7 ms·

Corporations and the Culture Wars

45 points by raleighm 9y ago

AndrewKemendo 9y ago
Friedman cautioned decades ago that “the doctrine of ‘social responsibility’ taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity.” This is one of the things that always struck me as odd in my undergrad economics classes. That somehow we can realistically de-couple our actions in one domain (work) from those of another (politics) when in fact they all lie in the space of human action. This is where I found myself in agreement with Mises - in that all actions have impact socially and thus all economic activity has a social impact. Thinking or behaving otherwise is a cop-out and a way to try and mentally compartmentalize behavior - it's cognitive dissonance and I see it all the time when people try and "separate" their work life from their personal life. It's a synthetic distinction.
- psyc 9y ago
  I think this separation is a basic strategy for thinking about a complex world, and probably an effective one. I don't think it's meant to be taken too literally, as if the world were actually like that, although I suppose some do take it that way. I doubt people can generally manage a holistic view of everything, practically speaking. I doubt people can manage very accurate views outside narrow domains. The holistic view is valuable, I just don't think it can be applied fulltime. Compartmentalized and simplified models are valuable too. Maybe necessary.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    Effective how or toward what ends? Seems to me that how someone views this issue is simply a function of how to skew and distort one's self image to more positively reflect how they want to be seen. So for example if you do something you don't truly believe in or morally support for your work, then having psychological distance between your work and personal life makes more sense because you aren't staking "who you are" in your work. So you decide to define "who you are" in the other portions of your life. Again, this seems to be cognitive dissonance at it's finest.
    - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
      Reminds me of a quote from a previous thread: >Those of us who came from a business background remember our business ethics in university well. The running joke, from start to finish, is a thank you for compiling together the things we should walk carefully and carry a big stick while doing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16368722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16368722
    - psyc 9y ago
      Effective for deciding what to do with your limbs and lips on a day-to-day practical basis.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      >So for example if you do something you don't truly believe in or morally support for your work, then having psychological distance between your work and personal life makes more sense because you aren't staking "who you are" in your work. People have much more control over their actions outside of work though. Not to describe a strict compartmentalization but a diminishment towards your actions at work makes sense. I define "who I am" much more by what it is I do outside of work because I have actually have control over what it is that I do once I walk out of the office.
      - zrobotics 9y ago
        Not to edge close to a Godwin here, but how is that materially different from a soldier 'just following orders'? If anything, the soldier's excuse is more valid, since it is far easier to quit a job than quit military service. I'm not saying that both are easy, but I am uncomfortable with rationalizing what a person does at work as not reflecting on their moral character.
- mnemonicsloth 9y ago
  Most people spend a little bit more than half of their time working, and the rest of their time aggressively not working. For most people, the distinction between public and private self is the most important one in their lives.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    That's probably true. My question is, does making that distinction benefit or damage information about networks/markets?
    - mnemonicsloth 9y ago
      Helpful or harmful, it doesn't matter. People will go on making the distinction for as long as work is, well, work: something you don't want to do but do anyway because you have to. For as long as people have jobs they don't like doing, they'll try to put those jobs out of their minds, and they will, as you point out, be more able to ignore the moral consequences of their work-life actions.
      - circlefavshape 9y ago
        It matters on the individual level. No doubt you are correct, but in my experience being your authentic self while at work, rather than pretending to be professional/passionate/whatever, is much better for one's mental health
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    For most people, the distinction between public and private self is the most important one in their lives. Marx and Engels would have called this, "alienation." I think that they are onto something in this dimension of their critique. Isn't a part of the startup ethos a rebellion against this?
    - mnemonicsloth 9y ago
      My understanding is that with a startup you eliminate the distinction by spending 100% of your time in work mode.
- roymurdock 9y ago
  It's the only way to create the divisions between "labor" and "leisure" hours needed for constructing basic utility curves and production functions, and really the only way to apply "math" and measurement to what would otherwise just amount to philosophy or sociology. Agreed it's somewhat arbitrary and rigid but pretty necessary for making economic decisions and yeah, a division that is hard to cultivate at the personal level - the hours you spend "working" are also shaping you as a person.
santoshalper 9y ago
I agree with the basic premise - that the best way for companies to be good citizens is to be good, ethical, companies. Pay your employees fairly, provide good benefits, obey the spirit of the law (not just the letter), and do the right thing for your customers. Companies that spend a lot of time vocally supporting social issues while being bad corporate actors are just virtue signalling for PR purposes
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Companies that spend a lot of time vocally supporting social issues while being bad corporate actors are just virtue signalling for PR purposes This is common sense. Persons are best judged by their actions. As Shakespeare once wrote, you can tell where people are truly crazy by how they spend their money.
stcredzero 9y ago
Data show that diverse boards lead to better performance, risk management, and returns. [citation needed] As far as I know, the studies show a correlation, but no one has been able to show there's causation. Is anyone aware of a study that shows causation? Also, what kind of diversity? It would make the most sense that diversity by social class and diversity by subcultural group would make much more sense than, say, having approximately equally privileged people with different skin colors all coming from the same schools. Magically attributing significant qualities to people because of their race is racism. Magically attributing significant qualities to people because of highly salient surface characteristics is bigotry. The significant differences between people are primarily cultural. The most powerful generator of value is the mind. There is usually more diversity within most such easily defined groups than there is between groups. Most such divisions result in greatly overlapping normal distributions. This is precisely why we should strive to see the "content of character" within each other.
- perfmode 9y ago
  If "better performance, risk management, and returns" lead to diverse boards, what's the difference? > Magically attributing significant qualities to people because of their race is racism. Oh, please.
  - supercanuck 9y ago
    I know, right, alternatively, maybe diversity forces people to share and empathize other perspectives in order to accomplish a shared goal. Maybe being around people different then you forces you to filter your asinine assumptions in order to not to come across like a moron and be aliented. Maybe it forces people to critically think about what they are going to say before they just enter into whatever idiotic rant they read on the internet, because their might be consequences in the real world.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Maybe being around people different then you forces you to filter your asinine assumptions in order to not to come across like a moron and be aliented. No. What you described right there is authoritarianism. Is that really how you think it should work? Let me tell you: I've seen people overcoming their toxic "isms" firsthand. It's not done through authoritarianism. It's not done by telling people that they're "morons." Such facile reduction and out-grouping and denigration is precisely the toxicity you're supposedly fighting. People overcome their bigotry by bonding. (I've seen the worst backwoods homophobe become best friends with a gay activist.) You have it exactly "bass-ackwards" here: "I know, right, alternatively, maybe diversity forces people to share and empathize other perspectives in order to accomplish a shared goal." It's the shared goal that compels people to see the basic humanity of other people. If you put the force first, then you 1) reveal something about your internal character and your respect for the self determination of others 2) risk causing counter-productive backlash. "Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert A. Heinlein
LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
Corporations have no stakes in the culture wars- the only interest they got is to ursurp the Original Cooperation that contains the ecosystem they move in. So they will support whatever side it takes to weaken the state and propel there interest. You can have a left and liberal party, but when cooperations support you- all that will be left is a liberal party. You can have a right-wing and conservative party, but when cooperations support you- all that will be left is a big interst- conservation party. Cooperations with a surplus of influence, will use that influence to corrode away the containment system of the state. Thats why they are taxed. If they are not taxed, the contained usefull accid eats through the stomache and kills societys stability. And in a wicked, twist, as there is always a biggest fish- something like amazon, can burst free- and become state instead of the state. Unfortunatly, people trading on non-amazon plattforms, have to pay a little extra, for the disruption they cause to the logistic masterpiece. Its not a tax. Its your ticket to a priviliged life style. Have you paid your prime today?
ommunist 9y ago
I always considered corporations as legal fictions designed to serve certain individuals as tools of power. Corporations are special kind of machines. They cannot have or create any culture, only humans can. Corporations are part of human culture and very interesting one. Please do not overestimate corporations. Look where the East India Company is now.
jacksmith21006 9y ago
The problem is going to be companies not doing what they should in fear of being accused of not supporting free speech. Google can not monetize Alex Jones on YouTube yet they allow the content to still exist and Google pays the bills in supporting through infrastructure cost. They should just remove when no advertisers.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  Youtube is not solely funded by advertisers, they have a paid ad-free subscription service.
  - jacksmith21006 9y ago
    Yes but is minimal and not sure how it even matters? Why on earth would someone buy a subscription for content that has NO ads? Can you explain?
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      >Why on earth would someone buy a subscription for content that has NO ads? Are you being satirical? Because ads are terribly annoying, a waste of my time, and I prefer not to be manipulated into buying things I don't need.
      - jacksmith21006 9y ago
        There is NO ads. So there is nothing terribly annoying. Why your comment on buying a subscription for something without ads does NOT make any sense?
mi100hael 9y ago
> Delta—under public pressure—ended a discount available to members of the National Rifle Association to travel to their annual convention, a type of discount routinely offered to many other groups. Delta announced that this step was an attempt “to refrain from entering this debate and focus on its business.” Nonetheless, Delta immediately encountered fierce political pushback from the State of Georgia, where the airline is based, as well as from the NRA and its supporters, which resulted in Delta losing a $38 million tax break. Whenever I see these sorts of controversies blowing up, I always wonder if it wouldn't have been better for the company to just play deaf and not acknowledge the controversy to begin with.
- zrobotics 9y ago
  I think you may be onto something there. Sure, by continuing the discount they may have lost some business, but it is also possible that there would have been no #boycottDelta, or that it would have been another case of temporary social media posturing that is soon forgotten. However, by taking proactive action they almost guarantee that it will be picked up by the media, and will be noticed and anger NRA supporters. They may have faced backlash, but then again there hasn't been any uproar about NRA corporate discounts after other shootings, so why take the chance?

45 points by raleighm 9y ago

Friedman cautioned decades ago that “the doctrine of ‘social responsibility’ taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity.” This is one of the things that always struck me as odd in my undergrad economics classes. That somehow we can realistically de-couple our actions in one domain (work) from those of another (politics) when in fact they all lie in the space of human action. This is where I found myself in agreement with Mises - in that all actions have impact socially and thus all economic activity has a social impact. Thinking or behaving otherwise is a cop-out and a way to try and mentally compartmentalize behavior - it's cognitive dissonance and I see it all the time when people try and "separate" their work life from their personal life. It's a synthetic distinction.

psyc 9y ago
I think this separation is a basic strategy for thinking about a complex world, and probably an effective one. I don't think it's meant to be taken too literally, as if the world were actually like that, although I suppose some do take it that way. I doubt people can generally manage a holistic view of everything, practically speaking. I doubt people can manage very accurate views outside narrow domains. The holistic view is valuable, I just don't think it can be applied fulltime. Compartmentalized and simplified models are valuable too. Maybe necessary.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  Effective how or toward what ends? Seems to me that how someone views this issue is simply a function of how to skew and distort one's self image to more positively reflect how they want to be seen. So for example if you do something you don't truly believe in or morally support for your work, then having psychological distance between your work and personal life makes more sense because you aren't staking "who you are" in your work. So you decide to define "who you are" in the other portions of your life. Again, this seems to be cognitive dissonance at it's finest.
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    Reminds me of a quote from a previous thread: >Those of us who came from a business background remember our business ethics in university well. The running joke, from start to finish, is a thank you for compiling together the things we should walk carefully and carry a big stick while doing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16368722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16368722
  - psyc 9y ago
    Effective for deciding what to do with your limbs and lips on a day-to-day practical basis.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >So for example if you do something you don't truly believe in or morally support for your work, then having psychological distance between your work and personal life makes more sense because you aren't staking "who you are" in your work. People have much more control over their actions outside of work though. Not to describe a strict compartmentalization but a diminishment towards your actions at work makes sense. I define "who I am" much more by what it is I do outside of work because I have actually have control over what it is that I do once I walk out of the office.
    - zrobotics 9y ago
      Not to edge close to a Godwin here, but how is that materially different from a soldier 'just following orders'? If anything, the soldier's excuse is more valid, since it is far easier to quit a job than quit military service. I'm not saying that both are easy, but I am uncomfortable with rationalizing what a person does at work as not reflecting on their moral character.
mnemonicsloth 9y ago
Most people spend a little bit more than half of their time working, and the rest of their time aggressively not working. For most people, the distinction between public and private self is the most important one in their lives.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  That's probably true. My question is, does making that distinction benefit or damage information about networks/markets?
  - mnemonicsloth 9y ago
    Helpful or harmful, it doesn't matter. People will go on making the distinction for as long as work is, well, work: something you don't want to do but do anyway because you have to. For as long as people have jobs they don't like doing, they'll try to put those jobs out of their minds, and they will, as you point out, be more able to ignore the moral consequences of their work-life actions.
    - circlefavshape 9y ago
      It matters on the individual level. No doubt you are correct, but in my experience being your authentic self while at work, rather than pretending to be professional/passionate/whatever, is much better for one's mental health
- stcredzero 9y ago
  For most people, the distinction between public and private self is the most important one in their lives. Marx and Engels would have called this, "alienation." I think that they are onto something in this dimension of their critique. Isn't a part of the startup ethos a rebellion against this?
  - mnemonicsloth 9y ago
    My understanding is that with a startup you eliminate the distinction by spending 100% of your time in work mode.
roymurdock 9y ago
It's the only way to create the divisions between "labor" and "leisure" hours needed for constructing basic utility curves and production functions, and really the only way to apply "math" and measurement to what would otherwise just amount to philosophy or sociology. Agreed it's somewhat arbitrary and rigid but pretty necessary for making economic decisions and yeah, a division that is hard to cultivate at the personal level - the hours you spend "working" are also shaping you as a person.

santoshalper 9y ago

I agree with the basic premise - that the best way for companies to be good citizens is to be good, ethical, companies. Pay your employees fairly, provide good benefits, obey the spirit of the law (not just the letter), and do the right thing for your customers. Companies that spend a lot of time vocally supporting social issues while being bad corporate actors are just virtue signalling for PR purposes

stcredzero 9y ago
Companies that spend a lot of time vocally supporting social issues while being bad corporate actors are just virtue signalling for PR purposes This is common sense. Persons are best judged by their actions. As Shakespeare once wrote, you can tell where people are truly crazy by how they spend their money.

stcredzero 9y ago

Data show that diverse boards lead to better performance, risk management, and returns. [citation needed] As far as I know, the studies show a correlation, but no one has been able to show there's causation. Is anyone aware of a study that shows causation? Also, what kind of diversity? It would make the most sense that diversity by social class and diversity by subcultural group would make much more sense than, say, having approximately equally privileged people with different skin colors all coming from the same schools. Magically attributing significant qualities to people because of their race is racism. Magically attributing significant qualities to people because of highly salient surface characteristics is bigotry. The significant differences between people are primarily cultural. The most powerful generator of value is the mind. There is usually more diversity within most such easily defined groups than there is between groups. Most such divisions result in greatly overlapping normal distributions. This is precisely why we should strive to see the "content of character" within each other.

perfmode 9y ago
If "better performance, risk management, and returns" lead to diverse boards, what's the difference? > Magically attributing significant qualities to people because of their race is racism. Oh, please.
- supercanuck 9y ago
  I know, right, alternatively, maybe diversity forces people to share and empathize other perspectives in order to accomplish a shared goal. Maybe being around people different then you forces you to filter your asinine assumptions in order to not to come across like a moron and be aliented. Maybe it forces people to critically think about what they are going to say before they just enter into whatever idiotic rant they read on the internet, because their might be consequences in the real world.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Maybe being around people different then you forces you to filter your asinine assumptions in order to not to come across like a moron and be aliented. No. What you described right there is authoritarianism. Is that really how you think it should work? Let me tell you: I've seen people overcoming their toxic "isms" firsthand. It's not done through authoritarianism. It's not done by telling people that they're "morons." Such facile reduction and out-grouping and denigration is precisely the toxicity you're supposedly fighting. People overcome their bigotry by bonding. (I've seen the worst backwoods homophobe become best friends with a gay activist.) You have it exactly "bass-ackwards" here: "I know, right, alternatively, maybe diversity forces people to share and empathize other perspectives in order to accomplish a shared goal." It's the shared goal that compels people to see the basic humanity of other people. If you put the force first, then you 1) reveal something about your internal character and your respect for the self determination of others 2) risk causing counter-productive backlash. "Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert A. Heinlein

LifeLiverTransp 9y ago

Corporations have no stakes in the culture wars- the only interest they got is to ursurp the Original Cooperation that contains the ecosystem they move in. So they will support whatever side it takes to weaken the state and propel there interest. You can have a left and liberal party, but when cooperations support you- all that will be left is a liberal party. You can have a right-wing and conservative party, but when cooperations support you- all that will be left is a big interst- conservation party. Cooperations with a surplus of influence, will use that influence to corrode away the containment system of the state. Thats why they are taxed. If they are not taxed, the contained usefull accid eats through the stomache and kills societys stability. And in a wicked, twist, as there is always a biggest fish- something like amazon, can burst free- and become state instead of the state. Unfortunatly, people trading on non-amazon plattforms, have to pay a little extra, for the disruption they cause to the logistic masterpiece. Its not a tax. Its your ticket to a priviliged life style. Have you paid your prime today?

ommunist 9y ago

I always considered corporations as legal fictions designed to serve certain individuals as tools of power. Corporations are special kind of machines. They cannot have or create any culture, only humans can. Corporations are part of human culture and very interesting one. Please do not overestimate corporations. Look where the East India Company is now.

jacksmith21006 9y ago

The problem is going to be companies not doing what they should in fear of being accused of not supporting free speech. Google can not monetize Alex Jones on YouTube yet they allow the content to still exist and Google pays the bills in supporting through infrastructure cost. They should just remove when no advertisers.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Youtube is not solely funded by advertisers, they have a paid ad-free subscription service.
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Yes but is minimal and not sure how it even matters? Why on earth would someone buy a subscription for content that has NO ads? Can you explain?
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >Why on earth would someone buy a subscription for content that has NO ads? Are you being satirical? Because ads are terribly annoying, a waste of my time, and I prefer not to be manipulated into buying things I don't need.
    - jacksmith21006 9y ago
      There is NO ads. So there is nothing terribly annoying. Why your comment on buying a subscription for something without ads does NOT make any sense?

mi100hael 9y ago

> Delta—under public pressure—ended a discount available to members of the National Rifle Association to travel to their annual convention, a type of discount routinely offered to many other groups. Delta announced that this step was an attempt “to refrain from entering this debate and focus on its business.” Nonetheless, Delta immediately encountered fierce political pushback from the State of Georgia, where the airline is based, as well as from the NRA and its supporters, which resulted in Delta losing a $38 million tax break. Whenever I see these sorts of controversies blowing up, I always wonder if it wouldn't have been better for the company to just play deaf and not acknowledge the controversy to begin with.

zrobotics 9y ago
I think you may be onto something there. Sure, by continuing the discount they may have lost some business, but it is also possible that there would have been no #boycottDelta, or that it would have been another case of temporary social media posturing that is soon forgotten. However, by taking proactive action they almost guarantee that it will be picked up by the media, and will be noticed and anger NRA supporters. They may have faced backlash, but then again there hasn't been any uproar about NRA corporate discounts after other shootings, so why take the chance?