For commenters expressing their belief that Benioff’s embrace of responsible capitalism is a recent, cynical ploy: it would probably be more productive to direct your fire at actual enemies, rather than friends who don’t meet your standards. Nearly a decade ago I served on the board of a small-town public library that saved thousands of dollars by taking advantage of the free products and services SalesForce offers nonprofits. Benioff made the choice—from the beginning—to do that for what by now must be thousands of organizations. And since then he has repeatedly been vocal and active in promoting government policies that promote social good, not just private gain. There are fair questions to be asked about business practices (including at SalesForce), tax policy, and how to get corporate leaders to actually take the broader view of value he espouses. But his behavior over the years pretty clearly demonstrates that he’s sincere about it.
133
@Susan Lewis
I agree, but Mr. Bienoff needs to understand skepticism like mine.
A man named Dan Price founded a tech company called Gravity Payments. He decided to pay his employees $70K/year, minimum. His employees get to decide how to use the money, not Mr. Price.
Mr. Bienoff gets to decide who gets what. I want the U. S. government to decide who gets what. What our government, if well funded and fully staffed, can do is attract professional people who can determine what our needs are as a nation. Things the government may deem necessary might not be the same as what Mr. Bienoff believes is necessary.
I'd be willing to bet that the foundation through which Bienoff's goodies are bestowed is tax exempt.
I'm hearing him say he wants people like him to pay more taxes...I'll take him at his word, for now, but forgive me if I leave one eyebrow raised.
17
@CF Seriously, you want the government to decide? Have you looked at our government lately?
12
@Susan Lewis
Very well said. There’s a lot of cynical, nasty pile-on in these comments. And not a lot of careful reading of the op-ed, either. The solutions suggested arose from the clear-as-day knowledge that Washington is gridlocked and has abdicated its responsibility to create a fairly regulated business and economic environment. The author’s point is that it’s the height of irresponsibility for people running corporations to throw up their hands and say “oh well, not my problem”.
18
There is no "we". There will be no "we" deciding for everyone else the nature of a "new" capitalism. Lovely infomercial for Salesforce, though.
6
Thank you Mr Benioff. In spite of all the criticism and whinging comments below, please know that we appreciate your thoughts and actions. You are a good person.
8
Agree.
1
The only problem with capitalism is inequality and the only cause of inequality is the tax code.
Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers.
Equally unhelpful in terms of addressing the income and wealth inequality which results in the overinvestment cycle that caused the depression are those who emphasize various non-tax factors. Issues such as globalization, free trade, unionization, corporate outsourcing, minimum wage laws, single parents, problems with our education system and infrastructure can increase the income and wealth inequality. However, these are extremely minor when compared to the shift of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. It is the compounding year after year of the effect of the shift away from taxes on capital income such as dividends over time as the rich get proverbially richer which is the prime generator of inequality.."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
6
What gets lost in these discussions is that under the name of 'Socialism', history has demonstrated people have lost their freedom and paid a very heavy price to secure it back. That fear needs to be addressed. Growing up, I have personally experienced the pain of control by people working for the Govt. The US is an environment of freedom. We absolutely must do what is required for our communities without compromising our freedom. Also, if Marc is sincere, he should not be putting his wealth in Tax-Free foundations.
3
Why must we wait for enlightened business leaders to lead us to the promised land? Not one single issue Marc Benioff lists would qualify as breaking news to anyone who has spent more than five minutes focused on anything but rent-seeking and profit maximization. And yet he is part of some vanguard? The fact that this even qualifies as worthy of editorial space is evidence of just how warped our system as become. Now we get to congratulate Marc and Bill and Warren and Jamie for saving us from the enormous problems that they’ve just acknowledged, you know, exist. You’d figure that it wouldn’t cost a billion dollars to buy a clue.
7
Benioff is correct. We must address the growing disparity of wealth between the top 1% and the bottom 50% of our population. Failure to address this, in my view will eventually result in 'revolution' of some sort. The occupy movement, pre-anarchist involvement, ten years ago had that potential.
Try this unique... '"solution". Implement a high tax rate on incomes over some set level. For argument's sake...$5-10M/year. This income could be from salaries, stock options or. the like. Tax everything in excess of this level at 70%...HOWEVER....only half of this 70% goes into the tax coffers. The other half is "forced" deductible charitable donations. This partially eliminates a major tax complaint....the potential for added government waste....and it gives control to the taxpayer as to how at least half of the "tax" is spent. In some of the most egregious examples of income excess...in the sports world, in Wall Street and in CEO compensation, which has increased way beyond past 'standards', beneficiaries would have the forced opportunity to impact inner city schools; scholarship funds; care for the elderly ...and for the homeless...We need to get imaginative, and emphasize the welfare of the county in addition to the welfare of the individual's family. Get fairness and equity back into the American system.
5
I support everything the author has to say but I believe one of the biggest problems we have is the Citizen's United decision which has made politicians beholden to corporations in ways once unimaginable. Business can lead the way by financing and leading a movement to outlaw Citizens United, not dissimilar from what Tom Steyer is doing on a national level to try and protect our planet and to rid the country of bad political actors.
6
I agree that we need fundamental change, however, I don't trust Marc Benioff any farther than I can throw him. His words read like pretty lies intended to preserve the status quo. A few companies make a few well-publicized minor changes, and the rest of them continue to behave like sociopaths. That's not reform, that's obfuscation.
6
We have the mechanism for this already: B-corps.
See here for details: https://bcorporation.net/about-b-corps
2
Oh my. I know Marc Benioff can't be this naive, so he must think we are. The "culture" of corporate America is not a culture. Culture is a feature of groups of humans in a society. Corporations aren't people. They don't feel anything, least of which is responsibility. They exist for profit and have no other yardstick for success, a mensch of a CEO notwithstanding. People that interfere with that objective are removed. For the most part, inherent in the system is that it rewards the most ruthless among us. This expectation that corporations have any responsibility at all to society that they could be held to by anything other than regulation, taxation, campaign finance reform, and the threat of nationalization is a joke.
That little PR stunt of the Rountable execs was laughable. "Please put away your socialist pitchforks, we'll play nicer". It didn't fool anyone.
7
if corporations aren't a collection of people then the Supreme Court gave corporations, not people, outsized influence over our politics. Corporations, after all, hold a great deal of money and money somehow "speaks but without a mouth.
2
@V And regrettably, unions.
Dear Mr. Beinoff -
Please join Elon Musk and support Andrew Yang for president - you are spot on.
It’s as much a failure of policy and regulation. After all, why should businesses have to have a social purpose? Wouldn’t it be simpler to price in goods vs evils through regulation. For example if you want to use a non-biodegradable plastic bag made with fossil fuels it is taxed at a rate commensurate with its thousand year life and cost to the planet.
1
So the bourgeoisie are hearing footsteps. And they realize the need for reform to avoid mass opposition to their capitalist system.
The drive for Profit will go on unabated. This system cannot reform itself. It is so dysfunctional that it won’t even address the
existential crisis of climate change that threatens the planet itself.
This system cannot be reformed. It must be ripped out from its
roots. That is the unfortunate and bitter truth.
4
Yes, the system must be ripped out, but not because it is dysfunctional, but because it is working exactly as designed.
5
Let see we are going to see those wonderful capitalist see the light and act like human beings with a sense of decency. Ain't gonna happen.
3
Mr. Benioff's insights and suggestions are welcome, and I hope they will find a receptive audience among his corporate peers. However, capitalism's problems run deeper than his diagnosis.
One of the core premises of capitalism is that a business must expand indefinitely, or it will perish. (Even if that's not a requirement of Adam Smith's original vision, it has become one in the vision of today's institutional and (obscenely) wealthy individual investors.) Businesses and business-friendly governments thus do everything possible to stimulate demand. Whether or not they succeed in boosting a particular business, they succeed in expanding markets for goods. Left unasked is the question, "What are the societal costs of expanding markets?"
We're only starting to understand those costs: pollution, loss of species diversity, climate change, even spiritual emptiness as our lives are distorted to see profit and consumption as the only "goods" worth valuing.
Too many business leaders embrace libertarian ideals for us to hope that the business world can reject the expand-or-perish premise on its own. The job of rethinking that core premise requires society to act through government.
5
I disagree. Don't try to make more compassionate, thoughtful, or whatever business people. Instead, make better government oversight. Government is filled with people who have dedicated their careers to public service instead of profit. Use them. Business people are disrupters. Keep them in the marketplace, where they belong, and use government to regulate them. We need both kinds of people. We just need them in their right places.
3
@Charles Packer There are many people who profit greatly from “public service”. And many of them are far more well off than the private sector.
4
Thanks for waking up AFTER you made your fortune.
5
Spare me the billionaire lectures.
7
Residents of the Bay Area need the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) led by Carl Guardino to stop exacerbating the inequality between the rich and poor with its continued reliance on regressive taxes (sales and parcel) to pay for the infrastructure in the region. SVLG is a major player in the political arena and could have a profound impact on how future projects are funded.
3
I applaud you for taking up arms against greed: what a noble mission. But words, as eloquent as yours, are only the beginning of what must come next: action. You, and I must include you first, among billionaires, are the only ones who can save us from ourselves. And it will take a grand gesture (a grand sacrifice) to get the ball rolling.
It is said that the best way to teach is by example. Why don't you start us off by donating half of your net worth. Do you really need the six and a half billion? Does anyone?
4
Mr. Benioff says he's concerned about wealth and income inequality. But none of his ideas would even begin to remedy these huge disparities that are so damaging and dangerous.
I doubt that Mr. Benioff could convincingly show that his efforts warrant the wealth he has amassed. The shareholder system enables the gigantic income disparity between Benioff and the thousands of people that built his wealth.
A key reform that would actually reduce income and wealth disparity is to use tax incentives to greatly increase employee profit sharing and employee stock ownership. Make more people more entrepreneurial at work. We have tax qualified pension plans. We should have tax qualified employee profit sharing and employee stock ownership plans. These changes should be supported by true believers in capitalism. Employers would have a more profit-motivated workforce rather than wage-limited employees. According to capitalist thinking, the profit motivation should/would increase productivity and profits. Employees would be taking some risk for which the would they would have an opportunity to actually accumulate enough to be secure, to educate kids, etc. GM and other companies have had profit sharing with positive results. King Arthur Flour is 100% employee-owned.
Mr. Benioff: Would you devote some of your resources to developing tax-qualified employee profit sharing and employ stock ownership plans for this country to adopt? If not, why not?
5
While I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Benioff's call for corporate values beyond shareholder profits, I don't believe that voluntary commitment to social responsibility will ever work in any broad sense. Garrett Hardin was right in 1968's The Tragedy of the Commons: there will always be cheaters who undo the work of more responsible companies because capitalism provides greater incentives for cheating than for acting responsibly.
4
Great to see this kind of commentary, but Mr. Benoiff's specific reforms do not match the ambition of his rhetoric. Better leadership, a bit more philanthropy and some new disclosure rules do not "new capitalism" make. As long as shareholders ultimately control the shop, nothing will fundamentally change. If a corporation was actually controlled by a board with representatives of investors, workers, communities and environmental reps, then maybe we'd get somewhere interesting.
2
Most companies rank shareholders as their highest stakeholder, or their customers. Then perhaps, if you have a CEO with a few brain cells you might hear about the employees as important, but not referred to as a stakeholder. Finally, you rarely hear about whether the product makes the community or planet a better place, whether it has societal value. Look at the new Bill Gates Netflix documentary. Bill had to quit Microsoft to do what he thinks is good for the people and planet, so what does that mean about Microsoft as a company?
We churn out products that are often dog meat for our soul, and body, with no question whether they support the planet. This might be counterbalanced by the great wealth generated, but today's capitalism is a lousy distributor of wealth, with most people trapped in Feudal System in all but name.
1
Mr. Benioff,
I wish we could meet. I have a purpose for your excess capital and possibly a better way of managing the market capitalization for your firm.
Clearly, you are far more creative than the average capitalist. So I recommend that you consider applying what seems to be the excess capital in researching and developing products that can be broadly shared with all the humanity. My proposal may increase your wealth but once your get on the bandwagon of generating innovation, I can promise you that you and the people that you employ will feel much better.
The first investment opportunity is to invest in developing a much more efficient solar cell that will be versatile enough to attract and be used in many applications. For example, I think you should consider developing a thin film or woven fabric to be transported in a spacecraft where the tightly rolled material can be unfurled to collect the Sun's energy, convert it to microwave energy and beam to receiving fields of antennae on Earth. These concepts need engineering and a lot of testing to be readied for the market.
With this material it would be possible to deploy a huge solar array in geosynchronous orbit. About 3,000 of these satellites could provide very cheap electricity to virtually any human settlement on Earth. Dr. James Powell and I, describe this system in "Spaceship Earth", and a launch system which puts payload in orbit for about 1% of rocket cost. Cheap electricity would benefit all humanity.
It will work itself out. There's nothing new about our circumstance (or, indeed, under the sun).
For the few at the top to remain there they need to evolve from predators to parasites. If they remain predators and kill off the middle class altogether there will be no one left to exploit. As parasites, surely they must know the body of the host has to survive.
Ultimately there are only two possible outcomes. Either: (1) those at the top get a tad less greedy, transition into fat/happy parasite mode, and allow the country to enter an age of progressive reform like that which followed the first Gilded Age in the early 20th Century; or (2) they continue to be predators, in which case there will be a violent revolution, which is what happened in Russia (It's fun being the Tsar until it's not); or, (and only temporarily,) (3) we will live under an increasingly oppressive, violent, morally indefensible, unrepresentative banana republic/fascist government (thanks Citizen's United!) until, inevitably, (1) or (2) happens.
Because if the current trends continue, sooner or later one person will have 100% of the wealth and income and everyone else will have 0%. Long before that, it's (1) or (2). And if it's looking like (2), the deeply patriotic 0.1% will sail off in their Gulfstreams and let the 1% face the music which, sadly, tips the odds toward (2) because for the 0.1% there's nothing like a lack of consequences to keep the party going.
Laissez les bons temps rouler!
Yes, this is all well and good. Having quickly thumbed through the research paper that Benioff links in, it is clear that firms with strong clarity of purpose (akin to focus and mindfulness of culture and right/wrong) do better. It is not clear, however, exactly what exposing the firm’s objective function to more constraints will do once we move from “do the right thing” or what I was taught at JPMorgan 25 years ago - make every decision, treat every employee, customer, regulator, etc., conversation and email, as if it were going to be published in the WSJ or NYT - is going to add all that much. I do believe that having firms maximize long term shareholder value to be clear, and that ought to mean everybody within the organization uses the same JPM virtues I was taught.
Yes, our corporations should act with much more awareness of their actions and lead its people to live purposeful lives as well. But, isn’t this all just common sense? Although it may seem as if policy makers have eliminated the business cycle, anybody with any sense knows that isn’t true. So, let’s see how all this corporate well doing holds up in the next recession. Will plants not close, people not get “right sized,” unprofitable customers not jettisoned and businesses not get sold when tough times emerge?
In the meantime, corporate America is turning a blind eye - and then some - to the horrors of the CCP human rights, enslavement. When I see an outcry to that, then I may be convinced!
The fallacy at the heart of conservative economic policy is conflating free market competition with laissez-faire. They are not the same.
According to classic economic theory, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” operates to maximize overall prosperity through the pursuit of individual self-interest by producers and consumers in a perfectly competitive market. Such a market is defined by a rigorous set of conditions:
(1) A sufficiently large number of both producers and consumers that no single actor can influence the equilibrium market price.
(2) A uniform commodity, indistinguishable from one producer to another.
(3) No barriers to free entry to and exit from the market.
(4) Free access by all to perfect information about market conditions.
But the natural inclination of any individual producer, in its own self-interest, is to gain sole control of the market by evading all of these conditions. The proper role of government is to regulate the market in order to preserve these competitive conditions. Laiisez-faire, “hands off” government policies instead give companies free rein to defeat them. The result is the kind of oligopolistic economy we see today, with virtually every sector dominated by a small number of actors. The “new capitalism ” we need is vigorous government enforcement of antitrust and other forms of regulation to safeguard the competitiveness of the market.
2
B-Corp movement is all so phony. "A company of wolves, is better than a company of wolves in sheep's clothing."
2
1% would be a start but I am not sure it compares favourably to the traditional tithe rate of 10%. Even bigger issues might be corporate taxation & finding ways to ensure that earnings are taxed in your country. How many US companies are now headquartered in Switzerland - like Garmin? It sounds foolish, I am sure, but I think all G20 countries could learn something from Bhutan. Thanks for writing your article! I hope it is a sign of positive change.
It's the zeitgeist, it is, to whine about capitalism, to shed crocodile tears about the wealth gap, and all the rest, once a CEO has made his pile, so to speak, for himself and his shareholders. Plainly, Salesforce, its leaders, board members, officers and gentleman, must be counted amongst the "good guys" of the capitalist enterprise. Why? because they seem ready, when asked, to split the money pie, in one way or the other (handouts, profit sharing, you name the mechanism) to establish their bonafides as the non-Scrooge McDuck, reveling in his pile of gold. Bill Gates and Buffet, they've long since ridden this hobby horse, giving away cash, creating foundations, etc., so that the any peasants won't storm their mansions, empty their coffers, leave them with a pittance.
Finally, what program, what change in the law, is being proposed. Nothing but pablum, but Lefties will love it - they'll be happy to fill in the blanks.
2
Yes, we need to fix it. However, the worst part of teh problem isn't inequity as much as it is the gross, mindless consumption caused by and assisting the (now) mindless dollar rat-race.
People (ours especially) live and die truly believing that no success is really enough, and that and material and property acquisition is the measure of a life well-lived. I will assert that most readers won't even know what any of these statements are about. How do I know this? -- just check out the crazy, mad-dash we have taken to bankrupt the planet -- in our own little lifetime.
1
What this country needs is what the whole world needs: socialism. We need to put the Fat Cats on a diet.
3
Just pay your people...and key stakeholder and the source of your great wealth. "Overpay" your people. We are so sick of high minded companies and their founders exulting a higher calling. Just make all of your employees incredibly rich. They know what to do with the money. They will support the community in ways that you can't imagine and you will get none of the credit for your high-mind ideals. Which is why it won't happen. #thinkprogressiveconservatives #thinkpurple
5
Taxes paid by Salesforce = 0
Unionized employees at Salesforce = 0
OR
'Sorry I'm scuba diving': Salesforce CEO criticized over response to border contract backlash.
Right out of the elitist playbook----Co-opt the movement with PR speak and a few donations and wait for the news cycle to blow over. Read Giridharadas--"Winners Take All" which reviews this corporate Kabuki theatre.
5
Is it real capitalism to value short term profits more than long term gains, or is that a convenient distortion of capitalism? In the end, wisdom is nothing more than a deeper recognition of what is really in your own best interest.
We have capitalism without sufficient rules and regulations.
The rich have basically bought the government because they can afford it.
Average Americans can’t get reasonable representation in their government because it costs money and armies of lobbyists - because “money is speech”, which itself is a completely corrupt decision made by the 5 corporate Supreme Court justices.
More regulations are being axed because of the money pumped over to Mitch McConnell and all of his greedy men. They have sold the country and enriched themselves and their friends over and over.
And taxes keep falling on the richest all of the time, after which programs for the not powerful are slashed.
It is sobering to think what America will look like for the young people of today, when Social Security and Medicare no longer exist due to the Greed of Republicans like McConnell, and the majority of his complicit conspirators.
This is nothing more than he looting of America, and the country can’t withstand much more of it.
4
I'm truly mystified as to why this conversation is even needed. In 1776 Adam Smith's best seller the Wealth of Nations was published. This book, which clearly stated it was the responsibility of government to set economic rules to benefit the people greatly affected those who wrote the Constitution. The Constitution was in many ways designed to prevent the concentration of power, including economic power, into the hands of a few because power so concentrated results in political power being concentrated. Earlier generations of Americans understood this truth as when matters got out of whack anti-trust laws were enacted and other measures taken so it is neither new nor novel to use government to set the proper rules for our economic activity.
What is new and novel is to have a Supreme Court that takes one provision of the Constitution, the 1st Amendment, and re-configure it so as to permit financial power to drown out all other voices and exercise immense influence over elected representatives via Citizens United which equated spending money with speech and allowed corporations, which even may be subject to control by a foreign government, to participate in elections.
Of course BIG MONEY has used its power to not only hold onto what it has but also to rig the system to grab as much more as is possible- that is called Crony Capitalism and it is reigning supreme.
3
I like what you shared, and I thank you for being a caring and thoughtful human.
While I agree that we need to tweak capitalism a bit to help those in need, we cannot forget that help really starts at the individual level, then rolls up to community, then state, then government. As soon as we start down the "the government ought to fix this problem" line, then we push away our personal responsibility and move toward socialism.
Before we start screaming to fix capitalism or fix government, we need ultra wealthy like Bezos and Gates and Buffet and many, many others to put their money where their mouths are.
No need to re-invent the wheel. The idea of a social market economy has bee around since the 1950.. See section 3 of Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union
3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.
It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.
It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.
It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.
1
Meaningful change to correct income inequality has not come peacefully in modern human history. This PR offensive by top executives seems to be a shallow attempt to ward off 5 he pitchforks and tumbrils. I know Benioff is seen as an enlightened CEO, but I bet his tax payments take advantage of every possible means to pay as little as possible . It's funny , I worked to acquire the philanthropy of others for years. Now, I prefer less tax-sheltering philanthropy and more tax-paying.
2
We have a low unemployment rate because so many people need to work two part-time jobs.
I just read an article about a major corporation touting it's increase in the starting wage for its new workers. The company claims to be creating many new jobs.
BUT.... many of their existing workers LOST their health insurance and EARN LESS today because hours were cut back. Two or more part-timers replace of one full-time person.
Tying health insurance to the employer is the culprit here.
6
What you want to achieve might be against American values. Scandinavian countries are the examples of combined capitalism with government and a tax system aimed to re-distribute wealthy and provide good infrastructure and health care. But this type of system has been misunderstood as socialism, which seems a hard sell in US.
3
Thanks for the good intention, sir, genuinely. Profitable businesses and their owners and managers can do so much good. Most "doing good" requires money, after all. Small business owners in my area voluntarily contribute in many ways to schools, the arts, environmental groups and social welfare projects. But we need structural change to the intertwined "system" of business, labor, Earth and government that makes business success possible but spreads the benefits wider and deeper. Leaving it up to a few enlightened business leaders like yourself will not produce the change we need. That is why I support the progressive candidates like Sanders and Warren who recognize that tweaking and tinkering with a system based on greed, short-term profits, low wages, and low taxes with few rules is an obsolete approach. We need to turn this ship of state around and chart a new course, not just throw a life preserver to those who are drowning.
4
When will greedy, VICIOUS Capitalism acknowledge the humans that it profits from?
3
It's called electing Bernie Sanders.
2
A slightly different topic - but from the same 'saint'.
"He led a charge against then-Indiana Gov. over a law that allowed businesses to cite religion as a legal defense against LGBT discrimination claims. As other companies and groups joined Benioff's threats to curb operations and travel in the state.."
So this is a hypocrite who has no problem demanding changes made by a democratically-elected legislature in an American state. However misguided that law is - it was enacted by legislators who were elected by the people freely. Shouldn't the people of that state make that choice of who and what they want enacted - instead of a rich all-knowing guy flying in from the West?
Contrast that with his continuing business relationship with China which does unimaginable things in HK and to the Uighurs and Tibetans. No compunctions there?
4
I respect what Mr. Benioff has done to build such a great company and to donate some of his personal wealth to organizations that do good. What is completely missing from his proposal for a new capitalism is the need to address the gross inequities between what a CEO and other executives make and their front-line workforce and others. Why no mention of this gross distortion that has significantly escalated since the early 1980s? Why not at least mention that the total compensation a company provides to its workforce be more equitably distributed? This is a tangible and critical first step to dealing with the micro or some may say macro outcomes of our current approach to capitalism. I would argue that we don't need new capitalism, we need new leaders of capitalistic companies.
2
Glad to see business executives today are willing to redefine the “purpose of a corporation” to include commitment for well-being of ALL in the global economy.
Implementation of this commitment requires a new global consensus to adopt a universal moral principle on which to found the emerging clean energy global economy.
The present global economic system is founded on the concept of “trickle-down” economics based on the oft-quoted utilitarian moral principle of The Greatest Good For the Greatest Number put forward by Jeremy Bentham in late 18th century England.
Mahatma Gandhi challenged the utilitarian principle saying "I do not believe in the doctrine of the greatest good for the greatest number. It means, in its nakedness, that, in order to achieve the supposed good of 51 percent, the interests of 49 percent may be, or rather, should be sacrificed. It is a heartless doctrine and has done harm to humanity. The only real, dignified, human doctrine is the greatest good of all, and this can only be achieved by uttermost sacrifice.”
American Declaration of Independence includes the words “all men are created equal.” America has emerged as a sole global power. It now has to match that responsibility by reforming its own democracy to lead the global process of transformation of the global economy to become socially equitable and environmentally sustainable to provide for Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness of all 7.5 billion people on this earth.
Marc, my burning, unanswered question to you and to the Democratic candidates who propose to pay for social welfare programmes by imposing taxes on the wealthy, is: What about tax evasion and tax havens? The supremely wealthy have endless resources in the form of lawyers, accountants, and tax loopholes, to squirrel away money and avoid taxation. It's a question of balance- raise taxes beyond a certain amount, and wealthy people find it worth their while to hide more of their money. Without leverage, political bargaining power, or the willingness to partner with other countries and pressure tax havens into closing their loopholes, it's akin to trying to fill a bath tub with water even though it has a massive hole on the bottom. What about tax evasion and tax havens???
2
@Xing There's a school of thought that this is the motivation behind the folks pushing Brexit: the EU was about to crack down on tax havens.
Good, Elizabeth Warren is making these people sweat, though even if they had 1/100th their wealth, they'd be set for life. It's delicious watching Benioff and Dimon, he of the good hair, squirm.
1
We need a new Congress. Our legislatures are paralyzed, decrepit and corrupt.
2
The new capitalism that this author is advocating is a massive failure in his home state. The homeless problem in San Francisco is at an unprecedented scale assaulting residents with feces and used needles in the streets. Businesses are fleeing California as it is rated as the worst state to do business in the country because of the costs and regulation involved. We here in Texas and most of the country do not want any of that.
2
@Iconoclast Texan
Can you just flesh out the connection between the new capitalism described in this article, and the homeless problem in SF? The author talks about addressing San Francisco's "urgent homelessness crisis" and according to you, he is making it worse. How exactly is he doing that?
3
How can New Capitalism be responsible for California homelessness when it hasn’t been implemented yet, hence the title to this editorial?
3
We not only agree that economic forces should value purpose alongside profit, we've spent the last many years building a system that does precisely that: Goaloop, the Goal Market® is a client of the Yale Law School's Entrepreneurship & Innovation Clinic, we are in beta at goaloop.com.
Goaloop has been called "capitalism done right." Many on our team have connections to Columbia University (https://entrepreneurship.columbia.edu/startup/goaloop-2/)
Everyone is welcome to join us.
2
Trying to make capitalism more progressive, constructive, fair, humane, with a lower GINI Coefficient of Income Inequality, and more openly democratic has been tough to accomplish over the last several decades, even with Nobel Prize development economists.
But conversely, trying to make crony capitalism less visible, better Disguised, and camouflaged through hiding ‘negative externality cost dumping’, while running a faux-profit to the UHNWIs and ruling-elites has been just as tough over the last few decades — particularly with movements like “Occupy” and politicians like Bernie and AOC.
1
Self-directed corporate responsibility towards societal benefit is good, but it doesn't reform capitalism. And, socialism is not the answer. Oh, I am for Medicare for all, government paying off all personal medical debt and paying off all student loans and free college for all.
Capitalism itself needs a functional approach to reform. First, let's acknowledge what capitalism does: it creates prosperity, jobs and wealth. Two things could reform it, a national job market and teaching the elements of entrepreneurship from grade school through high school.
A national job market--done right--could permit employees to market themselves 24/7 and get job offers--potentially from around the world. That flips the employer-employee power relationship by giving employees freedom to move and leverage with their current employer for better conditions and pay. Teaching entrepreneurship (starting age 10) would level the business playing field by teaching non-rich kids what rich kids often get as a birthright.
Although the recommended change from shareholder-centric to stakeholder is laudable, the primary mechanism still has to be real tax reform, not the pathetic tax law passed by the GOP, Trumps' "big" success.
Corporations must have the monetary incentive to act more in the interest of society. This includes large tax breaks for job and vocational training. And, a myriad of other tax incentives must be given to encourage "good" behavior. But, campaign finance reform is desperately needed to get corporate influence out of politics or at least reduce that influence. And, with a SCOTUS that would enshrine Citizens United, it's not clear that the supposedly democratic republic can be saved. Seems like a plutocracy enshrined by government, as described in Chomsky's Requiem for the American Dream.
1
Encouraging businesses to value purpose alongside profit is a platitude which has taken a variety of forms over many decades, such as "shared value" at the Harvard Business School. Sure, this is a nice idea, but the only way to "fix" structural inequality is having at least a social democratic public sector to mitigate the inherent inequalities produced by capitalism. Almost every capitalist country has some form of a social democratic public sector to guarantee basic human needs as rights, e.g., healthcare. In contrast, businesses prefer making their social responsibility contributions voluntarily through corporate charitable giving, private foundations, and individual bequests without democratic public accountability for what is done, for whom, and how well.
2
What about hedge funds, private equity firms, investment banks and their ilk? Don't they exist to maximize their money (whether or not you call it "profits")? Don't they constantly strike fear in corporations and their leadership to maximize corporate profits? In many industries this may prevent corporations from offering more to their workers and society.
Such financial agents don't make products or have a solid identity that consumers or socially conscious organizations can easily focus action on -- except for protesting in front of their HQ building. The immediate interest of many people is closer to the opposite: these financial agents are key intermediaries for pension funds that support future retirement plans. Dealing with such issues is complex.
The Council of Institutional Investors is right. It is the role of government to address societal objectives. Begging corporate leaders to please change their personalities is not a plan and it is not using the right tool for the job. Fixing the system is a plan. Restructure how things work and let the players play their normal roles as moving parts. What's wrong right now is that the overarching system is poorly structured, partly because we don't know how or why it works. Libertarianism and Socialism are appealing because they are simple systems that put all eggs in once basket, expecting that just fixing that one basket will be easier. Let the market take its magical course. Design Utopia by command. But our system works because it creates a dynamic between democratic forces and market forces, using them to check each other. What is broken about it is that market forces have infected the brain of the democratic system. Step one is to fix that. Then the next step is to use the newly repaired state to harness market forces for societal objectives. One idea might be to improve long term focus of corporate leaders by taxing equity profits more steeply when they are made over a shorter time period. Say 40 percent for less than a year, 20 for one to five years, and 10 for five to twenty years and no taxation of stock profits on stocks held over twenty years. Let the dogs be dogs, but lure them where you want them with juicy steaks.
Capitalism is risk-taking that exchanges underlying assets and liabilities in consideration of securing positive outcomes. The problem arises when governments tax outcomes without regard for the exchanges in assets and liabilities. For example, we tax oil company profits but fail to tax "negative" outcomes that result from the exchange in underlying assets and liabilities for the period of account. A reduction in crude oil that is sold on the world market is transformed into energy, lubricants and other products. We tax the sale of the crude but fail to tax the Greenhouse gases that are negative outcomes of the underlying exchange - crude to refinery to final product.
The 2018 Nobel in Economics went to William Nordhaus and Paul Romer for their contribution to solve negative outcomes of climate change. They introduced a carbon tax on GHG emitters to reduce negative outcomes.
Capitalism is behaviorally neutral - it is not concerned about pollution and other sociopolitical issues that generate "negative outcomes". Until we modify capitalism to resolve diseconomies of scale we will not be able to interdict climate change and other negative outcomes.
The 1981 Nobel award in economics won by James Tobin is an example of early attempts to modify capitalism by placing a low transaction tax on financial exchanges. Several editorials in the financial press claimed that a tax on transactions wouldn't work. Bernie Sanders stock trading tax policy is based on Tobin's tax.
1
Isn't this more or less what Elizabeth Warren advocates, except for the fact that she wants to force it through regulation rather than voluntary efforts, which clearly will not suffice?
3
Corporate philanthropy is a Public Relations exercise to distract us from their failure to pay their share. Their share means: Pay employees proper wages to reflect their contribution to building massive profits. Pay for the resources consumed through pollution and waste. Pay for the infrastructure and education of the skilled workforce. We're not impressed with the crumbs that fall from your table and tinkering around the edges with philanthropy doesn't fool us that capitalism is cruel and has been utterly corrupted in the USA. Too little, too late.
2
If you want a detailed analysis on this same theme, go read Mander's, "The Capitalism Papers: Fatal Flaws of an Obsolete System." https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Papers-Fatal-Obsolete-System/dp/1582437173
With respect to Mr. Benioff who means well, philanthropy is NOT the answer. Higher taxes are essential, especially on wealth. Billionaires in a free society are explicitly immoral and destructive to democracy. No individual needs a billion dollars. And hiding wealth via tax advantaged philanthropy starves public services and public priorities that have been determined through a democratic process. Look at Benioff's SF school initiatives--supplying electronic devices in middle schools just gave kids toys to play games on. This takes place while 8th grade algebra is eliminated starving high achieving kids, many first generation, of the opportunity to advance and eventually succeed in the industry that created his wealth. But hey, they all got to use Chrome Books in middle school. Philanthropy of his sort is idiosyncratic, temporary, since the money must be begged for on a regular basis and is not tied to real need determined by elected representatives. If he wants to get real, perhaps he should dispense two or three of his billions over the course of 5 years to allow significant progress in addressing the truly deplorable homelessness crisis in SF and the Bay Area. Instead he backs a tax measure that promises additional taxation of businesses in SF with a couple of million bucks in campaign spending that is tied up in courts and looks good for him but has accomplished nothing. Billionaire vanity projects pale next to 90% top marginal tax rates like we had in the 50s.
1
Marc Benioff seems like a nice, thoughtful guy. His views, however, are the product of his personal situation and his recommendations, although positive, are not nearly enough. First of all, we have not elected Mr. Benioff and his fellow billionaire captains of industry to decide for the rest of us where to put public funds (or what should be public funds). We elect a government to do that. Secondly, our government - such as it is - is not functioning to restrain the unconstrained greed of Mr. Benioff's billionaire colleagues. That is because those billionaires own the government; particularly since our formerly respected Supreme Court found regulation of political contributions unconstitutional. Today our elected officials (with some progressive exceptions) are effectively employed by the billionaires. The result is an ever more regressive tax system, the disappearance of reasonable regulation, and a robust propaganda machine intended to sustain fossil fuels, absurd medical and drug costs, etc. We need new antitrust laws, enforcement of the existing ones, single (tax supported) payor healthcare, the sort of progressive taxes we had in the '50's, a wealth tax to recapture a bit of the absurd fortunes the top .01% has salted away, tough environmental measures to delay climate disaster, etc. Without sharp restrictions on political contributions, however, none of this will happen.
1
Thanks to Marc (and Monica) for the op/ed piece. I've been an entrepreneur for my entire adult life. My focus has always been on putting people, the backs on which my businesses ran, first. I paid them well, gave them a stipend apart from their pay for health insurance and made the workplace transparent and safe. Part of my MO was driven by selfishness...with happy and engaged employees, the businesses thrived, clients were thrilled, were willing to pay for premium service and always felt they got more than they paid for. In 2006 I was audited by the IRS. The audit lasted more than a year and cost me $100k. The IRS, at the end of the audit billed me $8k after at one point, saying the company owed $250k. It didn't. This was the Bush era of the IRS going after small business...all the while big business was offshoring profits and dodging taxes completely. In terms of substantive change in the nature of business, we're all at the caprice and whim of whomever's four year stint it is in the White House. So government is not a long term solution. It's nice for Marc to, from his lucky lofty perch, call for change in the system that secured his riches. To really ring true, he must live the life of a middle class citizen. The irony is, he would then not be heard.
2
I don't even know what it means to say that a corporation has a responsibility to "the community," much less to "the planet" -- and neither do you, and neither does anyone else. And so politicians/bureaucrats will determine the meaning.
You say that countries are missing their targets on greenhouse gas emissions, but U.S. emissions have fallen drastically due to fracking, which Warren wants to ban. It's possible that under a Czarina Warren for the last 15 years, we'd have been worse off environmentally. The leftist, anti-capitalist mob can't stand commercialism, individualism, and markets.
"Yes, free markets — and societies that cherish scientific research and innovation — have pioneered new industries, discovered cures that have saved millions from disease and unleashed prosperity that has lifted billions of people out of poverty." Oh, is that all? Don't tell it to the Left.
Leftists think the rich get rich at the expense of others; without help from government, they don't. Restrictions that keep people from advancing and moving and building should be dismantled. What most people are missing is not material goods but meaning (the same applies to intellectuals), which is contributing to the opioid crisis. The Left sees economics as driving behavior and ideas, rather than ideas and behavior often driving economic outcomes, which is why it never scolds the poor's behavior. (Oddly, this doesn't apply to the rich.)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-stakeholder-ceos-11566248641
Read "Winners Take All The Elite Charade Of Changing The World" by Anand Giridharadas.
This piece is just another example of the charade.
That we're fooled into thinking those who created the mess are the ones who'll fix it.
I don't believe a word he wrote and neither should anyone else.
Phooey.
2
It's called capitalism for a reason...it's about producing returns to capital.
What we need is not a new capitalism. We need a new "-ism."
What would that be? Peopleism? Laborism? Socialism?
Not clear. But I doubt the capitalists will be the ones to discover it.
2
Sounds like you already made your fortune so now let’s “fix” capitalism in order to stop the flow of wealth to others.
4
Let me get this straight - Your company is 20 years old, Mr. Benioff, and you expect readers to believe that you learned only recently that you “were paying women less than men for equal work?” And you were so taken aback and horrified by this sudden, unexpected revelation that you spent $10 million to create a fair workplace? How disingenuous and self-serving! The truth is that this article is an attempt on your part to rewrite history and rehabilitate your image. You developed a conscience only AFTER you made billions. After all, launching a company with a conscience would have been inconvenient. The ends justify the means, don’t they?
4
Crocodile tears. Benioff made his millions, now he wants to seem responsible.
2
America needs a new form of government.
2
Capitalism is like a stray dog...go ahead and keep it, but, exercise it with a tight leash and put a muzzle on it.
2
How about politicians & goverment?
@Rudi
How about them?
This habit of the NY Times giving a column over to some billionaire tycoon who has suddenly found that there is life beyond his excel spread sheets as he knows them (sorry ladies, it's still always a he) and claims he wants to do something about it is getting really annoying.
Mr Benioff's "New Capitalism" has had another name for many decades. It is called Social Venture Capitalism, and its embrace of the Triple Bottom Line, what is otherwise known as the Three Ps - People, Planet, and Profits - is far more systematic and comprehensive than anything found in these recurring mea culpas that seem to populate these pages from time to time.
2
Some of us think we need not a new capitalism, but rather a new country. As a descendent of immigrants, I wish my forbearers didn't leave their country of origin. I wish I lived there.
I never liked living here. I never liked anything about living here, and I still don't like anything about it.
It's a horrid place where money rules. There's no morral stability. There's no justice. And increasingly, there's no financial well-being to be found.
The US is going to erode into nothing. I'm sure of it.
It will be wiped from the mapped by wealth.
Great job, Obama! Yea, you fixed things! Joke... ha ha ha.
Hippocrit!
We've proudly taught our children that America overthrew King George and his aristocrat colonial rulers to achieve Freedom.
But various weaknesses in our political system have combined to give us a 21st Century ruler with a monarch complex.
Now our 1 % corporate donor class are our modern privileged 'aristocrats', expropriating and exploiting our national productivity.
Should we revise the history classes in our schools?
Our revered high court made big money politics legal, removing limits to elite mega donors, distorting the 1st Amendment of our Constitution.
We’re proud of our ‘free independent’ news media. But FOX is the GOP state media monopoly putting out the monarch's propaganda to his manipulated subjects. It makes the other news media cautious and defensive, not to look too ‘left wing’ by FOX’s definition. They stay within limits, while opposing Trump.
The election mega donors have set our definitions of left/right/center. They define our norms and rake in the profits. These profits can buy more political cooperation, in an ongoing vicious cycle.
Once, the US was a world role model for other countries. Now they watch us with alarm and even pity. They see, in life & death matters, that we can't even take the profit motive out of gun laws, or out of our medical care.
1
What we need is action, not talk. Indigenous Peoples' Day is as good a time as any to end the contract between Salesforce and ICE.
1
The root cause, or at least a significant contributor are the polices, the genesis of which began in the 70's of global financial system. What merits consideration are policies that restore employment, political stability and social justice. There needs to be a "...wider public understanding of where money comes from and how the financial system operates."
From: "The Production of Money - Ann Pettifor
Sounds like the old capitalism is working just fine. I’d hate to see the government take Mr. Benioff’s money and not use it as wisely as he does, with the supervision and control that he no doubt provides over its use.
2
Mr. Benioff: Kudos to you and I applaud your success and activism, and I'm glad to know you support higher taxes. I too, started a successful company (not as successful as yours, but successful enough to allow me to retire in Southern France) and I have always supported politicians who said they would raise my taxes. But this is not enough. In order for the US democratic form of government and capitalism to survive regulation is needed. Just as cancer is the de-regulation of cell growth that will kill its' host, so unregulated capitalism will kill the US. We cannot count on civic minded CEOs to do the right thing.
3
Value purpose alongside profits? Ok.
But how can Benioff not mention how we finance our elections? We turn them over to wealthiest donors for investment. But we the people can't compete to invest, to get what any democracy must guarantee --Representation for our Taxation.
How about 1st removing the profit motive for mega donors to pick, finance, and promote candidates for their gain and our loss?
Our highest election expenses are campaign ads, requiring big money for big profits to the media. Amazingly, many countries ban such paid ads on media, to prevent special interests from dominating their political discourse, says Wiki.
Where is any discussion in our media of this important contrast?
Most Americans & many politicians want to reverse Citizens United where our highest Court ruled that any limits on mega donor money in elections is anti 1st Amendment Free Speech. The Court used our own Constitution against us-- it amplified the voice of the 1%, and muffled the voice of the 99% in our lawmaking.
Our downhill trend accelerated, with few blockages. Then enter Tsar Trump and his mob courtiers. They saw how our norms deteriorated and moved in to take advantage. Why bother with ethics, morality, public responsibility? Instead just show who is boss.
Now, only by setting aside public funding for elections & restoring limits on private donations, can we even start to free ourselves from the blockage to the reforms we need to operate our democracy.
1
Capitalism is attracting a huge amount of criticism recently, but I'm not sure if it is possible to describe the offending principles as capitalist so much as feudal.
How much of the capitalist tenets designed by Smith are actually contained within the economic system. How many corporations (or individuals) pay a reasonable charge for the land and air they consume/occupy within and without the USA? How many genuinely pay for the pollution they produce? How many pay the whole costs for the remediation of the ecological damage they cause.
I think a large proportion of the problems created by the corporate culture would be resolved by two measures. Firstly, a transactional duty of care applied to company directors, which gives them responsibility for all actions of the company, and an obligation to their employees and all parties they deal with, and the environments in which they operate, rather than just being obligated to maximise short-term profit. The other is to give a corporation tax reduction to companies whose CEO's are paid less than a set multiple of the lowest-paid employee.
3
I am amazed that female/male salary parity is still an issue, particularly in the corporate world. We addressed this back in the mid-1980's when I worked in HR in the computer industry -- we held ourselves to a standard that should stand today. Granted, many of the male managers had a hard time accepting the directive, but they had no choice. The company chose to treat all equally.
For those of use who lived long enough, it wasn't always like this. In fact, post war capitalism worked fairly well. The Progressive Era and post war policies tamed capitalism's more predatory instincts, with measures to protect consumers and labor, help the poor, and more widely distribute opportunities and rewards. During the 1970s, the world started to change. Manufacturing was moving out overseas and finance was moving in, making money off of money -- someone else's money. All those regulations had to go, the people at the top told us. And so we dumped baby and bath water without replacing with any new, more appropriate regulations. And baby (consumers, labor, environment, etc.) is still sitting in the mud of deepening inequality, fewer protections, less opportunity, poor wages, etc. Worst of all, we inverted our tax code so that now, as pointed out in the Times recently, the middle and lower classes pay more to finance our government than the wealthy. Companies figured out they can add more in profits by lowering taxes than growing markets. Now, whenever some enlightened government does move to raise taxes or pass regulations, corporations play economic blackmail by threatening to pull out and go elsewhere.
1
Investors will embrace new capitalism only if it is more profitable than the current variety. So the environment in which companies work must be shaped so that the new capitalism is more profitable and companies driven only by the bottom line will embrace it. Purdue Pharma would have to make more money worrying about the addictive potential of its products than by denying and hiding and downplaying it. Oil companies would have to make more money recognizing that as much as possible of the reserves that undergird their market valuations will have to remain untapped for a while or forever.
This shift in what makes companies profitable will have to be done by government. Moral suasion will not work on all companies and investors; there are other values systems available. Pressure and boycotts of old capitalism companies by new capitalism companies would lead to pressure and boycotts of new capitalism companies by old capitalism companies, which would be dangerous in foreseeable and unforeseen ways.
Our governments right now are much too susceptible to pressure by businesses to be able to push this shift. The widespread belief that government is the problem adds to the difficulty.
We are doomed to pollute and global warm ourselves into a decline if not a death spiral. The only answer available to individuals is the individual solution of getting rich enough to buy a spot in our planet's still-habitable areas. The old capitalism wins.
1
The remedy for the countless atrocities of capitalism is not more capitalism. Haven't we suffered enough barbarity to at least acknowledge that capitalism and true democracy are entirely incompatible? The author, who himself is admittedly a beneficiary of this most exploitative of economic systems only now comes promising a kinder, gentler capitalism.
This empty rhetoric harkens back to the Noblesse Oblige of the last generation of Robber Barons. Their only regret being that they were called out for their profit-driven carnage of people and planet.
Have we not endured enough poverty, want, depravity and destruction to conclude that capitalism is indeed a barbaric and brutally inhumane system of exploitation that, if not stopped, will destroy our entire planet? Can we not now make the case that it's long past time for the human experiment with capitalism be relegated to the ashbin of history and stop looking to the wolves to save the sheep?
What's required is the practice of Democracy in the workplace- profit-sharing, living wages and a full say and vote regarding company decisions. Implementing the foundational principles of Democratic Socialism as part of the Green New Deal is the only humane, sustainable way forward. Stop looking to " Capitalist Savior's" . As Einstein said, " A problem can not be solved with the same level of consciousness that created it."
1
Mr. Benioff writes, “The 26 richest people in the world now have as much wealth as the poorest 3.8 billion people…” So what does that have to do with price of tea in China? YOU DO NOT MAKE THE POOR RICHER BY MAKING THE RICH POORER!
The purpose of a business is to create wealth for its investors. Governments have no business of getting involved in taking money from achievers and giving it to non-achievers. As we saw with USSR, governments whose primary mission is the redistribution wealth will make all its citizens poorer. Right now the same scenario is playing itself out in Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and other countries that who have embraced socialism.
If Mr. Benioff really wants to do something to ensure that all peoples have a better quality of life and better incomes, he would become an advocate for high quality business and economic education for every school kid starting in the first grade. Teaching kids about the risks and rewards of free market economics and how to start their own business will create waves of economic development in all the countries on this planet.
1
I could not agree more with this article. Think of a very small community; a greedy person would have few, if any, real friends. Who among us would cherish a life with all the money and no friends.
If you go back to the origins of Capitalism and it's original definition, you will find something quite different from what we have now. Capitalism was originally defined as creating Capital, not to simply line the pockets of so-called Capitalists, but to generate the Capital needed to both grow more business and to do so in a manner that benefits society. Why? For the same reason that Henry Ford paid his workers more than the then-prevailing wage. Mr. Ford, when asked, famously responded that he did so in order that his workers could afford his cars. What Mr. Benioff is proposing is nothing more than returning to the root definition of Capitalism. Like our great political system, as defined in the Constitution, Capitalism has been hijacked by a coterie of greedy and evil individuals cloaking themselves in the coat of Capitalism while smothering its principals. Just like the Republican/Conservative/Evangelical Axis led by Trump. Both spend vast amounts of money convincing people a la 1984 that they are something other than what they are. It is time to bring both Capitalism and Democracy back to its original meaning by taking every opportunity to call out and expose the lies, theft and corruption the so-called Capitalists and so-called Conservatives preach every day while picking your pocket and your mind.
3
Whose being compensated and why? This is at the root of the inequality for the indentured servant otherwise know as the employee. All companies that are listed for stockholder financing have created a craven greed machine known as the executive compensation committee. The sole purpose of this committee is to ingratiate a group of constituents so as to have an inequitable access to the largess of the company's revenue. The majority of members are executives of other corporations who happen to feed at the same trough of the executive they are overseeing. This fraternal relationship assures continued abuse of each others compensation at the expense of the indentured servant. Their debauched psychology believes that only they are entitled to the success of the corporation and if it were not for them the company would fail to exist. What put these executives in this position are the financial institutions of wall street. These institutions live to create fantastic wealth out of IPO offerings or to generate tremendous fees from existing companys' employee 401K programs. Wall street either fools the investor to invest in these corporate schemes of wealth creation or works with existing companies to extract excess fees from the indentured servant's investment in a 401K. To stop to this the federal government needs to have a 100% estate tax on fortunes over $50 million. The compensation committee needs to be 50% employee with no executive earning more than 10 times worker.
2
The only thing I'm pretty certain of today is that the US will be a fairly insignificant part of the world's future. It once offered democracy, and now it only offers a declining, immoral, capitalistic platform for foreign powers.
I really don't see a politically viable alternative to accepting defeat.
We're not a 'good' nation anymore.
3
They and their children sparked by greedy corporate lawyers, politicians, and a cash cow military have gotten away with it so long that it is considered a separate entity. A branch of culture all it's own.
3
There is something eerie about the tone of this proposal, which takes a parental/we-know-better view of how to deal with the problem. Capitalism as it stands is over. Although it seems like it is thriving, Trump's presidency, the GOP, even the Democratic establishment, and of course, this piece itself, are all omens of the end. The only hope now is that we all survive capitalism's end so that other more humane systems can have a chance to develop.
3
We welcome this author's new look at capitalism, but note that he carefully avoids capitalism's basic sin- not compensating worker's actual share of productivity in the form of wages. This is what leads to the extreme inequality that we now have. Correcting this gross inequity would require a real reduction in profits- not the philanthropic and ideological remedies that are here being offered which are only changes around the periphery- not the center.. Perhaps what we need is not 'a new capitalism' but a 'no capitalism' system of production.
3
We need a regulated economy to provide equality of opportunity. That is not the same as equality of outcome. The conservatives like to crow that we need capitalism, and anything else is "socialism." That is not true, but moderates and progressives have allowed them to make this a dirty word.
We need fair wages, corporate responsibility to clean up after themselves, fair access to financing for small business, portability of health care. This is not socialism, this is just common sense taking care of each other.
2
Perhaps Mr. Benioff was too young to remember when capitalism in the US was working just fine. In my own younger days, taxes were progressive, not regressive, executive salaries were fair and reasonable, unions protected employees from being abused, and nearly every major company understood that there were three core groups of stakeholders, each of equal value: Employees, shareholders, and customers. I remember my father telling me that if I could find work that paid me $10,000 / year, I could live a very satisfying life----and in my younger days, he was right....
Much like we don't have to re-invent a health care system that works very well in other countries, we don't have to re-invent values that previously served capitalism quite well. We simply have to restore the ideas and policies that served us so well when America's middle class was the growing, healthy core of our nation's strength.
If you or I spend our wealth, much of it is consumer goods. But billionaires, even those with luxury cars, invest almost all of their wealth where it will gain the most profit - which is, after all, as Adam Smith showed us, the road to the most productive society.
Also, for the most part they are good at choosing investments, since that’s pretty much how they got to be billionaires.
You have not read Adam Smith. His vision of "free markets" lead to very equal equivalent wealth outcomes. It very much favored workers and consumers compared to today's reality. Quite the opposite of what we have experienced.
Further, he did not envision and actually opposed industrialization. His model was simply wrong. Some of its premises were wrong. One example is he assumed no barriers to entry (easy to start a business) so that people had a closely balanced choice to become either workers or business owners and could flow back and forth depending on what was most profitable. It didn't account for the power of capital accumulation to distort his simplistic market model. Nor did he account for the power of wealth to thwart political power and influence opinion.
If you want to cheer for capitalism, invoking Adam Smith won't support your claim.
1
People like Benioff warm my heart. I am very thankful that wealthy people have done so much good in society. Both my sons have been given private scholarships funded by wealthy individuals, and I'm very, very grateful.
Having said that, we as a society should not be relying on uber wealthy individuals and generous corporations to keep our environment clean, educate our children, support the homeless, alleviate student loan debt, fund hospitals, etc. This is a job for our government. As a society, we should decide how to spend money on issues that benefit our nation, not leave it to wealthy individuals. Thankfully, many like Marc Benioff have stepped into the void left by corrupt capitalism and a political system funded by the rich for the rich. But it isn't Marc's job to decide what deserves funding. He's doing it because we leave him no other choice as a wealthy man with a conscience. But the real solution is to undo the influence of money in politics (even money from Russia,) elect honest representatives, and then fix our broken political system. Only then will people like Marc Benioff and Bill Gates be relieved of their responsibility to try to fix our nation. I welcome their role as good citizens, but we should not be depending on them to do what good government should.
2
Here's an idea... raise corporate taxes to pay for infrastructure and fight Climate Change to the high levels in the 50's and 60's that promoted economic growth. Or just promote businesses to pay their taxes avoiding loopholes. Cool right?
1
Why is it that when Democrats long for a bygone era, they are being progressive since the benefits can be weaned from the faults, yet when Republicans pine for the same period in time, they are pathetic because the prosperity they remember is intertwined with racism and the future they envision includes misogyny and inequality?
I commend your sentiments, but you buried the lead, Marc: true equity must start with a robust restructuring of the current regressive tax system (per Saez and Zucman, your Bay-area neighbors at U.C. Berkeley, whose book on this topic is published tomorrow, I believe). Progressive policies--on education, homelessness, the climate, health care, etc., etc.--must begin with the material foundation (i.e. taxation) of the necessary changes you identify-- a just society requires it.
1
I agree we need a substantial tax increase on our most wealthy citizens. Individuals like Mr. Benioff can certainly afford them and it's the right thing to do.
The invisible hand of the market made Mr. Benioff and will make many others.
Capitalism has served our nation well for the last 250 years but the market requires regulation. Dramatically increasing income taxes for the 1%, setting limits on the tax deductibility of CEO comp and increasing a ridiculous minimum wage need to be fixed would represent a good start.
1
While Marc Benioff states the need for companies to revise their total focus on shareholders, I think that companies need to act as "responsible capitalists: concern for all employees regardless of gender, the environment and the local community. Marc addresses the first in only one way, pay equity. However, companies need to pay a living wage and health care. They also need to have responsibility for their contractors. The second area requires not only energy usage, but also the impact of their work force on the environment. They need to structure work hours and location to minimize gas usage and congestion. Thirdly, they need to assure investment in their surroundings. This will require contributions to schools and cities as well as to internships for youth and hiring with training of local people. Finally, Marc is kidding if he thinks 1% is a big deal: it's not. He really needs to substitute the words "be profitable and sustainable" versus "increasing profits". The drive of forever increasing profits feeds his wealth since it's directly tied to share value, but not necessary if the drive is for sustainability while meeting the other objectives.
1
Why do people even bother to become billionaires?
We all would admit it might be nice never to have to worry about how to pay for things, to drop $16,000 for a first class ticket to Europe or, perhaps even better, $85,000. for a private flight. You can spend 100 million on a big yacht, 60 mil on a Gulfstream jet...then what? How many houses do you really need? Give your son a Tesla for his 12th birthday? What's the point? (When Trump's casino "empire" went bankrupt, they made him sell the yacht and put him on an "allowance" of $400,000 a month. He managed.)
Who turns down money? People become rich because they can, because all the rules and laws about how the game is played are written for them. If they get into trouble, they've got a platoon of lawyers jump out of the bushes to change or challenge the rules.
So they get several billion and, some, like Bill Gates (with reluctance) turn to philanthropy. It is not a useless exercise but it will NEVER solve the problems. It winds up making long term foundation jobs for well dressed graduates of "the best colleges" and surely some people are helped, but it does not address the structural problems that force people into poverty and to stay there.
Billionaires would have to take less and working people get more to really start to make a real change.
1
I'm heartened that Mr. Benioff eventually gets around to restructuring our tax code near the end of the article. Yes, a renewed sense of corporate responsibility to community and the planet is needed, but real tax reform, a real progressive tax, is what's needed, not for funding more war either, but for all he has outlined in the article, and then some.
1
Thank you for all the good work your company does. One of the best options companies can do to change the face of capitalism is to pay a living wage. You should look at the wages of your own company pays and adjust them so your employees can live in the Bay Area without having three jobs or living in a tent.
1
The first change we must make to capitalism is that the economic system cannot remain focused on the sole principle of personal greed as the key engine for progress. There must be a equal counterforce, that of social solidarity and cooperation. This is not only a matter of justice and humanity, but a functional requirement: care for the common good is a necessary constraint on the vagaries of unfettered free markets; it is the only long-time guarantor of social peace; it is the only effective guiding rule for preserving the health of the planet. This means that solidarity must be embedded as a principle in business rules, corporate and trade laws, the worldwide economic agencies (WTO, World Bank, IMF), etc.
To implement that change, much more than informal agreements between business people is required. Governments and international institutions must change their current focus on liberal laissez-faire. But it is extremely doubtful that the class of political leaders empowered in most countries by representative democracy as we practice it will have the vision and selflessness to enact deep reforms running counter to their personal short-term interest. So the renovation of capitalism must be accompanied, and even preceeded, by a political upheaval reducing the political class's monopoly on power levers, and giving the mass of ordinary citizens much greater control over key decisions than taking part in a party-oriented election once every two, four or six years.
2
Mr. Benioff should have a sit down with Mark Zuckerberg. Although I know that Mr. Zuckerberg has given many millions to help improve education, he is allowing blatant lies to be published on his platform because he says it is an important element of political discourse. It increases his profits but woefully wrongs his stakeholders, namely the 2 billion people who are on Facebook every day. And that is among the lesser of his societal offenses. Why he doesn't understand this is a mystery. No one has been able to convince him otherwise yet. Maybe Marc Benioff will have better luck.
1
Sincere thanks and admiration to Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff for challenging not just the 0.1 percent but also the successful and well-to-do to contribute and do more in making America and the world a more equitable and livable place for generations to come.
This is overwrought. All that is needed is some firm nudging:
1. A transparent and fairer tax system.
2. An inheritance/gift tax that encourages the break up of large private wealth holdings.
3. Very impactful anti monopoly legislation and its enforcement
4. Regulation or taxing of externalities
5. Making "money in politics" transparent
This still leaves climate change as a very special problem because of its international, very long term and very difficult to measure impacts. This capitalism cannot fix.
2
I believe the US needs, what many European countries and Canada already have, a Socio-capitalistic social economy.
To achieve this, we must greatly increase the number of public-private partnerships and to establish a permanent single-payer healthcare program along with no-cost tuition and low-cost textbooks at all public colleges and universities.
To offset the high public cost for this massive economic change, another component must be implemented, a flat tax that could be slightly adjusted to fit all of our needs first, and desires next.
All these things are needed to cure the insane greediness that capitalism alone creates in all of us. And it is also needed to help balance the socio-economic chasm WE ALL created. A flat tax will give fairness that we all are paying into and stop arguments over constantly raising taxes too high or pushing them too low.
We can do these things in a new, "Second" Bill of Rights and with all very big things, there will be growing pains and tweaks needed.
But we must act now. To avert violent conflict growing among all Americans and to show the world that we indeed do lead in all great things.
1
@mblanos It can be done and you need effective fiscal policies to enable the outcome. Specifically, progressive tax system, public funding for public goods (health, education, security, etc).
Is it possible in the US?. Not likely for the foreseeable future. A plurality of Americans -- tea party -- strongly believe that no government is the best government.
Europeans and Canadian don't question the essential role of government -- the philosophy; they do question the levels because there is no free lunch.
1
It confounds me why self made billionaires become loopy liberals after they have cashed in. The only thing I can think of is guilt. Just like Hollywood types who suddenly find themselves rich and famous, billionaires eschew the very system that brought them extreme wealth. The reason we are the the most affluent country the world has ever known is because of capitalism and free enterprise. Corporations need to focus on profits for their shareholders like a laser beam. They are not, and never were charitable institutions.
3
@Art Hudson how do you answer to the working class and young people who are struggling to make it in the Ayn Rand mid-twentieth century vision of Capitalism to which you subscribe? That kind of thinking led to every significant economic crash this country has ever had. Investing in people and infrastructure is not just the right thing to do (morally), it's also the smart thing to do (economically). Look at how well Norway, Sweden, Canada and Denmark are doing.
1
Be honest. You mean that they should focus like a laser on pumping up stock prices in the short run so the CEO can pocket huge amounts of money. So-called “shareholder capitalism “ does not benefit the average shareholder. It’s just a cover that allows a small group of corporate managers and financiers to loot the system.
The "free market" is a myth, because according to the tenets of that belief, if an actor has an incentive to distort the market, that actor MUST do so. Therefore, we need regulation to correct for msrket distortions. To correct for past errors in market distortion, we need a progressive taxation scheme, which if the distortion is extreme, should include a wealth tax. Those things are within the power of governments to do. What is beyond the power of government are two other essential factors: (1) entrepreneurs having a moral commitment to further society, and (2) entrepreneurs having discount functions that look to a longer-term future than today's profits.
There is one capitalist who fully grasps all of this, and fortunately she is running for president.
I have not been keeping up with policy developments over the last few weeks but the last time I checked, Andrew Yang had some of the best policy ideas that I've ever heard to solve the problems outlined in this article.
I have not been too pleased with the image Yang has been presenting since the last debate, it's seemed a little too playful for me.
Even with the more jovial campaigning, Yang still seems like the best choice to me by a wide margin.
Here is Yang's "human-centered capitalism" page which addresses many of the points in this piece:
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/human-capitalism/
And here is a link to one of my favorite interviews with Yang:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjiHwx6bpkg
It is a town hall with Lawrence Lessig that is more focused on fixing democracy than the economy but, none the less, it is a really interesting watch that highlights economics and showcases why I support Yang.
2
I agree that the private sector will need to provide leadership to a better future. It is the private sector that is closing coal plants and moving towards electrified and hybrid vehicles, although there has been some governmental support.
The government will need to change the mandates that C-Suite corporate leaders must place shareholders above all else.
While I do not see corporations funding efforts to improve every single societal condition, I do see a responsibility to fund a universal basic income to lift the lower middle class into being able to afford todays cost of living. I do not see much of a middle man role for our federal government, other than as a direct automated pass through, as much else equals inefficiency and waste.
Obviously I support direct community support efforts as well. Perhaps a general list for the top 0.1% to choose from and contribute/give back a percentage to the communities at large.
1
Alas, no "citizens" are more indifferent to the well-being of others than "corporate citizens." Corporations are always happy to reap the rewards of lobbying and tax breaks at the expense of all, while focusing rewards on their shareholders and a precious few. I've been waiting for the "kinder, gentler" capitalism I read was forthcoming after the 2008 Great Recession...it never arrived.
1
Sorry, but the whole premise is flawed. It’s not capitalism. All would have been “solved” - according to this article - is Marc had more broadly shared the equity of his firm. He wouldn’t have all that wealth, that he seems not to want, and thousands of others would.
Why do these founders hoard their wealth along the way and then disparage the model that created it instead of the fact that they hoarded what the model created?
1
I laud Mr. Benioff and his colleagues for their support of the idea that corporations must consider values to society as well as profits. A problem is that profits are easy to measure, but other values are not. Economists need to develop methods to determine how corporate income is to be shared between profits to investors and contributions to society.
This article is not about Capitalism, but a Plutocracy where he recommends that the extremely rich lords should work for equality among the serfs even if that equality is 1000 times less equal than the executives.
Not a word about Citizens United!!! So he wants to run the government with his massive contributions that will help create tax loopholes and minimize power of workers, and consumers, and ignore the environment.
Primarily he wants zero government interference including the inconvenience of paying taxes (many corporate real taxes are zero). Then HE can decide on how wonderful he can make the world -- and what "wonderful" is as long as it doesn't interfere with shareholder profits
2
Socialism is what the world needs.
4
Mr. Benioff is the kind of capitalist who is good for our country, but, as he says, there are many who are not. It would be much better to have institutions that improve the lot of the people without relying on benevolent businessmen.
In this entire article, Mr. Benioff could not manage to mention 'union' or 'organized labor'. Not once.
There is indeed something wrong with capitalism - it has moved from being an economic system to an all-pervading ideology.
The best examples of the New Capitalism in its purest form are perhaps found in Russia and the Peoples' Republic of China.
How ironic.
1
I wish I could believe that the CEOs were ready to abandon the principles of the Powell Memorandum. The B-Corp movement led by CEOs like Mr. Benioff, is an indication that a small percentage of enlightened corporations are prepared to do so, but until these same corporations start pouring Koch-like funding into political campaigns the corporations supporting unregulated capitalism, the capitalism required to keep shareholders happy, will keep their message front and center. And their message is that Government is the Problem... And here's the biggest challenge: Can the "enlightened CEOs" find someone to support who will deliver a message to the contrary... someone who can explain that taxes are not confiscatory but necessary in order to provide a solid foundation for governing and regulating?
244
@WFGERSEN The fear of Elizabeth Warren in corporate America tells you all you need to know about their ‘enlightenment’.
14
@Larry Roth I think this "fear" of Elizabeth Warren is greatly exaggerated. Many "fear" her because they have fundamental disagreements with the methods she chooses in pursuing her political agenda. In many cases I have seen the Senator and I share the same desired outcome, but I absolutely do not agree with the road she wishes to travel to get there.
I whole-heatedly respect Elizabeth Warren and love the passion in which she defends her vision for a better America. If she were to win the nomination I would truly be happy for the electorate she represents since she is a great leader for them and she would get my vote. That does not change the policy differences we have, or why at this time I oppose her.
2
@WFGERSEN
"...unregulated capitalism, the capitalism required to keep shareholders happy..."
I would suggest that many shareholders, probably most, were quite happy in the 1950s and '60s when there was more regulation (in some areas) and the doctrines of unlimited profit taking were not held with religious intensity.
Part of what happened is that Wall Street weaponized the idea of fiduciary responsibility to stockholders on the part of corporate management. If a corporation is not producing profits, or enough profits, to keep the sharks of Wall Street happy, they attack the company on all sides, often forcing the CEO out. So, fearful executives constantly try to placate the money people.
When the Great Recession hit, Gannett newspapers and broadcasting, as one example, demonstrated its "seriousness" about remaining profitable by laying off hundreds and asking others to take unpaid days off. The CEO was rewarded with a 40 million dollar parting gift when he went into early retirement.
In other cases, Wall Street has run down the value of traditional newspapers to close to zero, wiping out billions in presumed wealth because they decided that newspapers have no future. If the Washington Post had never gone public decades ago, it might still be limping along as a family owned enterprise. In any case, family or long time owners of newspapers have faced a choice: sell while there is still value or wait and lose everything.
10
This is a very typical tech-bro "don't blame me for being disgustingly rich, blame politicians for failing to act based on the influence of a few 'bad apples.'"
Salesforce is a behemoth CRM software company that enables companies to drive their sales operations. They have acquired over 60 companies and dominate the space along with Oracle. It is part of a duopoly with the sole mission of helping its clients create administrative machines that drive revenue. Their products are meant to put money in the pockets of big corporations. They sign contracts with everyone - including those that they 'condemn.'
I'm sure Benioff has some passion about this subject, but I would imagine most of it is to be able to attract a young coding workforce at below-market rates and to stay cozy with Silicon Valley investors.
It shouldn't be 'he can use his success to help,' it should be 'he never should have become this rich.' We need stronger anti-trust laws that prevent ALL industries from being overrun by a cannibalistic dominator. We also need to heavily tax PE/VC transactions and all income from equity ownership earnings.
The prospect of making billions should not make or break being an entrepreneur. I scoff at the idea that innovators need to be incubated in a regulation-free environment. Success should come in the form of much more than money. If it doesn't for you, I don't want to buy your product.
I use Salesforce at my job because I have to, not because I want to.
2
Ah yes: corporate white knights pledging to care for the well-being of the earth and all it's people. I don't doubt Benioff's good intentions, or his well-meaning suggestion that we need to "do something" about a tax structure that promotes inequality.
Unfortunately, not only is he an outlier among CEO's, but his ideas are in direct opposition to the very DNA of corporations. An aspect of corporatism not examined here is the "liberty" to do harm in the pursuit of profit. Coal would never have been such a cheap energy source if mining companies were held responsible for the cost of environmental degradation. The same applies to manufacturers who dump a toxic stew of chemicals into water supplies, or CFAO's. Ditto fracking operations. Ask any Nigerian about Shell Oil. These bad actors are given license to profit at the expense of "the commons".
Thucydides:
“the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must.”
If there is to be a new capitalism, harm to the commons, when caused by corporate activity, must be added to the balance sheet. As a side effect, this will immediately make renewable energy infinitely cheaper than any fossil fuel. And put the lie to the canard that "we need industrial farming to feed the world".
Mr. Benioff, we San Franciscans thank you for you philanthropy especially to our city. Still we would indeed hope that when you write:
"But congressional inaction does not absolve companies from their responsibility."
you will not forget it is all too many of those companies that are paying big time for that inaction.
Perhaps Sales Force, and others would join with a few billionaires could spend a few billion for a Constitutional Amendment to ban money in politics, and the repeal of Citizens United.
So too, politicians are not the only folks corrupted by power.
3
This is wishful thinking at its rosiest. Left to its own devices, capitalism will always produce our current result.
With our government now almost entirely captured by corporate interests, who among our elected officials would be brave enough to support the kind of regulations and tax reforms, like those proposed by Sen. Sanders, that would be enough to turn back our descent into banana republicanism? They are, almost without exception, wholly owned subsidiaries of business.
Hoping for voluntary good behavior from the self-interested is as realistic as expecting private charity to adequately replace Social Security and Medicare.
Lots of luck, Mr. Benioff.
Those executives who said it was government's responsibility to make things right are liars and thieves. Capitalism exists because we let it; we benefit from it --- even when it works poorly. In the US, government has always balanced for property, i.e., capital, and against rabble, as Alexander Hamilton called us. Hamilton gave us the Federalist papers, which is as close to arguing for an oligarchy as you can get.
Capitalists, those that actually earned their fortunes, not the trust fund babies, like Trump, know where they came from. A successful society, which ours is not, nurtures the young and develops the old, to maximize contributions to a vibrant society. Bill Gates didn't spring from clay. If we keep this up we will kill off the middle class. That's where we are headed.
I, for one, cannot wait to see America end capitalism and adopt socialism. I'm eager to see how long it takes us to muck up socialism just as we mucked up capitalism. And if anyone can do it... we can!
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
3
It is not surprising that the NYT would allot so much editorial space to Marc Benioff's scribe on "accountable capitalism." He is after all a $6 billion tech titan, who brags about having spent a whopping $10 million to ensure his male and female employees received equal pay. What a guy? Moreover, federalizing corporations and requiring them to serve interests other than those of their owners is a central plank in Elizabeth Warren's campaign. Finally, making this a rallying cry for young progressives makes sense given the fact that they were raised on participation trophies, believe in life without consequences and were conditioned to believe that everyone should always win.
And his piece has prompted an amen chorus of hate-the-rich commentary from people who have lost any appreciation for private property, individual effort, or personal accountability, and are clamoring for a regime that will confiscate the wealth of others ostensibly to serve the public good (loosely defined as free stuff for everyone). This all reflects a distinct weakening of the American spirit and psyche of which we were so proud. What became of "the land of the free and the home of the brave?"
Whether it is this election or the next, this thinking is sinking into our politics like a rot, as more and more of our citizens fall behind in a competitive global economy and turn to "pretty lies" from ambitious politicians campaigning as modern day Robin Hoods.
At my age, it is just sad to watch.
1
As long as the American dream is based on acquired wealth and greed instead of caring for your neighbors, capitalism will continue to lead to gross inequality.
The mindless nature of the Trump base of voters will likely spread like a cancer throughout American society.
2
The pure greed of the ethos of “shareholder value” facilitated the rise of the sociopath CEO. That psychological makeup has become a key hiring characteristic in business and migrated its way into other areas of society, especially politics.
It might be advisable to give all future executives and political candidates a Rorschach test.
2
Structure companies along the lines of what used to be found on whaling ships. They worked on a share system and were profoundly fair.
We don't need new capitalism, just capitalism. What we have now is socialism for the 1% and big corporations.
2
You are not the first capitalist to have second thoughts. But in reality a CEO who tried to be generous to his employees would be immediately fired by his Board of Directors for reducing their already enormous return on investment. Only government regulation with effective enforcement has even a chance of forestalling a new era of robber baron capitalism.
The capitalism that Mr. Benioff advocates is not new. It has been advocated by many others over the years and some companies (very very few) practice it.
The question has always been if corporations and their CEOs can make billions ripping off the customer, producing inferior products, exploiting their workforce, destroying the environment and their communities, bribing politicians to cut their taxes and regulations why should they put any effort to be good and really competitive?
2
Yes capitalism needs to change and corporate management needs to change but to really make this happen we need a new set of laws that enforce a system wherein all stakeholders are given their fair share but no one, no candidate or officeholder has given an idea of what those laws should be. All one hears is tax more but taxing is a heavy political lift and our politicians are weak. We need economists to lay out a plan that is politically feasible and will actually work.
Just because someone is successful in business does not mean they will be in other domains. Mark Zuckerberg tried to improve schools. That failed.
Philanthropy reduces tax revenue. Buy a painting for $x, give it to a foundation after it has significantly increased in value. The tax law allows the donor to write off the painting at the current value, paying no tax on the capital gains.
Suggestion: eliminate tax deductions for all donations at the federal, state and local level. And don’t allow the donor to write off the donation in future years.
Now let’s see how much
the wealthy will give when they can’t deduct anything.
Now we privatize and subsidize pet projects [foundations etc.] with little control/oversight.
The government could support the arts with the increased revenue and reduce taxes for the wealthy.
2
Decades ago, Felix Rohatyn distinguished Cowboy Capitalism from sustainable Capitalism. Extraction vs Creation is a huge factor in inequality- such that financial maneuvers and interest make the rich richer without any constructive investment or productivity.
The past argument was that investments fueled growth; this is no longer the engine of social stability or the public good. Hedge Funds extract wealth from cannibalized companies, laying off thousands of workers--or making usury loans to the desperate.It is hard to believe that Stakeholder priorities can displace the pressure to show profits in the short term. Benevolent charitable gifts seem to provide good enough cover.
Billionaire political donors control our democracy. Is that the pivot point for genuine change, more regulation like carried interest tax reform ?
2
While I appreciate Mr. Benihoff’s insights, he buried his lede.
He should have begun his piece with his second to last paragraph.
Foremost, it is about taxation.
Secondly, it is about big donor money in politics.
We need more of the former and less of the latter from billionaires.
1
I am a small business owner. I've watched over my many years the destruction of the American working class. Detroit is the perfect representation of what happened to the American worker. I know the healthcare industry and I'm already seeing the ads making them look all kind and sweet. Their creativity in the name of greed and profits knows no bounds and will kick in again right after this election cycle. We must elect Democrats who will change the system, not just say they're for change to get elected and then give up on the fight as soon as they are in office. It's not pretty out here and these problems are going to get worse unless we say change and mean it.
170
@Mark
Very well stated, Mark. Especially "I know the healthcare industry"... I do too, sadly. What is not widely known is that the ravenous greed of most American physicians is the major cost to our "system". All other things being equal, German Physicians make on average HALF what Americans physicians make each year. Poorly trained, you might suggest? Yes, American physicians are perhaps poorly trained, in ethics and morals...
8
@SaviorObama
Because they give lifesaving care, Hospitals have been given a pass by grateful consumers and because of that, these raptors of the healthcare industry have been allowed to get by with decades of mismanagement.
Were this not so, you would not see an "impossible" accounts receivable system that shows a posted charge that is not at all what will be collected, creating an error riddled system of write offs that make it almost impossible to get a true picture of their performance - not only by outside auditors but inside auditors as well.
(Let me not forget to mention how this system has preyed on the Self-payers because they are at the mercy of the posted prices-not the discounted price the Ins. Co. pays).
Accounting should be an area where black is black and white is white but the convolutions that have been allowed to be born and to grow into this monster is at the root of the rot of this industry and has flourished because we are just sitting ducks as hospitals can just increase their prices whenever their mismanagement and huge salaries start to get a little too close to the bilge of red ink.
A last very important point is that this system was a twin birth of Healthcare/Hospital Providers and Employer Sponsored Health Insurance. When the third rail, called Health Insurance got so powerful, it became an internecine blood feast where each player saw many ways to spin nickels into dimes amid the creative shadows of medical accounts receivable.
8
Benioff's call for more responsible business practices returns us to the mid-19th Century when Marx's challenges to the existing order led the usually sensible British toward Liberalism. In the context of today's politics, that's a good thing. There is a fairly straight line from Rousseau and Jefferson to Marx and Mill to Roosevelt and Kennedy. A basic sense of fairness ties them all together, despite their pronounced differences. Following Reagan, we Boomers let greed run away with us and here we are. A century of progress (1860-1960) undone in 40 years. Well, let's hope the pendulum has reached it rightward apogee and we begin the leftward swing. Every man for himself suits our animal selves, but not our higher aspirations.
2
From the 60's to now we have been removing all of the guardrails of capitalism. The corporate elite accomplished this by stoking racial fear and hatred and convincing an enormous swath of white Americans to consistently vote against their economic interest. We have a race problem more than a capitalism problem. If we can see everyone in America as equally deserving of the rights of being an American we will put back the common sense measures that tax and regulate the wealthy and corporations as they used to be. The same has happened in Scandinavia where monocultural societies who created massive social welfare states are now electing more rightwing governments at the same time as they have absorbed large immigrant populations. Its harder for a society to share the wealth when there are perceived differences in the population. We need to continue to work on strengthening social bonds between all of our society- then the easy part of reinstating a more sensible and just capitalist economy is bound to follow.
3
Billions of dollars in subsidies to already profitable industries is what passes for capitalism today; while millions of dollars to help our fellow citizens afford groceries and rent is called socialism by these same "capitalists".
Young people today are saying they don't believe in capitalism; and the reason, I believe, is that during their lifetimes we haven't tried it.
Mr. Benioff seems to understand that the oligarchs who think they and their children will be able to live on islands of extreme wealth while surrounded by and ocean of despair and poverty have just plain forgotten history.
Someone should have reminded t rump, when he went to Paris for the Bastille Day Parade, that what that parade originally celebrated was people like him losing their heads.
1
In his thoughtful and woke piece about enlightened capitalism, Mr. Benioff mentions his philanthropy. Like most billionaires, he has set up a tax free foundation, that in many cases shelters most of their assets from any sort of taxation. The result is a trillion or more, supporting a myriad of pet causes and hundreds of billions less in the US treasury, badly needed to support national objectives such as education, infrastructure, research, defense and so on. As far as I can tell, none of these nonprofits have cured cancer, upped student test scores, eliminated poverty, or made much of a difference on a national, or international level. In effect we have given them the biggest tax break of all, and have received very little in return.
Philanthropy is good and the tax deduction makes sense for small donations, but the billionaire class has enough money to pay taxes on ALL of their income, with plenty left over to support which ever cause they choose.
231
You can criticize the philanthropy world. There's plenty wrong with it. but there's plenty right too.
Your comment about nonprofits not having cured cancer or eliminated poverty is myopic and shows you really don't know anything about the world of nonprofits at all -- not about the problems they address nor the people they support.
These organizations, while not perfect, make a real difference in many people's lives. Perhaps not yours. But try for just a minute to put yourself in the shoes of someone who depends on the work of these organizations. They are glad to have them around, with all their imperfections.
19
@Al
The fact there is indeed a “philanthropy world” is a symptom of income inequality. And the fact that non-profits are so dependent on the very people who are responsible for it strikes me as being a kind of perverted co dependent relationship. My point was not to bash the non profits, but rather to suggest that we might have less need of them if we address income inequality directly through fair taxation.
35
@Al
Sure, some philanthropic organizations do good work and improve society. But why are we outsourcing educational policy to Bill Gates, for example? We are doing this because our schools are chronically underfunded and are willing to accept additional funding with some pretty serious ideological strings attached. School policies should be determined by democratically elected governments, not opinionated billionaires.
33
Today’s capitalism is the result of a partnership between corporate executives and elected politicians and aim to continually rig the rules so that there is no competition and they are allowed to build virtual monopolies. The corporate professionals who rule with no imagination ( there are no Edisons any more) and squeeze out profits through financial acrobatics are not interested in truly free markets. By Theodore Roosevelt’s standards they thrive through anti trust violations and legalized bribery. The income inequality has more to do with consolidation and reducing available skilled positions than what is described here. Mr. Benioff’s company in the past year made several multi-billion dollar acquisitions to eliminate competition ( and jobs) and beautify its balance sheet. Making nice speeches or massaging tax laws is not going to do the trick. Haven’t seen campaign finance reform mentioned in the article either. There must be structural change. Fixing capitalism may be as simple as going back to do the original blueprint and electing honest politicians.
126
@Zen I don't disagree with your facts, but it would be interesting to see Mr. Benioff's answer to your accusation. I agree that the lack of strong antitrust enforcement s part of the problem.
7
@ZenBee When society’s profits get more and more lopsided the anger engendered in those who are left out encourages radical and angry governments to suppress worker demands for equity.
This isn’t rocket science, this is common sense. But capitalists who continue to control the Republican Senate are playing with fire if they think this country is immune from despotism.
3
"But capitalism as it has been practiced in recent decades — with its obsession on maximizing profits for shareholders — has also led to horrifying inequality."
Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan deserve full credit for the exclusive focus on shareholders to the exclusion of every other participant. For years many researchers have been arguing strongly for a shift in a firm's focus that also includes other stakeholders.
In this regard I am glad to note that 200 C-suite executives with the Business Roundtable committed that their companies would focus on a broader range of stakeholders.
But that is not enough. We need a government that truly is committed to providing the much needed and often neglected oversight. The recent example of the FAA leasing out its oversight function to Boeing, the very company it was supposed to scrutinize, is a telling one.
Top among the reasons for government agencies to farm out their auditing functions is lack of resources. We need a more equitable ta structure in which taxation is progressive and not regressive. Some may choose to forget that we had one of the longest and strongest economic expansion in the 1950s and 1960s when the top tax bracket was 70%.
130
The author just needs to start campaigning with Warren and I'll buy it.
5
The hypothesis of this article is deeply flawed. The idea that we can tame the corporate beast and make him our friend will never happen.
Corporations are like lions. I like lions but I wouldn't let one loose in my living room. Corporations are no different. They aren't bad or evil but their unrepentant pursuit of profit means that they will do anything that we allow them to do in that pursuit. They have to be regulated in ways that allow them to behave as naturally as possible.
Corporations are allowed to give money to politicians. Their control of our government is implemented by a client system like that of ancient Rome. They give their clientele money which obligates them to follow the wishes of corporations, ignoring their pledge to serve the American people and the common good. If they don't then they risk losing the dole on which they depend to fund their campaigns.
The only workable, effective solution at our disposal is to pay for federal election campaigns with government money. The money that corporations give to their clientele comes back to them at about 100 to 1. It's peanuts compared to the payback. Where there is profit to be made a corporation has no choice but to participate despite any moral compunction.
Funding elections would be a bargain. It would cost a few billion per year. Corporations could express themselves but they could not coordinate their political messages with elected officials. It's only a start but it is doable.
11
I would add that capitalism has made a devilish deal with China, as evidenced by the businesses willing to trade away our democratic ideals.
3
I would like to read an opinion piece from Mr. Benioff after he has placed his bazillions in assets and future earnings into a philanthropic trust that pays him just enough for a middle class lifestyle. Today he's just part of the problem.
1
What America needs is capitalism not savage capitalism.
1
Mr Benioff is whistling past the graveyard. PR, greenwashing will gush, but the goodwill of CEOs and the sacrifice of corporate profits is a myth, and Mr. Benioff is a well-intentioned story teller. You, dear Temp attorney, tell your truth, as you must.
Capitalism is NOT dead, nor close to its death rattle, apparent in maybe a decade. Soon, as the social costs mount, fiscal reform is stymied, the rich rule as oligarchs, and SCOTUS enables this horror, the facts that climate catastrophe and grinding exclusion, like yours, will shock the foundations, too little, too late to avert the dystopia.
Wait for a Green New Deal? Another myth that should give way to the disclosure of truth, as yours, dear Temp attorney.
Thanks to Mr Benioff, Temp attorney, and the NYT.
We need NO capitalism!!!
1
Americans are by and large too selfish, and too ignorant to act communally in order to achieve outcomes that will benefit all. In this they are not alone. The worship of Mammon is an international disease.
What we really have in America is socialism for the rich ( fascism) and capitalism for the rest of us.
6
Nice try, but capitalism has always maximized profits. The history of the labor movement has been a history of working people struggling for fair wages, decent working conditions and essential benefits.
Those efforts have always been resisted, often with violence and always with the support of politicians who favor the capitalist class. And that resistance was not based on whether the corporate boss was a nice guy or not.
Capitalism has always operated on three imperatives: cheap labor, cheap raw materials and cheap energy.
Labor in American has become so depressed that 40% of the population has zero savings. They can't even come up with $500 if there was a household emergency. We are overwhelmed with debt, facing housing costs that in forty years have gone up 296% and wages that during that same period have only risen 14%.
This is capitalism's first imperative, suck the working class dry. Its second, cheap raw material, has the Amazon on fire, the oceans polluted and devoid of fish and the air increasingly foiled.
Our military is deployed around the world to bully nations into resource contracts that are simply a form of financial imperialism. And after two wars lasting 18 years we see what capitals imperative for cheap oil looks like.
This is not a sustainable system, a humane system or a fair system. Enough of the false reforms, it's time for a new system.
6
Elizabeth Warren 2020! She'll fix this abominable situation, and we won't have to rely on the "philanthropy" of people who ripped off and exploited the rest of us. Tax them until their noses bleed!
2
Human-centered Capitalism, American Scorecard, making the economy work for us, Benioff has not realized that he is a Andrew Yang supporter.
3
Wow what a hypocrite! This guy took from his company sums of monies well above all of the other executives combined and a high multiples of the other employees in the Company. He just kept paying himself and all along he just pockets the doe! Not once did he consider to paying his employees a decent or otherwise share of the financial success of his company. Now of course he supports Ms. Warren's wealth tax so that he can give back to the poor homeless people in California. I mean a billion dollars would go to building shelters and sleeping homes for these poor people! Will he give back a few billion, I doubt that!.
How or why these guys get to publish is beyond me.
3
Oh please. Another uber-rich white guy who is going to tell us all how his kind are going to save the world. Mr. Benioff, it is you and your ilk who have ruined this world. I don't see you giving up your billions to help the needy. How many families could you personally lift out of poverty if you reduced your fortune through giving to, say, oh, call it 50 million. Would that be enough for you to live on sir? You'd have to give up the Gulf stream 5 and the super yacht you know. That would constitute a serious hardship for you no? And that 6.3 billion you have... yes you made that off of the backs of the poor and the exploited while utilizing the infrastructure others, especially the poor, paid for. But YOU deserved all this wealth. After all, like the Walton family, you employ lots of people. Never mind that what you pay them must be subsidized by the tax payer because you don't give them a living wage. Never mind that you could ease the lives of thousand TODAY but that would actually cost YOU something.
Marc, please, enough. Isn't it enough that you already own the rest of us. Do we really need to make you feel better about it.
4
Nothing is more tedious than a lecture from a billionaire. I note that lectures are nowhere found in Maimonides’ Eight Levels of Charity. I suggest prior to Op-Eds, actions over words.
4
@LTJ This is an unfortunately uninformed view. Mark Benioff and Salesforce are beacons of good works in the San Francisco Bay Area. Not only has Mark put 'his money where his mouth is' by giving large amounts of his money to children's hospitals, homelessness and other causes of real need, but he has been an active proponent of corporations and their leaders giving back and committing to philanthropy towards their communities as a core value. Please do your homework and don't admonish one of the good guys for setting an example for others.
2
@John Ware
Ah, but why is there the 'need' in the first place.
I'm with you--I believe Mr. Benioff is a genuinely enlightened individual. But, there is zero doubt that he and his tech billionaire ilk have been lobbying for less regulation and taxation since day one of coming into existence. That one of them now says, oops, my bad, makes most of us a touch irritated.
There's a tech guy named Dan Price who founded a firm called "Gravity Payments." He could have been uber wealthy, but instead chose to give all his workers a minimum salary of 70K a year. Does Mr. Price have a billion dollars to set up a foundation? No, but his employees are faithful, grateful, and don't have to live in homeless shelters or cash in food stamps.
That's all we're saying.
2
The author should stay focused on what he knows (apparently his business). His public policy prescriptions are banal and vapid. If he wants to truly impact these broader spheres, he should do a lot more research before parroting a scattering of shallow items on the left side of the policy menu. But this is just a marketing piece anyway.
2
"I believe it’s time to say out loud what we all know to be true: Capitalism, as we know it, is dead." -- Wow, I didn't know that. I must be the only one who doesn't. Oh, wait, there's also the people he mentions in the very next paragraph. You know, the billions of people the status quo has lifted out of poverty. Someone needs to inform them, as well.
1
Ah, yes...... Noblesse Oblige. Must we all follow the lead of Blanche DuBois and “......always depend[] on the kindness of strangers?”
Our social contract is in shambles. It’s time to reset the table. Sitting and waiting for enormously greedy strangers to extend kindness to the little people is a dunce’s pastime.
Change the rules.
4
Yes, exactly. Which to his credit is what Mr. Benioff proposes.
Although I despise the fellow currently tarnishing the role of American President, he has done (& unfortunately continues to do) one service for our society: T/rump has shown that informal codes and norms of behavior such as noblesse oblige, norms of civilized behavior that lack the force of law, are inadequate to secure the common good and must be replaced with Law. Even Law & the Constitution are challenged when one such as the current caricature trespasses across all strictures put in place for our mutual welfare, so that the informal moralities observed by those less self-serving are certainly found wanting.
When we allow common practice to devolve to “Only chumps observe the niceties of legality” — In such a case the thugs make chumps of us all.
Elizabeth Warren for President would be a step in the direction of fixing all this. Another key piece of the puzzle would be undoing mistakes like the Citizens United (sic) ruling, and acting to remove once and for all Supreme Court distortions such as “corporations are people” (1876) and “money is speech” (2010).
Allowing the wealthy to dominate our politics makes all of us the gravediggers of Liberty.
Thank you, Marc Benioff, for your thoughtful piece; and thanks all for the thoughtful discussion that has ensued.
Hey Marc, You first. Go ahead, be bold . . . we're waiting. And charity does not count. Here's an idea to get you started: Tie your salary (defined to include all incentives such as stocks, bonds, retirement etc) to that of your workers -- ALL of them, right down to the lowest paid person on your payroll, so that any time your salary and incentives go up, theirs increase proportionally. Start at the bottom -- with the lowest-paid, full-time employee, and figure out what salary amounts to a real living wage. By real living wage I mean an amount that allows that person to afford rent or a small mortgage, pay their bills, take themselves or their children to the doctor, pay for day care, etc., AND (and this in key) have enough left over to put into savings each month. You figure that out for each and decide how much more you deserve. I suggest you follow Ben & Jerry's original 5-1 rule. Come on Marc, put your money where your mouth is. And don't tell me about how B&J were forced to increase that ratio -- they were "forced" to because no other CEO's had that same moral framework and so when it came time to retire, they couldn't find replacements. Luckily, I have the solution -- make the 5-1 ratio the law of the land. Tell the honchos they can make as much money as they want -- they just can't do it on the backs of their workers. If every US corporation were bound by this (and assuming Trump doesn't destroy what's left of our economic might), the world would adapt to us.
4
A dream: not greedy C.E.O.
This new capitalism of stakeholders and shareholders not only needs a new tax system, but also a new international monetary system to deal with the social and ecological ills of the 21st century. Benioff’s vision is to placed in a global context and a new monetary system that is to replace the present unjust, unsustainable, and therefore, unstable international monetary system.
Verhagen 2012"The Tierra Solution: Resolving the Climate Crisis through Monetary Transformation" (www.timun.net) seminally present the commercial, intellectual, ecological and strategic dimensions of a transformed international monetary system based upon the carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person and a balance of payments that accounts for both financial and ecological (climate) debts and credits. Perhaps Salesforce and particularly the Pledge1% movement can include such expanded vision in their operations.
Stated an outstanding economics thinker and climate activist about this Tierra carbon-based international monetary system: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011
For those who want to dig deeper into this, Robert Reich’s book “Saving Capitalism for the Many, Not the Few” is a good starting point. There’s a preview at this link: https://books.google.com/books/about/Saving_Capitalism.html?id=ezXaCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button
2
The one thing all corporate leaders need to realize: smart parasites do not kill their host.
3
Marc Benioff and his Silicon Valley compatriots have benefitted from a system that fetishized innovation while conveniently ignoring all the privilege it took for people like them to succeed.
It's pretty rich to be an unbridled capitalist until you make it, when you realize that the system was rigged the whole time, rather than fighting it all along.
Of all companies, I've been very skeptical of Salesforce over the years, but after reading this I think they've found a great CEO.
This is a wonderful, grand pronouncement of a code of conduct for large companies.
I agree with much of what has been said. I agree that we still need capitalism to be the core of our system. I agree that it needs to be redefined.
I wish we lived in a time whereby socialism as a rule could work. We don't live in that time.
It only works in pieces. Right now, it needs to work in health care.
It may never work when applied to everything. I'm thinking 1000 years out. It may not even work then. It remains to be seen what medical technology does to our motivational systems.
Perhaps the most advanced aliens use social credit systems, but I doubt it. I think social credit systems will fail miserably.
I think we'll use a new system of altruism that doesn't exist on Earth today. My view is that it won't exist for the next 50 years, and so we're stuck with capitalism for now. But we can act more responsibly in the mean time. All of us. Lowly workers and CEOs.
1
These are not radical, leftest ideas. Thirty years ago companies routinely acknowledged their role and influence in the lives of their employees and the local community.
We have gone totally off the rails as a nation and abdicated all responsibility for human welfare to 'the government'. Small wonder that the young people today want government to solve the problems of income inequality (and other social ills). In the meantime, we have ceded all power to the corporations who lack a moral compass or any sense of social responsibility. We have managed to criminalize poverty. We turn our backs on those who cannot find a place to live. We ignore the marginalized until something bad happens and take no responsibility for the root causes of social dysfunction.
I am embarrassed for us as a nation. I am angry with our big corporations. I am understanding why Bernie Sanders appeals to our young people. He speaks the truth even if his solutions seem extreme.
Thank you Mr. Benioff for saying what needs to be said.
5
@Blue Girl Completely agree, and point firmly at Ronald Reagan who ushered in and nurtured "The one with the most toys wins" mentality, as he crushed unions and came up with the best snake oil pitch ever with 'trickle-down' economics.
35 years later, we live in a society that has yet to square the equation of, 'This does the work of a thousand!' with, 'This puts a thousand people out of work!' and still sees the thousand who were put out of work as bums, instead of victims.
1
The usual hollow words and statements with no real plans for change with the power staying where it is.Next?
Thank you for being a leader for good in the corporate world. When you talk about government responsibility and corporate responsiblity you did not mention that corporations own our government. These greedy corporate thugs hire lobbyists, attorneys and corporation to buy government elected officials and heads of government institutions .
We live in a corporate state but republicans decry socialism as evil when in fact they are the recipient of government socialism called yearly subsidies to billion dollar corporations waging wars all over the world to protect these same polluting corporations, subsidies to Big Agr, fossil fuels, pharma, charter schools et al.
Multi national corporations are the benefit of government socialism and they want to destroy programs that give the poor and lower middle and middle class a hand up. They want to destroy Social Security and privatize it so corrupt banksters can earn more money off the backs of workers. They want medical insurance, pharma, medical industrial industry to reap more profits but they have to destroy Medicare to do this.
4
The writer is absolutely wrong about subsidies. Most industries and companies do not get subsidies. Most of those that do get "subsidies" are actually relief from taxation of the money which the business and not the govt earned. The thesis that this is govt socialism is absurd. Almost any program that the govt runs is fraught with problems, like inefficiency, waste, fraud, and abuse. Private enterprise must address and correct or go out of business.
When corporations fail, people starve.
@M,
When people starve, corporations fail.
2
Perhaps Mr Benioff can start by having a chat with his counterparts at Facebook, Google, and Twitter. These tech companies are amoral and are all too willing to destroy democracies and launch genocides around the world in their pursuit of profits.
2
Any way you call it, capitalism is still capitalism, a system characterized by working for a wage, extraction and exploitation required to create profit, and where you are mathematically always paid less than the value of your work. You can have capitalism with a bit of progressive taxation sprinkled on and call it “fixing capitalism” but that doesn’t change any of the power dynamics at its core. Want to fix capitalism? Actually give workers ownership over the profit they produce and access to the capital denied to them. Create a maximum wage (no billionaires). Nationalize industries like healthcare and energy. Actually shift real power away from capitalists, you know, the ones who help fund this newspaper?
Unbridled capitalism will eventually lead to a revolution. Better to put put the controls on now than wait for the violence.
3
We need a president and a Congress that will get our money back.
I do appreciate that you understand the fundamental problem, Mr. Benioff, but Mr. Dan Price of Gravity Payments is already way ahead of you--he put his money where his mouth is by paying his workers $70,000 a year, minimum. That closes plenty of pay gaps. He will never become a billionaire doing that, but as he sees little value in obscene personal wealth, I'm sure he finds other ways to derive satisfaction from his life.
My problem with what you are saying is that you seem to want to "take the lead." I want you to hand over that lead....to a real government. You are not my government. My government right now is people like Mike Pence who want to turn this nation into an obedient Christian nation where everyone knows their place and "lefties" can leave and take their costly progressive values with them. My government has fallen to this disgusting state because people like you have starved it to death.
Sure, you personally give to your local public schools...but does that have no strings attached? For instance, I'm dismayed that music and art is the first to go when our public schools get funding cuts. There's little value to the tech industry in non-STEM courses, but not everyone is a STEM person. Do you value people like them....or do you want to mold our youth to your needs? Some people don't want the "digital jobs of the future."
I'm glad you're a billionaire who gets it....but I don't think you completely understand the damage you've done.
1
Capitalism is the biggest and worst con ever perpetrated on humanity.
Instead of bringing "stability" to the world, capitalism has brought depression and fragmentation. Instead of bringing democracy and prosperity to the world, it has wrecked local societies where they hung on by a thread.
Capitalist rationalization of the accumulation process has always left a vast train of mortality and misery in its wake.
From capitalism flow the twin ills of war and global warming. If we are to survive, capitalism's rule over the planet must be stopped.
Imperialism? Colonialism? Famine? Genocide? All faces of Capitalism.
It's a measure of how successful capitalist propaganda has been that most people are unaware of the ongoing holocaust that attends the globalizing and the deepening of the capitalist system.
Capitalism is a mechanism set in motion by people determined to gather as much of the world's wealth for themselves as possible. Those who control this wealth then control governments; and through those governments, the very lives of millions of people. They destroy ecosystems, societies and cultures. They destroy livelihoods and displace peoples. Instead of societies controlling their own economic system, an economic system is imposed from without that then controls the very fate of that society.
Now, in a world gone mad with poverty and war, the barbarian rulers in their three piece suits propose "austerity," meaning starvation, homelessness, unemployment, despair and hopelessness.
3
@Chris
The "American herd" has been programmed to overlook the fundamental flaws of capitalism and to believe in the free market fairy.
1
It's worse than this. It is beginning to look like capitalism will not be replaced by socialism, but fascism.
4
Good luck with that. Convince Wall Street, Wharton (ie B Schools) and Evangelicals that money is the root of all evil . . .
2
Mr. Pence, stakeholder capitalism is Christian capitalism. If you think about it, it really is as simple as that.
American Capitalism is the rogue stepchild of honorable--and noble--Private Enterprise.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have rallied some billionaires around a pledge to give half of their wealth away. But to whom? For what? Considering these fortunes were gained at the expense of everyone else, why not give the money back to, say, the bottom 99.9%? The billionaires, masters of resource allocation, can figure out how to do it. Stop creating self serving new philanthropies, with the billionaire’s name prominently displayed like a grotesque ad for virtue. Instead, show real virtue: anonymously give unto others as they namelessly gave to you.
1
>For many businesses, giving back to their communities is an afterthought — something they only do after they’ve turned a profit.
***This could apply to the writer of this op-ed piece. Or, there are at least some who would say so. Like, easy to say to give back to society when you've fulfilled your quest for financial success. Having fulfilled a variation of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, he can now turn to other vistas like society.
The thing is, it should be when people who first engage in capitalism that they should think of how they can serve society, although it's nice that others such as at the Business Roundtable have started focusing on society.
No, we need the end of capitalism, at your expense.
Mr. Benioff - we hear quite a bit from billionaires publicly saying “tax me more” in self-congratulatory pieces like this. Where is the action?
I’ll pay attention when you write how you have just pooled resources with Mr. Buffet and others to create a billion dollar fund dedicated to supporting efforts to change our tax structure.
10 of you could put in $100,000,000 each tomorrow and you wouldn’t even notice.
Not everyone is lucky enough to start and run a transformative business. Some folks own businesses that make toilets and other boring things that barely make money. This is a pretty arrogant article.
1
Sorry, the solution is not executives who value purpose. Please. We need no masters, thank you very much. Go. Away.
A lousy 1% and he thinks he is doing something. Patting oneself on the back is the best thing executives do today.
The author claims that (primarily) capitalism has led to amazing innovations in many areas and lifted many millions of people out of poverty, but has created great inequality.
That seems like a trade off anyone would celebrate. It may even be the author's subliminal message to the readership. Congrats on sneaking a whole essay past the NYT editors just to make this point.
It is not virtuous to replace greed with jealousy.
1
No. Free natural economics is eternal. Dead is the idea of dictatorial central controlling monopolized government power. Died 1776. Business control of economic activity is decentralized into countless entities of varying sizes that start, adapt, and eventually die or morph. Government bureaucracies are hard to end, slow to adapt, and difficult to control even in our country. Some are necessary but business better directs wealth creation and distribution naturally, decentrally self-directed, responsive to demand, need, reality, owners, customers, and change. Grossly automatically democratic. Eight billion population free of suppression enables wealth to amass greater than when divided. When population levels out around 10 billion on Earth labor will appreciate, wealth naturally and fairly redistribute, and business profitability will not be so easily achievable by any aggressive lucky high-roller. Power redistribution will follow unless there remain any all powerful central governments opposing nature taking its course.
@JVM
Sorry--I lean strongly toward free markets and not creating a government program to solve every social and environmental ill. But the views expressed in your comment strike me as pure fantasy based more an Ayn Rand's fiction than on any economic data, historical experience, or even analogy to the natural world, where systems do organize and cooperate, not just compete. Further, you idea that the earth can sustain 10 billion consumers appears to me to be anti-empirical.
1
Mr. Benioff,
I am appreciative of your contributions to alleviate the problems of homelessness in San Francisco, saying you had no need for the the millions of dollars the Trump tax plan gifted you with.
In this piece you mention increasing income taxes on the very wealthy. But what are your thoughts on a wealth tax, specifically that proposed by Warren. Economists Saez and Zucman document in graphs that it is wealth, not income that separates the 0.01% from the rest of us.
It seems to me more expedient to establish fair taxation rather than waiting for the ultra wealthy to grow their social consciousness. And we need not label taxation socialism. Reversing the economic gap with taxation, I believe, is necessary to save capitalism from itself.
1
Very shortly, what we actually need is something other than the neoliberalist economic policy that got us here in the first place. Capitalism of any sort is the problem, not the solution.
The problem with capitalism is that sooner or later the rich have every body else's money.
1
@gratis or, to quote the great Margaret Thatcher, “the problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money “
It would be gracious if those who have done well by living in this society other than another, through sheer luck of birth or, that horrible word, immigration, would thank the nation by forthcoming with some largess as a grand thank you for their great fortune rather than the parsimonious gestures exhibited by our super wealthy.
Mr. Benioff, you are a creator, and you have been richly rewarded for it in our capitalist system. Now give away 90 percent of your fortune to other wealth creators so they have the start up capital to mint more millionaires. You will still be vastly wealthy and still be able to afford your mansions in San Francisco and Hawaii, and, able to host $500k lunches for politicians like Hillary Clinton. Of course, your power may be diluted as a result and you may not get as many dinner guests like looking for favors.
When government policy favours the corporations instead of the population, you have what the founding fathers warned against.
1
Agreed. Change must come from the inside out, not from the outside in. Imposed change will never work
On the 1-10 scale of self-satisfaction, Mr. Benioff scores a resounding 11. But beware of a tycoon (even one who has cashed-out) telling the rest of us mere peasants what to do--especially when the treacherous word, "values" trips so lightly off his pen.
The article is riddled with big assumptions. Is "inequality" (whatever that is) really worse now than ever before. There is recent, credible, non-partisan research that points out that inequality has actually decreased. Inconvenient, to say the least!
Then there is a recent letter to the UN's "climate change" gang, signed by 500 scientists, that says "climate change" is not quite Armageddon. Not that mainstream media has touched the letter, beyond the smear of calling the authors "deniers."
Let's just stop there and ask one final question: what's Mr. Benioff running for? Moral scold..or something a little higher on the political foodchain? After all, what's left after you've founded such a warm, cuddly business as Salesforce? Just askin'...
@richard cheverton Not sure why you are against this opinion letter by a capitalist. One would think that it is a remarkably honest and refreshing appeal for businesses to become leaders in helping with societal problems when the government is unable or unwilling to do so. Becoming a more prominent player in the welfare of the community, the nation, and the world makes sense as Mr. Benioff points out. Income inequality has been rising significantly since the 1970s (see Gini Index discussion from the St. Louis fed https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/june/how-has-income-inequality-changed-years).
Regarding the letter to the U.N. you noted, it has been mostly debunked as misleading (almost all of the authors are not scientists or engineers) and their claims are inaccurate (see https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/).
There is no "scold" in Benioff's piece unless you feel guilty already. It is actually a call to action that puts businesses in the lead for a better society while keeping them profitable (do well and do good). How can you argue against that whether or not you are a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or progressive, an exclusive thinker or inclusive thinker?
Nice article, Marc. It's too bad it flies in the face of how you run your own business, Salesforce.com. As a former client of your firm, I have personally experienced how you put profits in front of people--instead of the antithesis, which you have insincerely espoused in your piece. I'm sorry, but have little respect for people who talk out of both sides of their mouths.
1
yes, honest and transparent.
no so difficult when some honesty.
There's a glaring omission in this op-ed piece which is pertinent to recent events.
Corporations should also value democracy and freedom of expression over profits. It shouldn't need to be said but obviously does.
I'm talking to you Apple, Google, and NBA.
2
Perhaps Mr.Benioff could use his CRM skills and construct a Stakeholder Scorecard database of companies and publish the results. As investors, suppliers and customers we could then support those who walk the walk.
3
Do we really need another progressive multi billionaire telling us how unfair the system is? I trust Marc Benioff to allocate charitable resources far more than I do the U.S. government. It starts with him...can he get by with 10 percent of his current wealth? Sure he can...but he and his fellow multi billionaires are unable to give up their voting shares, access to politicians and influence on public policy...it is about power, not money.
1
A great article on a very crucial topic. Running through it though is the the other problem of a dysfunctional government. Not only does capitalism need to change to meet the demands of the 21st century, but democracy needs to be revamped as well. Corporate and special interest funding has stolen the government from the people. The U.S. is now an oligarchy not a democracy. The corporate fox is in charge of the hen house and not motivated to relinquish its prize.
5
We are in a gilded age (again). Capitalism is not the problem of the wealthy, but governments who fail to manage it. I am of the opinion that in the US, we are entering the beginnings of reform (or revolution as Bernie Sanders likes to state). Whether that reform is in Healthcare, new entitlement programs, taxes, technology, or new definition(s) of monopoly or "too big to fail." Change is coming.
4
"When government is unable or unwilling to act, business should not wait." The problem is that government is "unable or unwilling to act" because of "business."
4
Although the primary goal of a corporation may be to increase its profits and the value of it stock, Mr Benioff is quite right to point out that other worthy values such as reducing environmental pollution, improving gender and ethnic fairness, also affect the multiple goals of many corporations. These worthy values would have a larger effect on investors support of a corporation if they could be expressed in a an index as simple as a stock index. Many investors would give substantial weight to corporations with a high Green Environment, Gender Equality and Free Education indices. What we need is a committee or elected body that we can rely on to produces such indices.
3
The idea of an index that shareholders could look at to assess the funds they invest in is brilliant. Otherwise it is impossible to assess the corporations that are included in a mutual fund. This would make it possible and more likely that an average investor could feel good about being a shareholder.
2
Thanks to Mr. Benioff for leading a charge to transform corporate America. Thanks, also, for his efforts to make his own company, Salesforce, a better citizen of our national community and environment, and an example to other corporations.
Unfortunately, his call to arms, "Capitalism, as we know it, is dead," seems giddily optimistic. At this point, its the American society, upon which Capitalism has fed so voraciously and successfully, that is dying as inequality transforms our society. The American middle class now battles growing financial challenges and insecurities. Its children face even greater obstacles. Blue collar resentment brings us leaders like President Trump. The top one percent have not only an obscene percentage of the rewards for American productivity, they have a monopoly on the political power that entrenches their position. Trump and Republican leaders have been helping them to consolidate and enlarge these gains for the past two-and-a-half years. T
I root for Mr. Benioff and his ilk, but I take note of reality. At this moment, the super-rich control the airwaves through influence and outright ownership of many news venues. They are currently convincing Americans that the social supports proposed by the Democratic candidates, and which are so common in Canada, Europe, and Austrailia, such as state-sponsored health care, are radically leftist ideas.
3
While I applaud the best instincts of Marc Benioff, I'm afraid I agree with The Council of Institutional Investors: “it is government, not companies, that should shoulder the responsibility of defining and addressing societal objectives.”
Instead, government has chosen to side with corporations and against the public interest.
We need a comprehensive approach to fixing health, education, infrastructure issues and a new set of priorities so we don't spend so much on the military.
Those priorities must be set by government, not oligarchs.
10
I do not read into this article that it is not the government’s job to fix problems and come up with solutions. Among other things, he calls for increased taxes on the wealthy. Additionally, Salesforce has done good in San Francisco, I know people who have benefited from their largesse. (Although, I am not fond of the change to SF’s skyline that the company has wrought.)
It’s not an either/or situation. We need a change to corporate America, or we will be killing, once and for all, the goose that lays the golden egg. Anyone with an IRA can help. Find companies that focus on more than just the bottom line and move your investments into them. There are “ethical” investment funds that have provided good returns over the years I have invested in them. Also, once you have done that, make sure to go out and vote. And maybe check to see if any of your neighbors need help getting to the polls.
3
Just a few things will make a world of difference.
1. Get the money out of political speech by forcing disclosure of who is funding it.
2. If corporations want the bill of rights to apply to them, the death penalty needs to apply too.
3. Impose a small transaction tax on all financial transactions, remove the "carried interest" reduction in tax rates for hedge fund managers, and because we have eliminated deductions for human need, eliminate the deduction for corporate expenses - otherwise go the other way and bring back deductions from first dollar for medical, interest, and tax expenses that corporations can deduct, but human beings cannot.
5
Gosh, we already have balancing mechanisms. They’re called taxation and regulation...what am I missing?
4
@Edward
taxing and regulations rules;laws have been written by the lobbyists for the 1%. They hire accountants and lawyers to discover loopholes to be taken and if none lobbyist have their paid politicians write loopholes
Two thoughts on the purpose of businesses.
One, businesses exist because of the owner, and the owners need to focus on making a profit, period. Pay people as little as they will take, avoid paying the taxes that help the infrastructure around the business. Take as much as possible, legality is optional. If a business is a parasite on society, too bad.
Two, businesses exist for the benefit of the society that supports it. Symbiosis, where the business provides goods and services and helps the society with living wages, and paying taxes. Society provides educated workers, an infrastructure of stability and services like transportation and utilities.
The USA is committed to the first model. There are rare examples of the second, but.... rare.
3
@gratis
"rare" examples: France, UK, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Norway, Singapore, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland, Finland...
I don't know why we keep elevating billionaire think pieces like this. Every week some billionaire contributes an article to the conversation about inequality, companies caring about "key stakeholders" (aka employees) more, etc. An article touting the Business Roundtable non-binding, legally meaningless commitment to change the purpose of a corporation is heralded as the beginning of a new era.
I wouldn't pay these voices much attention. Where were they 10, 15 or 20 years ago when the problems were equally visible? Now that the tide of public opinion has pretty clearly turned against the wealthy/powerful/well-connected class, they start singing a different tune. Feels like a day-late-and-a-dollar-short PR attempt to mitigate potential structural changes that could affect their businesses and/or personal wealth. It's easy to call for change when you'll still be wealthy and powerful afterward.
Instead of making "should" statements, I'd suggest they address what actually is and has been. For example:
1. Given your strong beliefs about the value of stakeholders other than shareholders, how has your company evinced this value in its actual practices?
2. Does your company (or you) spend money lobbying politicians? If so, what specific policy changes are being promoted by your lobbyists?
3. Point to specific choices your company has made to benefit workers instead of shareholders. How many choices have done the opposite?
4
Important turning points to note:
Investors are mandating this change. Asset managers who can no longer avoid companies they don’t like have been clear about what they expect from companies in which they invest. The three top asset managers, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street account for over $14.8 trillion (that’s with a T), capitalism is headed in a new direction. The bus has left the station.
Millennials-Gen Z-Diversity: The coveted Millennial demographic thinks different. Other generations are sympathetic to their views. Sustainable products are a must. Places to work with well-articulated purposes are where they prefer to work. For Gen Z, sustainability and diversity are a given. By 2045, the minority will be the majority. For the 0-18 demographic this is already true. Representation in our now technology-enabled, personalized society is table stakes for successful, future-oriented businesses.
Climate Change and Sustainability: We are at a critical tipping point. If we don’t get this right, life as we know it is going to change for the worse. Companies know this. Younger consumers do too and are voting with their dollars, choosing to buy from companies that align with their values in this area.
The business community is reacting. Organizations like CEOs for Diversity and Inclusion, CECP: The CEO Force for Good, the Business Roundtable, Conscious Capitalism, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, and others are forging ahead.
This is market-drive capitalism.
2
this article offers admirable personal sentiments. the problem is not exclusively with the CEOs, however, but with the corporate boards of directors that hire them, set their objectives, review business plans and must approve major corporate decisions.
the fact that the business roundtable approves these ideas means very little -- i mean, apart from the fact that a pledge on paper in itself means very little -- because the sentiments must still be approved by the directors.
who sits on america's boards? what is their previous experience, and what are their other business connections? that's a useful first inquiry.
then it needs to be reported that the majority of boards of directors are negligent or incompetent, with effectively zero legal risk of failing any fiduciary responsibility.
a glimpse of the dynamics here appeared in the recent NY Times article about Boeing's turmoil over its flawed jetliner. we read of the board unseating the chairman and taking sides in an executive dispute.
yes, boards have the whip hand. their decisions need to be better reported, and their responsibilities clearly drawn, in business reporting. no wingtip executive is going to go against his paymasters. start with the people who set executive priorities and compensation. start with the boards of directors.
3
It sounds like pie in the sky to me.
What is needed is taxation, sufficiently graduated to stop (or even reverse) the steady drain of wealth to the wealthy. This is an unavoidable feature of capitalism, and only a highly progressive tax system, or revolution, can change not.
5
This cannot be reduced to an issue that responsible companies can "fix". We are witnesses to the very logical and inevitable evolution of laissez faire (unconstrained) capitalism. This economic success doesn't create income inequality, it REQUIRES it to continue growth at the top. The intricate, dynamic and interdependent mechanisms that regulate this economic system and assign rewards and create disadvantage are fundamentally incompatible with the foundational principles of a legitimate democracy. We can fix this but it begins with the understanding that democracy and unregulated capitalism cannot co-exist.
7
"The culture of corporate America needs to change, and it shouldn’t take an act of Congress to do it."
Frankly, I can't see any other option. Business may be magnanimous in good times, but will retreat to it's core when times get tough. The only time there has been a reasonable balance between the power of business and needs of the non-shareholding stakeholders was during that brief window when labor unions were strong and the Federal government stood behind them.
It's nice that Marc Benioff sees the imbalance from the top, but that's not enough to create real, permanent change.
4
Well, that leaves Sanders out of the discussion, given that he reiterated over the weekend that he is not a capitalist.
1
The same corporations which refuse to pay taxes say that it is the government's job to protect society.
This is why we will have socialism.
All of these ideas are great, and will play well across a broad spectrum. It might even provide some cover for the worst offenders in capitalism, but it still does not address the real problem: stagnant wages and the wealth inequality it has created. There are two ways to address this. The first is on corporations - address the pay issue by paying executives less and paying workers more. The second is on government - tax wealthy individuals and corporations to redistribute wealth in the form of infrastructure, education and health care. By simply taxing the wealthy and using that wealth to remove the economic burdens of transport, education and staying healthy will pay huge dividends and create jobs for humans in an era when many jobs are disappearing to automation. This is not that hard, but ignoring the fundamentals is just “class-washing” the status quo.
4
I feel many of aspirational opinion pieces distract from practical solutions that could work today;
1 CEO overpay calls for shareholder Say on Pay
2 Pay inequality calls for a Nordic style Pay Transparency
3 Corruption calls for stronger whistle-blower laws, stronger press and swifter justice
4 Pollution calls for sin taxes
5 Short term corporate thinking calls for better accounting practices and pay claw backs
6 Inequality calls for progressive taxes, community organizing and public campaign financing
A lot of these solutions have been shown to work in other countries and I suspect that's why they haven't been implemented. The politic/ruling class would rather have us fight over Socialism versus Capitalism than on making any change to a system that keeps them in power.
7
@John D Marano
"Nordic style Pay Transparency"
Norway puts everyone's taxes on the internet.
This problem originates with the pollicization of economics, most notably the Chicago school which advocated profiteering over ethics and morality in the belief that markets and shareholder interests were inherently self regulating and infallible. Without disagreement and discussion, academic departments ( or media empires ) degenerate into an imbalanced tyrannical force which combined with largess and political power can damage societies through hubris.
2
It is the role of government to set the rules and erect the guardrails that prevent unfettered capitalism from concentrating wealth at the top, destruction of the environment and exploitation of workers. We have, at least partially, recognized this in the past with trust busting, SEC rules and more recently with some, albeit weak, effort at controlling big banks. We can and should have regulations that allow a level playing field and an environment that allows corporate innovation and people to achieve wealth without the concentration we are seeing today.
1
Capitalism with a conscience is a pipe dream
Regulated capitalism is what works. The government really can spend your tax money better than you.
Americans would be wiser to look at real world examples, then work backward to find policies to help the bulk of the American people. There are real world examples of societies where the median citizen is way better off than the USA. And voter participation is over 80%.
One can start by examining the societies of the "Happiest Countries on Earth". None of them trust corporate executives.
They are all highly taxed and highly regulated.
4
@gratis
Regulated capitalism requires expertise and public servants with a deep understanding of what they are doing. The current Dismantler in Chief is destroying this regulation infrastructure to benefit himself and his donors. Along as the GOP stands in its current form, regulation is a mirage as is government for the people.
Thank you! My understanding of what you are saying is our economy is broken but not beyond repair. I wish the news media would understand this and stop reporting we have a "good economy." They need to answer that by telling us who it is good for.
As you suggest there are many things that need to change. One of the many changes that needs to happen is to recognize that a job that cannot pay a living wage is a job not worth doing. A generality? Yes! As usual with generalities there maybe some exceptions. But certainly every successful company should pay their employees a living wage - all of them! And that should be required for all their direct contractors.
1
It is ASTOUNDING that every comment to this article (that I have read after going through quite a few) is COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to the one CENTRAL message which is the underlying foundation for all the detail. Unfortunately someone needs to state it in the short simple way that can be easily grasped: Rich, poor, middle class, we are all in this TOGETHER. Whether we are talking about America and capitalism or the world and climate crises. It appears to me the author seems to acknowledge this. It seems to me most commenters acknowledge this but don't or won't acknowledge the thought from others.
When someone else gets it recognize the common ground.
Geesh....
3
@rg
Tough, when 40% believes in small government, low regulation, and does not believe in a Rule of Law. Perhaps they sound great, the GOP makes them sound reasonable, but they have zero efficacy in the real world.
Tough when 40% insists on believing myths.
2
What’s the purpose of an economy? Is it to serve society, or does society exist to serve the economy?
The latter has always been the case in America where capitalism is an extension of our myth of “natural rights.” And corporations, through the magic of mythic alchemy, have arranged to become “people” protected by those same individual rights: individual privilege over the collective.
America is addicted to smoke-and-mirrors like the free market which pose as absolutes – unchallengeable, self-reinforcing alibis for bad behavior. Why can’t we regulate the free-market? Because it’s the free-market. It’s as natural as the laws of physics. It’s a quasi-religion whose doctrine can’t be questioned. Its source is Nature; it is self-regulating.
Until we admit that capitalism is a human-made construct and not a force of nature, it will always control us, rather than the other way around. Until we recognize that economics is not a pure science but a social science at best, one easily manipulated by ideological agendas executed via politics - we will be fooled by its high-priests in wizard’s robes and their prognostications.
The declaration of contrition by Benioff and the Business Roundtable is likely PR rather than an honest twinge of conscience. Put your money where your mouth is; put some skin in the social game. A commitment to temper shareholder primacy will require some teeth, some legal accountability. Otherwise – it’s just words. More smoke and mirrors.
4
@Michael - The author states how he has implemented the ideals elucidated here within his company.
He also stated that government needs to act.
2
We need a strong government that is not for sale to the highest campaign contributors.
You quote The Council of Institutional Investors as saying “it is government, not companies, that should shoulder the responsibility of defining and addressing societal objectives.” That is exactly right.
We need a strong government, and we need business to concentrate on business.
3
As a 71 year old retired NY trial lawyer, I know something about corporate "mentality." The fact is that a corporation is a creature of the state; it is not a "person" born out of natural processes. As such, the people, through their elected representatives, must change the laws that create and regulate corporations to achieve needed societal ends. Indeed, the stranglehold that corporate power has on state legislatures is such that it is doubtful that it will even happen, unless there is another cataclysm equal to that of the Great Depression when our banking industry and economy ground to a halt. In this regard, it must be remembered that it was New Deal legislation that initially braked the Great Recession of 2008, including FDIC insured deposits that prevented a total collapse.
5
Fixing inequality will not happen until people get paid a living wage. And corporate welfare ends. What CEO wants that?
Real capitalism does not entertain the huge amounts of corporate welfare we have now. This includes EITC, Food stamps and Medicaid for full time workers. Paid for by taxpayers that puts profits directly into corporate coffers.
5
Please explain why so many of our wealthiest and most powerful citizens clamor for higher taxes and yet our government refuses to raise rates.
Our government needs more income (see deficit) and the wealthy want to pay more taxes...where's the resistance?
3
This is very interesting and I thank Mr. Benioff for his approach to the economy and life. However, greed will be stay in our hearts, and we will continue to praise Smith, and not change anything, because to do that from within the companies in a world that's in continuous competition is just totally impossible.
The solution to our problems is to create collaboration, because without it, we are in trouble in this planet of ours.
Frankly, when I see what a CEO earns, I don't see that they will have the intention to collaborate with anyone, not even with their shareholders.
The saddest part is that we don't learn, and I have to agree with Mr. Benioff: Capitalism as it's practiced today has no future.
1
Adam Smith advocated for a regulated capitalism.
Much like CONservative Christians and their bible, the free market evangelists ignore the scripture that gets in the way of their dogma.
2
You should start with tax increases and structural changes that will correct gross power imbalances, not with vague bromides about philanthropy and "giving back" that, as you rightly concede, are not nearly enough. It is true that lawmakers "seem unable" to pass all kinds of vitally needed legislation, and it is very clear why they "seem" so powerless: because the lawmakers are following the wishes, not of voters, but of people with money and power. Some few smug corporations like Salesforce may start "moving" toward renewable energy, but we need a much faster pace and a larger mission. We need a renewed democracy, not noblesse oblige.
3
I appreciate the sentiments, but the idea that corporate charity is the answer to anything is profoundly dangerous and authoritarian. It gives the wealthy ultimate power over which of the poor (and which programs that serve the poor) are "deserving" and which are not.
What this fails to address, and most discussions of capitalism fail to address, is the following:
1) Capitalism requires poverty. Its earliest adherents and designers said this, and the social and political systems they created ensured there would be large numbers of poor people. The system simply won't work without a large number of people in misery or near-misery. How can capitalism solve a problem it fundamentally needs?
2) Capitalism assumes infinite growth on a finite planet. It simultaneously treats the planet as an all-you-can-eat buffet and bottomless trash can. It relies on a false and dangerous species hierarchy that places the created material wants of humans at the expense of every other living thing.
3) Capitalism is rooted, ideologically, in the idea of the free market. But capitalism could never exist in a truly free market. Capitalism has always needed a strong state to create the conditions under which it can thrive. From the military to subsidies, from business-friendly courts to R&D funding, US capitalism has always been about massive state support. It wouldn't exist for 10 minutes without it.
Address these issues, and we can talk. Until then, it's just more noise.
15
@21st Century White Guy
Dude, take a bow. You just ran back a 99-yard touchdown after the kickoff.
I was following this pied piper till your words broke his hypnotic spell. Thanks!
1
As the climate crisis intensifies and society eventually collapses the issue of what to do about capitalism will likely be decided for us.
1
A middling manifestos, such as that issued by The Business Roundtable, likely make the signers feel good. And, it was likely developed by the signers, for the signers — a fraternity of super wealthy men. It’s actions, not words, that are needed to begin to reverse the disaster created by greedy capitalists. Some legal actions are are outlined by other commenters: bring back Glass-Steegal, get money out of politics, pay workers living wages, abandon wretchedly excessive executive “compensation”, et al. In short, act ethically and morally. It feels really good. JUST DO IT!
6
Mr Beniof says: “Every C.E.O. and every company must recognize that their responsibilities do not stop at the edge of the corporate campus. “
What Mr Beniof does not agree with is the historically obvious fact that this CEO “realization” will dawn only when CEOs recognize that regulation requires it and will be enforced, despite lobbying and subterfuge.
2
I don't doubt Mr. Benioff's sincerity. There are many CEOs who truly believe in the "three-legged stool" of corporate responsibility that was commonly understand before Milton Friedman and Gordon Gecko taught us that greed is good: shareholders, employees, customers. And some are adding a fourth, their community. However, we cannot rely on benevolent CEOs to redistribute corporate profits away solely the owners. For this, we need government. And, it is this—government regulation of commerce—that truly terrifies CEOs. This is why many have suddenly found religion; they can see the people coming with pitchforks and torches, and are already coming out to the battlements offering bread and circuses. We, the voters (and, in many cases, the shareholders, through our 401(K)s and brokerage accounts) must bring government back to regulate commerce and redistribute wealth away from the top 0.1%. This is the real game behind Trumpism—all the populist idiocy hides the bald truth that the modern GOP exists solely to complete wealth transfer to the ultra-rich and their children.
4
@purpledog
Oh, pooh. In 1905 Upton Sinclair wrote the Jungle about American companies canning rotten meat to sell to consumers. At that time, it was not illegal.
If the wealthy CEO's do not help the poor, the poor will eventually rise up and rebel to the detriment of us all, but it will not be obvious, such as a battle between rich and poor in France in 1789. Instead, the poor and middle will claim ridiculous theories like white nationalism to explain their downfalls and will support an autocrat in national office that won't leave, even after evidence arrises that he has sold out his country. In the face of such evidence, his supporters will talk of civil war if he is forced out.
1
@Anthony - There is something eerily familiar here... I can't seem to put my finger on it. It sounds like a horrible nightmare, but somehow seems all too real....
1
First, Benioff says that corporations should focus on stakeholder value (i. e. social goods) as well as shareholder (i. e. profits, growth). Okay cool, good deal. But then he says that this will ultimately "deliver higher profits". This is reason enough to doubt the good faith of billionaires; he's only arguing for pro-social behavior insofar as it helps the bottom line.
At a certain point there is a tradeoff. Profits or people. You can't always have your cake and eat it too.
3
Capitalism, especially recently is starting to resemble Feudalism for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
6
@scott t Feudalism is the natural endpoint of an unrestricted free market. Success begets success until the winners own everything, including the people who live on "their" land.
4
"Yes, profits are important, but so is society."
No duh!
One would think this should be self-evident, but to the self-serving it's not. The ability to make obscene amounts of money is heavily dependent upon having a stable society, but when the vast majority of that society is deprived of a share in the wealth and well-being that the tiny minority hog to themselves, society breaks down.
"I built that!" is a refrain heard by the privileged, but as President Obama pointed out and was excoriated for, no single person can claim to have succeeded on their own. As Carl Sagan put it so well: 'If you truly wish to make an apple from scratch, first you must invent the universe". In other words, all things are attached and dependent on one another. Jesus said: "...as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me", recognizing that all things in creation are intertwined. And yet, the 1% and Corporate America treat everything as though it belongs only to them, to be plundered at will. It's this rapacious selfishness and greed that is tearing us apart, dividing us into the "Haves" and "Have Nots", and erodes the basic trust in society, and when that happens, anarchy usually follows. Anarchy usually isn't conducive to business.
We need to return to "capitalism with a conscience" that is based upon the New Deal that Reagan ended with his "trickle down" fairy tale. A society is measured by how well it treats its lowest. Where does that leave us?
8
Forget these Rube Goldberg schemes. Tax the wealthy more, create a real social net (healthcare, education, support services), and things will take care of themselves.
6
@Samir Actually, no, not in a democracy. The electorate must pay attention, and stay informed enough to elect ethical officials and representatives who have the society as a whole's interest in mind. We've seen it time and time again in this country, people take democracy for granted and it gets subverted by the greedy and power hungry.
1
@Samir
Pay the workers more so they can buy their own HC, food, education and pay some taxes.
Asking business leaders to help society in any way is not realistic. This does not happen in any large way in any place on earth. The only thing that works is regulation.
The purpose of American business is to make money. IF business has to bend the law, put out shoddy products, oppress its workers, lie and cheat, to make a profit, this is what they do.
This piece is aspirational, but does not live in the real world'
8
This op ed describes democratic socialism. The taxation of wealth, generated by entrepreneurs who are fortunate to benefit from the resources of their society, insures that a basic set of benefits is available to all citizens: health care and education, protections for air, water and open space. This nation is wealthy enough to do this yet the US capitalist dragon keeps eating its tail. What happens when the poorest 3.8 billion no longer have resources to care for themselves at all? What will happen when the world’s 26 billionaires have everything and have ruined the planet to get it? It’s long past time for corporate America to re- think its priorities and the US government to craft and implement new policies.
10
@Lisa Calef Yourself and numerous others have mentioned a basic safety net, and I agree with you. I fancy myself a democratic socialist.
However, you all need to add housing to your lists of necessities. The US will never be an equitable or even reasonable place to live for those who are not near the top of the economic food chain until the price of housing goes down by a significant amount. It just plain needs to be easier to rent and/or buy housing, and Marc Benioff's home town, San Francisco, is a textbook case in point.
4
@mlbex yes, housing, absolutely. The list needs many items- family leave, transportation, modern infrastructure ...
2
Imagine if those few people on this planet who have the same amount of money as half the world, cared about the planet they live on? Imagine that.
1
"Stakeholders." We are all stakeholders in the one enterprise that matters: the health of the planet and the well-being of its inhabitants. Until that message permeates our culture, we will continue to destroy the planet and its irreplaceable treasures.
6
Mr. Benioff, we are not fooled. The business of business is business and always has been. There is a long and painful list of corporations that have put profits ahead of their workers and the public good and there always has been. Here are some of the recent examples: Volkswagen, Boeing, Wells Fargo, UBS, Purdue Pharma, and yes, Facebook. It is absolutely absurd to think that businesses will ever police themselves. Nor do I or any shareholders expect them to. What I do expect is that workers have significant power and that Government can impose sensible legislation. The problem with our system is not that some businesses make huge profits, but that they use their profits to influence government and weaken workers' rights to an extent never seen before. Democracy will die unless we empower Government and foster unionize labor to balance the power of corporations. But that is not what the Business Roundtable wants to hear - or will ever support. Thus your words, while perhaps well-meaning, are empty.
6
Mr. Benioff, the solution resides with you and your fellow multi-billionaires. Give 90 percent of your fortune away, this week, to those that have been left out, or, to those that have no access to capital to create wealth. You will still be insanely rich...but you will have given up your power, something that you and your fellow multi billionaires simply cannot countenance.
5
Thank you for your article Mr. Benioff. What you propose is in fact the 'old' capitalism. Before the Chicago school twisted the concept of capitalism into what it is today. Here is some personal advice. If you would like people to pay attention to your proposals about inequality, you and your billionaire class use your own money; money that will never be recouped, written off, subsidized, or tax deferred, to provide housing for all the homeless in America. Do that first, then you might find an attentive audience that will listen to your futurist theories.
3
'The Council of Institutional Investors argued that “it is government, not companies, that should shoulder the responsibility of defining and addressing societal objectives.”'
The industrial investors should be reminded, forcefully, that corporations are a creation of governments, granted enormous privileges by governments, and are not a fundamental aspect of capitalism.
Corporations are tools to enable the pooling of capital to achieve large goals. To do that, the government protects the individual shareholder from liability for the corporation's actions. But the only reason to shield the investor is to achieve a "societal objective."
But without effective governmental oversight, corporations are by definition sociopaths, since they are "persons" without a conscience, and hence can do great damage to society.
9
@rbitset
Corporations and monopolies are the natural results of unfettered capitalism. Adam Smith observed that. So did Marx. So does the real world.
Only government regulation slows it down.
Well said, Mr. Benioff!
I'll add this: there is an issue, inherent in capitalism (and anything competitive, including politics and war), of racing to the bottom. Having government set standards and regulations raises the bottom. It removes the argument that my business' competitors will take advantage of my pro-stakeholder behavior.
In my business, I have heard executives want more regulation for exactly that reason. And I don't hear anyone lamenting that, say, child labor is against the law.
5
I suggest you get out more. I read in USA today just a month ago an op-ed by a Johns Hopkins economist harshly criticizing precisely what this article is recommending as horrifically "irresponsible to the shareholders." I've heard many a small business owner lament that they couldn't just hire their neighbor's kid because they could pay them half under the table for labor.
1
@Jason P
Please note that your Johns Hopkins economist didn't like (in your analysis) what Mr. Benioff's article is about because it is "irresponsible to the shareholders"... which is a circular argument. If it's not good for the shareholders, it's not good for the shareholders.
By the way, I "get out" plenty. :)
How about a federal pay cap on executive wages? What is $500M doing for you and your life that $50M can't already do?
19
@Sean add also... how many more people can that $450M serve to make society better for everyone? More people who have their basic needs met (housing, health, education, etc) will make for a happier more productive society, creating a positive feedback loop.
2
What Mr. Benioff ignores is that capitalism is above all a system of exploitation. Someone--under capitalism the majority of workers--always gets hurt. The idea you can you have a kinder, gentler and more socially responsible capitalism is a contradiction in terms. We don't "need a new capitalism." We need an entirely different system, one that is not based on exploitation.
12
The encumbrance that a person or an entity will have to endure for his/her/its own well-being - need to be made equitable. In some ways, Universal Health Care, Free Education and Guarenteed social security benefits - seem to achieve that with obviously, moderating or atteneuating the economic progress and innovations.
I think we will continue to ride the pendulum swing between stakeholder-socialism versus shareholder-capitalism. Perhaps, shareholder-socialism becomes a paradox.
3
An antidote -- and response -- to this way of thinking can be found in Anand Giridharadas' brilliant book, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World.
5
I like what he says in theory. But as he was in the process of becoming wealthy - he was focused on maximizing profits. Often, It is only when the fabulously wealthy have made multi-generational wealth that they say "it's time we change things."
8
Certainly a warm, cozy proposal. Reminds me of that time when a group of big business people were asked how many would use their $2 trillion tax break to raise wages, and there was nothing but crickets. A "new capitalism" will happen only with extreme force from the government. That's why we need a progressive Congress and Executive branch, to deal with this "end stage capitalism." Just remember, no matter what happens, the rich will still be rich. Very rich. The only ones who ever suffer is the rest of us.
21
Every paycheck from top to bottom must include a profit sharing component. Everybody gets some significant skin when things go well. The inequity must be relieved by passing profits downward. Other approaches are simple taxation.
7
Much of what you say is true. This is because while we allowed capitalism to flourish, we also allowed free markets, markets with lots of competition, to turn into oligopolies and often monopolies.
Capitalism only works if markets are free. Right now for example, Facebook has no competition. Bring back free markets & the result will be capitalism once again will flourish.
Inequality has risen for 3 reasons. We have accepted the redefining of what a free market is. Free markets were defined by conservative economists as industries with many producers meeting needs of the consumer. The government's role was to police each industry assuring one entity was not in a position to set price or quality of that which they were producing.
Friedman said, "These then are the basic roles of government in a free society; to provide a means where we can modify rules, to mediate differences among us on the meaning of rules, and to enforce compliance with the rules on the part of those few who otherwise would not play the game."
Today the definition of a free market has been altered as one that is free of government regulation. ... https://lstrn.us/inequalityandfreemarkets2
1
Bravo, Mr. Benioff!
You are entirely correct, both on the matter of corporate conduct and the need for higher taxes.
1
Ultimately, capitalism depends on high and increasing levels of consumption. "Inadequate demand" is a serious problem. A tiny minority accumulates so much wealth that the needs of the rest of the population can not be met. The cure is to redistribute wealth. Fine, as far as it goes.
But, there are more distressing realities even a "woke" capitalism does not address, and that's the world's carrying capacity. Environmental degradation. The using up of critical resources.
Water shortages are frequently mentioned in the press. A drought is cited as an important factor in triggering civil war in Syria. But a major threat to mankind, rarely mentioned, is that the world's top soil is disappearing rapidly. In Iowa, top soil is disappearing at ten times the rate of natural replenishment. The violent rains of climate change make it worse. Our farmers badly need foreign markets, but exporting food is, in effect, exporting top soil. No topsoil, or much reduced topsoil = famine. We have decades, not centuries to solve this problem.
The question is, how can we address the climate crisis and the exhaustion of natural resources, in the framework of a capitalist system that's always hungry for customers to buy more goods and services that will demand more energy and use more natural resources?
We need to do whatever it takes to buy time to adapt, and to find long term solutions that so far evade us. Is even “woke” capitalism compatible with that? What economic system is?
5
@writeon1 You asked "The question is, how can we address the climate crisis and the exhaustion of natural resources, in the framework of a capitalist system that's always hungry for customers to buy more goods and services that will demand more energy and use more natural resources?"
Answer: We can't. How can I fix the bleeding hole in my head with this loaded pistol?
2
@writeon1 -- Interesting that business news reporters are criticizing Millennials for saving, instead of spending. The unmitigated nerve!
1
Capitalism has been a scourge upon the planet and the masses for several centuries. Either we end it or it ends us.
1
Well said. One item of my list of changes that is needed, and fast, is to re-think a new Wall Street. They have done as much as anyone to expand the wealth gap.
A part of this new thinking should be some way to reduce the short term thinking rather build for the future not tomorrow. Stop corporate and hedge funds from raiding companies only to take the money out of them and leave them in bankruptcy. Stop automated trading completely. All of the new laws should have a bend towards spreading the wealth around.
7
@Charleston Yank -- Cap executive pay to match employee wages, or really raise their taxes, if they don't. There is no excuse for any one, or a few people, to make $10's of millions while their employees can barely pay their bills.
7
When American capitalism has reached a point where the oligarchs themselves make pleas for greater equality, it should come as no surprise to find that a majority of young Americans have overcome nearly a century of virulent campaigning against socialism and have adopted it as their economic system of choice. Nor is there any mystery as to why this occurred--it was the abandonment by the Democratic Party of its onetime role as advocate for the working classes. This also explains why we have Trump in the White House. Democrats rushed to explain the disaster away by pointing to Russian conspiracies of a rebirth of populism when the fact is that Republican conservatives were joined by millions of traditionally Democratic voters to teach their erstwhile party a lesson--that they would no longer be able to count on docile adherence to the party's line while at the same time abandoning any real effort to support working class interests. The party is over.
8
@Vincent Amato -- Proper socialism, added to democracy, will work well for our country as it has worked well for a dozen other satisfied, successful countries, no matter WHAT lies extremist "PragerU" tells you about it.
@Vincent Amato
Should read "...to Russian conspiracies oR a rebirth of populism..."
Change is good, as my old boss liked to say. But that’s before I was forced out after 21 years of service ( he’s just broken into the Top Ten of the world’s richest - that’s your only hint). Anyway, essays like this one are cute...and if politics were candy, and this was the 1950’s, there would be no poverty by now. Anywhere.
But as with any experiment gone bad, this one (I.e.: unbridled capitalism predicated on predatory profits and the zero sum game) has had 40 years to prove itself a disaster for all but a few. It seems raising taxes ( to 1950’s levels would be a start) might be the (a) solution, but how to keep the political class from squandering all that new found wealth...and might explain why it could take another 40 years to undo the disaster ( morally, ethically, politically, socially and environmentally ) that has been unfolding since...1950-ish?
6
"In fact, with political dysfunction in Washington, D.C., Americans overwhelmingly say C.E.O.s should take the lead on economic and social challenges"
Sorry but all this tells me is that an overwhelming number of Americans are brainwashed.
Benioff is by all accounts one of the good guys, but he is also an anomaly.
Consider Boeing and the way it put cost-cutting and profits over the basic safety of air travelers, leading to two crashes and scores of deaths (and of course, no one has been held accountable because American capitalism has made those at the top untouchable). Consider the leaders of the banks that led to the '08 crash - trading toxic financial instruments with zero regard for the fact that they were enriching themselves while putting the global economy in an increasingly precarious position. Consider the countless CEOs who are perfectly okay with laying off hundreds of people, but will not scrim one penny from eight-figure compensation packages for executives.
It is gobsmacking that when faced with overwhelming evidence of the amorality, greed and utter lack of concern for the welfare of society, an "overwhelming" number of Americans would look to the CEO class for leadership.
8
@Vin
And here is the thing that makes Boeing such a mind-boggling example of how stupid this system is: that company would not exist for 5 minutes without the massive state/government support it receives, through contracts, subsidies, research and development, etc. Some "free market," huh?
1
I don’t know what the purpose of these public “us billionaires should care” pieces are. Stating the obvious while touting the “good deeds” of their behemoths is mostly treacle to continue their ongoing rampage of growth. The conversations that they need to have we plebeians will likely never hear. When we have a functioning government again maybe this type of thinking will be ascendant in the mansions and yachts of the .01 percent. If only 26 people own have the wealth of the world then they should be forced to sit at the same table and justify their existence. And the table should be surrounded by good folks quietly observing, and holding pitchforks.
6
@Pomeister
The purpose is so they can all point to this when government starts talking about higher taxes, more regulation, etc. "Oh look, it's a new era of corporate responsibility! Be careful, government, or you'll ruin it!"
Depressing to me is no one questioning the morality of more and more growth as an objective. Right now in America we have too many people and too much “stuff”. Economic success in our present system almost invariably entails environmental destruction. In fact, so many of the great fortunes in our nation, so much of the personal wealth, has been got through real estate development and the making of “things” which requires the exploitation of resources. The building of more housing developments and shopping centers, the prominence of corporate agriculture, where thousands of acres are used for monoculture crops, industrial development generally- all of these require more energy and more space. I understand that I am one of the few Times readers who opposes immigration ,not because I dislike “brown” people, but because we have too many people in our country, and therefore fewer birds, fewer insects, fewer other species. Too much congestion. Too many homeless people. The environmental catastrophe which we face is not solely carbon related. The windmills used for energy production also kill millions of bats and birds. This is immoral, but is never discussed, and is because too many people never have enough stuff, whether rooms in their house or the latest electronic device. We should begin “Marshall” plans for Central America to help their people there. We cannot import every poor person in the world. There are too many, and we have an obligation to our environment.
6
Capitalism used to be about the providing the best product at the best price. Now companies compete to have the highest profit margin.
US drug costs are a great example. Big Pharma has done their best to eliminate competition. Drugs that turn generic mysteriously become in short supply as non-superior, proprietary drugs, are introduced All drug company website have a section touting their social responsibility as drug costs have soared.
Who really believes a CEO's promise to ignore the size of their bonus and to value purpose?
2
How about exploring a new capitalism that is not framed right vs left, more government or less government, corporate responsibility versus corporate profits. How about a discussion about reforms of capitalism where more citizens become shareholders and we all recognize that everyone has stakeholder responsibilities as consumers, customers, parents, employees, civil servants Lynn Stout, a law professor and tireless searcher for reforming the capitalist system, who died too soon, had an idea for giving us all a financial stake in our individual and collective future
Any citizen shareholders could have a stake in a Universal Fund would assemble a portfolio of stocks in different corporations. These would be acquired primarily from donations from corporations and individuals, especially the ultrawealthy.
On a regular basis, the Universal Fund would pass on the income received from the stocks in its portfolio (primarily dividends and cash from share repurchases) directly to its citizen-shareholders in equal proportion.
Citizen-shareholders would not be allowed to buy, sell, or bequeath their citizen-shares. They would hold their citizen-shares for life, and after death their interest in their citizen-shares would revert to the Fund. Thus, as donations continue to be made, the Fund will continue to grow.
2
@Ann Graham - Your proposal sounds an awful lot like a conversion of social security into an equity fund. Bravo!
@Ann Graham
Over half of Americans already own stocks in their IRA, 401K or individually.
Anyone with a few dollars can buy the S&P in the new ETF's with absolutely NO investment fees and costs.
The reason most folks [50% or so] don't is because they are irrationally risk averse or they are lazy.
Neither excuse persuades me to transfer my hard-earned money into their pockets.
Allowing for actual lawsuits brought to court by individuals with actual jury trial and not arbitration, or relegated to sub-court referree decisions, could be a powerful deterrent. It should be considered.
2
I salute Mr. Benioff for calling on businesses to serve all its stakeholders, not just shareholders.
But what we need is not a "New Capitalism" but the original one Adam Smith envisioned when he wrote "The Theory of Moral Sentiment" as an accompaniment to the "Wealth of Nations".
What we've witnessed in the past 50 years is an amoral and largely immoral worship of profit over people and planet. And while the business community can do its part to bring about change, what we really need a massive re-distribution of power away from corporations and back to the people -- away from corporations that finance hand-picked candidates and spend billions lobbying to ensure they pay low taxes and avoid regulation.
And while Mr. Benioff's personal and corporate philanthropy are laudable, such largess tackles social problems in a largely fragmented and un-systemic manner that is entirely insufficient to achieve lasting solutions to homelessness, food insecurity, under-funded public education, a broken health care system, massive college student debt, our mass shooting epidemic, and the wreckage of our air, water and land.
Mr. Benioff is right when he states that "values create value". We need to value education and teachers. More importantly, we need to value government again. Big business that finance the GOP need to stop using their brilliant marketing prowess to de-value good government, fair taxation and sound regulation and stop equating it with socialism.
12
Of the many horrific memories of the trump "era," our economic low point in time will be among the worst: inequality, deficits, low taxation, little government oversight, deregulation, corruption.
It's very hard to imagine how these things could be worse than under trump.
It's also hard to imagine the boomerang effect required to put us back on the right path. It's gigantic!
That's why a presidential candidate without passion (only duty) like Biden must not be elected. It's not nearly enough.
We must go well beyond getting rid of the aberrational trump menace, and aim straight for social democracy.
8
A new capitalism would prohibit conglomerates and vertical integration, and restrict corporations to one line of business, to encourage diversity of ownership. It would prohibit multiple board memberships, and not allow board members to migrate to other boards easily. It would similarly restrict the movement of upper level managers from one company to another. This would cause managers to take ownership of a single line of business, increasing specialization and expertise, instead of marketing as a means to increase sales (quality instead of quantity). A new capitalism would also scrutinize advertising for misleading messages meant to promote brand loyalty.
3
No, what we need is regulations on capitalism. Unfettered capitalism ALWAYS leads to increasing inequality and oppression of the very people who provide the underpinnings of the rapacious appetites of the plutocrats.
6
Hoping corporations will voluntarily, out of their hearts, accept diminished profits in return for contributions to the good of society is daydreaming. It's like giving them the right to regulate themselves, letting them buy politicians to set laws that favour them and then letting them escape to tax-free countries to avoid paying taxes here. The naivety expressed here is shocking, kind of like the concept of trickle-down economy. It carefully avoids the only possible solution to remediate the problem: a functioning capitalist social democracy by the People, for the People, from the People instead of the present dysfunctional capitalist corporate oligarchy billionaires thrive in and refuse to let go
4
Jesus, give Mr. Benioff a break. A guy suggests some obviously decent ideas, but never claims his essay is the complete answer to what is a massive problem. One of the reasons we got to where we are is folks like many of these commenters who feel if they don’t get everything their way any improvements don’t matter. Stop it.
4
Currently, the government has a 5-star rating system already in place for insurance companies selling medicare plans. Why not have a similar rating system for other companies who are trying to distinguish themselves from their competitors.
Maybe it could be voluntary at first. The rating could be based on a blend of how they treat their customers, employees, and society.
Companies might have an incentive to strive for a 5-star rating because it would attract more customers. Also there would be the shame factor for companies with low ratings to improve or perish.
1
The well-meaning solution proposed in this piece rides on Pollyanna fluff, and I quote: "Values create value.".
That whisper to virtue will not make robber barons change.
It is not effective to ask a lion just pounced on a fresh kill to please have some table manners and wait for his turn to eat.
It is a waste of time to approach professional capitalist assassins with Come on you guys, let's all be nice.
The days are over when norms and good example meant anything.
The pirates who run big banks, big pharma, the fossil fuel industries, giant real estate, or high tech mega-corporations are not interested in decency or social conscience.
The only way cancerous corporate greed may be brought to heel is by force: putting back in place the regulations that worked well for decades but in the last 40 or so years were dissolved by savage casino capitalism neoliberal policies.
Restore the 1932 Glass-Steagall Act; reverse the Citizens United Decision of 2010; close the giant tax loopholes for the ultra wealthy; bring back the progressive tax structures we had in the past which produced the thirty years of the American Dream (1945-1975). And so on.
Today's financial barbarians only know brute force; legally-binding measures fully applied; the law bearing down.
And even then, the law itself lives by consensus, so collective degradation is a real and present danger.
The rule law is what we have to prevent our return to complete savagery. The law or the jungle.
oz.
26
This sounds like social engineering, which is compatible with socialism and antithetical to true capitalism. Social engineering is destructive to the economy and the society, because it goes against the grain of human nature; it is a forced-upon way of life.
Adherence to true capitalism, on the other hand, promotes the individual’s freedom of opportunity, not the results. If capitalism is allowed to evolve, and is not hindered and tampered with by social engineering , then the economy and society flourish.
1
@NRI We learned that this is the wrong way over 100 yers ago. Unrestrained capitalism results in unrestrained wealth accumulation for a few and unrestrained poverty for everybody else.
Although your statement makes for a catchy phrase, it is unfounded. Show me a modern Democratic society that has flourished under socialism.
@NRI History would tend to disagree.
Capitalism has 3 fatal flaws that can never be overcome.
1) Capitalism is inherently unstable, every 4-7 years the system slides into recession and millions of people are negatively impacted for years to come 2) capitalism always moves towards greater and greater inequality as witnessed by today's 28 ultra rich referenced in this article 3) most importantly you cannot have unlimited growth on a planet with finite resources and this is becoming painfully obvious with our endless wars and deadly assault on our life support system, Mother Earth.
26
The whole point of a progressive tax system is that it's supposed to make becoming richer more difficult as you progress up the income/assets ladder.
Unfortunately our form of capitalism removes barriers to becoming more wealthy once you pass the multi-millions mark.
Cronyism, corruption, rent-seeking, zero tax liability, off-shore tax havens and buying off government to treat you differently than your competitors should not be a substitute for having to work harder to achieve your dreams of unimaginable wealth.
9
The problem in aMErica is as much spiritual and ethical as it is political and economic. As far back as I can remember "getting rich" was the mantra without any mention of community, social contract, fairness or purpose. People without money are envious of the rich, blind to their greed and the fact that they have taken over our government. Mr. Benioff's words are uplifting coming from a man whose roots are similar to mine. My grandfather emigrated from Kiev area in the late 19th century. He was a working man, a socialist, who instilled in all of us a community ethic. More of this ethic needs to be instilled in our education system. The fact that so many Americans voted for a man like Donald Trump, the king of conspicuous consumption is disheartening. We need to take bold steps, for one passing legislation that returns power to the people with publicly financed elections, reversing the disastrous Citizens United holding. Another would be mandated 2 years of national service for all those over 18 or graduating from college with a eye towards the environment and infrastructure. Perhaps Mr. Benioff could lead a corporate advocacy effort to restore a fair tax system and an infrastructure initiative to put people to work to restore a broken country.
9
As Mathew Desmond wrote in an article in Aug. where he described the U.S. system as lowball capitalism (reduced for brevity). "In Iceland, 90 percent of wage and salaried workers belong to trade unions ... Thirty-four percent of Italian workers are unionized... 26 percent of Canadian workers. Only 10 percent of American workers carry union cards. The O.E.C.D. scores... run from 5 (“very strict”) to 1 (“very loose”). Brazil scores 4.1 ... signaling toothy regulations on temp work... The United States scored 0.3, tied for second to last place with Malaysia. How easy is it to fire workers? ... the United States, ranked dead last out of 71 nations, with a score of 0.5.
While the rapid growth inequitable wealth distribution is a global problem, in this richest of nations it is most acute.
We will need international treaties to work against our low-ball capitalism that increases the percentage of profits going to investors as countries compete for investment capital by reducing taxation on profits.
That will take time, but all we need is a clean sweep of progressives taking power in 2020 to raise the minimum wage, install a more progressive tax code and correct some of the problems Desmond noted to at least get in line with other nations in support of workers.
269
@alan haigh And given are lack of national health care every worker fired will (unless they can turn to a spouse who is still working) lose health care for their family until or when they find a new job. The US is the only industrialized country where this is true.
146
@Rich Murphy Are you really implying that the great recession of 2009 was the result of unions and union activity. Big banks had nothing to do with it?
35
@Rich Murphy if you can’t afford to pay your workers fair wages maybe you can’t afford to run a business.
38
There has to be effective regulation. We can't simply depend on CEOs to decide to be nice. Given how weakly existing laws are regulated, we'll need new, stronger laws.
5
Profit IS inequality.
Every dollar of profit is unearned income for the shareholder and the stealing of value from those who do the work.
Capitalism with a “human face” is still the exploitation of labor. “Giving back” is simply returning part of what has been stolen.
The writer is a billionaire because he has pocketed what should rightfully belong to the people he hires. That doesn’t make him a bad person, but it does condemn the system under which he lives and that he swears by.
However well intentioned and generous he is, the purpose if capitalism is profit. By definition it never will exist for the benefit of those who work for wages.
I agree with the author's premise, but the net effect of what he is saying results in disingenuous We Work level yogababble (see Scott Galloway) nonsense, and we know how that ends. The author needs to present safeguards against an anti capitalist message descending into virtue signaling nonsense, especially in light of the hypocrisy we see between the NBA and China.
Capitalism under which America prospered in the past is now leading to it’s self immolation by creating extreme inequality, ignoring societal progress and environment. Businesses have to pay their fair share of taxes , employees should get their fair share of profits and policies have to be more transparent. Otherwise America’s golden years are over.
3
Bernioff is right about all of this. His ideas on both Purpose, that all companies can participate in a "new capitalism," including engage in pro-society public policy should be absorbed into AOC's Green New Deal. As comprehensive as the latter is, and as bold its vision, it does not include these. Now if we could just get past the ridiculous things holding it back, we would have a fighting chance to get out of some of the holes we are in. (These include the mindless "socialism" charge--which a "new capitalism" component would rebut; the "We can't do great things anymore" mindset; and now its originator pays for hair cuts.) I would also add a well-thought out and implemented industrial policy, and awareness and inclusion of some of the many green economy concepts that don't usually make the business press (e.g. the circular economy, biomimickry, regeneration). Here's more on how it might look: http://greeneconomynj.org/2019/06/19/defending-the-green-new-deal-recommendations-to-build-on-whats-actually-in-it-while-reaching-out-to-others/ and https://www.ramapo.edu/mass/files/2018/06/PolskyA_Green_Economy_for_NJ.pdf. Business has the potential to help our society and planet when things are looking so gloomy. The biggest thing stopping us, I believe, are obsolete mindsets that it can't or shouldn't, and coming from both the left and right. Why not take this surprising opportunity and try to make it work?
Capitalism is dead. Long live capitalism!
"A new Capitalism" - I like this idea. It's time to move away from the Gordon Gecko philosophy that "Greed is good". No, greed is NOT good. Profit is, though, in a capitalist system, even a new one.
It's not clear what happened to Elizabeth Warren's view about this. Remember what she said in 2011 as she was considering a run for the Senate"
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
This "pay forward" idea is the fundamental building block of a new Capitalism. Where has that gone amid the din of anti-inequality discourse? We need to get back to that as we define our economic system. "Shareholder value" is not the goal. "Stakeholder value" needs to be.
11
I appreciate your values, Sir. I've not one ounce of faith that our purchased Senators and House members will support the American people over their big bank and corporate masters.
4
It's so nice to hear a business entrepreneur say capitalism must change and actually do things that back up his words. If the Democrats are to win back the White House and Senate, they need to acknowledge that this is the first step and set up tax and environmental laws that can induce businesses to go along with it.
After all, a productive work force is one that is healthy, educated and believes that their hard work will lead to a better life for their children. That has simply not been the case for decades and is the direct reason we have a person like Trump in the White House. He has promised to bring down the house as we know it. Unfortunately, Trump is the epitome of what is wrong with recent capitalism.
So, it's a two pronged effort for Democrats. Admit there is wrong and vow to fix it a united effort while comparing their platform to the garbage Trump is spewing upon us all. Otherwise, all the good our Constitution stands for goes right down the drain along with all the bad and we're left with nothing.
1
And what is capitalism, but ownership of everything by the few to rule over the many? It pretends to hold a genius for advancing civilization forward, but surely even Bill Gates and his like have to see that our overpopulated world addicted to fossil fuels is destroying our future.
No. Capitalism must fall, but it won't until there is another massive depression. Maybe then we can have a return to the draft, and make the children of the rich scrub toilets and face bullets just like the children of the rich. Maybe then we will all own America, own our houses and our education and our futures, but for now, this is a nightmare hidden in a capitalist advertising campaign.
Hugh
Investors don’t give their money to companies to make their 401k grow with purpose.
1
Please run for high public office. Too many of our best leaders, who can pass the torch to others in their organization and have no need for additional personal wealth, do not seek public office. We need you badly.
1
But Mr. Benioff made his money under the old and the current system. Now that he's made it he wants to change it? Where was he before? It's rather hypocritical of him to say things need to change AFTER he's made his fortune.
2
Even as a young man I gave up on Communism because after Stalin it was no longer Marxism and I realized It would never be Marxism. Communism turned into Nationalism, now it has been taken over by gangsters. Capitalism with the proper regulations and reforms is the best we can do.
1
I’m sure that the author’s initiatives make him feel better, but he’s naive at best or ignorant of the fundamental economic imperatives of capitalism. The gross inequality that exists today is the result of basic forces that operate in the capitalist system. He should study Marx.
1
And today’s capitalism opens itself to being bribed by China’s money to destroy American values.
Yes, it needs to change, and fast before it’s too late.
1
This is a garish advertisement for Salesforce, and a sneaky attack on governmental regulation. Never trust a CEO. Tax him.
I come from a line of petit burgois capitalists.
None of my line fit that description any more, because the big fish have eaten the little guys.
1
It's capitalism. It's working exactly as it evolved to work, exactly intended. It's not fixable and a more "woke" version is a sham.
don't confuse your economic system with your political system.
don't let your economic system control your political system.
capitalism is fiercely efficient in producing profit.
The nation creates the tools for this ie roads, educated work force, public safety, banking.
Who should pay for those tools? Hint, those who benefit most.
Conservatives believe that $1 should equal one vote. Liberals believe each person should have a vote.
Citizens United will hide the political influence and agenda of the 1 percent until it is change.
The 1 percent won the class war. They are the new monarchs of the new economic feudal system.
Look at their walled cities, private security and private enclaves guarded by snarling dogs.
Vietnam Vet
3
Tax the heck out of Mr. Benioff and let the representatives who were voted into office by the people decide where the money gets spent.
2
How about billionares cap their individual wealth at say fifty million dollars, enough to scrape by, and join with other billionaires to create a trust to address the issues discussed here and others?
1
The elimination of the concept of corporate personhood would go a long way toward improving capitalistic societies.
3
The problem isn't capitalism, that's working just fine, it's one of the few things in our society that is. the problem is that recent big advances in technology have made it possible to reduce or eliminate so many 'middlemen' in the economy: paper-shufflers, phone-answerers, production line bolt tighteners, supervisors, transporters, sales-clerks, etc. The problem from the political point of view is that the money thus saved hasn't drifted down to the poor or unemployed, but up to the owners of the means of production. Capitalism gets the blame for this when in fact it's just doing its job, freeing up capital to be used more productively. Socialism, for all its supposed good intentions, tends to retard efficient capital allocation to protect existing, often ossified social and economic structures even when these are no longer efficient; socialism holds society back. Democrats like to call themselves 'progressive' when they are really the opposite--they seek to stop progress. Is that what we want? Should we support and vote for a political party that supports that goal? Our competitors around the world hope we will.
What does Salesforce do? Do they provide tools so that corporations can track their employees and their production to maximize efficiencies toward the bottom line? I think so. Can they have this both ways? Or is this a PR campaign?
1
We sure do. Let's give Democratic Socialism a go. We might as well. It's already everything but legitimate.
1
While Salesforce is an admirable company and Mr Benioff has commendably focused on social justice issues for decades, he seems to have a deep need for public recognition of his benevolence and some startling blind spots around diversity.
For instance, Salesforce supported a local business tax to combat homelessness while constructing the tallest, most visible building in San Francisco. Other Salesforce-branded trophy towers have been erected in London and Atlanta. More are planned. In which cities is Salesforce is trying to change laws to promote social justice where they don’t have a large economic interest? Hmmm.
Salesforce has never had a female executive present on its quarterly conference call. Been public for over 15 years. Hmmm.
And then there’s this, copied directly from Salesforce’s latest proxy statement:
For fiscal 2019, our NEOs (names executive officers) included our principal executive officers, our principal financial officer and the three next most highly compensated executive officers, who were:
Marc Benioff, our Chairman of the Board and Co-Chief Executive Officer (“Co-CEO”);
Keith Block, our Co-CEO;
Mark Hawkins, our President and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”);
Parker Harris, our Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer;
Srinivas Tallapragada, our President, Technology; and
Bret Taylor, our President and Chief Product Officer.
Not a single woman among the highest paid executives at the firm. And 5 out of 6 are white guys. Hmmm.
2
Sorry, crocodile tears! The solution has been around for years. Companies should maximize stakeholders returns for the benefit of its shareholders. Businesses must stop pointing a loaded gun to their toes, shooting them off and than asking government for bailouts. American capitalism is very good on privatizing profit and socializing loses. Businesses are unable to self regulate. Governments are too incompetent to regulate, and San Francisco is the perfect example of it. Anything that doesn’t resemble the current American capitalist model is painted with the socialist brush. Business leaders, specially in tech, should lead the way. Stop paying lobbyist, limit you own pay to 20 times your own company’s average wage, use 30% of profits to invest in low income housing, pay equally your employees, empower minorities by promoting them. Unfortunately, this will be a dream because if any chief executive does it, Wall Street will push him/her out before his/her signature on the paper dries out.
2
“GREED IS GOOD”....You will not change corporate behavior until you change the ethos of Wall Street.
IMHO most CEO’s are like puppets reacting to the demands of the likes of Goldman Sachs and its ilk on the Street that set the standards by which their performance, compensation, and job security are dependent.
1
Marc, you shouldn’t be surprised how few comments you received on your article, I greatly appreciate your efforts but until State Pension funds stop giving money to hedge funds and paying the funds the ridiculous 2 and 20 fees, we will continue to have shareholders over stakeholders. The general populace is tired of billionaires like you, not getting to the heart of the problem, Wall Street is once again out of control and you are part of it. People read articles like yours and give out a big yawn....
2
We need to end capitalism. Short and simple.
1
What a crock! Here is a person that has got his by capitalism and now speaks of helping others. Capitalism is exactly what you see today and it always has been that way. Capitalism's logic is inescapable: there are winners and there are losers.I wonder if Marc would like to see the 90% tax rate of the 50's, 60's and 70's again? Those years had the most equitable distribution of wealth, and it was because of socialist tax policies. Capitalists delude themselves with myths of eliminating poverty and disease, and lie to themselves ignoring the truth: that their motivation was, in fact, profit/winning.
1
Only $23 billion a year to fix racial inequality in our schools? I hope that's true but hard to believe it's that little, when K-12 spending is >$500 billion
1
This article is filled with more platitudes than a political debate stage. Is Mr. Benioff running for president too?
1
I find it repugnant that so many staunch "Capitalists" make their respective fortunes by manufacturing their goods in slave shops and communist China.
The citizens of the West should unite, stand up and demand that we manufacture and purchase products only from like minded free societies.
1
You want to use "your" company as an incubator for social justice - there is a simple answer - don't take it public - Benioff had a choice early in its evolution - funny how the enlightened souls always want to cash out.
You want gender equality? Allow your women to pursue a technical career at CRM - I bet your female engineers and accountants earn just as much as your male ones do.
I could go on - but these sorts of navel gazing exercises are not helpful - just like that magical 'commitment' signed by CEOs.
Unfettered capitalism is the worst - except for every other system on offer in the world - where is your CRM emerging from Norway... from France?
Just in passing - the capitalism you bemoan was shown by the Economist magazine to have lifted more people around the world out of poverty in the past two decades than all of the wealth transfers over the past 100's of years.
Where were these CEOs when Citizens United reared its ugly head? Corporate funds (CEOs) paid the lobbyists and lawyers to argue the truly abhorrent idea that companies can 'speak' with $$$. Before we can undo the divisions, we need to get money out of politics, and as Mr. Benioff suggests, back into stakeholder communities -- whether in the form of philanthropy or common sense regulations to rein in the greedy and short sighted.
As the rich and powerful found out in France and Russia, there is only so much the rest of the population will take. This is a time when the R&P should pick up a history book and learn.
1
Sorry, this really reads like a marketing PR piece for Salesforce and Mr. Benioff. If he wants to change capitalism does he need to tout his own company so much? If you watch enough of his speeches you'll see he's pathological in this regard, as I suppose most CEOs are.
We have problem where the best and brightest go for the gold in corporate America. The British ruled the world because its brightest served the Empire. Ours serves themselves. Hard to make the point when teachers are disparaged with low pay. Hard to look up to good in America when most of our TV shows glorify greed and capital accumulation. Hard to look up when our President is a criminal and traitor surrounding him self with opportunist and grifters and Congress( the GOP SIDE) has done nothing.
Every point of this piece underscores the absymal failure of our American economic system based on brutal untrammeled competition. We are so very far from equity that the though of righting the ship with proportionate taxation and other fiscally sound policies is now all but inconceivable. Instead of calling for a new capitalism, a cowardly half-measure meant to preserve wealth for the greedy pigs who took it all, we need to do what the Russians did in 1917 and afterward: destroy the system and its wealthiest and redistribute everything afterward.
1
Capitalism is a game that needs adult supervision.
Dream on.
They live on a different planet than you and will never give up power anymore than Trump will abdicate.
1
This is just as ridiculous as to appeal to the fox to respect the lives of the chicken in the henhouse. Capitalism is predatory by nature as it thrives on exploiting and dominating working people for the pursuit of ever higher profits. The stock market with its quarterly numbers is the end result of this perverted and short sighted system that surely is destined to dig its own grave eventually.
What we need need is a form of democratic socialism (not authoritarian stalinism, plutocracy or or communism XI style), that gives workers a real stake and control in the companies the work for with collective ownership and democratic control.
I don’t belief we can reform the current system as it is too far gone and has an inherent dynamic to corrupt the political process..
Occupy had it right.
Great points, but I was surprised that there was no mention of B-Corporations.
New Capitalism yes! Great idea, which I and many people have already written about, but you lost me at “Climate Change.” Why? Because you didn’t mention a number. You’re a CEO, used to asking for bottom-line numbers all the time and somehow with regard to carbon dioxide you don’t mention a number. All you wrote is, we need to be carbon neutral. Just what parts per million number should we strive for?
150 ppm is the minimum needed for plants to grow at all and we currently have 411 ppm.
New capitalism? Anyone who aren't sick in their heads or completely blind can see capitalism is the cause of evil, not the solution to evil.
...or as the Son said; "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. YOU CAN NOT SERVE BOTH GOD AND MONEY."
-Matthew 6:24
Marc:
I trust you mean well, but you are absolutely wrong that more taxes will fix the INCREASING homelessness problem you incorrectly suggest you are fixing in our native City. It’s the failed approach, lack of new-thought leadership not money that is needed.
The City spends over $240,000 per homeless person. Scrap the whole program, give each “official” homeless person a check for $10,000 and let them go and live In community’s housing or assisted facilities.
The City employees are simply pimping this issue with the entitled empathy class to maintain their own jobs.
Get real.
Getting really tired of rich people talking about raising taxes. You know you can pay more right now right? Nothing is stopping you. Show me the op-Ed from a rich person where they promise to start paying the rate they are advocating for right now.
But that will never happen. Instead we will get the same old “my secretary pays a higher rate than me” story every year around tax time.
Talk is cheap guys. Pay more now!
How much do you pay your lowest-paid worker?
What is the multiple of that you take home every
-day
-month
-year?
What does your stock option package look like?
What is your net worth?
What is your tax rate?
Are you kidding me?
1
Denmark is a capitalist country and yet it has free tuition in world class educational nstitutions and free medical care as advanced as here. The wealthy citizens pay high taxes. Also Danes tend to look alike
You mean we can’t all just become billionaires? That seems rather unfair.
Thank you Mr. Benioff for doing the right thing.
On the one hand, voters say that businessmen, not diplomats and career government employees understand business bette (Trump etc...). When a business leader says that financial incentives for wealthy people are far out of proportion for the good of the economy or the people, globally or locally, the same or similar contingent says business executives such as Marc Benioff are leftists. Which is it? Are theythoughtful business people or Commies? I'd like to see the expressed wishes and proposed strategies of Mssrs. Benioff and his wealthy peers present to Congress. Perhaps we can change some IRS policies and regulations with their commitment to change.
1
Reading this article is like reading about a Grandmaster chess player who says although he has been winning with a particular opening and strategy the price has been too high (sacrifice of pawns, other pieces, etc.) and his game has in fact been ineffective, not as decisive in victory as should be the case, and that if only he makes a major adjustment in play not only will there be greater equality among his pieces across the board, he will not have to sacrifice pieces as much, he will be much more effective at his game, more decisive in victory: "I don’t have to choose between doing well (winning) and doing good (playing the game without making pawn, etc. sacrifices). They’re not mutually exclusive."
The big question is whether this is true. Why not ask the top ten chess players in the world along with a board of the very best economists and business people? Or is chess the wrong analogy from the start, being a game with Kings, Queens, a game of built in monarchical design which is ineffective at illuminating the state of modern political economy not to mention its future? So what game best reflects the current situation and can improve it, or does such a game exist at all? So what game can be designed which best approximates the current situation and can be played out on table and/or computer and show us the path forward? It's funny how the 26 richest people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest 3.8 billion yet cannot win the game for us all.
The change will not come from business leaders. The role of government with civic forces and labor unions - of a 21st C variety, has to be in education, healthcare for all, responsible military, fair taxation, labor safety and fair wages and justice. Mentality wise the USA has to give up its get-rich-quick overall basic value and this has permeated every aspect of our lives to our great detriment. An example is what has happened in Silicon Valley where the "unicorn" billionaire mode now is everything and innovation is nil.
One of the stupidities is to count on wealthy and corporations to donate - this is giving them way too much power. Arts and culture, community organizations cannot be beggars and these people are not good arbiters of what we need. They need to be taxed and then above that sure we can have givers and supporters.
1
I wore a T-shirt to the store yesterday which read "Capitalists value money over people. Socialists value people over money. Yes, it really is that simple." The lady in front of me in line asked to read the message and said we would never have socialism in this country.
I replied we already did, ticking off several socialist things: the public library, police and fire services, the highways on which we drive, the military, etc. She countered with a belief socialism meant taxing her to give her money to lazy people elsewhere. She did not see a naked capitalism, "red in tooth and claw", would take money from her and do little with it for her or anyone else beyond the plutocracy. I did not try to change her beliefs--that would have been a fool's errand.
We need to find a way out of our day-tight compartments. Otherwise we are locked in a grudge match from which there is no exit in all fields:
Science v. religion
Republican v. Democrat
Rural v. urban
Black v. white
Rich v. poor
Doing well v. doing good
and
Capitalism v. socialism
It's not "mine v. yours" but ultimately OURS. Chief Seattle said it best: "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children."
Except for the San people of the Kalahari for whom ownership is an alien concept (see The Gods Must Be Crazy), there are no pure capitalists or pure socialists. Societies balance like wire walkers in an ever changing landscape. Leaning too far in either direction leads to the abyss.
160
@Doug McNeill
Im sorry, but its not ours. If I work my tail off, and work smart, you dont have the right to take it.
Its not yours to take. You didnt earn it.
Create youre own wealth. Work hard. Work smart. Invest, sacrifice, and maybe even invest in your own idea.
Claiming you are owed the fruits of other peoples labor isnt just socialism, its wrong.
38
I do believe you're missing the point and the message in the comment to which you are replying (you could just be a bot). You don't address the finesse and nuance of the commenter's statement that there are varying degrees of wealth allocation that benefit the public good. It is patriotic to support that which is in the best interest of American society (fire departments, the police, libraries, roads, education). This "mine, mine, mine" mentality is a illogical trap at odds with how the structure of community actually functions. It's reductive and not helpful.
17
And everything around that supported and protected your success? Not to mention sheer luck? What of that?
Consider this: if you invested all that effort, but in a different place, say, India for example, or Mexico, would the results have been the same? If you’ll agree, as I think you must, that your wealth would be considerably less, probably less than half, there, then to what do we attribute the difference? Not effort, not talent, not education. Place. The country afforded you opportunity. And nourished it.
Credit where credit is due: the fortunate should contribute proportionate to their fortune.
29
The only real solutions are the ones not mentioned in this piece: appropriate levels of taxation and appropriate government oversight and regulation. Current rates of inequality and current corporate wrongdoing are a result of the absence of these.
Relying on CEOs to put values above profit and to "integrate philanthropy into company culture" are non-starters. They're a red herring from the real issues. Start taxing corporations and their CEOs at appropriate levels and fix government oversight.
451
@JDH Completely agree. The ultimate outcome of capitalism is one person (or corporation which, of course, is a "person") owns everything. Substantially progressive taxation and strong anti-trust regulation are required to prevent this outcome and very high levels of inequality.
In the fifties, marginal tax rates were in the 90% range and somehow we got by. Now the lowest paid are the highest taxed. And anti-trust is never enforced.
It's a return to the roaring twenties and we know how that turned out.
115
@JDH Bravo. CEOs like Marc Benioff want to preserve their 0.1% status AND co-opt the pursuit of social well-being that used to be the province of our democratically elected government. The "billionaire class" should not have the option to unilaterally decide which social ills to address or ignore, and then expect us to praise them for their wisdom and philanthropy.
72
@JDH
Actually, Mr. Benioff mentioned higher taxes on the wealthy and more government regulation, exactly what he’s being criticized by many commenters for not mentioning.
There seems to be a lot of anger towards those who have taken extreme financial risk in order to produce those products and services we now find indispensable in our lives, like cellphones, mammograms, automotive safety features, and ordering products from home. None of the above would have been possible without capitalism.
21
SalesForce does immense humanitarian damage by defining every human being solely as "a consumer", valuing them only in sales and customer metrics. Benioff, you want to believe you're on to something, but you've only underscored a destructive and dark view, with obvious profit margins for the very few.
1
"First, business leaders need to embrace a broader vision of their responsibilities by looking beyond shareholder return and also measuring their stakeholder return."
Sorry Marc. I applaud your sentiment but it won't work.
What we need is an effective countervailing force to corporate power that can compel someone in your position to do something that you (apparently) have already done - pay your workers well and act responsibly.
It is your predecessors and their political hacks who dismantled the countervailing forces of government regulation and trade unionism. They need to be restored and strengthened until they can compel corporate leaders to act in the interests of the commons.
But that isn't enough. The few have amassed so much economic power that we need to claw control of resources back to the commons. It's OK if the wealthy have mountains of money, fancy cars, expensive vacations and Picasso paintings, but they cannot be allowed to control access to the things that people need to live, such as housing, food, energy and medical care. And look at what your high pay has done to those in San Francisco who do not have the luxury of working for a benign tech company. Many of them are forced to commute from as far as 100 miles away, and that is adding to global climate change.
The fix needs to be democratic and systemic, and if it happens, it will take power away from CEO's such as yourself. The actions of a few do-good leaders will not get it done.
5
Actually, capitalists don't like free markets. When we do have them, it's only thanks to careful regulation.
What capitalism is, is an industrial economy dominated by large firms that are the property of a small segment of the population, where the vast majority of people are "employed" by the firms but are a cost to be minimized.
"Capitalism" is also an ideology that says that the public has no right to regulate capitalists' direction of the firms. It's the equivalent in economics of the political view that there should be heavy property requirements to be able to vote.
1
I applaud the kind of thinking Mr. Benioff espouses. I strongly approve of what he has written. I'd like add a few thoughts and observations.
1. The American public sector has played an enormous and unsung part in capitalism's success. From early publicly funded research in semiconductors, research in physics that gave us technologies like radiation therapy, PET, and quantum computing, benefits our scientific agencies like the NIH provide to the pharmaceutical industry, to funding initial work investigating the hydraulic fracturing of shale, the public sector has taken large risks no business heretofore has. With proper taxation, this arrangement should be mutually beneficial. The Republicans are eviscerating public sector research. The effects of this will eventually be seen in the private sector.
2. Capitalism has an underbelly that is not mentioned by name in this piece: crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is one of the hallmarks of fascism, and both are on the rise worldwide. It's one way fascism takes root. Trump and the Republicans have taken us frighteningly close.
3. As we celebrate the enormous wealth created by the private sector, and wrongly denigrate the public sector, we should remind ourselves that no business is beholden to the United States. America's public sector is not only bound by the Constitution, it is pledged to defend the Constitution and work for the public good. No business can guarantee that.
7
Corporate charity is still just about power and control of how “MY MONEY,” the corporate profits are used. It is celebrity seeking accolades for sexy, attention getting: publicity to increase their status in their exclusive club. Paving roads, repairing bridges, fixing chuck holes, limiting emissions, doing the basic non glamorous work of educating children and assuring health are not sexy enough for celebrity.
That’s why we need government to do it. Tax away the obscene wealth, its only a status symbol in the exclusive club. Elect honest officials - reform election finance so the rich don’t own their own politicians (a different form of slavery). Focus on a consensus of spending the public’s money on the public good. Don’t let any corporations get so big and monopolistic they are “too big to regulate.” Spend the money on services and infrastructure (Infrastructure employment will be beneficial trickle down). That is the role of honest government.
None of our celebrity billionaires could be there without the roads, schools, laws, infrastructure; what the tax money from normal people built. The billionaires “thank you” to the society that made their success possible should be gratitude to pay taxes proportionate to their wealth.
4
These considerations, along with the occasional appeals by members of the billionaire class to raise taxes on the wealthy, have to be blared on mainstream media. They can't be the private reading of NYT subscribers or a coterie of those in-the-know. So Mr. Benioff, I invite you to take out regular full-page ads or air time in major information outlets in a swing states to pave the way for Elizabeth Warren.
5
Mr Benioff misses the point of capitalism. There is no new capitalism. He is just nostalgic for a time when capitalism was a rising tide that was lifting all boats. That phase is now passed. We are now in the end stages of capitalism, where we have a clearly defined group who are winners and another group who are losers. Mr Benioff, you should be happy. You have won.
Think of Capitalism as like a game of Monopoly. In the early stages everyone starts with the same amount of money and makes what to buy decisions based upon the shake of dice.
By the end of the game, most of the players have been eliminated and it is down to the last 2, who between them own everything on the board and are focused on getting whats left. Its no longer about money - its about winning. The fact that everyone else has already lost everything and is excluded from the game - well, they lost.
America (and its capitalism) are now in the final stage of a game of Monopoly. There was never any doubt where this was all going or where it would end. This is the logical conclusion of both Monopoly and capitalism.
The winners of Monopoly are always game to start another game. Generally speaking, the losers want to play something else. You learn a lot about people when you play Monopoly with them.
Mr Benioff's vision of new capitalism is really just a roll back of the current system a few years. Rearrange the deckchairs a little to give the poor a better view of the iceberg.
Ain't gonna happen.
5
@MrC Actually the US has always been about vulture capitalism. It was only in the 30 years post WWII that there were responsible corporations. 19th C wave after wave of immigrants were imported as cheap labor to be used and discarded at will - just as H1b visas combined with illegals to downpressure wages and to be easily controlled do for the past 20 years. The US needs as a 21st century country for its citizens to recover power and clout over capitalists. Warren has some good plans.
1
While this is a good start, it is not nearly enough. The most important piece of the puzzle is reducing plutocrats’ power over the country and that can’t be done without reducing their grip over politics. That’s why restrictions on lobbying, repealing Citizens United, publicly funded elections etc are needed
4
As a resident of San Francisco I and everyone else is forced to gaze at the edifice to Benioff known as the Salesforce Tower that Marc built as tribute to himself. So one tends to be somewhat skeptical. So Let’s start with a wealth tax and let’s see Benioff champion that.
2
@Victor serge he just suggested that in this piece
I think this is excellent as a beginning for change. I anticipate a lot of negativity in the comments and I dread to read it. Corporations taking on a change in capitalism as an honor system is obviously not going to solve the problem alone - we need electoral change and community-driven efforts to hold corporations to account.
But moving to a 21st century model of capitalism that retains what we like about capitalism (freedom of choice and mobility) and ditches what we hate (lobbying, corruption, environmental destruction, gross inequality) will require a change in mentality from high-income individuals and corporations if we want a peaceful and positive response to today's problems.
I think there are lots of people in corporate America who do care about social responsibility, but they live in an eco-system that would wipe them out if they acted on that care. CEO's publicly embracing the need for change and at least not getting in the way of political movements to institute those changes is a move in the right direction.
Oh boy! Another billionaire who has discovered the key to everything and will now tell us what we all must do. History shows us that positive change almost always comes from the bottom of the economic pyramid, not the top. The Buddah, Jesus, Ghandi, and Mandela, to name just a few, are prime examples.
1
This is the price you pay for the high wall of separation between religion, in this case the Christian religion, and the polity. Socialism tries to offer replacement values for the displaced Christian morals, but we know how it turns out later. Morals always need a religious base, whether of one religion, or of another. In the absence of such a theological base, all "conscientious" inclinations are bound to end up as wishy-washy platitudes.
1
@Chuck Brandt we are not a Christian nation, and Mr. Benioff is, in fact, a Jew. In the nominally secular US, tying religion to public acts leads to alienation of large swaths of our citizenry.
We know what is right and we Americans need to use pragmatic arguments (which have always worked better for us than anything sectarian) to help capitalists understand that there is profit in sharing the wealth. Counterintuitive, sure, but also right, as Mr. Benioff shows.
It is true that morals developed from religious teachings but in the US religion is so divisive that it's best to sever it from politics and appeal to people's wisdom and legislate from Science and Economics, which are testable and knowable, at least in my part of the country. As a Jew myself, I know this well.
4
@Chuck Brandt The US was founded based on separation from religion and protection from religion. Distancing from that by fundamentalist christian sects in the past 40 years has led to great problems you see now. USA is not a Christian country.
1
@Chuck Brandt Do not force religion, especially Christianity, down my throat. Ya'll aren't the only moral people.
Socially and environmentally beneficial purposes are probably best served by non-profit and co-op models. So we must ask far more fundamental questions:
Why are we letting so much wealth accumulate at the top in the first place, which we then dither over with regard to taxing, donating, etc.? Why are we OK with a tiny number of people owning everything and reaping profit while all the work is done by everyone else? Why do we let yacht loungers externalize costs onto public health and the planet?
Benioff's relative noblesse oblige is just another way to forestall the real changes that justice and planetary survival demand.
6
Capitalism is great at producing wealth but lousy in distributing. Why should the vast majority of people depend on the enlightened whims of the few? Mr. Benioff blows his own horn, crediting himself for his corporate largess. But others of his ilk spend billions on rocket ships to Mars and other vanity projects.
It's time for the "stakeholders" to claim much bigger chunks of corporate and individual wealth through taxation.
5
@Rey Buono
What your advocating for is stakeholders to "claim", aka take from people who are successful.
Its not yours to take. You didnt earn it.
Create youre own wealth. work hard. Work smart. Invest, sacrifice, and maybe even invest in your own idea.
Claiming you are owed the fruits of other peoples labor isnt just socialism, its wrong.
Our current "unsystem" is failing. It's neither capitalist nor socialistic, not even a reasonable balance between the two. Our market for products and services is not free and competitive. American government is too undemocratic and unfocused to apply the wealth created by capital and labor to the basic needs of our citizens.
American capitalism has devolved into short-term, slow-reacting market manipulation, not flexible and responsive free market competition. The free market competition envisioned by Adam Smith exists only in the international widget market, which is dominated by mom and pop-style capitalism practiced in China.
It seems impossible to introduce true competition into the market of high-value products and services protected by excessive patent rights. However could Amazon and Microsoft be broken into multiple competing units? How many Boeings can the American market sustain?
The ultra-rich, big businesses, and corporate executives are better than government at identifying and addressing neglected niches in our physical and social infrastructure. But, the benevolence of the rich is paltry, not a reliable source of funding for the basic social needs of hundred of millions of Americans.
We are stuck with a mogrelized economy of regulated private enterprise and government social welfare. But, we can do better at regulating big businesses, taxing high incomes to fund social services, and keeping capital accumulation in balance with consumer demand.
2
Mr Benioff, persuade economists that the carbon footprint and pollution that industry uses needs to be part of the bottom line, too, not simply the electric and garbage bills.
I don't know the cost to all of us of having a species go extinct, but if lawyers can value human lives and pain, I'm sure they can figure out a cost for extinction.
4
I’m sorry. This author’s ideas will never be enough to bring about enough change to keep the planet from burning. Capitalism (meaning Uber-competition among the world’s people) instead of Uber-cooperation —-is the problem. This author’s “solutions” are too weak to have much impact at all because we’ve all bought into the myth that greed is good, and the myth that capitalism is virtuous. It’s not.
4
I support the notion of expanding corporations’ mandate to include employees, and other stakeholders. The current form of capitalism in the US is very destructive and reminds me of the economic conditions that ignited the Russian and Chinese revolutions: all the wealth in a few persons and corporations hands while the majority of citizens suffer. No wonder Karl Marx’s philosophies were so popular! I support Bernie Sanders and his movement towards social democracy and the sharing or redistribution of wealth so that all participate in the riches generated by our destructive capitalism. With the current tide in Washington this dream seems impossible and unlikely. If the super rich are feeling so guilty then possibly they would consider forming their own alliances and redistribute their wealth since the government won’t.
2
@Ski bum Not at all impossible. The current capitalists like this writer are shocked and amazed that they have the infinite powers they currently possess. Warren is beating Biden as many democrats of all ages just see current US reactionary policies as completely suicidal.
Today's business leaders are not going to change, nor are they going to give up their positions as long as they are making money. If they did take a back seat, new greedy profit-seekers would take their place. Voluntary reform will not work: it will definitely take acts of Congress to restrain runaway finance and big business. Among many other things, major reform of corporations is needed. Courts have essentially given super-powers of citizenship to entities whose only purpose is supposedly to generate profits, although what they often actually do is generate market bubbles.
3
Wouldn't it be a step in the right direction to raise the taxes
Salesforce pays on it's profits and you earn on your income
and direct the proceeds to address your concerns?
4
Sorry Marc, but "the honor system" of businesses integrating societal needs into their operating plans just isn't gonna work.
The government needs to address societal concerns, but the problem is, capitalism is great a generating wealth into the hands of the few, who then use it to take control of the government. That's the situation we now face, although even the liberal media attempt to obscure that fact.
Capitalism is the problem - and you neglected to mention the deleterious effects of capitalism's dictum, growth for it's own sake (the mission statement of the cancer cell), has had on the environment.
You cannot "reform" a cancer cell.
7
You will not solve capitalism's problems by trying to legislate morality or ethics in corporations. Human nature always prevails. Capitalism's problems will be solved by legislating capitalism so that is serves the nation's best interests. The problem with capitalism in its current state is that it enables the monopoly of accumulated money to rule over the will of the people. How do you end the monopoly of money: 1. Increase taxes on the wealthy to the rates of the 1950s.
2. A tax rate of 90% on inherited wealth over $5,000,000 per individual. Inherited wealth is the biggest obstacle to the cream of future generations rising to the top for the nation's benefit. 3. Reinstitute Glass Steagall so that banks are motivated to lend money to make money and raise interest rates to attract deposits. Currently banks serve shareholders, not customers. Terrible for the country. Capitalism is fine. The well being of the nation must set its operating guidelines.
3
@BB definitely agree you cant legislate morality. I would recommend googling or youtubing presidential candidate Andrew Yang. He fully understands that if we change the incentives, the outcomes for all Americans can be better. We use the best of capitalistic characteristics to create a Human Centered Capitalism.
Yang2020.com/policies
This is not actually a "new capitalism", it is close to the form seen by visionary business leaders for centuries. I grew up in Delaware, 'The Corporate State', where my dad worked for DuPont. The culture of capitalism in that area was far from ideal, but it was highly paternalistic. This meant real care about employees and their families, and that the company needed to be a good citizen.
The family members who ran DuPont did many things to improve the community and to support local, state, and national improvements. Some were through private charity, but many were through corporate support. All this disappeared as the 1980's brought Greed First into the Board and shattered the company into today's remnants.
If you visit Wilmington, visit Winterthur and Longwood Gardens, and Hagley Museum. See The A.I. DuPont Children's hospital, PS DuPont High School, and Route 13 aka the DuPont highway, all built by family money. Yes, they were branded "Merchants of Death" for selling explosives to both sides before the US entered WWI, but they ran the chemical side of the Manhattan Project in WWII for cost plus $1. When an explosion killed many workers at the powder mill in the 1880's, they paid the families $500 each (about $13,000 in today's $s), an action which was unheard of at time when no such payments were expected.
That was the visionary capitalism culture that once pushed forward against the capitalism of Ebenezer Scrooge.
2
@Speakin4Myself But this is the royalist beneficence idea the US was invented to get away from. No. DuPont made its dough on weapons of mass destruction. I do not want to count on them to be arts supporters, health care advocates and to have too much power.
@P Wilkinson
Actually, I only sought to show that this 'New Capitalism' is the old "royalist beneficence idea" in new clothing. It is in no way different from the benign paternalism of US capitalists that can in a single Panic swing from the corporate good citizen to Pullman workers driven from their utopian company housing as wages are cut while rents are fixed.
Republicans claim "Government is not the solution, it is the problem." The same can be said of unchecked Capitalism or Fascism or Socialism. But please note that Northern Europe is running rather well on Democratic Socialism (despite right-wing lies to the contrary) or so my Norwegian and German relatives tell me, Mr. Trump.
Since WW 2, corporations have increasingly become global entities, capable of functioning essentially without borders to locate and exploit workers and resources anywhere in the world. At the same time, workers have become increasingly nationalized - we're "Americans" or "Chinese" or "Mexican" first. This means that workers have been rendered powerless to demand higher wages. Politicians, mostly from the right but from the center as well, have consistently pressed the message that the problem has to do with immigration, promoting a nationalistic xenophobia among people who tend, in any case, towards the comfortable associations of family, friends and country.
Mr. Benioff should be promoting an increase, not in handouts to workers, but to active worker participation in the running of corporations, either through councils (as in Germany) or unions. The best way forward is to empower workers around the globe so they can demand laws and international treaties that take their needs into account, by stipulating wage minimums, ease of movement across borders, governmental competence, etc.
1
Since 1981, the share of America's wealth held by the plutocracy of the 1% has grown from 23% to over 40%, a share of America's wealth that the plutocrats hadn't held since 1929. Effectively, the plutocracy of the 1% has clawed back to itself all of the wealth it gave up to the middle class and poor during the New Deal and the post-WWII prosperity until roughly 1973, when middle-class incomes began to stagnate. Since the 90s, the Democratic Party has been taken over by the Democratic Leadership Council & "Third Way" Democrats, such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, & Barack Obama. The Democratic Party has taken a decided turn to the right, today representing not the average working people of America, but rather Wall Street, and the socially liberal wealthy and professional classes. Half of the population vote to protect the interests of the top 5% because a) they believe that they too will become a member of the 5% club if they just work hard enough (or think they are already members); b) they believe they will eventually enjoy the benefits of a 30-year-old delusion known as “trickle-down” economics; or c) the most likely reason today, they will vote for a Party that will drive them into poverty merely to uphold a racial hierarchy. The top 5% count on these Americans (whether they are upper, middle, or working-class poor) to vote against Progressives who want to guarantee their healthcare, their access to higher education, and provide them with several safety-net programs.
4
Economic inequality leads to social instability. You would think the 1% had enough self-interest to be more generous to its workers. Since 1978, CEO compensation has gone up almost a breathtaking 1,000% while the average worker's compensation has risen a mere 12% during the same time frame. Surely, this is the stuff of revolutions?
Government must Limit compensation to CEO's. Penalize the corporations that go over the salary cap-- by slapping on an additional tax. Let shareholders police and determine executive salaries. Vote for politicians who agree!
As consumers, shop at companies where executive and worker compensation ratios are at an acceptable level-- and not at an obscene differential where a worker has to work 2-1/2 jobs to put a roof over her head. Executive salaries by law must be made publicly available at all publicly traded companies. This info is on-line.
Shop at companies that have a robust worker profit-sharing program. Research worker-owned companies or cooperatives-- shop at those stores.
Boycott companies where the worker to executive salary ratio is unjust.
And, finally do NOT accept a country's tax code that has a higher tax rate for working people than the 1% of richest Americans, because that is what the US tax code does. And finally, Vote for politicians that have a serious plan to address wealth inequality.
Fairness and decency demand that we address this this indecent injustice before American citizens wake up and rebel.
6
I realize that this is a gross simplification. There are many causes for our current situation. But I don't think it is a coincidence that the current ethos of the investor class that only profits matter and that worker rights and societal health are not their responsibility began with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The rise of communism at the beginning of the twentieth century made the titans of industry at the time fearful that it might take hold here. In response they backed off from their opposition to unions and other worker protections and allowed the development of a middle class. Sharing a little was better than losing it all.
Once the perceived threat subsided, they realized that playing nice was no longer necessary. The attack on government efforts to ensure worker rights and fund investment in the country began.
We are beginning to see signs that this has finally gone too far. Perhaps the healthy balance between worker rights and capitalist prosperity that we once enjoyed can be restored. If not, I fear we will wind up like the current Russia, run by a corrupt oligarchy.
12
Capitalism is at odds with our life on this planet. Accumulation of wealth is blind to the environment. Nowhere is this more evident than in the policies of this administration. This is a global issue and requires leaders that can work together, not other-blamers and dividers like we have now. Look to new leadership in 2020.
7
Many billionaires seem to support raising taxes on themselves. Someone who is "only" a millionaire will not be so generous with their money. And most of Congress falls into the second bucket. They're still trying keep what they have and make even more...
7
Benioff is either naive or putting up a smoke screen. Captains of industry (as they used to be called) have never voluntarily walked away from profits, no matter the human wreckage or environmental damage. It has always taken either government regulation, union leverage, or popular revolt.
While a few voices like Benioff make nice noises, most billionaires are buying fortified estates in places like New Zealand so that they can continue to live safely and lavishly while the rest of us confront the downward spiral of late capitalism: economic struggle, forced migration, environmental havoc, and the violence it all engenders.
18
He's saying, "I benefited from this system. Now let's close the door behind me."
What courage.
10
@Al I think he is saying let the door be opened a little bit more so others can be at the table -as it were - because it is pointless to worry about “closing” a door whose hinges are rusting and breaking apart. Such a door protects no one. It does not matter whether you are “behind” or in front of it.
2
Except that, if you actually read the piece, he is saying and doing the opposite. He explicitly asks for taxes on high net worth individuals and has already instituted many of the things he advocated. Your knee-jerk reaction just shows a level of willful ignorance that is all too typical.
1
Oh please. I'm just being honest about these efforts by the ultra wealthy.
On the one hand, it's conebdable to address inequality. No one is denying that. But on the other, these efforts don't especially change their lives or their lives of their children...but they do endow a saintly aura. At their level of wealth, a small sacrifice can yield immense reputational rewards.
This is just the reality of these gestures from people as wealthy as the Benioffs.
1
This argument relies on oversimplification of the causes of growing inequality in the United States. No country on earth is a purely capitalist system. They all mix political and private control over the means of production. Over the past 100 years, the United States has seen significantly more political control over the means of production. Which means the growing inequality might be caused by growing government activity reducing competition in the market place.
It is very hard to become a price gouging oligopoly without protectionist regulation. The on way to fight big business is with small and medium business, not big government.
6
Don't try to convince other executives, convince shareholders. They, especially large-scale institutional investors, are the ones demanding profit above all else. Even if executives and board members were somehow convinced to start doing good, shareholders would simply vote them out, and install their own profit-driven replacements.
9
@Ed H.
The big fish have severely limited the rights of small investors. Shareholder derivitive suits should have levelled income desparity.
2
The insertion of the word purpose is all that needs to be said. That is the insurmountable task for those who would be able to make any incremental changes in how we approach capitalism.
Can you just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if those with all the toys were told they had the share?
1
Higher taxes on the vulture capitalist class.
A new Voting Rights Act to make America a democracy.
0.1% campaign finance bribery reform.
Voting for Democratic reformers in 2020 to facilitate a Bloe Wave to make the above things happen.
Doing that will put the brakes on the radical right-wing Republican Randian Reverse Robin Hoodism that has made American feudalism great since 1980.
Corporations are not in the public policy business.
Government is.
We know Republicans can't stand the non-rich or democracy.
That's why decent humans will throw them out of elected in 2020 in favor of a decent civilization and progressive - not regressive - public policy.
91
“When government is unable or unwilling to act, business should not wait.“ There remains the possibility that the government will change and take the initiatives Pence is afraid, e.g. utilizing the SEC (as Benioff suggests it could).
5
One need only read the comments to this op-ed to know exactly where America will end up if Mr. Benioff's ideas ever came to fruition.
I'm sure that if the "utopia" envisioned by Mr. Benioff became reality, he and others like him would board their planes or yachts and move to the nearest low-tax, low regulation country and renounce thier U.S. citizenship.
"Woke" capitalism is a joke. Business should maximize shareholder profits to the extent of the law. Personal responsibility and accountability of employees and everyone else will take care of the societal "ills" to which Benioff points.
3
@red, you are sorely misguided. The natural consequence of your position is increasingly impoverished workers who will not perform as well as fairly paid employees who can easily afford the basics of life including adequate housing and good healthcare and an unlivable planet. There will be no escape for the wealthy.
3
This is all good in theory, but getting acceptance by enough people will be difficult. The simpler solution proposed by many is to increase tax revenue by changing the tax code to tax the highest income earners more and the lower income earners less and to have a government committed to using that increased tax revenue on programs that benefit the neediest among us.
Wealthy people reject that doing so would benefit them. However, decreasing taxes on lower income people gives them more disposable income, with which they will purchase needed goods and services. These purchases will produce revenue and profit to those same wealthy people. They may be taxed more, but their net after tax income may be affected far less than imagined. Purchasing power drives the economy.
The very rich don't have a tax problem; they have a greed problem. They are greedy about their money and, more important, they are greedy about their power. And money is power. They do not want to share their power. They want others to be entirely dependent on their unilateral discretion on whom to hire, how much to pay them, where to manufacture, and how to address every other variable that affects how the rich manage their wealth.
Capitalism is no longer working because, with the ever increasing wealth gap, it is no longer capitalism. What we now have is neo-feudalism. The rich are the lords, and everyone else is a serf. It is more about power than money, but people give up neither easily.
21
An important step toward corporate responsibility would be board oversight of lobbying activities, which -surprisingly - very few company boards now practice. Many companies that publicly endorse environmental and social responsibility send lobbyists to state and federal capitals to seek decisions that do serious harm to their stakeholders. Board oversight would help prevent such hypocrisy.
5
I appreciate the insights of Mr. Benioff on the need to fix capitalism. Every discussion about this issue helps because all too often our politicians and media dance around symptoms without ever addressing the fundamental problem. Fundamentally, the only real way to solve the conflicts between the owners of capital and the rest of society is to take steps to ensure that everyone owns capital! If less than 1 percent of the population owns more wealth than hundreds of millions of citizens we should rewrite tax and ownership laws to create a more equitable, and sustainable, distribution of wealth. Only when the stakeholders are also shareholders will appropriate steps be taken to ensure that corporations work in the best interest of the vast majority rather than the few. Only then will incentives align. There are many changes that can help create a fairer, more rational capitalism: in addition to social security, ALL workers should have retirement plans that help them accumulate stocks so when corporate America profits they do too. Capital should be taxed more than labor, not less like today. Renters should receive tax benefits to help them eventually become homeowners, just like we currently subsidize existing owners. All children should have savings accounts to build wealth over time. I hope influencers like Mr. Benioff will do the research and advocacy necessary to bring such changes about. The alternative is to watch demagogues of all kinds lead our country to ruin.
8
The reason individuals are dis-empowered, leading to all kind of inequalities (including economic ones described in the op-ed) is the way the courts of law work.
As I learned in my own litigation aimed at making the government give critical services which they grant only to corporations, to individual authors who wish to publish their own books, "due process of the law" presumably guaranteed us by the Constitution simply does not exist: federal judges replace in their decisions parties' argument with the bogus argument of judges' own concoction, so as to decide cases the way they want to, not the way they have to. And when I sued those judges, their counter-argument was that they gave themselves, in "Pierson v. Ray," the right to act from the bench "maliciously and corruptly."
It is through that judicial chicanery that the current, government-sponsored regime of censorship and crony capitalism in book publishing survived my legal challenge.
"We the people" know well what we need and deserve -- but our "corrupt and malicious" legal system blocks any attempt to obtain justice. If that system is fixed from its current, arbitrary modus operandi to judging based on parties' argument, not on judges' ideology, the bulk of economic and educational injustices can be fixed by the people themselves through courts, without charitable interference by kind, well-meaning capitalists like Mr. Benioff -- and even against their will, if it comes to stepping on their vested interests.
3
Given current regulation and corporate governance practices, relying on the goodwill of CEOs and boards is naive at best. The current situation is a direct outcome of the rules and incentives businesses operate under. The only way to get the behavior our society needs out of corporations is through regulation and financial incentives—taxation.
9
The strength of capitalism is that it channels potentially harmful bits of human nature- greed, competitiveness, etc. into constructive pursuits. However, human nature does not change and in the absence of clear and enforceable rules of behavior capitalism devolves into what we see today, gross unsustainable inequality and exploitation of workers. The rules need to be externally administered and apply equally to all competitors (thus the need for government) otherwise the tension between competitive advantage and social justice within companies will inevitably tip towards competitive advantage. To quote another commentor’s tee shirt, “it really is that simple.”
4
If he feels this way, why does he wait for Congress to raise his taxes. He can just make out a check for whatever he feels is fair to United States Treasury. They happily take donations.
10
@H P Boyle . . well, better take the difference between what he thinks he should pay in taxes and what he actually pays and just keep getting those homeless off the streets. The government isn't going to be too good at that anyway.
1
@H P Boyle, because he doesn't. He made his money under a system designed to work for the richest. Now he is and he feels free to advocate for a system that might be better. It's called hypocrisy.
1
@H P Boyle
This is an old and discredited kind of self-defeating suggestion.
It is like being in the middle of battle, wanting peace, and someone from the other side saying "if you want peace so much, then throw down your arms." Peace has to be negotiated. So does equitable taxation.
I would not expect Benioff or any other intelligent person to give up potential leverage by acting on such a suggestion.
1
The business world and the political world are not two separate entities. Business leaders have an enormous influence on political leaders, and so far that influence has led to more favorable outcomes for businesses than for workers. When enough business leaders use more of their influence to install more politicians in office dedicated to reducing inequality, creating more fairness for workers, reducing environmental hazards, and showing more concern for the needy, capitalism will do just fine and America will become a stronger, more admirable society.
5
@William . . . in theory, I agree with you, but what we need is less money in politics, not more. If more money gets into politics, then those with the most money get to decide what kind of government we have. What if the more money people decide oligarchy is the better way? Much as I'd like to agree, money in politics is why we have such a mess in our government today, national, state-wide and local.
3
My response is a bit complicated. First Socialism and Capitalism are not contradictory.
Re: Socialism. Human are unavoidably (as intrinsically) Social animals. Yah competition is relevant but in a society (a thing denied existence by GOP) the survival of the group is paramount. Individuals all die. Only the group might repeat MIGHT survive. The survival of billionaires soon trillionaires, at the expense of all others is insanity
But capitalism is not intrinsically the problem. Indeed what is needed is a robust capitalism. One treating all capital. Current CAP recognizes just one kind—ordinary Business CAP. And there exists a whole tax code w laws to preserve capital using depreciation and other tools.
Yet It ignores almost completely Natural CAP (the ecosystem onwhich all depends), Human CAP the very reason an economy exists, and not least the Social CAP by which modern individuals arise to be transformed over time into competent adults to choose their own destiny, not just mere workers and consumers to enrich just 26 families world wide.
Certainly we occasionally recognize some of these OTHER CAP forms. But OCCASIONALLY doesn’t cut it. Ad hoc measly funding from taxes and only when some “crisis” arises is the basis of policy. Neither Federaf nor States see any need to support the whole. And of course the VOICE of the super rich is the only voice heard in Congress or any Statehouse.
All other CAP forms must explicitly receive the funds to replace themselves. Or else
Keep your philanthropy and your musing about "the culture of corporate America".
What needs to happen is an assertion of the public good, in the form of taxation, regulation and criminal penalties for anti-social acts.
11
@jrd Must be a difference of schooling, but that is very much what the author was talking about, how corporations need to step up and be responsible people too.
He was about Changing the present BAD culture of Corporatism, and showing that massive change is needing to happen. I think you just saw a CEO writing and decided Corporate Culture and did not take in what the author was saying.
Try reading it again, all the way through.
3
@B. Honest
Society does not have the leisure to wait for corporations "to step up and be responsible people too." That's folly, and we've had quite enough of it.
Corporations respond to deterrents just like you and I. And deterrents, not culture, is what's needed. The revolution will not be voluntary.
5
@jrd That is one point, another way to look at is is that at least SOME of them are waking up and smelling the coffee.
Not all players are bad actors, but those that are have made it to where even the good guys have to play the game the way the bad ones set it up.
There is an OBVIOUS need for massive changes in the way we regulate, and 'Free Trade' never ever meant 'without regulation', it meant, in particular, the right to buy and sell to and from anyone, and to set one's own prices as per need.
But the whole system of taxation has been heavily sat on by the over wealthy, and there needs to be some way to trim that back, but not hurt the economy at large in doing.
Adding money to the system from the bottom would do the trick, get more people spending more or, gasp, actually paying off old bills, and then we will have a REAL economic recovery instead of the flatline that we got with Repubs controlling Congress for too long.
I am not blind, but it is very much heartening to see some of these corporate players acknowledge that they are being forced to play in unfair ways, and that everybody would benefit from a major change in how Corporations are used, taxed and allowed to do business in the USA, or any of it's States or Territories.
It would take some mass changes in how world banking is done too, but that is an argument for another day.
We need to lose the WORD capitalism.
The opposite of capitalism is not socialism*.
The Opposite of Free Markets is Fair Markets.
The word "Capitalism" is a rhetorical slight of hand.
Capital is land, buildings, machinery,
and the financial instruments used to buy them. Capital is less than 30% of the market. 80% of capital is owned by the richest 10% of the country. And just because you own stock doesn't mean that you influence decision making. The majority shareholders, the board and the CEO control decision making. And, they own controlling shares in all mass news sources.
They use their corporate (not "liberal") media to convince We the People that Our Public Servants should spend U.S. resources subsidizing their capital, with ever lower taxes, direct subsidies, and regulations that help global corporations over small business.
The opposite of Capitalism is fair markets, intelligently regulated by Our democratic, Constitutional Republic to create an equal playing field for all players. Government is supposed to make things fair, not corporate feudalism, where the productivity of the many flows to the few.
*Read Marx! Socialism is not a plan. Socialism is an economic critique of capitalism, and a prediction that repeated "Crisis of Capitalism" would lead workers to organize against their employers to exact political and economic concessions (verified by history: unions, the end of child labor, the forty hour week, weekends, workplace safety regulations, etc.).
10
Great. All you have to do is convince conservatives to govern based capitalization of the greater good that increased access can do, instead of based on fear of an imagined minority that will take advantage. And good luck by the way, because conservatism has always been government based on paranoia.
1
While welcome and laudable, asking Corporate America to unilaterally undo it's sole raison d'etre and reinvent itself towards more morally responsible objectives is akin to asking a disease to ease up on its worst symptoms. Democracy is the legit answer to corporate excess. Democracy must be reclaimed by the people, of the people and most importantly for the people. In the US today democracy is diminished to the point of extinction. One horror show after the next in terms of income inequality, moral access to healthcare, guns, student debt, police murder of minorities fails to generate any response to equates to the actual will of the American people on these issues. Democracy has been corrupted for decades and unless it is restored the extreme immorality of contemporary USA will not be much ameliorated by a few more benign corporations.
4
@Davor Yes, we must reclaim our government, so I hope you are doing something about it!! A minority dominates the majority in this country and we should be out in the streets about it.
Well said Mark. Hard-edged Capitalism itself cannot really sustain itself in the presence of severe inequality. It usually results in a bloody revolution, as history repeatedly reminds us. For all its claim to be special, the US is as vulnerable to the laws of economics and politics as any other country. It is important for its long-term well-being (as well as that of the world) that the US takes the steps along the lines you have suggested. It is overdue.
1
A few suggestions along the lines of Marc Benioff's article:
1. Re "transperancy"of businesses: Not only should "public companies" need to publish honest accounting, but also "private companies", and accounting should not permit a lot of fudging.
2. Private and common stock companies exist in a state that provides for laws that allows companies to function. In return for a state providing this legal framework, companies are expected to comply with contracts, not steal or "bully" competitors, treat all people equally, follow laws, and pay taxes. At present, some companies apparently are more interested in profit than in reliable and legal conduct of business.
3. Land prices may be a different matter than companies and buying. selling, or innovating products. I'm not sure how "windfalls" from rising prices of houses and land for housing should be controlled, but I suggest that profiting greatly from rising prices is leading to rendering housing "unaffordable" in economically-successful cities.
4. How should foreign trade impact employment and income? Most nations need to trade to obtain products or resources they cannot produce for themselves. To obtain these, nations must export products or services they can supply--at a good price. But should this mean that many jobs are lost simply because people elsewhere will work for less?
Andrew Biemiller
2
The whole point of capitalism is to take surplus value from the workers and transfer it to the bourgeoisie. You might occasionally get a "nice" CEO, who takes care of the workers and distributes a bit of capital around, I mean Engels owned factories, but it will never fundamentally change anything. Real distribution of capital will only happen when the workers take it for themselves.
7
@Jeff M An argument can be made that capitalism has converted more workers into bourgeoisie (fully and/or partially) than feudalism or socialism. And has brought technology (for better and worse [anybody have an issue with, say, dentistry?] ). The problems with capitalism are: 1) insufficient laws or enforcement of laws (against polluting, fraud, oligopoly, etc, etc) 2) lack of transparency 3) corruption. But these are problems endemic to individual humans, and to government, as well as to corporations.
1
@Jeff,
Completely correct.
But working people in America have been convinced by propaganda that they haven’t the competence or the right to run things for themselves
3
I wonder if LouisXVI and Marie Antoinette made similar appeals. Bargaining is so Five Stages territory. A fitting place for a member of the Vulture Class. Great work on the homeless problem, when can I expect my slot at the Poor Farm to open up?
5
So, if businesses feel " that is the work of governments" , then first STAY AWAY FROM INFLUENCING THE GOVERNMENT!
Secondly, corporations should acknowledge that the right to incorporate rests in the government ( ie it is not a natural right).
And finally acknowledge that when a government protects your intellectual property, creates routes for delivering of goods, provides tax incentives, and allows lobbyists to influence government purchases, that is not a free market, that is a rigged market.
Today's "capitalists" believe that a free market is simply to continue to take advantage of the rules provided to markets that they have become used their influence to create.
10
What it will take to change is a change in values in American culture. Too often, wealth is equated with ability or skill. Thus Trump got a reputation as a successful businessman and no one questioned Romney's making millions while driving companies into bankruptcy.
Until the content of someone's character matters more than their bank account, capitalism and America will be in trouble.
8
Mike Pence’s dismissal of corporations trying to do good as some sort of leftist policy is (as usual) a knee jerk reaction to helping anyone, but in reality, if heeded, will result in what conservatives hate most; higher taxes and more regulations.
Businesses should realize that either they voluntarily take care of their workers, the environment and the society in which they operate, or eventually Government will have to act to feed, house and care for the masses of working poor become big to ignore. Those actions will be far less palatable than just doing the right thing in the first place
1
@Mark Marks WalMart got massive after old Walter died and his kids ditched the Made in America backing and went all out towards the cheapest price they could force, and the lowest price they could still profit at, and made all their employees get Govt Bennies just to survive, let alone move ahead, and there is no real 'upwards' in that company: Wage slave, managers and owners only exist there.
THIS is what We, The People, call bad business, run out all the smaller jobs and replace with an inferior product and wage setup just because they do the big box all under one roof thing.
Should make them pay for each section as a separate business, Electronics, Food, Clothing...those all used to be separate stores, now, you are stuck with Bog Box or Nothing, unless you are lucky enough to be in an area too small for WM to come in.
We need businesses that take responsibility for their own self, fulfill their employees needs and for their locale, they have to become part of the community, or else they are just another parasite on America's Dime.
1
Do it now on your own or we will elect leaders who will force you to focus on workers and other stakeholders. One way or another, the “greed is good” era is over.
13
FTA: The Council of Institutional Investors argued that “it is government, not companies, that should shoulder the responsibility of defining and addressing societal objectives.”
If you are going to have this approach, you cannot make shrinking the government and rolling back regulations a positive good. Either businesses take up this responsibility or government does, and that can't be a minimal government.
8
Yes. And more.... philanthropic and advocacy activities of the super wealthy usually ultimately serve to protect and further their interests and cement the status quo of the rich get richer, even as they do "virtuous" things like helping fix public education and addressing homelessness. They might want to consider using their power to undermine the very system that protects their power and perpetuates the economic divide from which they benefit. “For when elites assume leadership of social change, they are able to reshape what social change is — above all, to present it as something that should never threaten winners,” writes Anand Giridharadas. They should learn to use their influence to threaten their own winner-takes-all status.
5
“To my fellow business leaders and billionaires, I say that we can no longer wash our hands of our responsibility or what people do with our products.”
So, you admit it, then? Guilty, as charged.
This is an acknowledgment that would be well worth Mark Zuckerberg to take to heart.
8
@JH That was my first thought: Hmm, Mebbe Bezos and Zuckie could learn something from articles like this.
My first thought is “good for you”, my second is “ who do you think you’re kidding”? Corporate society has literally bought the Government. Did you take your tax cut? Or did you give the old amount? You pay tax lawyers to minimize your taxes, this is NOT wrong, this is what smart people do. I applaud you standing up, but only through the power of law will things change, and there’s an Army of lobbyists, campaign contributors, and paid-for congressmen who profit from the current Dog eat dog Capitalism, which could be called Social Darwinism, and people are an impediment to profit, and must be kept down and replaced as quickly as possible. I could go on and on. YES, you’re right! But who’s going to put the bell on the cat? A touch( or two handfuls) of Democratic Socialism would be great for the US. Our governing political party rules the executive branch, the Supreme Court, and the Senate. They’ve even convinced the ones they’ve impoverished that they’re on THEIR side
19
One of the ironies in reforming Capitalism, is to make sure we have a stronger and more intelligent government. That begins not only as the author suggests, in corporate board rooms, but in the ballot box. The quote by Mike Pence is a case in point.
5
Bad capitalism is the root cause of many of our problems today.
And yet, good capitalism - not more or better government - is the solution we desperately need.
Mr. Benioff: what if you were to start new kinds of virtue-based companies that ONLY paid their returns forward (instead of back to shareholders)? These virtuous companies will have three simple rules: 1) share 45% of profits with employees, 2) donate 10% to noble causes that employees self-nominate, and 3) pay the balance (45%) forward into a virtues-based investment fund to start even more companies that follow these rules.
A powerful, compound-growth chain reaction will follow that will steadily make the world a better place over time. How?
These new virtues=based businesses will generally be more competitive. So they'll grow and out-compete low-road capitalism kinds of companies in their specific industry.
They'll further start new copies of themselves in new and different industries through the 45% fund-reinvestment mechanism.
As this new capitalism grows overall, the 10% allocation to noble causes will help solve the intractable problems governments fail to solve today. That's because decentralized intelligence is so much more powerful than centralized intelligence. In my home state of Arizona, 10% of profits ($100M+) invested in renewables since 2000 would have easily solved the state's contribution to climate change by 2015. No government action needed.
Think about it.
3
Greed control is like gun control: we can't rely on people's goodness. Society needs to come to the conclusion that greed and guns are bad, and that neither should be allowed. Of course, we can't prevent people from being greedy or wanting guns. We can, however, prevent people from getting guns and from indulging their greed.
We do not need billionaires, or armed militias. Democracy cannot tolerate the existence of billionaires or armed militias.
7
Adding socialized medicine to the long list of things already socialized in this country would make a huge difference. There are at least 70, why not 71? Between that and affordable college education, capitalism as it exists now would be almost tolerable. CEO’s starting to care about the impact of their company on people other than the shareholders, is not going to happen. Governments job is to mitigate runaway greed, because although the greedy assure us they will police themselves, they won’t.
3
It won’t change because the greedy people at the top decide to play nice.
Change in a democracy requires that enough voters vote and push candidates to act appropriately and wisely.
Our voters have in large numbers shut off their minds and vote on the basis of labels and teams, rather than their informed self-interest, and as a consequence, we find ourselves living in a Dumbocracy.
In a dumbocracy, it’s every (wo)man for her/him self.
Not pretty.
6
Mark Benioff should openly support Elizabeth Warren for president.Warren does not accept PAC money but Mr Benioff can spend his money in any way he wants and still back candidate Warren.As for Medicare for all, business leaders should embrace that with open arms as it frees them to concentrate on what they do and not be in the health care business that they know nothing about
19
Almost half a century ago, The New York Times's op-ed page featured a piece by Milton Friedman titled "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits." It ran on Sunday, September 13th, 1970 on p 13 of the SM section.
"Stockholders aren't everything, they're the only thing" is how football coaches Red Saunders and Vince Lombardi might have explained Friedman's idea. His single-stakeholder approach to business was invented recently, not handed down to us as eternal law.
Mr. Benioff, your piece today, and indeed the recent Business Roundtable efforts, are your efforts to rethink that so-called Friedman Doctrine. Thanks for beginning the hard work of broadening your business's base of stakeholders. Good on you!
With respect, I challenge you to do more. Your principle of one percent to charity is a great start. But, why not make it five or ten percent? Why not give your employees a couple of days a month to do community-focused work? Why not add community-oriented success stories and howto sessions to Dreamforce and the other conferences you run?
Why not offer sabbaticals to your employees to do intensive work with stakeholders other than your shareholders?
The Ghost of Friedman Past will haunt our economy for years to come. But recognizing and challenging the ghost takes away its power.
9
The only way to change or make Capitalism work is to restore the power of government globally to make rules and tax policy that everyone must follow. Salesforce is an aberration not the norm of businesses. They would be profitable no matter what. Other businesses would go broke if they’re competitors did not follow the same rules, Wall Street would would kill them. We need you rich guys to start promoting and marketing the notion of good government to counter the 40 years of government is evil propaganda. Good government means separation from the influence of business lobbies that only care about their profits. We can’t let the false debate of the extreme right and left determine our future because either one will lead us to destruction. Capitalism is just a system that needs to governed but without good governance it becomes evil. We learned that in the 1930s and Roosevelt saved us from both the extreme right and the extremely left.
8
There will always be business leaders who share the wealth and those who don’t. Equality comes from government mandated rules to insure fairness. In the last decades our government has failed us. Increase the minimum wage, mandate healthcare, mandate pensions. Then let the private sector figure out make it profitable. We’re the richest country in the world.
It’s always amazed me that anytime a CEO’s or there staffs salary and benefits are reviewed the answer comes back they aren’t paid enough, but when a worker’s cost is reviewed...(well you know the rest).
5
stakeholder, not shareholder .. mandate equal representation on corporate boards by capital, labor, customers and community
4
I have an additional concern for the capitalistic model. Will it work without an expanding population? We read that Japan is in a doldrums because it's population is static. We are also told that we need net immigration because without it we are not at replacement rates. Global warming is directly correlated with overpopulation. Obviously more people burn more carbon. If capitalism will not work with a static or even declining population, it needs some major retooling.
3
@TH I've often thought the same thing. Economic theory seems to be centered around how best to maintain continuous growth, which implies a constantly expanding population. And, while immigration has so far enabled the U.S. to stave off the stagnation Japan's economy has suffered, I can't help but think the last thing the world needs is more Americans. We consume and waste more per capita than any other country. And, although we may have been surpassed by China at this point (I'm not certain), we are/were the largest polluters also.
It seems economists and the governments they advise should focus on what a sustainable and stable economy would look like, and not one that relies on constant growth, with its inevitable boom-and-bust roller coaster ride.
3
Refreshing comments from a CEO. I suspect that a good portion of Salesforce’s success comes from the positive effects their stakeholder approach has on employees. If you feel good about the company you work for, you are probably better at your job. Old line companies are stuck with cultures that are shareholder focused and extremely hard to change. The future lies with new companies like Salesforce that can start with the right culture from the get go.
5
Capitalism is as vicious as evolution.The weak die out, the strong survive. But along the evolutionary way some creatures, humans among them, have selected for a "social" gene. We carry the weak close to us and trust they will carry us when they are again strong.
Corporations could amplify their social gene expression. Pay a wage that a family can live on, not the minimum the market will allow. Yes it will hit profits and whack the stock price but it will build a healthy community and probably a healthy company too.
3
We've heard this song before. Another variation of "corporations can regulate themselves." I'm not buying it. You can't trust businesses to provide socially beneficial outcomes on their own terms. It can happen but assuming it will happen is a gross misjudgment. A corporation is not a solution to public economics no matter how well intentioned the executives.
Marc Benioff does provide one good suggestion though: Taxing corporate equity. Not the piddling one percent he mentions though. I'm thinking something like 30 percent. Maybe more. We should tax non-corporate equity while we're at it. The richest on 1 percent hold nearly 60 percent of their wealth in non-corporate equity. Partnerships, real estate, and so on. Tax the whole pile. The government can sort out what to do with the revenue.
Taxing only the top 10 percent of households on non-corporate equity alone would yield $3.5 trillion. That's a decent slush fund for any public program. Congress, if you're listening, you have the power to act.
22
@Andy, I don't think he's saying they could/will regulate themselves—he's saying corporations shouldn't wait for government to step up and do the right thing (regulate).
I have a great way to fix inequality. It’s called a labor union.
53
It would be nice if capitalism, and in fact anything we do, was done as though humans might be here in 10 years or so and need a place to live. From the environment to the economy to food production to population growth to small things like waste production and plastics we do everything as though tomorrow will take care of it self. For example, biggest reductions in co2 emissions happen during the inevitable busts that follow our booms not from permanent lifestyle changes. Then we're back to killing the planet as soon as the money starts flowing. This was ok as long as the number of humans was small enough that our insanity didn't threaten the entire planet. That is no longer the case. Every inch of the earth is now in danger from 7.8 billion humans and their all encompassing economy. Oh yeah, no way should anybody accumulate the kind of wealth and power the new .1% have. That gives us a country that looks more like Russia or a banana republic than what used to be the US, tax 'em- a lot.
4
A super simple solution: let the people become a coherent body, let them learn how to make their government one that is of, by and for the people. Stop destroying democracy to pursue your greed. Just get your trillions of dollars out of the power equation and let the people learn to do the rest.
2
We've all lived this movie before, just look at the business history of 19th-20th Century America. Frequent corruption, environmental pollution, financial impropriety and labor abuse were, and are, the signature of powerful corporations and Wall Street players. Why should we ever expect government alone to make the correct policies, when political campaign funding pulls all the strings? And, Mike Pence is their poster child.
4
I was prepared to be cynical until Benioff called for higher taxes. While a new value system that puts people over profits is desirable, ultimately that value system is meaningful only of it acknowledges that in a nation and economy as large and complex as ours, putting people ahead of profits requires a strong federal government that can regulate appropriately and redistribute wealth from those who have lots of it to those who have little. Supporting the government—both in its regulatory and its redistributive functions—is the real way to put people over profits.
I commend Benioff for calling for higher taxes on the wealthy. By doing that he puts substance behind his words.
5
Yes, we DO need a new capitalism. It's called Democratic Socialism.
20
"The culture of corporate America needs to change, and it shouldn’t take an act of Congress to do it."
Most politicians go with the wind, so it is up to the people who make the wind to step up. In the end, they are really saving themselves. The status quo will not hold.
Franklin Roosevelt was denounced by many as a socialist, but he saved American capitalism from killing itself. American capitalism is on another suicide run, and this time a liveable planet is at stake as well.
18
@Ralph Averill I read an interesting article recently that posited that it was in fact world war 2 and all the govt spending required that really pushed fdr’s policies of the 30’s to be seen as successes after the fact. And it was all that war spending that really led to the glory days of post ww2 prosperity. I say this as very much in favor of dem soc policies. But it’s an interesting thought that there were other contributing factors to coming out of the depression than just those policies. (Ie., perhaps the most extreme case of turning lemons into lemonade in history).
The idea that you can strong-arm corporate leaders to be moral seems naive in the extreme. Inequality is not a bug, but a feature of capitalism. If you're going to have all the benefits of capitalism - some of which are noted here - then you just have to learn to live with the inequality. Inequality per se is not a problem as long as those at the bottom have a enough to live decent lives.
1
@J Whew, inequality at the bottom has sounds like a rough place. Some probably choose it but inequality in itself should not exist in an unbalanced form.
Statements that certain roles are for the government are statements admitting we are denying our responsibilities to each other.
Gross financial inequality is being displayed in this country in ways not seen before.
Can we justify this when people are starving anywhere in the world?
Do we allow our own brothers and sisters to struggle without hope?
Here’s the big one: where and when does it stop?
1
@J
"Inequality per se is not a problem as long as those at the bottom have a enough to live decent lives."
I suggest you define what is a "decent life" for yourself and apply that same standard to the people around you.
And I suggest you enlarge your social circle.
1
Thank you for this opinion piece, buying Time magazine, donations to the hospitals in San Francisco and Oakland, and for your leadership, vision and creativity to help make the world a better place -- and not just make money. You and I once had a coffee many years ago, and it's been a wonderful surprise to see all the things you've done. Hoping you inspire many more in the Bay Area and beyond to do likewise.
2
The US economy as currently configured is very largely driven by the consumer.So therefore the larger the consumer pool gets, the larger the economy becomes.
Major segments of that current consumer market are now under severe financial stress.
This is in part due to the creation of student loan schemes by the financial sector, those loans later have become a ball and chain around that person’s neck.( Education should lead to creating plenty, not depravity and huge financial oblIgations).
In the past 40 years the US capitalistic system has made enormous gains; but while doing so it has been very disingenuous to the worker. There has been phenomenal increases in productivity, those increases were not passed on to the worker.
In a sense that is an example of Barbaric Capitalism at work; what we need to practice is Enlightened Capitalism.
We should all be much better as a result.
3
I knew it was coming. Had to get all the way top the bottom of the article to find it......."That is why a new capitalism must also include a tax system that generates the resources we need and includes higher taxes on the wealthiest among us."
Other countries have tried this, a wealth tax, and abandoned it. Why? Well as it turns out, wealthy folks are pretty resourceful people. They just move their capital elsewhere, to a more tax friendly environment. And how can they do that? Technology - which is the very reason why we have such "inequality" in the first place. Technology gutted numerous industries, displacing millions from jobs that were around for a hundred years. We've already seen what happens when corporate tax levels are too high here in the US. Companies simply did an inversion, merged with a European partner, and voila!, their headquarters are now in Ireland, paying a 13% tax rate, while still doing business here in the US, albeit, minus a whole bunch of jobs at the headquarters, or as it happened to me, overlapping jobs with the merged company are eliminated. Thats why inequality became so pronounced during the Obama years, and we had stagnant growth with burger flipping job creation. No, Obama didnt do it, but he allowed the corporate tax rate to remain stubbornly high. Want to incentivise business? The govt needs to keep tax rates low, or else, the hurdle becomes too high to invest and make a profit. Then those investments arent made. That means - no jobs.
2
@Sports Medicine
Respectfully, sir, your arguments does not hold because your key reason, that Ireland has 13 percent tax rates thereby providing incentive for corporations to fee to Ireland, ignores the many elephants in the room:
At 330 billion, Ireland economy is 0.01 percent, if that, of the EU (18.8 trillion dollars), and US (19 trillion dollars plus). The CA Economy alone is over ten times that of Ireland. So if EU and US adopts the tax rates this author recommends, surely you do not think that the vast capitalist corporate base of the West will relocate to tiny Ireland, that one tenth of one percent of US/EU?
Respectfully, your is the standard conservative argument, but conservatives fail to take the next step and show us where will all these corporations go if and when the largest economic blocks on earth with the greatest pool of capital, technology, managerial talent, and high quality human capital are all adopt enlightened 'stakeholders' perspective (shareholders, employees, consumers, the community that sustains the shareholders and their employees), and yes higher tax rate. Will they go to North Korea, Afghanistan, the Mars? Or will little Ireland absorb it all? Can they all take a risk and move to totalitarian states like China, still a developing country with 8K GDP/per capita.
Respectfully, there is no empirical rigor to such arguments, just standard conservative talking points.
Most investments are in the secondary securities market, and produce no jobs.
On the contrary, they are just a change of ownership, and their purpose is to continue to exploit the labor of working people for profit.
@Sports Medicine
"We've already seen what happens when corporate tax levels are too high"
I think you've done a great job tracing the ways money flows to the most advantageous shelters. You're not alone.
You've also pointed out the damage being done to levels of employment.
There's no long-term profit to be made in a polluted landscape, occupied by a society of poorly paid, sickly, ignorant people.
Laws and government oversight are formed when people can't govern themselves and engage in destructive activities that threaten the greater population.
If you're concerned about a free, lightly regulated economy and you're in a position to control your business, make your choice. And live with the consequences.
Stirring rhetoric, but it is interesting to note that Salesforce did not pay corporate taxes in 2018 due to the use of tax credits. Our tax system is filled with loopholes created by the power of money and lobbying. No, Mr. Benioff, capitalism is not broken but our tax and political systems are in need of repair.
10
Trying to make capitalism lovely! Is it possible? Socialism didn't last long. How can you make capitalists more socially responsible when those who seek to be capitalists are motivated mostly by greed and cannot be convinced by moral or ethical arguments? Under socialism the rulers quickly sought their own greedy goals more than the goals of their people.
1
The so called failure of capitalism can as with most societal ills be laid squarely at the
clay feet of Washington politicians.As the cost of running elections has increased so
has the need for more and more campaign financing.Enter the lobbyists and think tanks
who pitch their views to Washington and are allowed to help write the laws that allow
unfettered capitalism to thrive unchecked,so called crony capitalism is the order of the
day where politicians based on funds received help pick the winners and losers of today.
Winners big business losers working people following the out migration of manufacturing
to China.
How wrong you are. This so called inequality is largely caused by the stock market. An example, two kids in a garage come up with a great algorithm. They develop it, market it, IPO it, create hundreds, perhaps thousands of new millionaires from their original staff, investors. All of a sudden there is greater inequality created in America? Yes, mathematically, but c’mon. Hey anyone with 401K, mutual funds will become wealthier than those who don’t when stock markets rise. So? I just don’t get it, what are you trying to say, that no one should own stocks, that we should give equal amount of stocks to everyone, that the stock markets should be banned? What we need are level playing fields, the true basis of capitalism. Your analysis is a bit annoying and very simplistic.
5
Marc - not sure whether this piece was driven by some bad PR advice, or you thought writing this would grant you forgiveness for the sin of being rich. On the contrary, they come for the ones like you first, since no one respects someone lacking self-respect
Better to count your blessings, be philanthropic, and advocate for the system that allowed you to succeed, and push against regulation that cements the positions of huge businesses and inhibits the ascension of companies like yours.
3
Our salvation as a nation does not rest in altruistic corporations. It rests in their loss of control over every aspect of American life.
10
I look at Trump and all the people he has surrounded himself with and despair over the fact that there are many more crass, corrupt, and self-serving people in this world who will do anything to get to the top than I had imagined -- more than Benioff seems to have imagined.
The idea that corporations take the lead in reforming themselves seems to me, while admirable, incredibly naive. It would be like asking organized crime families to take the lead in bringing about a nicer, less violent, and more caring world. Sure, the behavior those "families" display is criminal, and the way corporations act isn't, but maybe we should stop to consider if it may be -- just to a lesser degree.. Theft and slavery are criminal, and we have enacted laws against them. So why do we balk at regulating interest rates and guaranteeing a living wage, when, in fact, usurious interest can be seen as theft, and low wages akin to a kind of slavery?
What is government for if not "defining and addressing societal objectives," as the Council of Institutional Investors puts it? We cannot rely on a thousand points of light when the rich and powerful will do whatever they can to fight for a status quo that keeps the millions of downtrodden down. Government needs to take the lead.
Yes, we do need a new capitalism. And in order to get one, we need a government that recognizes the system's inherent flaws and puts in place regulations and taxes to overcome them.
8
I would be curious to know Mr. Benioff’s position on labor unions. It seems that his peers in the tech industry treat the subject as akin to the plague.
Unions played a big role in creating a middle class in America that worked for decades until republicans broke most of them.
We can’t rely on corporate benevolence and philanthropy alone won’t solve enough wrought by greed despite Mr. Benioff’s well intentioned efforts.
Men and women earning wages must be protected from the excesses of capitalism. Mr. Benioff’s call for fairer taxation is excellent. The formation of unions in places like Silicon Valley would be a major step in aiding workers to earn a decent living.
14
Yeah, right, good luck with this. While you and one or two other very rich people may be concerned about the rest of us, most of the very wealthy are only concerned with getting more wealth and more power for themselves. And you know it. The only way economic inequality is going to be cured is by fixing the tax structure so that it is harder for wealth to be handed down to the next generation of the wealthy (not easier, the way we've been doing it). But of course, that would require "the people" taking over the government from "the wealthy and the corporations." I'm not optimistic. I'm glad I'm old and came through school in the 1950s, when my father the steelworker and my mother the grocery store clerk were able to see I got a decent public education at a cost they could afford, and I got a decent economic life out of it.
12
Where is equality? Is being rich the motivation of Americans? I think it is, and whether others are left behind means little.
Funny that a multi-millionaire or billionaire is lecturing on overconcentration of wealth. The poor vote for the rich and hope for help, crumbs, trickle-on-economics.
No, we need a democratic-socialism much like the countries with the best quality-of-life and standard-of-living for 'all' their citizens. That would be becoming more like Norway, Sweden, Findland, Germany, etc. So many countries less corrupt than ours; ours corrupted by the rich themselves, and their lawyers, lobbyists, media, 'think tanks', politicians, judges, 'roundtables and boards of directors and chambers of commerce', etc.
No, we 'the People' can do better, but the 'more perfect Union' will come at the price of riches. Let's not live to be rich, let's live to be part of a good and decent, loving and compassionate, enlightened community. Someday.
20
Utter nonsense. Democratically elected governments can and should make decisions affecting public welfare, not CEOs or corporate boards of directors. So Salesforce devotes 1% of profits to charity. A nice gesture, but in global context it's next to nothing. And to combat climate change, we need strong and effective action by governments, not a hodge-podge of indivisual initiatives. The laws of economics have not changed, corporations do their best by maximizing shareholder value. And government does its best when it properly regulates the marketplace and addresses social problems.
41
@Mark Nuckols CEOs and Boards are already making those decisions by owning the electoral process. His point was that if other organizations mirrored what he has done at Salesforce, it wouldn't be "next to nothing" in a global context.
1
Bravo, bravo Mr. Benioff. You propose that the SEC require public companies to emphasize their stakeholders. What would you do about the increasingly large sector of our economy,including Cargill, Koch Industries, and Bechtel, that is in private companies?
3
I joined the Salesforce ecosystem by becoming a full-time administrator/business analyst/solution architect this year, in no small part because of the values Benioff espouses and puts into practice. But my trust in Benioff and Salesforce have eroded considerably this year.
Before I started at my company, it hired a consulting firm to set up Salesforce. When the system was ready to launch, the company bought 20 licenses on a three-year contract. Unfortunately the consultants set up a poorly thought through system that failed spectacularly, so the licenses have gone unused as I was recruited and hired and as I work to set up a functional system. Salesforce knows this story, and will not allow us to reduce the number of licenses we pay for in this period. Consequently, my small company is paying $40,000 a year for licenses we cannot use.
It seems to me that a corporation making billions of dollars of annual profit could demonstrate its care for stakeholders by being flexible in situations like these. A blanket policy of disallowing license reductions on three-year contracts benefits Benioff by harming stakeholders.
5
What about simply paying people more for their labor?
The service industry, for example, provides many Americans with work.. but those Americans are paid abysmally low wages for their hard work, forcing many to take 2nd or 3rd jobs to make ends meet, while leaving them no time for family nor any recreation, and providing no health care benefits.
These same workers have enriched business owners... how is this fair?
Teaching positions can start at an annual income of $23,000-$25,000 per year. With rents so high, how is someone supposed to live on that low salary, even as a single person, let alone with children and family?
Pay a living wage that allows people to live, and to live with dignity.
60
@Ellen
That’s not the endgame of capitalism, but exploiting someone’s labor is. While ownership would like us to buy more stuff to increase their profits, they already made it clear over my young lifetime that having you rack up debt is what they want, not higher wages.
4
@Ellen I have an engineering degree and my first job paid $45k in NYC. I don't get it. What's the point of studying STEM then?
2
Stripped to its core, your argument is the same one that those on the left have always made—take money from the haves and use it to pay for the litany of left wing causes you lay out in the essay. The problem is the same one other countries experimenting with this approach—call it socialism light or whatever else you want, is that it never works. Ultimately government—the least competent of human organizations, takes over and drives the economy into a deep whole. Every time. And the young you speak of who reject capitalism only do so until they leave college and start earning a real living (not the PhD educated baristas and such). I do agree that Capitalists are often their own worst enemies and that they should do more good with their wealth. But your answer, e.g., government taking more tax dollars and spend them on a failing public education system as opposed to letting those who earned the money creating Foundations to help fund various kinds of private schools, is not a good one and would be ultimately destructive.
7
@ehillesum
Bravo. Glad to see there are still folks out there who recognize this for what it is.
Hopefully there are enough of us left that come out on election day and Keep America Great.
3
@ehillesum "...call it socialism light or whatever else you want, is that it never works" and government being "the least competent of human organizations." are examples of the thinking that have so entrenched our downward spiral as a functioning society. "Never works" and "least competent" reveals a stricture of thought that diminishes compromise - the true essential of democratic politics.
4
“Socialism never works”?
Out of many hundreds of nations how many have had a true socialist economy? A dozen at most.
And from this you generate a universal axiom?
Late-stage capitalism is behaving exactly as predicted, degenerating towards neo-fascism and barbarism.
The majority of the people deserve better. If we’re going to save each other, and the planet itself, we had better find a way to make socialism work.
Capitalism is phenomenally good at allocating resources in response to current and anticipated future demands. But it's a terrible way to foster a just and happy society.
It would be nice if corporations considered benefits to stakeholders and the environment on their bottom lines, but that's not structurally possible.
Possible are laws that promote transparency in the funding of elections, plus progressively hefty income and inheritance taxes. Those laws won't come from businesses, they'll come from people voting for honest representatives.
Also possible is establishing a set of metrics on how well we are honoring our founding principles:
Gross National Equality
Gross National Life
Gross National Liberty
Gross National Happiness
We are what we measure.
America doesn't need to abandon capitalism and corporations don't need to be admonished to do good (since when did lecturing and hectoring change anyone's behavior?). We need to honor the founding principals of this country with laws and policies: that's the job of our elected representatives.
Job 1 for true Americans is to get a new president who embraces the principles that made America great.
3
Thank you Mr. Benioff. We need more voices and companies like yours.
One counter argument — expressed widely in response to the Business Roundtable all-stakeholder commitment — is that such commitments are unnecessary because it's already the case. They argue that currently, corporations don't thrive unless they serve all stakeholders. It's an automatic, organic feature of capitalism.
Unfortunately that's not true. Corporations have become very adept at stealthily chipping away at product quality and employee compensation (and/or squashing/acquiring their competition). I suspect that, in many corporations, top executives unable to squeeze more profit by such means are soon out of job.
4
For 20 years I’ve watched Salesforce put its money where it’s values are and it works. The 1 percent strategy is really smart. Certainly 1 percent of any corporation’s profits isn’t enough to change the world. But when you get critical mass because lots of companies do this, you can see wonderful things happen. Better still, such donations happen at the grass roots exactly where they are needed most and they produce a multiplier effect. We’re already at a transition point. The old Milton Friedman idea of a corporation as a money making machine is already passe. Corporations are moving in this direction today.
2
The current infatuation with reforming capitalism needs to move beyond its preoccupation with how businesses can solve social problems to acknowledging that government is still essential -- and needs increased tax revenues from the rich to make it happen.
I'll take the Business Roundtable a lot more seriously when it starts proposing a return to a genuinely progressive tax structure as part of its reforms, with an emphasis on the super-rich.
Until then, it's simply low-cal virtue signaling.
24
@Michael
Thank you!
2
One point of contention Marc, the past 3 decades have given rise to primarily benefit the upper Executive suite with the stock option scheme that diluted the shareholder equation. The scheme was created to unlock corporate value and attract management talent while keeping wage base and benefit levels at lower cost. It was hardly a time that benefited the "general" shareholder as the coffers were unfairly dilluted.
4
@rford Precisely the reason that Elizabeth Warren says no one _earns_ $15 million a year -- they steal it.
Stocks rise when companies outsource, lay-off and buy back stock. The savings go right to shareholders as these companies aren’t using them to expand. Therefore those actions should be heavily taxed and regulated.
All income should be taxed as ordinary income subject to all payroll taxes. No one deserves a lower rate than the one that workers pay.
15
I know Marc Benioff sufficiently to know that his intention here is more than simply admirable. I have also personally witnessed the impact of his commitment to philanthropy. I especially applaud his willingness to support education, even in the most difficult of places.
The bridling of capitalism is the proper role of the government. Its moral guidance should be the constant effort of institutions such as the Church. It is a bit troubling when CEOs suggest they can lead, follow and divine the path. This seems to be a bit autocratic and troubling to democracy--maybe even, albeit unwittingly, Ayn Rand-like. It ignores the proper separation of roles in a free and functional society.
I am also concerned that corporations, due to the system of retirement investment we have in this country which has given voting power to only few large mutual and other types of aggregated investment firms, are not actually responding to those who have actually provide the capital. It is odd to suggest that a company should ignore shareholders when shareholders are many and diverse--at least in theory.
For a very sophisticated and more complete understanding of the proper relationship of Labor and Capital--one that does not so immediately alienate factions and point fingers--Marc Benioff may want to read John Paul II's Centesimus Annus. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html
4
Blind worship of capitalism and "businessmen" as the source of all things good has led us to the place we are today. But greed drives the vast majority of capitalist activity, and greedy people care nothing for the consequences of their actions on others. While there are regulations in place to temper some of its worst traits (for example the dumping of polluting waste) these are under constant attack. Capitalism is a force for positive outcomes, but it needs to be on a short leash. And there are certain activities, like the provision of health care, that should never be left to the wood-chipper mercies of the marketplace.
18
GIVING WEALTHY A PROFIT IN ALLEVIATING POVERTY
Voluntary actions by the wealthy to deal with inequality and poverty are fine, but linking the profit motive to such actions would be more powerful and realistic.
Poverty-alleviating project-oriented, government-backed Social Impact Bonds -- whose yields rise with measures of success of such investments as early childhood education or reduction of recidivism -- would be one way to accomplish this.
3
Corporations should find a way to employ and do business in the rural communities that have been abandoned. Set up call centers; attract talent to other areas of the country; compete at a loss in those areas , if necessary, and profit in other areas. ALL citizens of our country want the same thing; the right to support themselves and their families; a decent wage and a roof over their heads.
Retool all the abandoned factories, buildings and communities and find a way to bring prosperity back to the forgotten communities.
6
The heart of capitalism depends on expanding growth which in turn depends upon expanding demographics. This is a dog eat dog world that is destroying the planet. So what is next, Mars? How do you have a planned economy that supports quality of life and still leverages individual initiative? To get to a new capitalism that is where one starts. Otherwise, it is wishful thinking to placate and continue business as usual. Technology can save us or destroy us. Technology is a tool that Adam Smith did have to consider.
1
Tax the rich, philanthropy by businesses...
But we have been here before. Disappointingly, there is no new idea or even thought in the article.
Capitalism needs a fix. But inculcation of moral or social values to fix capitalism is like depending on the Church's teachings of moral or social values to deal with crime.
The system itself should be structured so such accumulation of net worth in the hands of a few individuals is just not possible. For that, there has to changes in the law as to disallow big business itself. Just like the anti-trust laws.
Law makers and business consultants and economists have to work out a market structure where the benefits and leverage of huge amount of capital is available thru a network of organisations or businesses as against setting up a behemoth.
1
I have a suggestion for another way you can promote your ideals. Fund a non-profit organization to carry out that mission. As the Kochs, and others have had a long term program to create institutions that overtly and covertly carry out their laissez faire capitalistic program, a counter is needed.
You can play a role in creating that.
4
A commendable, charming fantasy.
When the chips are down, should serious tax policy changes, with serious enforcement teeth be enacted into law, Mr. Benioff and his compatriots at the tippy-top of the Money Tower will spare no expense to buy, block, break and bury said reforms by any political means necessary.
They can then return to business as usual, interrupted by occasional visits to the op-ed page (like this).
10
I imagine most stockholders in Salesforce will move their investment elsewhere and I don’t blame them. This is a tax policy and fair wage issue. Benioff should put his money where it will actually make a difference: supporting candidates who prioritize a robust progressive tax policy and ensuring that all of his employees have equal and living wages —and benefits like healthcare and paid time off. He can use his personal fortune for charity.
7
The author conveniently left off any mention of corporations and their dark-money campaign contributions to politicians. That is the core of financial inequality because the wealthy have the money to set legislative policy which affects every citizen. When corporations lobby and give money to overturn Citizens United, then I'll believe them. Until then, I'll ignore what these corporate titans say.
199
We need campaign finance reform immediately.
2
@June Yes, the lobbyists and wealthy are running the country. Citizen’s United is one of the worst SCOTUS rulings.
1
This doesn’t address one of the main reasons capitalism has failed is : Outsourcing.
The US doesn’t manufacture things the way it should because investments have gone to China.
Capitalism has failed in other countries because of outsourcing! The company management and shareholders reap all the benefits , while workers in other countries are treated like slaves.
Workers need a built in equity stake in the company they work for , to become an equal partner with shareholders and management. This relates to the definition of a corporation and it’s charter.
In other words, workers should feel more they work for themselves, not for the CEO, not for the shareholders. If you don’t put in time you should only earn a dime. Workers should benefit if their stock doubles in 5 years. Unions need to morph into a workable, transparent, legitimate, social network that is built on making profit for the company and its workers.
1
One, strip Corporations of "personhood." When Corporations do wrong have the executive team and the board pay the monetary fines and receive jail time.
Two, quarterly reporting and analysts create havoc. If true comprehensive costs are factored in, "profit" takes on a real definition.
Three, see what happens.
12
Can Mr. Benioff tell us why it is only after he has succeeded and amassed his fortune that he now sees that the system is broken? Can he explain if there was ever a point where he felt he was overpaid, which would mean that those who worked for him were underpaid? If he did things in the manner he now advocates how would things be different for himself, his workers,and his customers? Has he thought of retroactively fixing things in his own business to accomplish what he now proscribes. That is something I would be interested in hearing and learning from.
50
@Joe McKeeman He may have seen all of this prior to his success, but even if he did, what exactly would have been his platform to discuss it? I've interacted with various level of the Salesforce organization, and I've never heard an employee say that they dislike the culture or their compensation. Go to Glassdoor to see reviews, and given that site is generally a cesspool of discontented former employees, the fact that they have a 4+ rating is pretty amazing. (and BTW, 96% of those approve of the CEO as well)
5
@Joe McKeeman - Mostly because his compensation has been in the stock of the company that he founded. We need to differentiate between salary that you are paid and stock ownership which in Bernioff's case is wealth that he created for himself and thousands of his employees without taking that wealth away from someone else.
3
If I owned stock in Salesforce, which I don’t, I would sell it today. I don’t want the companies I invest in deciding which social issues they will invest in, thank you very much. In fact, I don’t want them investing company resources in any activity other than increasing shareholder value.
If this fellow wants to give his money to help the homeless in San Francisco, that’s fine, but I don’t . I’m looking for an income when I retire. My investments are what I am relying on. I can invest my savings anywhere. I’ll choose to invest in stable, well run companies that understand what their purpose is, I.i. Profit. I’m not suggesting that companies should not make contributions to local organizations for the community good but that good needs to be considered an investment and should come with an expected return.
Charities are created to help and perform community good. Companies are created to produce a product or perform a service while maximizing shareholder value. Companies that lose sight of this do not last long.
I agree something needs to be done to address income inequality but this isn’t it.
8
@Matt Williams You apparently didn't read the piece, because you missed this key sentence: " Research shows that companies that embrace a broader mission — and, importantly, integrate that purpose into their corporate culture — outperform their peers, grow faster, and deliver higher profits."
It's not hard to see how that is the case. If Volkswagen had kept the importance of the environment in mind, it wouldn't have had the emissions rigging scandal that hurt its profits. If Facebook actually cared about its users' privacy and treated them as stakeholders, it might actually enjoy a positive reputation. People notice bad corporate actors, and it hurts business.
37
A good many (fortunately, still) countries have functioning politics and government. One of the reasons is that these countries keep money and lobbying out of politics. Those countries inhabit a spectrum from Singapore to my own country, The Netherlands. Open the floodgates and see what happens, e.g. in India. Mr. Benioff avoids writing about this.
The idea of 'giving back' is typically American. You take and give back. Robber barons did so and their names are attached to shrines such as the The Hague Peace Palace. Mr. Benioff could also have thought of another paradigm shift: Why should a CEO earn as much as he did? What was/is an acceptable difference between lowest and highest pay within a company? And what about anti-trust?
I'm not sure whether Mr. Benioff's trail deserves blazing.
24
Under our current Citizens United/dark money funded regime, none of these lofty, laudable, needed goals can be realized, with their implementation so dependent on the political system.
Dark money PACs will always have judicial allies in the Federalist Society, and the Grover Norquist ethos of starving government (which is 'we, the people') so that it can be drowned in the bath tub, must be torn out root and branch for the author's goals to become reality.
The right wing/libertarian pressure groups and think tanks who make their living raising money and keeping legislators (federal, state, and local) marching to their tune are formidable powers whose pervasiveness should never be underestimated.
79
@R. Law God, what an image, this horrid vision of a powerless, infantile government being drowned in the bathtub...how could that not frighten us all?
If our government is dead, impotent, disabled, then what have we got? We have today's dysfunction and inequality. We have allowed ourselves to be part of a scheme to take away what little power we ever had to affect our own lives and limit the power of wealth.
2
I’m a single mom, I just worked 89 hours this past week. Credit card balance down another large chunk. No health insurance and it’s a holiday and I’m getting up 4:30 am to go to work. When will my generation ever get ahead? The author is right. Capitalism has become something that has literally brutalized an entire chunk of time that could have been a move towards civilization instead of away from it.
329
@Temp attorney In Robert Reich’s book “Saving Capitalism”, one of the things he discusses is the belief that if you work hard, you will be rewarded accordingly. That, he argues, is increasingly a myth. One of the problems with that belief is that people end up blaming themselves for not doing better, when the real culprit is the way the economy has been systematically shaped against them.
50
@Temp attorney You amaze me! I have no idea how you do it but I really hope our society changes soon, so people don't have to work insane hours just to live.
6
@Temp attorney
You live in one of the most expensive cities in the world for basic necessities.
You live in one of the most over-lawyered cities in the world where the law ecosystem barely breaks even.
You have a child in one of the most expensive cities in the world to raise said child.
Many folks would find a location to work where none of those things drive them to penury.
5
I applaud Mr Benioff's cause and commitment here. One percent is the least a company like his -- and others -- could and should commit to 'doing good.' It's a laudable goal, perhaps unreachable, that a majority of other large corporations should adopt. Unfortunately, too many CEOs and their shareholders uphold a more self-interested perspective, that of greed capitalism.
However, Mr Benioff's position should not be dismissed as utopian. Change has to start somewhere, and we cannot expect government to take charge, given our current administration. Let's hope -- and support -- any commitment that backs his plan and others, with wholehearted enthusiasm.
12
"But capitalism as it has been practiced in recent decades — with its obsession on maximizing profits for shareholders — has also led to horrifying inequality."
Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan deserve full credit for the exclusive focus on shareholders to the exclusion of every other participant. For years many researchers have been arguing strongly for a shift in a firm's focus that also includes other stakeholders.
In this regard I am glad to note that 200 C-suite executives with the Business Roundtable committed that their companies would focus on a broader range of stakeholders.
But that is not enough. We need a government that truly is committed to providing the much needed and often neglected oversight. The recent example of the FAA leasing out its oversight function to Boeing, the very company it was supposed to scrutinize, is a telling one.
Top among the reasons for government agencies to farm out their auditing functions is lack of resources. We need a more equitable ta structure in which taxation is progressive and not regressive. Some may choose to forget that we had one of the longest and strongest economic expansion in the 1950s and 1960s when the top tax bracket was 70%.
5
"But capitalism as it has been practiced in recent decades — with its obsession on maximizing profits for shareholders — has also led to horrifying inequality."
Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan deserve full credit for the exclusive focus on shareholders to the exclusion of every other participant. For years many researchers have been arguing strongly for a shift in a firm's focus that also includes other stakeholders.
In this regard I am glad to note that 200 C-suite executives with the Business Roundtable committed that their companies would focus on a broader range of stakeholders.
But that is not enough. We need a government that truly is committed to providing the much needed and often neglected oversight. The recent example of the FAA leasing out its oversight function to Boeing, the very company it was supposed to scrutinize, is a telling one.
Top among the reasons for government agencies to farm out their auditing functions is lack of resources. We need a more equitable ta structure in which taxation is progressive and not regressive. Some may choose to forget that we had one of the longest and strongest economic expansion in the 1950s and 1960s when the top tax bracket was 70%.
1
Since the Supreme Court has determined that corporations are people and money is speech the modern corporation should leave their communities in better condition than they were before the corporation got there.
16
"The current system has led to profound inequality."
You say that like it's a bad thing . . .
For too many Americans, what Mr. Benioff laments as a bug is in fact a feature.
So, don't hold your breath waiting for the "New Capitalism" to appear or to be championed by either the Republicans OR the Democrats. The fact is that the corrupt status quo is working very, very well for the elite in both parties, thank you very much.
22
Thank you, Marc Benioff, for articulating what is obvious to any impartial observer: Traditional capitalism has enabled lots of individuals and corporations to become obscenely rich, while significant percentages of our fellow citizens struggle daily with poverty, hunger, & paralyzing debt. There are now lots of Scrooge McDucks, sitting on huge piles of money, while most of those who share our country and planet struggle just to get by. The Business Roundtable's commitment sure sounds good. I just hope that your fellow CEO's share your belief in promoting policies for the common good; and that they put them into action. Companies can enact progressive policies unilaterally if they have the will. Such changes are absolutely doable, especially if society has access to a small fraction of the resources that the McDucks of the world are currently accumulating mainly to keep score with one another.
4