5 ms·

> In the age of corporate greed (move the jobs to cheaper locations) ... Is it only corporate greed? Isn't it customer greed as well (let's buy cheaper with n

• mseebach 10y ago
  Perhaps it's not greed at all. It's intellectually lazy to assume malice as the motivation for behaviours with which we disagree.
  • bogomipz 10y ago
    But greed and malice are orthogonal concepts. Greed concerns ones selfish and personal desires and malice is intention to harm or seek revenge on others. One is concerned with the self and the other isn't. One does not necessarily imply the other. It is intellectually lazy to conflate the two.
    • mseebach 10y ago
      That's one of those things that are only really true in theory. The word 'greed' has an overwhelmingly negative connotation.
      • bogomipz 10y ago
        No its not. If I am selling widgets for x dollars and making a handsome profit and I decide to raise my prices by 150% over night I am likely motivated by greed - to make as much money as possible. That it not way means I wish to harm people which is what the definition of malice is. People get greedy in business all the time. That doesn't not mean their intent is to inflict harm other people. Just because a word has a negative connotation does mean its has the same meaning as another word with a negative connotation.
• bogomipz 10y ago
  >"Is it only corporate greed?" No its not "only" but I would argue maybe that corporate is the prime mover as their goal is simply to satisfy share holders, whose expectations are to see ever increasing returns "ad infinitum." I guess you have to question how sustainable is that? At a certain point is that only achievable by off shoring, bringing in robots and chasing tax inversions with foreign domiciles etc. All of which seem somewhat extreme practices compared to 30 or 40 years ago. When I think about it I sometimes have to wonder "who is this economy for?"
  • ucaetano 10y ago
    None of those practices are extreme. Moving production to a different city in the same country because it's cheaper bears no difference to moving to a different country. Using a horse to carry things instead of hiring a few extra people to do so is no different from using a robot. We've all been doing the same things for thousands of years, and we've all been worried in the same way.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • bogomipz 10y ago
      >"None of those practices are extreme. Moving production to a different city in the same country because it's cheaper bears no difference to moving to a different country." It's very different. If I establish a company I choose to start a company if possible in a place that has a favorable business climate and by that I mean, there is access to labor, and capital, there's a mature legal system, a stable currency and a stable government. If I become wildly successful and decide that I am going to rent a mailbox on Grand Cayman and say my company is "based in the Cayman Island" despite having no people or office there, I think that qualifies as extreme behavior. I still want all of the protections and freedoms associated with the country where my actual headquarters is, I just don't want to play by the rules now . Even though its still that same favorable business environment that enabled me to become wildly successful. This is extreme. You can argue about corporate tax rates all you want but you knew what those were when you incorporated. >"Using a horse to carry things instead of hiring a few extra people to do so is no different from using a robot." I'm sorry what year were horses discovered? There was no discovery of horses that caused paradigm shift that led to precipitous large scale unemployment. Please point me to that bit of history. >"We've all been doing the same things for thousands of years, and we've all been worried in the same way" No we have not. It was a generation ago, you would work for "the company" until you were 65. And they would give you gold wrist watch on the day you retired.