6 ms·

When the topic in question is how one of the most powerful companies on Earth chooses to use its power we should strive to always be this cynical. Skepticism o

When the topic in question is how one of the most powerful companies on Earth chooses to use its power we should strive to always be this cynical. Skepticism of concentrated power is the ur-American political belief. We seem to have forgotten that lately.

pkulak 8y ago
If you're willing to shame a company for behavior you don't like, I think you should be prepared to give praise when they do exactly what you just asked for. When you constantly move the goal posts just so that you never have to abandon your righteous anger for even one day, what kind of incentive does that give companies to change their behavior?
- meko 8y ago
  Companies don't really deserve praise, practically ever because their motives are ultimately guided by profits. They only act in the interest of revenue. Sometimes those interests align with the employees, but let's not pretend this isn't self preservation on amazon's behalf.
  - mikybee93 8y ago
    That's silly. You could also say that humans don't really deserve praise since our motives are ultimately guided by our self interest. We only do things to make ourselves feel good, or make ourselves look better. I think that companies have many paths towards self preservation, and that choosing the paths that lead to a better world deserve praise regardless of motive.
    - komali2 8y ago
      I disagree there, because all throughout history are examples of genuine heroes who stood to benefit not at all from their actions. Vince Coleman[0] comes to mind. Humans can be motivated by many things, profit and looking good included. I'm vaguely aware of a philosophical branch that postulates that all actions are selfish, but that ain't science and so I disagree. People will sacrifice their pyramid of needs towards s greater good, I've never heard of a company utterly scuttling profits over the greater good though. On that note, in this case Amazon obviously is shedding profit for a greater good here, especially if they actually lobby, so in this case I believe they (particularly the people that made this decision) deserve praise. (0)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Coleman_%28train_dispatcher%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Coleman_%28train_dispatc...?
      - darawk 8y ago
        It doesn't matter whether they're doing it for a 'greater good' or not. You should praise them anyway. They took steps to create the world that you want. It doesn't matter why they did it.
        eropple 8y ago
        "Ends not means" is a nigh-universally dangerous philosophy. Motives matter.
        darawk 8y ago
        My comment was about 'motivation'. Which is neither ends, nor means.
        komali2 8y ago
        How does motive relate to means here? I think an "ends vs means" argument would be around whether it was ok to cull half their workforce to pay for this wage increase.
        marnett 8y ago
        Congress was looking to tax companies whose employees redeem federal benefits due to low wages. Walmart and Amazon we're the poster companies discussed in the legislation. This permanently removes that pressure and prepares Amazon for the inevitable. Get your head out of the sand, if you think this isn't a strategic play from one of the most valuable and business-savy corporate institutions on the planet you are being willfully ignorant.
        wstuartcl 8y ago
        I would praise them if they simply made the change before being shown to know about large % of their staff being forced to take subsidies to be able to live in national press. I don't tend to praise minimum standards of ethical and moral behavior.
        darawk 8y ago
    - Vektorweg 8y ago
      It depends to what degree a person or company acted positively on its/their own. Amazon would have never done it, if it wasn't for the immense pressure. So, it is not worth much praise.
      - Applejinx 8y ago
        I am, however, prepared to order something through them in hopes of making them instinctually associate this type of behavior with reward.
        marnett 8y ago
        You can't apply pavlovian psychology to corporations. Only unless it involves stock tickers and executive bonuses.
    - xtian 8y ago
      > You could also say that humans don't really deserve praise since our motives are ultimately guided by our self interest You could say that and you would be right. Why should anyone praise you if your underlying motivations are self-centered? You seem to be asserting that this is fundamental human nature, however, which is a belief which has been refuted plenty of times throughout history.
      - bandrami 8y ago
        Why shouldn't self-interested action be praiseworthy?
        xtian 8y ago
        If the rules of the game are that we only act out of self-interest, then I would only praise you if it directly benefits me in some way. Is that the sort of relationship you would like to have with everyone in your own life?
        bandrami 8y ago
        If you've oversimplified psychology and behavior that much there's no point asking "why" anyone would praise anyone. You had as an unstated axiom that self-interested action are not praiseworthy. You still have not made an argument for that, though you have pointed out that a world composed only of self-interested action would be an unpleasant one (I agree). However, using a more realistic understanding, where actions come from a multitude of motivations, why do you consider a given action's being self-interested to exclude it from praiseworthiness?
        xtian 8y ago
        Sorry, the post I responded to asserted that “our motives are ultimately guided by our self interest”. It seems like you are now applying my words to a different context.
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    Companies don't really deserve praise, practically ever because their motives are ultimately guided by profits. That's not actually true.. it's a caricatured straw-man argument, usually employed by people who want to attack Capitalism in the general sense. Of course companies have to make a profit to survive; but not all companies ruthlessly optimize every single variable to squeeze out the last $0.0000001 of profit, regardless of the side effects. At the end of the day companies are made up of people, and even if big-shot CEO's tend to have more pyschopathic tendencies than average, they're still human beings. And they usually answer to boards, and are advised by other managers, who are also human beings. Not saying all companies are noble, virtuous, and pure or anything. But hyperbole in the other direction is just as inaccurate.
    - solipsism 8y ago
      Don't know why you're being downvoted. Since the 70s people have been throwing around this "corporations must ruthlessly pursue profit and profit alone" idea as is it's a truism. It's not even close to true, neither as normatively or empirically.
      - mindcrime 8y ago
        Some people aren't interested in the truth, or facts. They're invested in some constructed narrative that supports an ideology, and they can't stand it when somebody contradicts that narrative. It's fine, I've got HN karma to burn, and it's not like you can spend Imaginary Internet Points anywhere anyway. :-)
    - chc 8y ago
      That's odd. I usually see that argument employed the opposite way — to dismiss criticisms of companies by suggesting that there is no moral dimension to a corporation's actions, and thus it is unreasonable to ask a company to do anything for the good of society or criticize it for failing to do so, because a corporation's purpose is merely to seek profit. I agree with you, though. The idea that companies have to be like zombies, mindlessly shambling toward revenue, is false. If a company acts that way, it was a choice on somebody's part, not an immutable law of nature. If somebody in charge decides they want it to act differently, they have that option too.
  - pkulak 8y ago
    Then they don't deserve shame either, right?
  - briandear 8y ago
    Employees are driven by their own self-interest, so we ought not praise their efforts either right? There is no such thing as altruism: everyone has their agenda.
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      So what you're saying is, Amazon's self-interest in making tons of money for its shareholders is just as valid as its workers' self-interest in not starving to death?
  - Moodles 8y ago
    So exhausting. Give them a break. They did a nice thing.
  - rpedela 8y ago
    The modern world was built by corporations. Access to clean water, cheap and healthy food, energy, infrastructure. Yes taxes fund a lot of it but it is corporations that largely do the work at least in the US. Being for-profit is a good thing on the whole because that enables the corporation to continue solving problems for more people. Obviously there is a dark side too. The pursuit of profit left uncheck leads to harming the environment, screwing people out of money, etc which is why regulators are needed. To say corporations are all bad all the time is bullshit. Likewise to say corporations are all good all the time is also bullshit. Like everything, there are pros and cons. Overall I think our capitalist economy does more good than bad. If it didn't, none of us would be able to be having this debate because we would be too worried about the next meal.
    - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      > Access to clean water, cheap and healthy food, energy, infrastructure. Clean water access? Paid for my government. Cheap and healthy food? Government subsidies. Energy? Government funds majority of research. Infrastructure was mostly inlaid by Government implemented New Deal/other job creation programs. Corporations had little to no involvement in 'doing the work' here. Access to cheap/healthy food was before corporations were the majority of agriculture due to government subsidy. Energy is largely built on research which is largely funded by the government. The majority of interstate groundwork as it's been laid out today was started by the government's roadbuilding job-creation programs. While large legal entities may have their benefits, one shouldn't subscribe undue merit to them in the pursuit of attempting to dissuade undue chagrin.
      - rpedela 8y ago
        As I said, taxes, aka government subsidies, paid for or continues to pay for a lot of my examples. The railroads were all built by corporations. ExxonMobil is a corporation, Comcast is a corporation, even your local utility for water, etc is likely a corporation. Corporations do much of the work, the government just pays for it with taxes.
      - mmsimanga 8y ago
        Government doesn't generate any money. They get the money from taxing employees of the large corporations. It is a symbiotic relationship.
- sidlls 8y ago
  If it takes sustained shame for a long period the best response warranted is a milquetoast "Thanks, next time be faster."
- xtian 8y ago
  An organization which only chooses to do the right thing in response to righteous anger from the public is never going to be worthy of praise.
- ilikehurdles 8y ago
  I feel like you're reading a different tone from that comment than I am. The GP provides, to me, a realistic prediction of what Amazon will do next. Making predictions and citing facts isn't anger. I didn't read any anger into the comment, but I get plenty from you. Corporations don't have feelings. Amazon improved their behavior because of pressure from labor, not in order to get invited to your Thanksgiving dinner this year. The raise will likely demotivate unionization efforts, and that likely factored into the decision-making process.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- juli1pb 8y ago
  Thank you for your message. This is not being cynic or critical. Real critic also praise when there is progress. In the present case this is just a hater. Hater are gonna hate, no matter what.
- garettmd 8y ago
  Isn't "constantly moving the goal posts" the name of the game in capitalism? Good on Amazon for increasing their minimum wage, but why shouldn't it also be met with a healthy amount of skepticism. Companies definitely do things for the common good (I don't see much competitive advantage gained from going 100% renewable energy - a common move for many tech companies - apart from maybe attracting better/more employees) but it would be naïve to think that most decisions a company makes don’t intend to better their market position in some way or another. Amazon (and all companies) spend most of their time/resources figuring out how to make more money and gain more power; I think it's appropriate that we as consumers, in turn, spend our time demanding more of them in terms of both value delivered and net benefit to society. I don’t think Amazon deserves much sympathy. They're one of the most powerful companies in the world, have made a small group of people very rich while continuing to treat employees poorly. It's great that they're making this move but I don’t think we as consumers/citizens should be merely satisfied with it.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    I mean, do you want good behavior to be rewarded or not? If good behavior isn't rewarded, how do you think companies might act in the future. People, as well as companies, respond to incentives.
    - garettmd 8y ago
      I agree with you. And I think it's good that Amazon is given credit for doing this. But I also question whether the incentive that pushed Amazon to do this has as much to do with magnanimity as it does with generating goodwill and preventing tougher legislation. Bernie Sanders and his group have been calling on Amazon to improve worker conditions and pay, and while they have praised Amazon for doing so, I think they would be naïve to think there's not more to expect or demand of Amazon in this realm. That is in effect "rewarding" them for good behavior, but there should also be some negative incentives in place (IMHO) to further encourage more of this good behavior
- NegativeLatency 8y ago
  Corporations are not people, and do not "deserve" praise. They exist to enrich their shareholders.
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  Companies, like countries, don't have feelings. Back in school my history teacher was very insistent on that fact, if you said something like "country xy was provoked to enter the war" he'd really tear into you. He taught us to spot propaganda and the motivations of individuals.
- lucideer 8y ago
  There's no need to move goalposts when your objection is concentration of power, resources and finance. By that standard, one can continue to roundly criticise Amazon for all eternity as long as they remain as relatively dominant: this stance favours distribution of control of resources among small independent stakeholders, and is a perfectly legitimate stance to take.
- wstuartcl 8y ago
  ... FFS -- it was shaming of amazon's pay rate for their employees that caused the change in behavior in the first place. I think it is rational to look at what and why actions were taken. Do you believe that the raise of the minimum wage at Amazon was out of good nature? Was it a decision to mitigate brand perception costs against labor costs after a bunch of national stories reported that they were paying so little in markets that their workers were forced to also take government subsidies while they have had their most profitable quarters ever? As far as the push to get the minimum wage raised -- is it not a reasonable view that it is in amazons best interest to further reduce the reoccurring labor costs effectively by ensuring their competitors are also forced to match their labor cost? The bottom line is if Amazon (or any company for that matter) wants to treat their employees better than the minimum wage -- they were and still are able to do so. Amazon happened to be in a state where because of the publicity pressure (showing their full time employees unable to live on their wage) it was more cost effective to make a change than not.
  - C1sc0cat 8y ago
    Its also the fact that having tax payers subsidise your work force out side of the Cinderella professions (nurse doctor etc) doesn't go down well with tax payers. Which is why a tory chancellor wanted a higher minimum wage - to cut the social security bill
  - irrational 8y ago
    >Do you believe that the raise of the minimum wage at Amazon was out of good nature? Does it matter what the rationale was? I know if I was an Amazon minimum wage employee I could care less what the rationale was. I'd just be thrilled to be getting a pay raise. Where I live the minimum wage is only $11.25/hour. Getting a bump to $15 will be a big deal for those people.
    - crdoconnor 8y ago
      >Does it matter what the rationale was? If you're Amazon, yes, it matters a ridiculous amount. The last thing you'll want is for people to realize that the union drives actually worked. That would mean more union drives and more pay rises on the horizon. Can't have that! Count the number of mentions of the reason for their decision in their press releases: https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/amazon-raises-minimum-wage-15-all-us-employees-including-full https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det...
- GeekyBear 8y ago
  Personally, I'm willing to praise them for extending the fifteen dollar minimum wage to temps and contract employees. That certainly bucks the trend and is praiseworthy.
- intopieces 8y ago
  Corporations do not deserve praise for doing the right thing. They are not people, with feelings, who respond to emotional stimuli in the form of positive reinforcement. They are businesses that respond to the market (indeed, their legal duty is to maximize profits). In markets, negative pressure works. Asking nicely does not.
  - johnchristopher 8y ago
    > their legal duty is to maximize profits I am not nit-picking, asking in good faith: is that enacted into a law ? Or is that part of a contract between shareholders and the board of executives ? I have heard about that walmart competitor run like a family business and that gives every employees a voice (a cooperative ?).
    - andrekandre 8y ago
      there is such a thing as “fedicuary duty” [1] which could be sometimes interpreted as “maximize profits” i suppose... according to this ny times article [2] it states: `There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” — even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees. But this belief is utterly false. To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”` the ny times article also cites some sources such as supreme court case; it’s well worth a read [1] https://www.sandiegobusinesslawyerblog.com/fiduciary-duties-of-officers-a/ https://www.sandiegobusinesslawyerblog.com/fiduciary-duties-... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
      - hannasanarion 8y ago
        The hyperbole isn't helping the case. It is true that companies are not required to "pursue profit at the expense of everything else". But it is also true that companies are held to legal standards that "include acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders" (Ebay v Newmark). This was famously weaponized against Craigslist several years ago, who were successfully sued over their refusal to let shareholders change corporate culture.
- avip 8y ago
  Don't mix common sense and internet.
- nodesocket 8y ago
  Spot on. Continuous outrage syndrome is a real problem feed by the fact that outrage and self-righteous news sellls better than just the facts news.
- tomc1985 8y ago
  If Amazon's private intentions match this public description, then what they are doing is very admirable. The problem is I get suspicious when power turns populist... there is oftentimes an agenda. (See: Trump, or US politics in general)
- L_Rahman 8y ago
  Genuinely curious what the /u/pulak thinks of this outcome: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/3/17934194/amazon-minimum-wage-raise-stock-options-bonus-warehouse https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/3/17934194/amazon-minimum-w... Was our skepticism perhaps reasonable?
monktastic1 8y ago
Cynicism and skepticism are different beasts with different outcomes. Skepticism asks "Did they do it for X reason? Let's investigate." Cynicism says "They can only have done it for X reason. Let's castigate." Cynicism is lazy. And generally, it has the effect of disheartening anyone from even trying to do the right thing. That people are cynical is of course understandable, but it's nothing to strive for.
sgustard 8y ago
Let's suppose they were lobbying to reduce the minimum wage instead. They would receive a lot of well-deserved abuse. So it seems clear they're in a no-win situation. Beyond that, it's a truism that any company lobbying for any policy change is mainly operating out of self-interest.

pkulak 8y ago

If you're willing to shame a company for behavior you don't like, I think you should be prepared to give praise when they do exactly what you just asked for. When you constantly move the goal posts just so that you never have to abandon your righteous anger for even one day, what kind of incentive does that give companies to change their behavior?

meko 8y ago
Companies don't really deserve praise, practically ever because their motives are ultimately guided by profits. They only act in the interest of revenue. Sometimes those interests align with the employees, but let's not pretend this isn't self preservation on amazon's behalf.
- mikybee93 8y ago
  That's silly. You could also say that humans don't really deserve praise since our motives are ultimately guided by our self interest. We only do things to make ourselves feel good, or make ourselves look better. I think that companies have many paths towards self preservation, and that choosing the paths that lead to a better world deserve praise regardless of motive.
  - komali2 8y ago
    I disagree there, because all throughout history are examples of genuine heroes who stood to benefit not at all from their actions. Vince Coleman[0] comes to mind. Humans can be motivated by many things, profit and looking good included. I'm vaguely aware of a philosophical branch that postulates that all actions are selfish, but that ain't science and so I disagree. People will sacrifice their pyramid of needs towards s greater good, I've never heard of a company utterly scuttling profits over the greater good though. On that note, in this case Amazon obviously is shedding profit for a greater good here, especially if they actually lobby, so in this case I believe they (particularly the people that made this decision) deserve praise. (0)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Coleman_%28train_dispatcher%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Coleman_%28train_dispatc...?
    - darawk 8y ago
      It doesn't matter whether they're doing it for a 'greater good' or not. You should praise them anyway. They took steps to create the world that you want. It doesn't matter why they did it.
      - eropple 8y ago
        "Ends not means" is a nigh-universally dangerous philosophy. Motives matter.
        darawk 8y ago
        My comment was about 'motivation'. Which is neither ends, nor means.
        komali2 8y ago
        How does motive relate to means here? I think an "ends vs means" argument would be around whether it was ok to cull half their workforce to pay for this wage increase.
      - marnett 8y ago
        Congress was looking to tax companies whose employees redeem federal benefits due to low wages. Walmart and Amazon we're the poster companies discussed in the legislation. This permanently removes that pressure and prepares Amazon for the inevitable. Get your head out of the sand, if you think this isn't a strategic play from one of the most valuable and business-savy corporate institutions on the planet you are being willfully ignorant.
      - wstuartcl 8y ago
        I would praise them if they simply made the change before being shown to know about large % of their staff being forced to take subsidies to be able to live in national press. I don't tend to praise minimum standards of ethical and moral behavior.
        darawk 8y ago
  - Vektorweg 8y ago
    It depends to what degree a person or company acted positively on its/their own. Amazon would have never done it, if it wasn't for the immense pressure. So, it is not worth much praise.
    - Applejinx 8y ago
      I am, however, prepared to order something through them in hopes of making them instinctually associate this type of behavior with reward.
      - marnett 8y ago
        You can't apply pavlovian psychology to corporations. Only unless it involves stock tickers and executive bonuses.
  - xtian 8y ago
    > You could also say that humans don't really deserve praise since our motives are ultimately guided by our self interest You could say that and you would be right. Why should anyone praise you if your underlying motivations are self-centered? You seem to be asserting that this is fundamental human nature, however, which is a belief which has been refuted plenty of times throughout history.
    - bandrami 8y ago
      Why shouldn't self-interested action be praiseworthy?
      - xtian 8y ago
        If the rules of the game are that we only act out of self-interest, then I would only praise you if it directly benefits me in some way. Is that the sort of relationship you would like to have with everyone in your own life?
        bandrami 8y ago
        If you've oversimplified psychology and behavior that much there's no point asking "why" anyone would praise anyone. You had as an unstated axiom that self-interested action are not praiseworthy. You still have not made an argument for that, though you have pointed out that a world composed only of self-interested action would be an unpleasant one (I agree). However, using a more realistic understanding, where actions come from a multitude of motivations, why do you consider a given action's being self-interested to exclude it from praiseworthiness?
        xtian 8y ago
        Sorry, the post I responded to asserted that “our motives are ultimately guided by our self interest”. It seems like you are now applying my words to a different context.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  Companies don't really deserve praise, practically ever because their motives are ultimately guided by profits. That's not actually true.. it's a caricatured straw-man argument, usually employed by people who want to attack Capitalism in the general sense. Of course companies have to make a profit to survive; but not all companies ruthlessly optimize every single variable to squeeze out the last $0.0000001 of profit, regardless of the side effects. At the end of the day companies are made up of people, and even if big-shot CEO's tend to have more pyschopathic tendencies than average, they're still human beings. And they usually answer to boards, and are advised by other managers, who are also human beings. Not saying all companies are noble, virtuous, and pure or anything. But hyperbole in the other direction is just as inaccurate.
  - solipsism 8y ago
    Don't know why you're being downvoted. Since the 70s people have been throwing around this "corporations must ruthlessly pursue profit and profit alone" idea as is it's a truism. It's not even close to true, neither as normatively or empirically.
    - mindcrime 8y ago
      Some people aren't interested in the truth, or facts. They're invested in some constructed narrative that supports an ideology, and they can't stand it when somebody contradicts that narrative. It's fine, I've got HN karma to burn, and it's not like you can spend Imaginary Internet Points anywhere anyway. :-)
  - chc 8y ago
    That's odd. I usually see that argument employed the opposite way — to dismiss criticisms of companies by suggesting that there is no moral dimension to a corporation's actions, and thus it is unreasonable to ask a company to do anything for the good of society or criticize it for failing to do so, because a corporation's purpose is merely to seek profit. I agree with you, though. The idea that companies have to be like zombies, mindlessly shambling toward revenue, is false. If a company acts that way, it was a choice on somebody's part, not an immutable law of nature. If somebody in charge decides they want it to act differently, they have that option too.
- pkulak 8y ago
  Then they don't deserve shame either, right?
- briandear 8y ago
  Employees are driven by their own self-interest, so we ought not praise their efforts either right? There is no such thing as altruism: everyone has their agenda.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    So what you're saying is, Amazon's self-interest in making tons of money for its shareholders is just as valid as its workers' self-interest in not starving to death?
- Moodles 8y ago
  So exhausting. Give them a break. They did a nice thing.
- rpedela 8y ago
  The modern world was built by corporations. Access to clean water, cheap and healthy food, energy, infrastructure. Yes taxes fund a lot of it but it is corporations that largely do the work at least in the US. Being for-profit is a good thing on the whole because that enables the corporation to continue solving problems for more people. Obviously there is a dark side too. The pursuit of profit left uncheck leads to harming the environment, screwing people out of money, etc which is why regulators are needed. To say corporations are all bad all the time is bullshit. Likewise to say corporations are all good all the time is also bullshit. Like everything, there are pros and cons. Overall I think our capitalist economy does more good than bad. If it didn't, none of us would be able to be having this debate because we would be too worried about the next meal.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    > Access to clean water, cheap and healthy food, energy, infrastructure. Clean water access? Paid for my government. Cheap and healthy food? Government subsidies. Energy? Government funds majority of research. Infrastructure was mostly inlaid by Government implemented New Deal/other job creation programs. Corporations had little to no involvement in 'doing the work' here. Access to cheap/healthy food was before corporations were the majority of agriculture due to government subsidy. Energy is largely built on research which is largely funded by the government. The majority of interstate groundwork as it's been laid out today was started by the government's roadbuilding job-creation programs. While large legal entities may have their benefits, one shouldn't subscribe undue merit to them in the pursuit of attempting to dissuade undue chagrin.
    - rpedela 8y ago
      As I said, taxes, aka government subsidies, paid for or continues to pay for a lot of my examples. The railroads were all built by corporations. ExxonMobil is a corporation, Comcast is a corporation, even your local utility for water, etc is likely a corporation. Corporations do much of the work, the government just pays for it with taxes.
    - mmsimanga 8y ago
      Government doesn't generate any money. They get the money from taxing employees of the large corporations. It is a symbiotic relationship.
sidlls 8y ago
If it takes sustained shame for a long period the best response warranted is a milquetoast "Thanks, next time be faster."
xtian 8y ago
An organization which only chooses to do the right thing in response to righteous anger from the public is never going to be worthy of praise.
ilikehurdles 8y ago
I feel like you're reading a different tone from that comment than I am. The GP provides, to me, a realistic prediction of what Amazon will do next. Making predictions and citing facts isn't anger. I didn't read any anger into the comment, but I get plenty from you. Corporations don't have feelings. Amazon improved their behavior because of pressure from labor, not in order to get invited to your Thanksgiving dinner this year. The raise will likely demotivate unionization efforts, and that likely factored into the decision-making process.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
juli1pb 8y ago
Thank you for your message. This is not being cynic or critical. Real critic also praise when there is progress. In the present case this is just a hater. Hater are gonna hate, no matter what.
garettmd 8y ago
Isn't "constantly moving the goal posts" the name of the game in capitalism? Good on Amazon for increasing their minimum wage, but why shouldn't it also be met with a healthy amount of skepticism. Companies definitely do things for the common good (I don't see much competitive advantage gained from going 100% renewable energy - a common move for many tech companies - apart from maybe attracting better/more employees) but it would be naïve to think that most decisions a company makes don’t intend to better their market position in some way or another. Amazon (and all companies) spend most of their time/resources figuring out how to make more money and gain more power; I think it's appropriate that we as consumers, in turn, spend our time demanding more of them in terms of both value delivered and net benefit to society. I don’t think Amazon deserves much sympathy. They're one of the most powerful companies in the world, have made a small group of people very rich while continuing to treat employees poorly. It's great that they're making this move but I don’t think we as consumers/citizens should be merely satisfied with it.
- stale2002 8y ago
  I mean, do you want good behavior to be rewarded or not? If good behavior isn't rewarded, how do you think companies might act in the future. People, as well as companies, respond to incentives.
  - garettmd 8y ago
    I agree with you. And I think it's good that Amazon is given credit for doing this. But I also question whether the incentive that pushed Amazon to do this has as much to do with magnanimity as it does with generating goodwill and preventing tougher legislation. Bernie Sanders and his group have been calling on Amazon to improve worker conditions and pay, and while they have praised Amazon for doing so, I think they would be naïve to think there's not more to expect or demand of Amazon in this realm. That is in effect "rewarding" them for good behavior, but there should also be some negative incentives in place (IMHO) to further encourage more of this good behavior
NegativeLatency 8y ago
Corporations are not people, and do not "deserve" praise. They exist to enrich their shareholders.
HarryHirsch 8y ago
Companies, like countries, don't have feelings. Back in school my history teacher was very insistent on that fact, if you said something like "country xy was provoked to enter the war" he'd really tear into you. He taught us to spot propaganda and the motivations of individuals.
lucideer 8y ago
There's no need to move goalposts when your objection is concentration of power, resources and finance. By that standard, one can continue to roundly criticise Amazon for all eternity as long as they remain as relatively dominant: this stance favours distribution of control of resources among small independent stakeholders, and is a perfectly legitimate stance to take.
wstuartcl 8y ago
... FFS -- it was shaming of amazon's pay rate for their employees that caused the change in behavior in the first place. I think it is rational to look at what and why actions were taken. Do you believe that the raise of the minimum wage at Amazon was out of good nature? Was it a decision to mitigate brand perception costs against labor costs after a bunch of national stories reported that they were paying so little in markets that their workers were forced to also take government subsidies while they have had their most profitable quarters ever? As far as the push to get the minimum wage raised -- is it not a reasonable view that it is in amazons best interest to further reduce the reoccurring labor costs effectively by ensuring their competitors are also forced to match their labor cost? The bottom line is if Amazon (or any company for that matter) wants to treat their employees better than the minimum wage -- they were and still are able to do so. Amazon happened to be in a state where because of the publicity pressure (showing their full time employees unable to live on their wage) it was more cost effective to make a change than not.
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  Its also the fact that having tax payers subsidise your work force out side of the Cinderella professions (nurse doctor etc) doesn't go down well with tax payers. Which is why a tory chancellor wanted a higher minimum wage - to cut the social security bill
- irrational 8y ago
  >Do you believe that the raise of the minimum wage at Amazon was out of good nature? Does it matter what the rationale was? I know if I was an Amazon minimum wage employee I could care less what the rationale was. I'd just be thrilled to be getting a pay raise. Where I live the minimum wage is only $11.25/hour. Getting a bump to $15 will be a big deal for those people.
  - crdoconnor 8y ago
    >Does it matter what the rationale was? If you're Amazon, yes, it matters a ridiculous amount. The last thing you'll want is for people to realize that the union drives actually worked. That would mean more union drives and more pay rises on the horizon. Can't have that! Count the number of mentions of the reason for their decision in their press releases: https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/amazon-raises-minimum-wage-15-all-us-employees-including-full https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det...
GeekyBear 8y ago
Personally, I'm willing to praise them for extending the fifteen dollar minimum wage to temps and contract employees. That certainly bucks the trend and is praiseworthy.
intopieces 8y ago
Corporations do not deserve praise for doing the right thing. They are not people, with feelings, who respond to emotional stimuli in the form of positive reinforcement. They are businesses that respond to the market (indeed, their legal duty is to maximize profits). In markets, negative pressure works. Asking nicely does not.
- johnchristopher 8y ago
  > their legal duty is to maximize profits I am not nit-picking, asking in good faith: is that enacted into a law ? Or is that part of a contract between shareholders and the board of executives ? I have heard about that walmart competitor run like a family business and that gives every employees a voice (a cooperative ?).
  - andrekandre 8y ago
    there is such a thing as “fedicuary duty” [1] which could be sometimes interpreted as “maximize profits” i suppose... according to this ny times article [2] it states: `There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” — even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees. But this belief is utterly false. To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”` the ny times article also cites some sources such as supreme court case; it’s well worth a read [1] https://www.sandiegobusinesslawyerblog.com/fiduciary-duties-of-officers-a/ https://www.sandiegobusinesslawyerblog.com/fiduciary-duties-... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      The hyperbole isn't helping the case. It is true that companies are not required to "pursue profit at the expense of everything else". But it is also true that companies are held to legal standards that "include acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders" (Ebay v Newmark). This was famously weaponized against Craigslist several years ago, who were successfully sued over their refusal to let shareholders change corporate culture.
avip 8y ago
Don't mix common sense and internet.
nodesocket 8y ago
Spot on. Continuous outrage syndrome is a real problem feed by the fact that outrage and self-righteous news sellls better than just the facts news.
tomc1985 8y ago
If Amazon's private intentions match this public description, then what they are doing is very admirable. The problem is I get suspicious when power turns populist... there is oftentimes an agenda. (See: Trump, or US politics in general)
L_Rahman 8y ago
Genuinely curious what the /u/pulak thinks of this outcome: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/3/17934194/amazon-minimum-wage-raise-stock-options-bonus-warehouse https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/3/17934194/amazon-minimum-w... Was our skepticism perhaps reasonable?

monktastic1 8y ago

Cynicism and skepticism are different beasts with different outcomes. Skepticism asks "Did they do it for X reason? Let's investigate." Cynicism says "They can only have done it for X reason. Let's castigate." Cynicism is lazy. And generally, it has the effect of disheartening anyone from even trying to do the right thing. That people are cynical is of course understandable, but it's nothing to strive for.

sgustard 8y ago

Let's suppose they were lobbying to reduce the minimum wage instead. They would receive a lot of well-deserved abuse. So it seems clear they're in a no-win situation. Beyond that, it's a truism that any company lobbying for any policy change is mainly operating out of self-interest.