/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7206009
>why dont people do great things to help the world as non-profits?

hahahahahahah

>>7206017
why are you laughing

i would rather work for a company that saves children and women from starvation, than work for a company that causes women and children starvation.

>>7206020
You said it's non-profit. You literally wouldn't be paid. Just so we're clear, you will not attract talent by being non-profit. It's simply not true that a lack of payment will attract more talented people.
Anyway, you said you would rather work there if they we're non-profit. Are you talented?

>>7206027
no im not talented.
And a non profit still pays salaries to its employees.

>>7206009
Who is going to invest in a company that doesn't produce profits? Charities are charities because they give away their products and are supported by people who want their products given away. Companies sell their products and are supported by people who want to make profits. Who would support Microsoft and Google if they stopped selling their products?

>>7206020
How do companies cause women and children to starve?

>>7206009
yeah, and maybe microsoft will fund their new windows 10 with a kickstarter campaign.

What are you, 12, OP?

>>7206038
>Who is going to invest in a company that doesn't produce profits?

Nobody. Do you think microsoft needs anybody to invest in their company? With the technology they have, do you ever see them organizing fundraisers? They can sell their products.

> Who would support microsoft if they stopped selling their products.

They can still sell their products. A non profit can still invest in technology, it can still pay salaries, and it can still sell products.

> How do companies cause women and children to starve?

K. Go ask people in africa, china and india.

>>7206036
Well, here's a few more things to keep in mind
- In terms of money, they have absolutely no insentive to do this. They'll simply make less
- If they made less money, they would have less to invest in making new tech
- In terms of morality, if the C.E.O. of google made 460 mil a year, he could donate about 4 mil and rest easy that he has helped out more than most other people on the planet in just one year. He's certainly not a parasite, not in a country with capitalism at least
- If a person spent time in collage training, they would most likely want a good wage, and the primary goal of getting skilled is to make a lot of money
- Even if a talented person wanted to do something good for charity, they could work at google for a salary, then just donate most of it to charity. It's their choice, and the pay is good

>>7206046
>Nobody. Do you think microsoft needs anybody to invest in their company? With the technology they have, do you ever see them organizing fundraisers? They can sell their products.
That's a very good way for Microsoft to go out of business. Do you understand why large companies need investors? Because they need to constantly innovate and grow. If Microsoft turned non-profit, they would sell have to sell their products for the a higher price or have less growth. This benefits exactly no one.

>K. Go ask people in africa, china and india.
Please explain how Microsoft or Google is making people in China, Africa, or India starve. Seriously, explain what you're trying to say.

it would give too many people too many rights too quickly.
the corporate era isn't stable, but predicting the market is actually too hard to assert that it's ever going in the right direction.

>>7206047
>- In terms of morality, if the C.E.O. of google made 460 mil a year, he could donate about 4 mil and rest easy that he has helped out more than most other people on the planet in just one year. He's certainly not a parasite, not in a country with capitalism at least

dude this shit is a zero sum game
the ceo of google gets 460 mil partly because a bunch of people lost out
if he keeps 456 mil in his pocket and everyone else like him does the same then you're going to get crazy deflation and real wage stagnation and eventually an armed uprising

>>7206053
i disagree with you on the point that microsoft would go out of business, but i dont know how to support this position.

Anyways, i meant to say corporations cause people to starve in other countries. Im sure there are documented cases like harsh and slave labor.

>>7206060
I know that, but at this point we're not talking about talent anymore, or how to attract talent. We're strictly talking about how unrestrained capitalism is bad and can cause huge problems in the form of monopolies and too much power. And personally, I'm not going to talk about that with you. There's things I could try to convey about how communism more or less kills, and how tight regulations like forcing a maximum wage will make all of our 'job creators' leave and feed all of that money to themselves, now in another counrty, but I'm not gonna even try

>>7206009
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook already draw top talent with their current for-profit operations. Why change something that works?

Hi!
Recently in newspaper I have read about the hormones of happiness. The theory itself is just interesting, but the consequences are exciting! Namely, there are three such hormones:
1. dopamine signs immediate pleasure. Think alcohol, smoking, sugar, some drugs
2. serotonine signs general feeling of comfort. Think being in your comfortable situation. Writer said that this feeling may come some time after eating bananas, tomatoes, black chocolate or nuts, too!
3. Endorphine softens pain shocks and gives feeling of euphoria. Think pregnancy, fighting, or working out!
They form the mood if they are present in brain, and stop doing it after decomposing!
The article gave some examples of situations when these form, but it didn't contain any practical applications of this knowledge. Am I missing something, or there is actually a way to alter ones behaviour by stimulating generation of hormones in some situations?!
For example. Take theoretical school student. Feeding him/her tomatoes before doing chores should boost generation of serotonine, making him/her comfortable-happy with process of mopping. Giving candy after finishing it will boost formation of dopamine, making him/her glad for accomplishment of tidyness. Is this right or I am missing something? Will these feelings bind to the activity, or just food? Will this association last after stimulation stops?
Most notably. Is there a book on this subject, with practical recipes and no requirement for background in medicine or biology?

>>7206067
If microsoft drew top talent with the current operations, there wouldnt have been the mess that was windows vista, 7 and 8.

>>7206060
>dude this shit is a zero sum game
That's exactly what it's not. You need to take Econ 101.

>if he keeps 456 mil in his pocket and everyone else like him does the same then you're going to get crazy deflation and real wage stagnation and eventually an armed uprising
No one in today's society keeps any of the money they earn. It's either spent, invested, or banked. All of those return the money back into the economy.

>i disagree with you on the point that microsoft would go out of business, but i dont know how to support this position.
Then you are being emotional and not listening to reason. The only reason a non-profit can operate is because people support it through charity. If there is no charitable interest in your company then you must entice investors with profit.

>Anyways, i meant to say corporations cause people to starve in other countries. Im sure there are documented cases like harsh and slave labor.
The thing about sweatshops is that you aren't taking into account the reason why a person works in a sweatshop. If there was no sweatshop they would be in an even worse position, like subsistence farming. So no, not even companies with sweatshops are causing people to starve.

>>7206062
You don't seem to understand what investing means.
Ever heard of the NYSE? That's a place where people buy and sell portions of companies. The companies need capital for new products, current operations, and investments of their own. In order to gain this capital, they sell portions of their company to investors, who will receive a portion of the company's profits determined by the stock terms. This isn't exactly a "fundraiser", but it's investing.
If MS were to withdraw from the NYSE, they would go out of business.

Okay, listen up, OP, you need to straighten out your worldview. First of all, a nonprofit isn't going to attract more talent. People choose their jobs based on two factors: it pays well, and it's a job doing something they enjoy/find fulfillment in. Turning into a nonprofit pretty much ends all possibility of the former. And I know you're going to say "well, people can find fulfillment in helping others," yeah, and there are plenty of ways to help others that doesn't involve taking a serious pay cut.

>>7206020
>>7206046
>Companies cause women and children starvation
>K. Go ask people in africa china and india.
For one, do you really think countries that are currently in poverty would be better off if, historically, Europeans had just left them alone? No. While many companies do some questionable things (child workers, bonded labour, etc,) they have significantly increased the quality of life in those countries. For example, companies that make sports merchandise give away merch for the losing team. People who can't even speak English aren't going to understand "Seahawks superbowl 2015 champions."
Also, this is a science board. You can't say "K. Go ask the people in africa, china, and india" without explanation or citation. And speaking of this being a science board, this post belongs on >>>/pol/
And if you did bother to do some research on places like Africa, China and India, you would learn that the poverty in Africa is caused mostly by violence and radical groups that are likely due to the sudden introduction of firearms to what were once warlike tribes. The poverty in china is caused by their ass-backward government, and the poverty in India is mostly due to their ancient heirarchy that forbids the lowest peasants from even speaking to a higher-up.

And if your belief is that companies hurt people in the third world Microsoft was not a good example choice. Bill Gates, has given something like 90% of his net worth to his Gates foundation.

not if you don't like tomatoes ;V

>>7206009

Because that would require them buying back ALL of their own shares. Investors are smart, if they see that they're going to go nonprofit then they might only redeem their ownership for exorbitantly high prices that the company can't afford.

they are probably helping as much as is possible already...

>>7206009
Because a company with their business model run as a non-profit would objectively create less value as explained by >>7206038 and >>7206047


Shit nigga, think of how many millions of dollars are held in Microsoft Stock in pension funds across the world.

Are you one of those OWS retards who mindlessly hate capitalism without a basic understanding of economics?

>>7206073
Vista, 7 and windows 8 were all caused by middle management MBA fuckery rather than a lack of talent in the engineering domain.

>>7206027
>non-profit
>literally wouldn't be paid

/biz/ here. This thread is comedy gold, and that's coming from a cryptoshill containment board.

>>7206193
the people who get the profit wouldn't be paid

>>7206009
first of all, this thread belong in >>>/biz/ or >>>/g/, not >>>/sci/, i have no idea why every time i come to /sci/ there's this much shitposting going on

second of all, stop being such a retarded pussy ass humanist and get off 4chan if you're underage

>>7206009
>Why dont companies like microsoft and google become non profit corporations?

>Why don't the owners give their money away

Man Anon I don't know either.

(Not that they don't - they do - they just don't do it by becoming non-profit.)