5 ms·

This is what makes a European a European, and an American, American. We have different standards and expectations about the social contract between enterprises

This is what makes a European a European, and an American, American. We have different standards and expectations about the social contract between enterprises and society. Also, no wonder American companies tend to grow a lot faster without many impediments. The whole American system is built to support and protect the enterprise, not the people. In Europe, as an enterprise, you have a lot more requirements and obligations to fulfill. And even though I have a disadvantage running a company in Europe as compared to the US, as a European I believe it's the right thing to do.

scoggs 9y ago
> This is what makes a European a European, and an American, American. We have different standards and expectations about the social contract between enterprises and society. As an American this is what I truly hate about corporations. They are afforded person-hood and "citizenship" where it benefits them but are treated as a company / corporation / non-living entity when that benefits them most. I've been tired of telling international friends that I don't set nor agree with the vast majority of American policies. I, sadly, have no faith that the day will ever come where I won't feel so defensive when the topic of my country and it's influence on the globe becomes the topic for discussion.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > As an American this is what I truly hate about corporations. They are afforded person-hood and "citizenship" where it benefits them but are treated as a company / corporation / non-living entity when that benefits them most. As an American, I detest this meme, because it perpetuates major misconceptions about corporate law in the US. Corporations are not granted "personhood and citizenship". People are citizens. People can exercise their rights. Both of those statements are true whether they do so as individuals or whether they do so as a group. In other words, a group of people has the same legal rights collectively that they do as individuals. This concept is often abbreviated as "corporate personhood", which is unfortunate because it's a seriously misleading term. It's not that corporations become people - it's a way of referring to way individuals can exercise their rights through a group. Corporate personhood isn't even a single provision; it's a way of summarizing a collection of unrelated case law in a short phrase.
  - ejstronge 9y ago
    I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, but have a question, as you seem to have thought about this. I feel the GP's point relates to things like corporations receiving favorable tax treatment when individuals would not; corporations receiving very lenient punishments for crimes when individuals would not; corporations, as above, being able to avoid payments when an individual's property might otherwise be at risk, and so on. Perhaps I'm just not aware that these possibilities are available to me. Am I mistaken here? Overall, I feel your response deals with the legal framework around what GP said as opposed to the ideas that inspired GP's comment.
  - sooheon 9y ago
    >People are citizens. People can exercise their rights. Both of those statements are true whether they do so as individuals or whether they do so as a group. In other words, a group of people has the same legal rights collectively that they do as individuals. I in turn detest this meme. It is symptomatic of everything I think is wrong with corporatism. Size and power distort incentives and moral accountability. Each individual in a group should continue to have the rights they have as individuals, but these rights should not aggregate with a "simple sum", so to speak. There must be some cost to aggregating your "rights" in this way, because there is a clear dampening factor for aggregate blame and accountability, which counterbalance "rights". People behave differently in groups (worse), and with more power (worse), and it is impossible to pin moral blame on a corporation. People perpetrate violence on other people. People can perpetrate said violence as a group. People and groups with more means (money, power, influence) can perpetrate and get away with more violence, as the scale and degrees of removal from the effects of the violence become incomprehensible. Hence I can't blow smoke in the face of my neighbor because I will feel bad, and I will have to deal with the repercussions. But BP can spill 4.9 million gallons of oil in the gulf because not a single person will go to jail, the fees are a negligible cost of doing business, and nobody feels bad because everyone was "just doing their job". No, I don't believe corporations deserve any rights whatsoever.
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > because there is a clear dampening factor for aggregate blame and accountability There isn't, legally. If anything, corporate status provides a clearer framework for holding people properly accountable when they coordinate their actions as a group. Without corporate case law, it would be much easier to shirk accountability. > But BP can spill 4.9 million gallons of oil in the gulf because not a single person will go to jail, the fees are a negligible cost of doing business, and nobody feels bad because everyone was "just doing their job" You're conflating a lot of distinct issues - principally, the effects of being a corporation and the effects of being incredibly wealthy and politically influential. > No, I don't believe corporations deserve any rights whatsoever. This statement is logically equivalent to "I don't believe that people should have any rights to coordinate their actions". The irony is that it sounds like a populist statement that's sticking up for the little guy against the machine, but in actuality it's an incredibly radical statement in favor of stripping power away from the poor in order to preserve the power and status of the extremely wealthy.
expertentipp 9y ago
> This is what makes a European a European, and an American, American > Also, no wonder American companies tend to grow a lot faster without many impediments. The whole American system is built to support and protect the enterprise, not the people. In Europe, as an enterprise, you have a lot more requirements and obligations to fulfill. Huh? Developed EU countries eagerly open branches in newer EU states so they can benefit from American-style treatment of the employees... and these branches don't grow at all - it's just about cheap workforce and all profits are funneled out (franchises, copyrights, and various "sandwiches"). You should really understand that there are people paying hefty price for your cozy warm employment conditions and it's not in some remote Asian country - it's just across the border, within the same economic and political union.
briandear 9y ago
Except in France, unemployment is 10% while in the US it's 4%. My point on this is that it's a lot bigger of a risk to start a company in France, it's harder to hire and fire and thus it makes it a more risk-adverse environment. So the thought experiment -- is it better for someone to work for a year and then get fired unexpectedly or not work at all and collect unemployment money for 3 years? I thought about opening an office in France for a dev team, but after looking at the real costs -- there's no way I could afford it. The actual salaries are fine, but adding in social charges, then all of the ridiculous "protections" -- it's easier for me to hire guys in Serbia, pay them well while not having the financial risk of having to take care of employees when my business may not be able to support them. So there are 5 French engineers that aren't working now and 5 Serbians that are because I can't afford the risk of hiring French workers because as the business owner, I'm the "bad guy" -- despite funding my little company out of my own pocket and not even being able to pay myself a salary. To be on the hook for French social benefits and the job protections when I can't even provide that for myself? No thanks. So I've had Serbian devs for the past 2 years and exactly zero French devs -- despite paying the Serbians the same net salary I would have paid the French. I'm an anecdote, but that's the other side of this "protection" that EU workers "benefit" from -- it's great when they DO have a job, but there are countless jobs that don't exist precisely because of these policies -- and the jobs that do exist pay far less than American jobs (despite similar living costs) because companies have to price the risks into the salaries they offer. So rather than paying a dev $100k per year plus benefits -- a French company would pay $40k per year plus benefits. Then they have roughly 1.5 years of "cushion" in case they're stuck with an employee they can't simply fire. Before folks start to talk about how France has better social benefits and thus a lower salary is ok.. Net disposable income is vastly less than in the US. And, US companies provide health/disability/etc. benefits in addition to a higher salary. So the idea that French companies pay a lower salary because health insurance is free is just ridiculous -- since French companies aren't paying for health insurance, they should be able to pay even higher salaries than the US right? But the reason they don't is because they have to hedge the risk that they can't fire this employee. I'd rather work an uncertain year at $150k than three years of $40k guaranteed, but that's just me. I'm an optimist while most French I know are decidedly pessimistic.
- avar 9y ago
Feniks 9y ago
To be fair the US system has advantages. Hiring and firing people is a lot easier and faster. I do think that in the long run making your employees happy and loyal is worthwhile. But treating your workers as disposable trash is also a viable strategy in some sectors.
- burntrelish1273 9y ago
  Watch Where to Invade Next? , learn something and try again.

scoggs 9y ago

> This is what makes a European a European, and an American, American. We have different standards and expectations about the social contract between enterprises and society. As an American this is what I truly hate about corporations. They are afforded person-hood and "citizenship" where it benefits them but are treated as a company / corporation / non-living entity when that benefits them most. I've been tired of telling international friends that I don't set nor agree with the vast majority of American policies. I, sadly, have no faith that the day will ever come where I won't feel so defensive when the topic of my country and it's influence on the globe becomes the topic for discussion.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> As an American this is what I truly hate about corporations. They are afforded person-hood and "citizenship" where it benefits them but are treated as a company / corporation / non-living entity when that benefits them most. As an American, I detest this meme, because it perpetuates major misconceptions about corporate law in the US. Corporations are not granted "personhood and citizenship". People are citizens. People can exercise their rights. Both of those statements are true whether they do so as individuals or whether they do so as a group. In other words, a group of people has the same legal rights collectively that they do as individuals. This concept is often abbreviated as "corporate personhood", which is unfortunate because it's a seriously misleading term. It's not that corporations become people - it's a way of referring to way individuals can exercise their rights through a group. Corporate personhood isn't even a single provision; it's a way of summarizing a collection of unrelated case law in a short phrase.
- ejstronge 9y ago
  I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, but have a question, as you seem to have thought about this. I feel the GP's point relates to things like corporations receiving favorable tax treatment when individuals would not; corporations receiving very lenient punishments for crimes when individuals would not; corporations, as above, being able to avoid payments when an individual's property might otherwise be at risk, and so on. Perhaps I'm just not aware that these possibilities are available to me. Am I mistaken here? Overall, I feel your response deals with the legal framework around what GP said as opposed to the ideas that inspired GP's comment.
- sooheon 9y ago
  >People are citizens. People can exercise their rights. Both of those statements are true whether they do so as individuals or whether they do so as a group. In other words, a group of people has the same legal rights collectively that they do as individuals. I in turn detest this meme. It is symptomatic of everything I think is wrong with corporatism. Size and power distort incentives and moral accountability. Each individual in a group should continue to have the rights they have as individuals, but these rights should not aggregate with a "simple sum", so to speak. There must be some cost to aggregating your "rights" in this way, because there is a clear dampening factor for aggregate blame and accountability, which counterbalance "rights". People behave differently in groups (worse), and with more power (worse), and it is impossible to pin moral blame on a corporation. People perpetrate violence on other people. People can perpetrate said violence as a group. People and groups with more means (money, power, influence) can perpetrate and get away with more violence, as the scale and degrees of removal from the effects of the violence become incomprehensible. Hence I can't blow smoke in the face of my neighbor because I will feel bad, and I will have to deal with the repercussions. But BP can spill 4.9 million gallons of oil in the gulf because not a single person will go to jail, the fees are a negligible cost of doing business, and nobody feels bad because everyone was "just doing their job". No, I don't believe corporations deserve any rights whatsoever.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > because there is a clear dampening factor for aggregate blame and accountability There isn't, legally. If anything, corporate status provides a clearer framework for holding people properly accountable when they coordinate their actions as a group. Without corporate case law, it would be much easier to shirk accountability. > But BP can spill 4.9 million gallons of oil in the gulf because not a single person will go to jail, the fees are a negligible cost of doing business, and nobody feels bad because everyone was "just doing their job" You're conflating a lot of distinct issues - principally, the effects of being a corporation and the effects of being incredibly wealthy and politically influential. > No, I don't believe corporations deserve any rights whatsoever. This statement is logically equivalent to "I don't believe that people should have any rights to coordinate their actions". The irony is that it sounds like a populist statement that's sticking up for the little guy against the machine, but in actuality it's an incredibly radical statement in favor of stripping power away from the poor in order to preserve the power and status of the extremely wealthy.

expertentipp 9y ago

> This is what makes a European a European, and an American, American > Also, no wonder American companies tend to grow a lot faster without many impediments. The whole American system is built to support and protect the enterprise, not the people. In Europe, as an enterprise, you have a lot more requirements and obligations to fulfill. Huh? Developed EU countries eagerly open branches in newer EU states so they can benefit from American-style treatment of the employees... and these branches don't grow at all - it's just about cheap workforce and all profits are funneled out (franchises, copyrights, and various "sandwiches"). You should really understand that there are people paying hefty price for your cozy warm employment conditions and it's not in some remote Asian country - it's just across the border, within the same economic and political union.

briandear 9y ago

Except in France, unemployment is 10% while in the US it's 4%. My point on this is that it's a lot bigger of a risk to start a company in France, it's harder to hire and fire and thus it makes it a more risk-adverse environment. So the thought experiment -- is it better for someone to work for a year and then get fired unexpectedly or not work at all and collect unemployment money for 3 years? I thought about opening an office in France for a dev team, but after looking at the real costs -- there's no way I could afford it. The actual salaries are fine, but adding in social charges, then all of the ridiculous "protections" -- it's easier for me to hire guys in Serbia, pay them well while not having the financial risk of having to take care of employees when my business may not be able to support them. So there are 5 French engineers that aren't working now and 5 Serbians that are because I can't afford the risk of hiring French workers because as the business owner, I'm the "bad guy" -- despite funding my little company out of my own pocket and not even being able to pay myself a salary. To be on the hook for French social benefits and the job protections when I can't even provide that for myself? No thanks. So I've had Serbian devs for the past 2 years and exactly zero French devs -- despite paying the Serbians the same net salary I would have paid the French. I'm an anecdote, but that's the other side of this "protection" that EU workers "benefit" from -- it's great when they DO have a job, but there are countless jobs that don't exist precisely because of these policies -- and the jobs that do exist pay far less than American jobs (despite similar living costs) because companies have to price the risks into the salaries they offer. So rather than paying a dev $100k per year plus benefits -- a French company would pay $40k per year plus benefits. Then they have roughly 1.5 years of "cushion" in case they're stuck with an employee they can't simply fire. Before folks start to talk about how France has better social benefits and thus a lower salary is ok.. Net disposable income is vastly less than in the US. And, US companies provide health/disability/etc. benefits in addition to a higher salary. So the idea that French companies pay a lower salary because health insurance is free is just ridiculous -- since French companies aren't paying for health insurance, they should be able to pay even higher salaries than the US right? But the reason they don't is because they have to hedge the risk that they can't fire this employee. I'd rather work an uncertain year at $150k than three years of $40k guaranteed, but that's just me. I'm an optimist while most French I know are decidedly pessimistic.

avar 9y ago

Feniks 9y ago

To be fair the US system has advantages. Hiring and firing people is a lot easier and faster. I do think that in the long run making your employees happy and loyal is worthwhile. But treating your workers as disposable trash is also a viable strategy in some sectors.

burntrelish1273 9y ago
Watch Where to Invade Next? , learn something and try again.