Our industry leaders (Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.) are all monopolies which pay little tax and employ anti-competitive practices to squeeze out competitors.
And few seem concerned with inequality.
Let's shape our companies towards something better.
That's the thing that pays most. For some reason our society rewards advertising platforms. Everything from popular films and music, to every successful medium ever, was founded as or taken over as an advertising platform.
Maybe we as a society simply value advertising above all?
Personally I try to only work with companies whose business model is providing values to users directly, but I can't argue with the fact that I am far more willing to give my money to advertisers (so I can make a profit), than I am to services that help me make the products I advertise.
Why is that? I don't know. But I think the feedback loop from "put money in, get money out" is much quicker with advertising platforms than it is with services I use during creation.
Sad thing is of course, that modern advertisement is based on subconscious influence to make the product part of your lifestyle instead of presenting you a balanced presentation of the benefits and drawbacks.
Shameless plug: I released a desktop app for project tracking in the Ubuntu Software Center a few days ago as side project. Here is a non-subconscious manipulating presentation about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA_KckRueLQ
Note: the initial package has a dependency issue. A fix is in review.
http://it.bing.com/search?q=monopoly&go=&qs=n&form=QBLH&filt...
http://www.powells.com/s?kw=Monopoly+economics&class=
Maybe not?
> And few seem concerned with inequality.
Companies are for making money. If the people they make money for are concerned about that, they can vote - or distribute their own money - accordingly.
Smart companies realize that their profits do not exist in a vacuum. In Germany it's a long standing view that capitalism must be balanced and that companies have a social function in society and must act accordingly. This is one of the secret powers of what we call "Mittelstand" which employs the majority of people in Germany and produces a huge share of the social product. Those companies are often family owned and pride themselves in taking good care of their workforce - a trait that often pays off when times are turning worse since the employees reward good treatment with loyalty. It's not uncommon for a complete workforce to accept pay cuts across the board instead of firing people which in turn allows the company to keep well trained and educated workers on the payroll until things get better. Both sides profit here.
So yes, companies are for making money, but smart companies think further than next years profit statement.
I won't disagree with that - I think it's sensible - but what you have written is different from "concerned about inequality".
I don't think so. Henry Ford for example realized that paying solid wages allows people to buy more cars [1], in turn increasing the profits for Ford. Reducing inequality in a society strongly correlates with social peace and happiness, which in turn fosters the economy. Good social equality also helps a larger part of the population to achieve good education, broadening the pool of skilled labor. Certainly, a single bad actor in a good environment can reap benefits from behaving "anti-social", but in the long run that's a spiral to the bottom. So I think that smart companies should be concerned about a raise in inequality, even if it's only for their own good. And making sure that you keep inequality low in your own workforce is the first step.
[1] http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/...
More precisely, Henry Ford convinced a bunch of innumerate reporters and politicians that paying solid wages allows people to buy more cars.
Showing that high wages alone [1] only hurt Ford is simple math. Say a car costs X to build and Ford can sell them for X+P. If Ford gives a worker X+P in wages, and the worker spends X+P on a Ford car, Ford winds up losing X.
[1] Higher wages helped Ford to poach more productive workers from the competition.
If Ford is the only company paying high wages - yes. However, somebody needs to buy the products and services that companies offer and the more people can afford a service, the broader the potential customer base. A high inequality concentrates a huge share of the income and capital at the upper end of the scale. However, there's only so many cars a person can buy and drive, only a limited amount of phones you'll buy, only a strictly limited amount of haircuts you'll need, not matter how high your income is. The trickle down effect that's always promoted is a myth.
* Rich people at the top and extremely poor people at the bottom. I generally think this is a bad thing.
* People who are ok at the bottom, and really, really rich people at the top. I'm less convinced this is a problem.
In any event though, this is swerving into kind of philosophical terrain about what we all view as the best society.
I too got out of Silicon Valley because I didn't like it, but that's fine, the world is a big place and there is room for different ways of doing things without hating on some large, successful companies because they don't have a political view that you happen to like.
That's certainly true for publicly traded, anonymous companies. But companies in general are for making what the owners want them to do.
Being a monopoly (at least in economics) does not mean being the only player in a market, but rather about being big enough to affect/set prices in the market.