6 ms·
Companies don't really deserve praise, practically ever because their motives are ultimately guided by profits. They only act in the interest of revenue. Someti
by 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 agoThat'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 agoI 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 agoIt 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.
- marnett 8y agoCongress 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 agoI 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 agoYou think paying people $15/hour is a minimum standard of ethical and moral behavior?
- wstuartcl 8y agoYes. I think being one of the largest/most profitable companies in the US while paying people the minimum wage required by law -- which also happens to ensure most of those employees can't survive without government subsidies in their locals is well below the minimum standard for ethical and moral behavior. Reverse, Do you think that a company such as amazon should be paying their fulltime and part time employee a wage that requires government subsidies (that you and I pay for) to survive while enjoying the amount of revenue and profit they are receiving?
- crdoconnor 8y ago>On that note, in this case Amazon obviously is shedding profit for a greater good here They're obviously caving into pressure - from unions, social activists and Bernie Sanders. >especially if they actually lobby Which they'll do especially because they don't want to be put at a competitive disadvantage by companies who pay minimum wage.
- Vektorweg 8y agoIt 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.
- 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 agoWhy shouldn't self-interested action be praiseworthy?
- xtian 8y agoIf 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 agoIf 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 agoSorry, 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 agoCompanies 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 agoDon'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 agoSome 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 agoThat'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 agoThen they don't deserve shame either, right?
- briandear 8y agoEmployees 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 agoSo 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 agoSo exhausting. Give them a break. They did a nice thing.
- rpedela 8y agoThe 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 agoAs 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 agoGovernment doesn't generate any money. They get the money from taxing employees of the large corporations. It is a symbiotic relationship.