Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmathai | Hacker News Reader

Those who are still employed by my local grocery store don't seem too motivated to do their jobs. It's an unfortunate but foreseeable scenario that expedites the problem where people prefer self-checkout.

I wish we'd pump the brakes on efficiency and profit.

View on HN

They're pretty good near me

And of course, there's this idea everything needs to be done like the house is on fire, but I'm usually fairly happy if I see someone getting a break to look at their phone and doesn't notice immediately that I'm standing waiting or whatever. Or ambles over at a leisurely pace, that's fine, take your time, it's hard running around all day

> take your time, it's hard running around all day

This. I've asked grocery checkers why they sprint through scanning my things, then relax as I bag them, and learned that they're subject to some dumb system that grades them on how fast they scan. Ask them if they're on the boss's clock, and if not, take a minute to chat and give them a break.

>then relax as I bag them

Around where I live (Boston area), there are almost universally baggers. This was something that went away for a bit but, while I will if needed, I almost never bag my own groceries.

> I wish we'd pump the brakes on efficiency and profit.

This is not legal, executives of publicly traded companies are required to put maximizing shareholder value above all other considerations.

It's not that simple. I'll point you at this Harvard Law Review article[1] to start but shareholder value is not the only consideration for executives and doesn't even need to override.

1. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/will-the-real-sha...

That’s not true. Theoretical maximum shareholder value would be achieved by firing all employees and selling the company for scraps, yet we don’t see that happening. Fiduciary duty doesn’t mean you are required to squeeze profits above all else.

It would be easy to argue that would usually not maximize value in the long run, which is why they don't do that.

However, some PE firms have been successfully doing similar practices.

If it were that simple, businesses could never offer say a 10% discount or buy-one-get-one.

I suspect the implication was that consumers and voters would do the brake pumping. I don't think anyone expects CEOs or boards to be socially conscious anymore. The idea that companies would care about externalities is quaint.

This is flat-out false.

For reference:

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354

> While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits.

(Emphasis added.)

Nope nope nope. They are required to act in shareholders' interests. This is not the same thing as "stock price must go up".

This is misinformation. They are accountable to whatever the board and shareholders require of them, so long as that is legal.

Huh I wonder if this has anything to do why all our products are enshittifying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com