American Corporations "don't want workers"

[Bruce Gourley]

An article from the New York Times and cites an economist who makes this astute observation:

“American business is about maximizing shareholder value,” said Allen Sinai, chief global economist at the research firm Decision Economics. “You basically don’t want workers. You hire less, and you try to find capital equipment to replace them.”

[ET]

American business???? Come now...it's all business. Why should a business want workers? They're needy and costly and often litigious. Just what is the primary purpose of a business, anyway? Is the goal of a business to make money so it can hire workers or to hire workers so it can make money?
Side bar here: I'm not dismissing the hard times of workers, but making a strong objection to the silliness of Bruce's thread title.

I guess my company must be one of those evil corporations "not wanting workers". We're buying Boeing 777s -- capital equipment -- to replace some older aircraft in our fleet. One primary advantage of these aircraft is one less crew member in the cockpit (2 man crew instead of 3 man crew on some older aircraft). Along with the fuel savings of the more modern engines and the bigger carrying capacity (fewer planes needed, thereby reducing the overall number of workers even more compared to 3-man aircraft fleet), one of the top reasons for buying the planes is the 2-man flight crew. Multiply, say, $200,000 in benefits and compensation for a flight crew member over some 15-25 years of operating an aircraft and the shareholders will find it quite beneficial. I may also find it quite beneficial as our yearly bonus checks are tied to company profitability. Our customers may also find it beneficial in the costs we charge them to provide the services which we provide.

Goodness, Bruce, can you -- or why won't you -- even begin to make an economic argument based on rational thought and reasoning or must you always venture into implications of misdeeds, greed, selfishness and other anti-business garbage? As "astute" as you may think the observation in that article is, it's about as shallow as they come as an implication of misdeeds and bad behavior by ANY business.

As one so enamored with "tight controls" on our economy and tossing around bits and pieces of Adam Smith in support of them, let me ask you this question: If a businessman or entrepreneur is running a business and folks like yourself wish to tightly control them, is it a wiser business decision to invest in capital that doesn't require navigating and complying with your tight controls on the worker-employer relationship or to invest in capital that requires less workers and thereby dealing with fewer problems that come with employing fewer people?

More precisely, of what benefit is it to my company, the shareholders, me as an employee or society as a whole to employ 3 people in flying an aircraft when a capital investment and 2 people can do the job better and more cost effectively?

[Bruce Gourley]

[ET]