Here's a poetic eulogy written by Kurt Vonnegut for his friend Joe Heller. (HN messes up formatting, but it reads well as prose)
---
JOE HELLER
True story, Word of Honor:
Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer
now dead,
and I were at a party given by a billionaire
on Shelter Island.
I said, “Joe, how does it make you feel
to know that our host only yesterday
may have made more money
than your novel ‘Catch-22’
has earned in its entire history?”
And Joe said, “I’ve got something he can never have.”
And I said, “What on earth could that be, Joe?”
And Joe said, “The knowledge that I’ve got enough.”
Not bad! Rest in peace!
Individual business owners often have that attitude. It’s when they go public that the profits are not also linked to the social standing of the owner and the appetite for dollars runs away.
I had suggested that possibility in a recent thread about a niche of businesses that dont continue in perpetuity and the consensus here was nobody walks away from a money making business so therefore we have to assume the businesses were financial disasters for the founders and equity holders
I'm a proponent of this mentality of investing in your people. I'm a huge Louis Rossmann fan because I feel he builds his business in a way that puts his people first. Recently this was clear when one of his board repair specialists got hurt in a hit-and-run accident (was literally ran over by a truck).
The way that Louis is taking care of his employee is nothing short of inspiring to me. As I understand from the videos, he's covering his salary during recovery, has supported him in the legal case, is accommodating his injuries by sourcing very expensive special equipment (microscope), and has visited him multiple times in the hospital.
He'll sit on camera saying "I'm a tough boss, I'm hard to work for" etc. While I'm certain that's true I just see it as high expectations + wanting to retain top performers. Nothing wrong with that when you put your money where your mouth is and treat your team like family IMO. I'd kill to have a boss like that because that's a person I'd be happy to get behind and support!
Yes, Louis is the real deal. Authenticity counts. I'm always astonished at the excuses people make for bad behavior as being "normal". Just look at what he went through with real estate brokers looking for a new storefront. It's no accident he ended up taking a space that was brought to him from a broker (Alan) that had a similar philosophy as to him. That so many people went and hunted Alan down shouldn't have surprised him - people crave authenticity, even if they don't know what it is.
Like him or not, a huge factor in Trump's success is he's Trump. What you see is what you get, warts and all. It may be ugly by most people's standards, but it's authentic. A candidate keeping campaign promises? What?!?
One would think it would be easier to be authentic but apparently for politician/authenticity is the same as vampire/holy water.
Always doing the right thing often isn't the easiest path in the short term. However in the long term it's invaluable. One of the favorite phrases Jude Judy tossed around is "if you always tell the truth you don't have to remember!" - there's a lot of depth and truth there (and I'm sure she got it from somewhere else, I just heard her say it multiple times).
Another company renowned for treating its employees well is Patagonia. The founder, Yvon Chouinard, wrote a book about it ("Let My People Go Surfing") and speaks about it here:
I often see the word “company” and “corporation” used interchangeably. But a corporation is just a machine invented by humans; a “company” is a group of people.
A company, of run properly, is a great way to get people together to accomplish a complex objective. A corporation is merely one of the tools they use.
If you think of people / companions (same roots) as, you know, actual humans, your business will typically be more effective.
Your point is well taken, but in the US, at least, a limited liability company is also an entity that you can form like a corporation, or a partnership, so the words don't necessarily conform to their dictionary definitions and are, perhaps, more interchangeable than you suggest.
I also think there's a broad divide in the world between those who think that corporations are dehumanizing and those who think of them as simply a group of people, like the dictionary definition of a company.
>I often see the word “company” and “corporation” used interchangeably. But a corporation is just a machine invented by humans; a “company” is a group of people.
> It's why slavery is hopelessly unable to compete with free markets.
This sounds incredibly wrong, but obviously as someone who finds slavery morally reprehensible I would love for it to be true. There are so many industries that, as far as I can tell, could never have begun without slave labor - tobacco being the obvious one that created a boon for the burgeoning United States. Sugar cane in Brazil is a modern example. Chocolate from the Ivory Coast is also interesting, because there is fair trade chocolate you can buy - the fair trade chocolate is a rounding error compared to the industry as a whole.
If you're trying to produce a product in bulk that doesn't require highly trained employees, how would slavery not help your bottom line?
I know it's not the conventional wisdom, but read up on the economies of the US free Northern states and the slave Southern states. The failing southern economy juxtaposed with the prosperous north was a major factor leading to war.
> how would slavery not help your bottom line?
1. slaves hate you, and would like to kill you
2. slaves will do as little as possible
3. slaves will not make any constructive suggestions
4. slaves will run away
5. slaves will require armed guards
6. slaves will sabotage your operation at every opportunity
7. slaves will spit in your food (and much, much worse)
8. slave economies tend to make it illegal to educate slaves, even illegal to teach them to read, making them very unproductive
9. you wouldn't want to be in a room with a few of them without armed guards
Without more evidence, I think we just have to agree to disagree. I believe everything you've listed is a second-order effect, and depending on the situation (such as sugar cane in Brazil) many of them do not even apply at all. The sugar cane example is so unique I'm not sure any of them apply, the only one I think might is #8. If you have Netflix and are interested, watch season 2 episode 3 of Rotten. There are other episodes on other industries as well involving what is essentially slave labor that I believe do not apply to many of your rules as well.
I am not saying slavery is always the best way to get an edge in a competitive market, but sometimes it is. Otherwise, why would people still be using it today? There are literally billions of dollars to be made every year in multiple industries if what you're saying is true.
> Otherwise, why would people still be using it today?
Generally because there is something else going on that interferes with the free market operating.
There's a good reason that slave economies used to be commonplace, and when free markets appeared they disappeared, one by one.
Do you think the US became a superpower because of slave labor? (Recall that the wealth produced by the slaves was demolished in the Civil War.) In example after example, countries that ditched slavery and turned to free markets became much, much wealthier.
> Do you think the US became a superpower because of slave labor? (Recall that the wealth produced by the slaves was demolished in the Civil War.) In example after example, countries that ditched slavery and turned to free markets became much, much wealthier.
I feel like China, while an extremely complicated example, is a good counterpoint to this.
That's a very controversial statement without a lot more context. You can even google "is china a free market?" and see people arguing about it today (multiple articles from 2019). Many sources disagree with you, including Wikipedia. I realize this ignores almost all of the nuance and it is not binary, but I still would not consider the Chinese economy a free market.
I appreciate the discussion, but I think we just disagree.
It's less free than the US, but it's a lot more free than what it was before 1978. China's prosperity improved in direct correlation with adopting free market policies.
For another example, look at North vs South Korea. Same country, an arbitrary line drawn, one prospers the other doesn't. East and West Germany, same thing. North and South US before the Civil War, same thing.
I agree with all of your examples and historically the transition has worked as you described. I think that after China opened its borders for trade the transition is so murky you can barely even draw a line like you can for the others. One obvious difference between China and the others is their widely agreed upon currency manipulation. There is also the fact that companies are essentially owned by the state, and you can really only operate with the grace of the government. I believe censorship is severe enough there to be a factor as well.
I understand (or at least I think I understand) your point about how by becoming freer they have prospered more, but I think it is so much more complicated than that when it comes to China. I realize it's always dangerous thinking to say something is an exception; but China is an exception. Yes, China reaped many rewards by opening up trade, but they clamped down on many things simultaneously - essentially trying to have the benefits of free trade with the convenience of a draconian state.
This is going in a slightly different direction than I intended. My original point was about slave labor for specific industries (as opposed to countries), and I feel my point stands that some industries benefit from it. On the Ivory Coast of Africa, they have both fair trade and slave labor chocolate - the slave labor chocolate absolutely dominates the market. My next point was that China didn't become a super power simply by becoming a free market (and I contend is still is not a free market, although it is freer than it was 50 years ago), but by hoarding natural resources, manipulating their currency, exploiting workers (their own and from Africa), disallowing international competitors internally unless specifically sanctioned by the Chinese government (so essentially China decides who is allowed to participate), and other bullying tactics.
While I think China has a much more prosperous future than the Soviet Union did and they've managed their internal affairs much better (although I do think shit is going to hit the fan there soon in a very bad way), they became a superpower first and foremost by strong-arm tactics. Opening the market with the US and the rest of the world just provided them the money to do so, and we have bent to their will more times than not.
This has been fun, but we really need to agree to disagree at this point :)
Setting aside the morality -- which is its own reason to treat people well -- it's damnably effective.
Something I got from a book on negotiating:
It doesn't matter how good of a negotiator you are, if you develop a reputation for being a jerk, you're going to fail.
Why?
Because for every room you're in being the best negotiator, your reputation is in ten, negotiating the other way and talking you out of deals you didn't even know about.
Conversely, if you develop a reputation for being a reliable partner and a fair dealer, then your reputation will do the hard work for you. People will talk you into deals without your input, because they want to work with people like that.
I have a theory that women don’t like to negotiate because they think negotiating requires them to be tough and mean. But really, if you’re affable and charismatic when trying to make a deal, which should come more naturally to most women, then you would be in good shape.
