6 ms·

This is the first time I have ever read news that reflects PayPal in a positive light. Never thought I would ever write these words: way to go, PayPal!

by stblack 11y ago

gist 11y ago
I view it as dangerous actually. That is corporations with money, power and lawyers determining and overriding voters in yet another way. Doesn't matter how you see this particular issue. The next time it could go in another direction. [1] [1] Live by the sword, die by the sword.
- rconti 11y ago
  They already do, for tax breaks, regulatory arbitrage, etc.. We might as well cheer it being used for good.
- oliwarner 11y ago
  Overriding? They're not writing the law here, they're going where the best laws are (or where the worst aren't). NC gets to keep its shitty laws, PayPal just won't be part of it. What's your alternative here?
  - gist 11y ago
    No this is a bit different. They are publicly announcing it in a way that says "we don't approve and here is your punishment for taking this route". Not to mention what about the harm that comes to the citizens who would have held those jobs as well as the other economic impact of the decision? All to citizens who might not have had a say in choosing this outcome? I won't even get into the impact on stockholders who buy the stock to, in general, make money with their investments not for social issues.
    - Avenger42 11y ago
      > I won't even get into the impact on stockholders who buy the stock to, in general, make money with their investments not for social issues. Several years ago, in response to a request that Apple commit to only agree to measures that wouldn't impact the bottom line, Tim Cook told an activist investor "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock." (It was in response to a question about Apple's environmental stance, but Tim likened it to a request to ignore accessibility issues.) If I disagree with Paypal's disagreement, I'm free to withdraw my investment and go to a company that will ignore social issues.
      - gist 11y ago
        Apple is in a unique position to do that because of the cash that they are throwing off now and their popularity. That was not always the case with Apple (as you are aware) and also is not typically the case with your average corporation. When you are riding high there are many things you can get away with. > If I disagree with Paypal's disagreement, I'm free to withdraw my investment and go to a company that will ignore social issues. If you are a long term investor and if the stock is not trading at a good point for you that may not be possible. Let's assume you have a large position in the stock and it has lost money since you bought it as only one example.
        raould42 11y ago
        So "long term investor" is a code phrase for "corporate profit shill"? If PP is doing something bad then get out, and take the loss. To claim that the loss prevents one from getting out is to proclaim that one values money over e.g. people. (Sure, if that's like your only money, than that's not so easy a decision.)
        WJW 11y ago
        You are confusing impossible with undesirable. You care about the money more than you care about the social values espoused by the company. I'm not saying that that is wrong, but if you feel incredibly strongly about something then taking the loss may be preferable to violating your core beliefs.
    - rootedbox 11y ago
      What's wrong with announcing "we don't approve and here is your punishment" of bigoted laws. Many a company did not work with or in South Africa during apartheid for the same reason.. Was that wrong of them?
    - oliwarner 11y ago
      > They are publicly announcing... So? They clearly have an opinion on this. Why isn't a company, especially a big company which has many types of stakeholder, allowed to share its opinion? I'd much rather it did this than just bribe the politicians to change the laws. > what about the harm that comes to the citizens who would have held those jobs Well, indeed. This was going to be a huge operation that would have involved shipping in many families, exposing them to these laws.
    - bmm6o 11y ago
      > Not to mention what about the harm that comes to the citizens who would have held those jobs This is a strange argument to make. By even deciding to open the facility in NC in the first place, PayPal decided against 49 other states - do those people have a claim to these hypothetical jobs? Are they forever committed once the location of these future jobs is announced?
- stblack 11y ago
  Are they overriding voters, or are they overriding legislators? There's a difference. North Carolina has lots of issues. So the legislators pass a law like this instead of dealing with something else. What can you do? Paypal has options. The sad thing is, many people in minority populations of North Carolina, don't have options.

This is the first time I have ever read news that reflects PayPal in a positive light. Never thought I would ever write these words: way to go, PayPal!

by stblack 11y ago

This is the first time I have ever read news that reflects PayPal in a positive light. Never thought I would ever write these words: way to go, PayPal!

gist 11y ago

I view it as dangerous actually. That is corporations with money, power and lawyers determining and overriding voters in yet another way. Doesn't matter how you see this particular issue. The next time it could go in another direction. [1] [1] Live by the sword, die by the sword.

rconti 11y ago
They already do, for tax breaks, regulatory arbitrage, etc.. We might as well cheer it being used for good.
oliwarner 11y ago
Overriding? They're not writing the law here, they're going where the best laws are (or where the worst aren't). NC gets to keep its shitty laws, PayPal just won't be part of it. What's your alternative here?
- gist 11y ago
  No this is a bit different. They are publicly announcing it in a way that says "we don't approve and here is your punishment for taking this route". Not to mention what about the harm that comes to the citizens who would have held those jobs as well as the other economic impact of the decision? All to citizens who might not have had a say in choosing this outcome? I won't even get into the impact on stockholders who buy the stock to, in general, make money with their investments not for social issues.
  - Avenger42 11y ago
    > I won't even get into the impact on stockholders who buy the stock to, in general, make money with their investments not for social issues. Several years ago, in response to a request that Apple commit to only agree to measures that wouldn't impact the bottom line, Tim Cook told an activist investor "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock." (It was in response to a question about Apple's environmental stance, but Tim likened it to a request to ignore accessibility issues.) If I disagree with Paypal's disagreement, I'm free to withdraw my investment and go to a company that will ignore social issues.
    - gist 11y ago
      Apple is in a unique position to do that because of the cash that they are throwing off now and their popularity. That was not always the case with Apple (as you are aware) and also is not typically the case with your average corporation. When you are riding high there are many things you can get away with. > If I disagree with Paypal's disagreement, I'm free to withdraw my investment and go to a company that will ignore social issues. If you are a long term investor and if the stock is not trading at a good point for you that may not be possible. Let's assume you have a large position in the stock and it has lost money since you bought it as only one example.
      - raould42 11y ago
        So "long term investor" is a code phrase for "corporate profit shill"? If PP is doing something bad then get out, and take the loss. To claim that the loss prevents one from getting out is to proclaim that one values money over e.g. people. (Sure, if that's like your only money, than that's not so easy a decision.)
      - WJW 11y ago
        You are confusing impossible with undesirable. You care about the money more than you care about the social values espoused by the company. I'm not saying that that is wrong, but if you feel incredibly strongly about something then taking the loss may be preferable to violating your core beliefs.
  - rootedbox 11y ago
    What's wrong with announcing "we don't approve and here is your punishment" of bigoted laws. Many a company did not work with or in South Africa during apartheid for the same reason.. Was that wrong of them?
  - oliwarner 11y ago
    > They are publicly announcing... So? They clearly have an opinion on this. Why isn't a company, especially a big company which has many types of stakeholder, allowed to share its opinion? I'd much rather it did this than just bribe the politicians to change the laws. > what about the harm that comes to the citizens who would have held those jobs Well, indeed. This was going to be a huge operation that would have involved shipping in many families, exposing them to these laws.
  - bmm6o 11y ago
    > Not to mention what about the harm that comes to the citizens who would have held those jobs This is a strange argument to make. By even deciding to open the facility in NC in the first place, PayPal decided against 49 other states - do those people have a claim to these hypothetical jobs? Are they forever committed once the location of these future jobs is announced?
stblack 11y ago
Are they overriding voters, or are they overriding legislators? There's a difference. North Carolina has lots of issues. So the legislators pass a law like this instead of dealing with something else. What can you do? Paypal has options. The sad thing is, many people in minority populations of North Carolina, don't have options.