Because growth is now baked into the share price. If they don't keep stoking the fire of optimism, it burns out and the share price collapses. Our current business culture is saying that this is what managers need to think about, so this is what they think about.
I would be happy with a vast economy of Mittelstand type businesses, each producing ball bearings or gear wheels, not trying to eat the whole planet, just existing at a sensible level. It's not like they can't grow if the opportunity arises.
Because your competitors will grow to create economies of scale and vertically integrate, eventually killing your current business model since you won't be able to compete unless you're a boutiqueor some other niche. This is especially important if group think is a big part of your success (iPhones as a status symbol, always needing the latest one, iPods before that).
Because in their minds, the market will eventually dry up, and... they're not wrong. There's not many folks looking for a new Apple ][ these days. And since continuing business means needing to access ever-increasing amounts of capital to create the next thing to sell, they have to make the number bigger. Otherwise the business goes under.
Honestly, their hangup on that last point is perplexing, because as long as the big shareholders get a decent cut in a long enough horizon to hedge or exit positions, they don't care if the company goes kaput. See GE. Jack Welch basically parted out the company like a corporate raider. It was obvious what would happen: at some point, there would be nothing left to sell and the company could not continue as an independent going concern. But you could mark the sale of a division as income for the quarterly report, and it made them meet projections, so it was seen as visionary.
That's a tough thing to do when you consider the market dynamics - namely that other companies are trying to eat their market share. They have to be actively improving products doing marketing, etc. in order to just maintain their position, so why not do those things in a way that's targeted at growth?
There's also the matter of people - people like to work on big, important challenges. The best people don't tend to want to work at companies that are stagnant. If you're the leader and you lose the best people because you decide to stagnate and throw off revenue, then suddenly you're going to have trouble maintaining your market position because the best people are now at competitors working to take your market position.
It is a little weird how there are two economic systems seemingly. The one you mention about market share and global slices of pie. But then there is the entire long tail of businesses that don’t participate in these games at all. Most private companies are probably like this. You know, the six person graphic design shop with a string of clients. The local glass and mirror business. Your dentists private practice. A locksmith. A taco truck. All these businesses humming along making money for their owners with sometimes decades of operation under their belt.
I think that's just a mindset that made sense when tech was new. As this becomes just a part of life, I think you'll see a bifurcation between established tech and "new stuff", where the established stuff is treated more like a utility.
In some ways we have that now, it's just not flashy. There's countless websites (think Craigslist) that pull in predictable and reasonable income for the folks that run it.
I'd prefer a world full of those versus a bunch of megacorps using tactics of the KGB to try to increase their revenue by X% every year.
That's a pithy, vivid snarkonym I suppose; 10/10. The reality is that things don't exist in a vacuum: competitors exist and one of the best defenses against competitors is growth. Growth provides affordances, such as ample capital, market profile and regulatory leverage to counter competitors. Certainly one can conceive of alternative ways of surviving competitors, but it never hurts to be a thriving concern. That's hard work for all involved though, so better to simply spiral the rest of the way down and condemn competition as well: perhaps "The Market is societal metastasis".
Or something. You'll get there anyhow, so best to start working on the next clever derogation now.
I agree with your response, but I also think it's an unsustainable model, which is why it's a "mind cancer". Growth makes things easier but nothing grows indefinitely, and that mind-set has done a lot to create climate change problems.
That's the buyer seeking growth, even if only to shut the bought down, yielding relative growth. Big fish eat little fish. That's the universe talking, as opposed to whatever ideology you prefer to blame.
The "solution" -- should you perceive a problem with all this -- is destabilizing the large such that the small find more opportunities. Hating on growth isn't compatible with this, however: you must be capable of tolerating the small enjoying growth.
When it comes to the personal and intangibles, then grow all you want; read the books, develop the skills, and so on. But when it comes to consumption of resources and economic growth then cancer is the right word as unbounded growth fundamentally results in unbounded growth of waste products and overconsumption of inputs.
There is no system or ecology that can support infinite growth; as long as we're stuck in the "coasting is dying" mentality we'll see productive entities develop dysfunctions as they outgrow their ecosystems or kill themselves trying to expand. If coasting leads to gradual decline then over expansion leads to catastrophic failure.
