Black Mamba
Member
What does it mean to say from an "objective economic perspective"? A company can maximize profits by paying 0 wages. Is that what a company should do from an "economic perspective"?
And, if so, why should we care about the "economic perspective" at all?
A company wouldn't maximize profits by spending 0 wages because no one would work for 0 wages. Profit maximization is constrained.
What I mean by "economic perspective" is looking at a company without biases like altruism, etc. Think about it as a formula and nothing more.
I'm not arguing we should hold companies to that standard, but from a purely mathematically standpoint (maybe that's the better term), a company should profit maximize given its constraints.
Ah, I see.
From an objective perspective, a company's goal should be the owner of the company's goal. Generally, that goal will be to enrich the owner via maximizing profits. But that won't always be the case.
There is nothing inherent in the social construct of the company that requires maximizing profits.
mathematically, it's kind of nonsense to not maximize profits. But there's nothing wrong with an owner saying "I'd rather pay my employees more than they deserve even if it won't increase my profits because I make a lot of money and I don't need to squeeze every ounce out."
Economically/mathematically, Romney trying to maximize profits it fine. But as a society, perhaps we demand more than just pure greed? Maybe we demand that he consider that it's worth keeping more people working than adding $3 million to his total value when he's worth $500 million (random numbers).
For those that argue "well, he's just maximizes profits, what's wrong with that?" I think it's valid to retort "because on some level, as a society, he can be a bit altruistic."
And that's a valid argument in its own right.