• JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hmm interesting. Thank you!

    They do have an obligation to what their share holders want though don’t they?

    • witten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe part of degrowth would be fewer public companies beholden to shareholders.

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            In co-ops the employees have a controlling interest, right? So a majority of them would still need to want to shrink the company. That might be easier to convince them than investors though.

            • TheaoneAndOnly27@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              True, it would still need to be based off the cooperative ideas. There was an awesome forestry co-op in the 70-90’s called the Hoedad’s that had an interesting model and had each section ran as separate crews with even different pay structures and even philosophical structures. They did tree replanting and brush cutting and many other activities but each sub group bid contacts independently but we’re part of the workers cooperative collectively.

    • Chetzemoka@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the shareholders want the corporation to blatantly violate the law, they don’t do that. They don’t have to do everything that shareholders want. Shareholders are perfectly free to sell their shares, if they don’t like what a company is doing, or to vote out members of the board, if they don’t like the way the company is being managed. The idea that corporations have no other choice is a myth perpetuated to maintain the status quo