Perhaps I'll add one more:

"Would you want to work in one of these institutions?"

Who "owns" the corporation? Private and public? — Xtrix

It is divided between the richest businessmen and the State. They both own the private and public corporations.

What is the most powerful position within a corporation? — Xtrix

The one which makes all the rules and decisions in the shadows. Most of the workers do not know about him or her.

Who decides what to produce, how to produce, where to produce? — Xtrix

I guess three actors: market, State and the few richest businessmen of that market.

Who decides what to do with the profits? — Xtrix

Again, the same person who is in the “shadows” controlling everything and we not know anything about.

Where do the profits mostly go, in today's typical fortune 500 company? — Xtrix

I would say (e) and (h).

Would anyone say that a corporation is run democratically? — Xtrix

No, I think it is not run democratically.

"Would you want to work in one of these institutions?" — Xtrix

It depends. If I work normally in an ordinary position with a good income I would say yes. But I cannot see myself in positions with a lot of power because it seems to be so corrupt.

(3) Who decides what to produce, how to produce, where to produce? — Xtrix

The consumer. Otherwise, in no time at all, you have a bankruptcy, and without a golden parachute, a frantic CEO fleeing to hidden assets in Costa Rica.

Apparently if you assert there is an answer and appear to be interested in it, you may as well share it with us. Otherwise, you're assuming a shot in the dark will kill your hired assassin. Bold. But there's been bolder.

You think corporations are bad? Ha! You clearly haven't been around non-governed human nature. Watch Lord of the Flies for a minuscule taste.

You think corporations are bad? Ha! You clearly haven't been around non-governed human nature. Watch Lord of the Flies for a minuscule taste. — Outlander

The biggest threat are un-governed people with great power. Who governs the government? If we are capable of governing the government, then shouldn't we be able to also govern ourselves?

(3) Who decides what to produce, how to produce, where to produce?
— Xtrix

The consumer. — Outlander

The consumer does not decide these things within a corporation.

Apparently if you assert there is an answer and appear to be interested in it, you may as well share it with us. — Outlander

To the above question, there is a clear answer — when dealing with fortune 500 companies. The answer is the board of directors.

You think corporations are bad? Ha! You clearly haven't been around non-governed human nature. Watch Lord of the Flies for a minuscule taste. — Outlander

Why watch it when you can read it?

Regardless— no, corporations are not inherently “bad”, nor did I say this. Any more than a hammer is inherently bad.

This has nothing to do with “governed human nature.”

I don’t think we have to look in the shadows, really. It’s right there in front of us. No sinister plot, no conspiracy. Not as exciting perhaps, but we’re interested in how things really work, yes?

I would say (e) and (h). — javi2541997

You’re partially right!

Not so surprised by the lack of response, so I'll give them myself and see if others find them accurate.

(1) Who "owns" the corporation? Private and public? — Xtrix

A corporation is a legal person. Because slavery is illegal, a corporation is not owned. It owns itself.

(2) What is the most powerful position within a corporation? — Xtrix

I would argue the board of directors. So the chairman of the board, or even the CEO.

(3) Who decides what to produce, how to produce, where to produce? — Xtrix

The board of directors.

(4) Who decides what to do with the profits? — Xtrix

The board of directors.

(5) Where do the profits mostly go, in today's typical fortune 500 company?

(a) Infrastructure (factories, buildings, equipment)
(b) Workers wages, benefits
(c) Expanding the workforce (hiring)
(d) Dividends
(e) Stock buybacks
(f) Paying taxes
(g) Advertising
(h) Lobbying
(i) Research and development (creating new products) — Xtrix

The answer is (e), stock buybacks. At least in the last few years. That's worth dwelling on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-5UVxoThfQ

Stock buybacks shouldn't be allowed anyway. It all comes down to the silly Freidman Doctrine -- shareholder primacy. I'm glad that's beginning to end.

Shareholders are not the owners of the company, and the company does not need to prioritize them. They should be dealt with after the employees, the infrastructure of the company, and the community at large has also been taken care of. What's left can go to dividends if the board of directors so desire -- as was the case for decades (40s, 50s, 60s, 70s).

What happened was the ideology changed to shareholder primacy, thanks in part to guys like Milty, and the boards of directors started getting voted in/pressured to make moves to encourage directing more of the profits to the shareholders in the form of dividends and maximizing share price (through stock buybacks), at the expense of other profit investment -- which is why we've seen worker wages stagnate and companies investing less in R&D, factories and equipment. They did this in part by linking CEO pay with quarterly stock price -- paying a large portion of their salaries with company stocks, or with bonuses that are contingent on share price increases per quarter.

(6) Would anyone say that a corporation is run democratically? — Xtrix

Not how they're run now. They can be run democratically, and a good model of that is the cooperative model, but that's not how major corporations are run today. In terms of corporate governance, the form of government could best be described as totalitarian or tyranny. Top-down structure, where orders are passed down, and at the bottom a majority of wage slaves who rent themselves (their time, energy, labor -- i.e., the better part of their adult life) in order to live.

These corporations are the major employers in the world, and they have positioned themselves to essentially own the state. Of the corporate world, the most powerful by far has become the financial sector -- banks, investment firms, asset managers, etc. In other words: Wall Street.

The consumer does not decide these things within a corporation. — Xtrix

So we have corporations making products people don't like, buy, need, or use. And are still in business. Ok.

See folks this is what happens when you drink the anarchist kool aid.

What is your alternative? Random people producing random things with no accountability whatsoever? We had that. Then we got sick of it, mostly from all the deaths with no recompense whatsoever, and so now there's an accountable structure. Anything with the previous quality no matter how small is in fact a corporation of some kind. I'm assuming you mean the most successful in power (which is you by the way, just again more successful) are bad. Yes, people without limits, rules, regulations and restrictions are bad. That's hardly a discussion at this point.

Eh, I thought it was some pretty good Occupy agitprop and bid for co-ops. A little heavy handed with the totalitarianism and tyranny, but, it is agitprop, I guess.

The consumer does not decide these things within a corporation.
— Xtrix

So we have corporations making products people don't like, buy, need, or use. And are still in business. Ok. — Outlander

The question was: who decides what to produce, how to produce it, and what to do with the profits. That's not the business of "consumers," because that's absurd. The answer is: the board of directors decides these matters. These people, within the corporation, makes these decisions based on all kinds of factors: the markets, supply and demand, fiscal and monetary policies the government is enacting, and so on. But the internal decisions are in their hands alone. The consumer has zero input in this.

See folks this is what happens when you drink the anarchist kool aid. — Outlander

This is a stupid comment. Sorry your feelings were hurt by pointing out that you're wrong. I thought I did it nicely.

This question has nothing to do with anarchism. Nothing. It has to do with corporate governance and its structure.

What is your alternative? — Outlander

Alternative to what?

the markets, supply and demand — Xtrix

So why produce something with zero demand. Where does the demand come from?

This is a stupid comment. Sorry your feelings for hurt by pointing out that you're wrong. I thought I did it nicely. — Xtrix

Of course it is. Because if not, that means you and your entire life choices are stupid. Which is impossible, clearly.

Alternative to what? — Xtrix

Nothing, nothing at all. This entire reply is a service to others who may be reading at this point.

pretty good Occupy agitprop and bid for co-ops. — thewonder

It's not communist propaganda, and it's not a bid for co-ops. It's simply the factual structure of the corporation and the simple fact of where profits go. Not a word about Occupy. You're just making that up.

I think co-ops serve as a good alternative model. Whether they should be pushed, or whether we should return to a more Keynesian era of regimented capitalism -- the era of managerialism -- is another question. I'm inclined to think the latter is a more viable option temporarily, while also encouraging alternative forms of corporate governance (like co-ops or 20% of board seats going to workers, or strong labor unions).

Occupy Wall Street was a broad-based anti-capitalist movement that became popular in 2011. Slavoj Zizek was sort of involved with it, but it wasn't communist by any stretch of the imagination.

it's not a bid for co-ops — Xtrix

I think co-ops serve as a good alternative model. — Xtrix

I think co-ops are a good idea, too. You can support co-ops if you like.

the markets, supply and demand
— Xtrix

So why produce something with zero demand. Where does the demand come from? — Outlander

I never once said anyone should or would produce something without a demand. That's not the point at all. The question was: who makes the decision about what to produce, how to produce, how much to produce, where to produce (the US? Mexico? China?), and how to allocate the profits of this production?

The answer to this question just simply isn't "the consumer," or "the market." That's ridiculous as soon as you look at how corporations are run. The answer, rather, is simple and straightforward: the board of directors.

Of course it is. Because if not, that means you and your entire life choices are stupid. Which is impossible, clearly. — Outlander

So getting upset at being politely contradicted, and having nothing left to say except to angrily remark that I've "drank the anarchist kool-aid" -- a complete non-sequitur -- is not a stupid remark, but rather my psychology and ego not allowing me to realize how true it is?

Fine -- I've wasted my life on anarchist stuff. Happy? Now let's get back to the real world, and the real questions about corporate structure, and the simple fact that the board of directors makes the decisions about where to allocate profits and how the company should be run (along with choosing the CEO, etc).

his entire reply is a service to others who may be reading at this point. — Outlander

And an informative and well-argued reply it was. At least you're not making a complete laughingstock of yourself.

I kind of agree with you that it's unlikely for co-ops to catch on. You might not be talking about anarchism, but, I am so inclined to wonder, when we're going to go through the whole business of reorganizing the entire corporate structure, why not just go all the way to workers' self-management?

Occupy Wall Street was a broad-based anti-capitalist movement that became popular in 2011. — thewonder

I'm aware of what Occupy Wall Street was. I was there.

Slavoj Zizek was sort of involved with it, but it wasn't communist by any stretch of the imagination. — thewonder

I never said it was communist, so I don't understand this comment.

As for Zizek -- he's a complete imbecile, in my view, and I have no idea why you'd invoke him in this discussion. But carry on as you will.

why not just go all the way to workers' self-management? — thewonder

That's what a co-op is, in part. But most importantly is this: they're their own board of directors. They hire and fire CEOs and managers, set pay grades and ratios, decide whether to expand, decide whether they want to bring in private investment and issue stocks, etc. etc. Run very much like companies now -- only difference is that it's worker-run, and run democratically. Shouldn't be a shocking or difficult notion -- except for the propaganda of the United States.

So getting upset at being politely contradicted, and having nothing left to say except to angrily remark that I've "drank the anarchist kool-aid" -- a complete non-sequitur -- is not a stupid remark, but rather my psychology and ego not allowing me to realize how true it is? — Xtrix

Who said I have nothing left to say. No anger, it's just a simple sentence I typed out whilst eating a lemon pepper tuna. I'm either wrong or you are, what does it matter really? See.. your own lack of faith betrays you. As it usually does.

And an informative and well-argued reply it was. At least you're not making a complete laughingstock of yourself. — Xtrix

Oh not a complete one I see. You're chock full of insults and passive aggression, but logic? That's for the readers to decide. I'm going back to my tuna. Have fun making it known you're above others while complaining about those who do the same. Good Lord I feel like I need a shower after this.

Who said I have nothing left to say. No anger, it's just a simple sentence I typed out whilst eating a lemon pepper tuna. I'm either wrong or you are, what does it matter really? See.. your own lack of faith betrays you. As it usually does. — Outlander

Lack of faith in what?

Oh not a complete one I see. You're chock full of insults and passive aggression, but logic? That's for the readers to decide. I'm going back to my tuna. Have fun making it known you're above others while complaining about those who do the same. Good Lord I feel like I need a shower after this. — Outlander

There's nothing to decide. There was a simple question with a simple answer. The answer was: the board of directors. Your answer, "the consumers," was simply wrong. Sorry that this upset you -- but grow up and get thicker skin. I'm not here to baby people.

2+2 = ?

Your answer: 3.

Real answer: 4.

"Well, I guess we'll just have to leave it to the readers to decide."

It's not communist propaganda, and it's not a bid for co-ops. — Xtrix

While the term, "agitprop", did originate in the former Soviet Union, it does generally denote any sort of political art designed to inspire some sort of action or another.

That's what a co-op is, in part. But most importantly is this: they're their own board of directors. They hire and fire CEOs and managers, set pay grades and ratios, decide whether to expand, decide whether they want to bring in private investment and issue stocks, etc. etc. — Xtrix

That does sound like workers' self-management, but I think that it may be a somewhat hopeful depiction of co-ops in general. I'm all for them and all, but I don't think that workers determine their pay grades and ratios all that often, for instance. I could be wrong, though. I don't know too much about them.

I'm all for them and all, but I don't think that workers determine their pay grades and ratios all that often, for instance. I could be wrong, though. I don't know too much about them. — thewonder

Who does, then? If the workers are their board of directors, they can decide these things -- just as a board of directors in a capitalist corporation decides how much to compensate a CEO.

I guess that they actually do. Crazy!

(6) Would anyone say that a corporation is run democratically?

Truly interested in answers. — Xtrix

Especially in Sweden there is a thing they cherish and it's "företagsdemokrati" implemented also in the workforce rather than just taking note of stakeholders as Economic Democracy is mainly about (even if the workforce is one stakeholder).

But there's a problem.

Democracy works basically if everybody also shares the responsibility of the actions. If voters choose bad politicians, they in the end will feel it. That is extremely hard to do in a workplace. Hierarchic organizations have managers and leaders and they usually bare the brunt of the decision making as...they are the managers and leaders. If a Cooperative grows to be large enough, the only rational decision is to have an elected body that supervises the actions of the management. Everybody simply cannot decide with a vote on every issue! Hence in real life, not the ideological fairy tale castle where these structures of companies are larger than life issues, big Cooperatives function quite as big Corporations. Many wouldn't notice the difference in ordinary life between the two.

Hence the Swedish företagsdemokrati model can easily fall into the trap of being just this enormous grandstanding scheme where business is done as usual, but in order to make the appearance that everybody is making the decisions and everybody has his or her equal input, a lot of time is spent on workforce meetings. Sometimes it good, especially if any kind of feedback from the workforce doesn't exist earlier. Listening to stakeholders might be a good idea. Yet in some technical question it's simply hypocrisy to assume that the young intern and the 30-year professional have equal say.

Simply put it, some organizations are hierarchical because of practicality, not because of ideology. There can be this class issue in some societies which decrease the performance of the organization as leaders aren't team leaders but more like higher caste masters who have servants. Yet some have top-down structures simply exist to coordinate the actions of everybody.

Democracy isn't an answer to everything, it works extremely well in some areas, not on others. Hence one should be careful just how to implement it. Practical thinking is far better than just ideological perseverance.

Hierarchic organizations have managers and leaders and they usually bare the brunt of the decision making as...they are the managers and leaders. — ssu

What kind of self-immunised, circular twaddle is this? "Leaders lead because they're leaders". Your point?

Whatever the organisation, the lowest paid bear the cost of decisions made because they're the ones with the least safety net if things go wrong.

The point about the way corporations are structured is that it's workers and communities which experience the cost of bad decisions, yet they have little to no say in those decisions.

Your point? — Isaac

There are simply practical reasons why we have formed our organizations to have leaders.

If you then say, "Nope, from now on the leaders and managers are just "team members" along with everybody else and everybody together has to make the decisions", what do you think will happen? So... you vote? Or do you have to have a consensus? On what matters? Just for starters, when is someone in the workforce capable doing a decision on his or on her own?

Whatever the organisation, the lowest paid bear the cost of decisions made because they're the ones with the least safety net if things go wrong. — Isaac

There are far more lousy or mediocre enterprises than those that go bust. And likely in any organization the lowest paid is the young trainee or intern. Perhaps he or she isn't at the age of 20 or less isn't in the same position in the job market as an over 50 year old with only specific and narrow job qualification and experience.

If you then say, "Nope, from now on the leaders and managers are just "team members" along with everybody else and everybody together has to make the decisions", what do you think will happen? So... you vote? Or do you have to have a consensus? On what matters? Just for starters, when is someone in the workforce capable doing a decision on his or on her own? — ssu

Are you implying that those are difficult to answer? That the need to make a few decisions first is sufficient to prohibit worker-ownership or democratic governance? I should image most large corporations are quite accustomed to making a few tricky decisions.

There are far more lousy or mediocre enterprises than those that go bust. And likely in any organization the lowest paid is the young trainee or intern. Perhaps he or she isn't at the age of 20 or less isn't in the same position in the job market as an over 50 year old with only specific and narrow job qualification and experience. — ssu

I have no idea how this is related to what I said.

Are you implying that those are difficult to answer? — Isaac

Actually, yes. If everything would have to be decided that way.

I should image most large corporations are quite accustomed to making a few tricky decisions. — Isaac

And I think many organizations, not just corporations, are indeed accustomed to make a lot of tricky decisions... with committees, specific teams or groups, leaders or (ghasp!) managers making those decisions.

I have no idea how this is related to what I said. — Isaac

Let's look at what you said then:

Whatever the organisation, the lowest paid bear the cost of decisions made because they're the ones with the least safety net if things go wrong. — Isaac

And what I replied is that usually the lowest paid in any organization is a trainee, an intern, the most junior employee. Or do you refute that?

And that these have the least safety net, well, they likely are the youngest people in the workforce and hence have their work career well in front of them. Actually those who really need a safety net are people who are far less to end up with a new job. Those are people with narrow work experience and close to retirement. Let's say you have been a coal miner for the last 40 years and five years from retirement, think how easy it is to pick a new job when the coal mine is shut down (along with many others like you out of work). Compared your situation to a person who just graduated from school and for some reason worked at the coal mine for some months? Likely his or her salary was lower than yours.

Actually, yes. If everything would have to be decided that way. — ssu

Do you have any evidence of this difficulty, or are you just guessing?

they likely are the youngest people in the workforce and hence have their work career well in front of them. Actually those who really need a safety net are people who are far less to end up with a new job. Those are people with narrow work experience and close to retirement. — ssu

Again, do you have any evidence, or are you just guessing? In the UK, 50 year olds have, on average, 10 times the savings of a 20 yr old; they're three times more likely to own their own house; and since both get the same unemployment benefit, the 50 yr old is significantly better off. And 16-24 year olds are more likely to be unemployed than any other age group. https://www.statista.com/statistics/974421/unemployment-rate-uk-by-age/

One of the advantages of actually looking up the data rather than just guessing is that you don't end up talking shite.

Do you have any evidence of this difficulty, or are you just guessing? — Isaac

Did you even read what I said? Basically it's about making every decision collectively...or having the ordinary system where somebody in the organization decides by him or herself certain questions.

I am guessing you didn't even read it carefully what I wrote.

Again, do you have any evidence, or are you just guessing? In the UK, 50 year olds have, on average, 10 times the savings of a 20 yr old; they're three times more likely to own their own house; and since both get the same unemployment benefit, the 50 yr old is significantly better off. — Isaac

A lot.

Yet just really first think what you just said above. Talk about not understanding the reality behind the statistics.

So...OMG! Somebody that has been working for 20+ years or so has more savings than someone who has just left or is even still staying at the parents home? I really don't have to guess that: it's OBVIOUS that this is the case in ANY country. That people that have a job will have more savings after decades of work? And that's your counterargument???

(And likely no, they don't get the same unemployment benefit as those typically have some link to the salary paid. At least here it's not so.)

Of course you utterly fail to recognize that somebody who is 20 years old has his whole work career in front of him. Not so with someone that will retire in few years. Statistics show quite well that it's the oldest segment of the workforce who faces PERMANENTLY losing their jobs doesn't reach your mind. And when you need to cut back the workforce, which would you as an employer start if two persons are qualified: the one who has a lower salary and far more work years ahead of him or the one that has a higher wage and will have to be replaced sooner? You really don't have to guess which they will choose.

In 90's economic depression Finland endured the hardest hit industry was the construction business. By statistics 50 000 lost permanently their jobs and this from a population of 5 million. And yes, they were usually the oldest in the workforce. After years of not hiring anybody, the new jobs went to a new generation.

Yet let's have those statistics, because you assume I'm just guessing. Simply to put it, age discrimination is quite obvious, an issue I'm really not just guessing:

In the United States, 20% of workers are aged 55+. That’s one fifth of the entire working population that is made up of people in the last ten years of their careers. These are also the people with the most working knowledge and experience. Half of people aged 55-64 are currently employed, meaning that a significant number of people who are younger than the expected retirement age have already left the workforce.

Nearly half of people aged 55-64 exit and re-enter the workforce during that age period. Between 1998-2014, an average of 13% of older employees were forced into retirement. It takes Baby Boomers approximately 46 weeks to find a new job. It takes the average person 43 days to find, interview for and start a new job. With 1 in 5 workers age 40+ reporting not getting at least one job due to age discrimination, it’s no wonder it takes older employees longer to find a job.

So why is this?

Paul Rupert, of Respectful Exits, suggests — persuasively — that the problem emanates from our free-enterprise roots. The predominant business model in this country is still an industrial one where companies view employees as “human capital,” he says. “It’s a sad phrase, but companies view their workforce the same way they view their capital equipment. You buy it, you assume it has a certain shelf life, and then you get rid of it and replace it with a new model.”

Then if you like unemployment statistics, lets look at those who are permanently or long-termed unemployed, those that have basically dropped out of the workforce, and how age correlates with them.

Stats from my country, Finland:

One-half of the unemployed aged 60 to 64 were long-term unemployed. In this age group, long-term unemployment was almost equally widespread in all levels of education. One quarter (25.2%) of all unemployed persons at the end of 2019 were long-term unemployed, that is, had been unemployed continuously for at least one year. Long-term unemployment was the more common the older the unemployed were.

Then from the UK:

According to an analysis of unemployment data from the Office for National Statistics, conducted by digital community Rest Less, three in 10 (30 per cent) of unemployed over-50s have been out of work for at least 12 months, while a fifth (20 per cent) have been out of work for at least two years.This compares to a fifth (20 per cent) and 8 per cent of unemployed under-50s respectively.

Stuart Lewis, founder of Rest Less, said the analysis showed that older people out of work were “more prone to long-term unemployment” than other age groups in the same position. He warned that the UK risked creating a “lost generation of unemployed over-50s forced into an early retirement they neither want nor can afford”.

“Too often, highly skilled workers in their 50s and 60s suffer from age discrimination in the recruitment process, often being told they are ‘over qualified’ – a concept that simply doesn’t make sense,” Lewis said.

And the US (from this year):

Since March, over half of jobseekers ages 55 and older have been categorized as long-term unemployed. In July 51.6 percent of workers ages 55+ were long-term unemployed compared with 34.8 percent of jobseekers ages 16 to 54.

I think that's enough of stats, but I could go on and on.

Now when we take into account that many Americans don't have savings and the country doesn't have a welfare safety net, then hope you understand who is in more peril when a economic slump comes around: the 20 year old or the 50 year old worker that get laid off. But perhaps it's too difficult.

One of the advantages of actually looking up the data rather than just guessing is that you don't end up talking shite. — Isaac

Even better is to understand what you are talking about.

Seriously.

Can you please help me see how this is a philosophical topic? If so, to which category in TPF does it belong?