Edit: This question attracted way more interest than I hoped for! I will need some time to go through the comments in the next days, thanks for your efforts everyone. One thing I could grasp from the answers already - it seems to be complicated. There is no one fits all answer.
Under capitalism, it seems companies always need to grow bigger. Why can’t they just say, okay, we have 100 employees and produce a nice product for a specific market and that’s fine?
Or is this only a US megacorp thing where they need to grow to satisfy their shareholders?
Let’s ignore that most of the times the small companies get bought by the large ones.
You must log in or # to comment.
Nonprofit companies don’t have this problem. It’s an issue with capitalism.
Mozilla?
What I was taught literally in fifth grade was this: “A company is successful when its profit is zero.” Meaning, everyone has been paid and the company has lost nothing.
The way I was taught it was by the teacher asking the class and all of us getting it wrong with answers like “A company is successful when it makes a million dollars” and such.
I will never forget it.
Because greed
Because they take investment.
Privately held companies can sit around earning the exact same amount of profit forever.
But if you are publicly traded on the stock market, people are walking up and injecting money into your business. They expect a return for that investment. And that means that the part of your business they’ve bought has to be worth more in the future in order for them to sell it for more than they bought it.
Therefore: growth. Owning 1% of a $100k business isn’t with as much as owning 1% of a $200k business. So if you own 1%, you want it to go from $100k to $200k.
If you aren’t taking outside money, none of this is a problem. Unless the owners just want a raise, which most people generally do over time. If nothing else, inflation is constantly eroding the value of money so you need to grow a little just to stand still. Most people don’t want to make do with less and less over time.
Re: inflation, growth in pure gross/intake has to increase to match the currency devaluation, and that can mostly be done by adjusting your prices in line with inflation. Employee count, market shares etc. can all hold steady, all else being equal.
This is also the issue with private investment companies.
When the EA deal was announced, people said more or less “this is proof that private isn’t any better than public”. Well that’s sort of true - there’s no guarantee that private is any better, but it CAN be, depends on who owns it. In the case of EA games, it was bought as an investment by a bunch of greedy investors, of course it’s going to be as bad as, if not worse than, a public corp.
If you have a company in a small town and everything is paid for and the size of the town isnt growing or changing, you actually do not need to grow. There is a company in Leadville, Colorado called “Melanzana”. They make technical hoodies - they’re pretty good. They actively shrank their business by closing their online storefront to reduce demand and reduce the burden of keeping up with that demand.
HOWEVER, if you have a business that is plugged into a larger marketplace and you have investors or have growing rents, etc. your investors expect a return on their investment and your growing costs need to be addressed so the only option is to grow to keep up.
Super interesting topic when you contextualize within a closed, limited, physical space. And by “super interesting” I mean dystopian.
Because they run out of “create” and they’re slaves to the quarterly report.
A new company that makes/sells a widget that is desirable will grow naturally from the demand for the product. It has to get bigger to manage the demand. They go public to get more money to grow more quickly. Those public investors expect a return on their stock investment purchase.
Now competitors show up. Competition is bad for our big startup (despite being a supposed tenant of the free market that allowed our company to grow quickly in the first place) that is now a major power in the widget industry. You can only make the widget so many ways, can’t really improve it, and the market is becoming saturated. So what happens next? WidgetCo’s stock is flat! Investors are mad! The CEO is in trouble! Now we do acquisitions and enshittification. Buy the competitors and adjacent product makers. Now there’s “growth” again even though nothing new is made, in fact the product gets worse and nobody gets hired as they want attrition to get rid of redundant employees. The hope is that the widget is so engrained in society that it can’t be done without. Now do unbundling. Subscriptions. Sunsetting. Modify the product so that new versions must be bought due to batteries or servers no longer supporting previous versions. If you can’t make new things, make the customer buy new versions of the same old things.
Gotta keep pushing that quarterly report line up to keep the investors happy and the CEO bonuses coming.
One aspect I haven’t read about: competitive pressure and economics of scale.
So, imagine two carpenters: they both produce one chair a day. They sell it and can sustain their families with that. Now the one carpenter works a little overtime and uses sharper tools: he’s able to produce two chairs a day. He still needs only to sustain his family, so he could sell the chairs at 50% discount. But he goes for 75% of its original price. Still cheaper, he has more.
Everybody wants to buy those chairs now: they’re the same, but one is way cheaper. The other carpenter loses business, he can’t sustain his family anymore, because he needs to sell one chair a day at least. To keep up, his business needs to grow now.
Shareholder demand? Greed? Probably a lot of both.
It’s not “companies”, it’spublicly traded companies.
And the answer is quite simple really: the moment you become publicly traded your stock becomes your product, and everything else becomes a means to deliver better stock prices to your investors.
Not all companies are publicly traded, I patronise privately held companies wherever possible because as a client I’m still at the core of their business strategy, and I’m wary of the alternative.
At the end of the day, bad strategies result in bad products and services. Vote with your wallet, it’s very possible.
I work for a privately owned company and we’re absolutely expected to grow. Being privately owned doesn’t change that.
Right but you don’t have a basically legal obligation to if you’re private
??? Of course you do. Investors don’t just buy their way into hypothetical future profits, they buy control over the company. The specifics depend, whether it’s voting shares or the looming threat of debt collection, but the courts will 100 % enforce investors’ right to demand things from companies.
Furthermore the idea that publicly traded companies have some kind of obligation to make as much money as quickly as possible is a reddit-born myth. Shareholders will bring in a CEO, who will be tasked to do whatever and can be fired from the shareholders at any time. Grievous mismanagement and intentional damage can expose a CEO to legal action, just like intentionally destroying tools can expose a worker to legal action. But a CEO acting in good faith has no other obligation than to fulfill the tasks asked of them by shareholders. The problem is that goes wrong when large shareholders plan to sell their shares and need the numbers to look a little better to sell a little higher. But this phenomenon absolutely happens with PE as well – in fact it’s arguably way worse because publicly traded companies at least have legal obligations of financial transparency. Private shareholders can do whatever the fuck they want, including secretly selling their shares to Evil Inc. for them to strip the company for parts and not a single employee has the right to even know who the majority shareholder even is, nervermind what their plan is.
Furthermore the idea that publicly traded companies have some kind of obligation to make as much money as quickly as possible is a reddit-born myth.
Shareholder primacy wasn’t born on reddit, it was actually Milton Friedman who theorized of it, the Michigan Supreme Court who wrote it into precedence, and now American citizens who have to live under the consequences of publicly traded corporations having a distinct legal obligation (against the belief of some legal academics who argue otherwise, in bad faith nonetheless) to provide a profit for shareholders. This also applies to PE, who take this notion of a, once again, distinct legal obligation to provide profits for shareholders above all else, as what you would call a “Get out of jail free card,” i.e. fraud and thievery is completely fine if you’ve got shareholders to feed.
But a CEO acting in good faith has no other obligation than to fulfill the tasks asked of them by shareholders.
Shareholders: “We demand more profits, please start acting in bad faith so I may purchase another boat this afternoon”
CEO: “ok”Alternatively:
Shareholders: “Profits, please”
CEO: “no”
Michigan Supreme Court: “The death sentence is on the table”This is how this has played out since 1919, Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. Wax poetic about theory, in reality people are starving over the sheer necessity that the shareholders want another buck.
Growth and constant growth are not the same.
Obviously growing a business is positive in some circumstances, the point is that growth for growth’s sake becomes the name of the game once you go public, whereas when privately held the company can decide whether it makes sense to grow in that moment or focus on other goals in the short term to benefit a long term strategy.
That is a myth. The law is actually far more complicated, at least in the U.S., and presumably elsewhere too.
Please elaborate because everything written above is correct. Companies must maximize value.
The leading statement of the law’s view on corporate social responsibility goes back to Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, a 1919 decision that held that “a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders.” That case — in which Henry Ford was challenged by shareholders when he tried to reduce car prices at their expense — also established that “it is not within the lawful powers of a board of directors to shape and conduct the affairs of a corporation for the merely incidental benefit of shareholders and for the primary purpose of benefiting others.”
I see a great deal of economic rationale being thrown around and usually I love a good discussion on economics, but I believe we are overthinking the question. I would argue any group of people getting together with some shared narrative is going to want to procure more resources for themselves. This can be a family, a tribe, a friend group, a company, a nation, etc. It’s just how we are.
Growth stocks are worth more than mature stocks, because people are more likely to invest if they think they’ll make money back.
I didn’t see a single top level comment be the devil’s advocate so I will give it a try.
Humanity moves forward. Standards are always shifting. New technologies and needs are created everyday and people want to raise their standard of living to accommodate for new things. Also, global population has been growing since we stabilized food production in the 1800’s.
If companies don’t grow at least with population, that means tomorrow we will have less than today. If companies don’t also grow with raising standards of living, that means someone stays poor. If companies don’t also grow to match the complexities of producing new technology, that means we stopped in time technologically.
In a competitive system such as capitalism, you don’t wait for more competitors to show up and fill this new ever-growing demand; you take that demand for yourself. So everyone seeks growth.
When a society does not grow (i.e. japan) for too long, capitalism doesn’t break down immediately, but you clearly see it stagnates. Japan’s population is not stable and their economy is facing major problems.
Whether growth is organic or fabricated is a related, but different, topic
I work in a mid size company that is a leader in the niche market that we do. However we need to innovate and acquire other small companies and expand because we do have competitors. So the world around us is telling us to innovate or lose the market.
There has to be some growth because inflation eats at the value of your capital every year.
You do have some of those companies but they are super large and cant grow anymore. They have essentially taken over the entire market.
For a small company, money is safety and power. So they always want more, because otherwise they feel like someone could disrupt them and make them irrelevant.
Its the same psychology as with humans. We always want more comfort, safety, and that requires money.
They don’t.
See local businesses that remain a single location for generations.
It is a want not a need.
…and local businesses constantly close in favour of big companies, as countries develop the amount of self-employed people goes down:
Local businesses simply cannot outcompete ever-growing big businesses, and because big businesses are in a need to ever-grow to satisfy the raising stock value imperative, they inevitably intrude the market share of local businesses. This is well-known since the mid-1800s.
