company reaches that point where they can’t seem to grow anymore and they start trying to force profit by making short term choices, if there is ever a conversation about how this might effect the future of the company. Fundamentally that’s the problem I have bevause as I said before, rhe company serves multiple functions:A:it’s basic service/productB:livelihood to its employeesc: a way to maintain wealth through sharesD:a way to maybe possibly increase your money through investingE. Arguably the most abstract is if you use something like a grocery store or whatever as an example or a warehouse, those wages for those employees there are circulated back into the local economy so it matters when these places fire people or fire everyone When companies start doing enshittification things trying to force a profit: it seems illogical to sacrifice or jeperdize points a b and c for the possibility that for a while tou can do point d. That seems like a bad trade to me. It seems destructive really to local cities as well because no people are our of work because maybe the company was mildly profitable but it wasn’t growing or profitable enough so activist shareholders fucked everythinf so they could buy a yacht and now Jim loses his house
>>544664639When we talk about shareholders in the US, we're talking about corporate ones, either in their own shareholder company that directly pimps out to other businesses, or a wing of a board of directors inside the company or something similar. We're rarely if ever actually talking about random civilians or households. You're using the word too literally, m8. We're only talking about the types of shareholders who can actively swing the system around with reckless abandon.
>>544665587Shareholders making decisions for a company don't necessarily make good decisions. Equally importantly, they don't necessarily make bad decisions. And more importantly, not all shareholders make the same types of decisions. To assume that no shareholder cares about the long-term survival of the company (however long that is) is unreasonable. The very term "shareholder" should give you a clue since they're holding their shares rather than selling them.
>is enshittification inevitable?It is when it's private equity owned. Private equity buys businesses on loans and they need to exit & sell the business within 4-7 years. The fast of a turnaround pretty much guarantees they'll strip the company of all value and turn it to shit.
>>544663097I believe it is actually I HAVE COME THE CONCLUSION: CAPITALISM REWARDS ABOVE ALL ELSE EXPLOITATION IN ALL FORMS - TIME EXPLOITATION... ATTENTION EXPLOITATION... ENERGY EXPLOITATION.AT THE COST OF SOCIETY.WORSE YET BY ITS VERY NATURE STAYED ABOVE... SOCIOPATHS (WHO LACK ANY MORAL OBJECTIONS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE TO THEM) ARE AUTOMATICALLY FAVORED UP THE CORPORATE LADDER BECAUSE ITS EASY FOR THEM TO STEP ON PEOPLES FACES GETTING THEREONCE THEY ALL CONGREGATE AT THE TOP LIKE THE JEWS THEY ARE THEY YELL THEM SELVES THEY SRE CLEARLY SUPERIOR WHILE THEIR HOST NATION STARTS BURNING AROUND THEM
>>544667552Eg France Eg USA Eg UK More to come We are expecting the purest form of psychopathy to "fix" a society it has fed on since WW2
Enshittification is rewarded and its why its happening.
>>544663097INDIANSHITTIFICATION
