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.

  • jj4211@lemmy.world
    2·
    19 days ago

    Note that even if by all practical terms a business isn’t growing, then it’s still growing.

    Part of the whole deal is that there’s an intent for the money supply to change for a roughly 2% inflation. In an oversimplified sense, the idea being that everything gets 2% more expensive, everyone gets 2% raises, and investments at least generate 2% returns.

    We’ve basically decided that we need to trick ourselves into feeling progress by making “standing still” look like growth. So if someone had flat income year over year, they actually lost in real terms.