4 ms·

"You have a company taking advantage of the perfectly legal rules that the system set up. OH GAWD better grab pitchforks." People aren't allowed to be upset ab

• bilbo0s 8y ago
  Be mad... at the people who made it, "not illegal". That's not Amazon. The anger, to the extent that it's justified, is misplaced.
• boron1006 8y ago
  Most of the tax breaks Amazon used are open for pretty much any company, and have been around for a very long time. But no one seems to want to repeal or fix these laws. In all of this, I haven't seen a single person talk about them. You can't agree to a set of rules then complain when someone actually follows them.
  • _bxg1 8y ago
    Many people may not even know about them. Encouraging people to channel these feelings into the ballot is well and fine, but let's not pretend there's anything close to a direct coupling between the will of the people and the will of their representatives, much less preexisting laws. People are allowed to be dissatisfied; they don't have to simply lie in the bed that they only had a partial hand in making.
    • pochamago 8y ago
      I don't think anyone saying people shouldn't be dissatisfied. It's just that targeting Amazon with that ire is ineffective when it's the laws on the books that are the problem
      • _bxg1 8y ago
        Ineffective without other action, but not misdirected.
    • boron1006 8y ago
      You do have to be logically consistent in your voting though, and you should be as well informed as possible. You can't have people vote for anything shiny with "JOBS" written on it, and then get outraged when corporations get tax breaks. Continuous outrage leads to the same results as continuous praise: Leaders who don't feel bound to the laws that their constituents have created.
    • pathseeker 8y ago
      Don't defend them when they are criticized for complaining about something they put absolutely zero effort into researching. Anyone complaining about Amazon and not the state government and/or the tax break programs is being ignorant and shouldn't be coddled.
• slowmovintarget 8y ago
  Reality doesn't allow people to have it both ways. Either be upset that the system incentivizes the behavior, or be upset that the incentives failed. In both of those cases, the blame lies at the feet of the elected officials. Granted, the implication of that is the blame lies at the feet of those who cast the ballots (George Carlin, we miss you). People always have trouble blaming themselves. Corporations are jello. They take the shape of the mold they sit in. If they get big enough, the mold is the whole world's economy.
  • baddox 8y ago
    Not everyone voted for the ballots which supposedly led to these decisions. Moreover, politicians lie. When government policy doesn’t reflect the desires of the public in an ostensible democracy, I find it odd to blame the people who are ruled instead of the rulers. I don’t know much about George Carlin, but from what little I’ve seen of his political commentary, I doubt he would so quickly jump to blaming the ruled instead of the rulers.
  • jakelazaroff 8y ago
    Using this logic, people aren't allowed to be upset at anything, as long as it's a rational action within a system. This is a weird way to look at things! You can justify all sorts of reprehensible behavior this way. "Either be upset that the system incentivizes slavery, or be upset that the incentives against slavery failed." But definitely don't be upset at the slaveowners!
    • _bxg1 8y ago
      Exactly. Realistically, most large-scale businesses will amorally fill whatever set of incentives exist around them, and the most effective way to keep them from being destructive is to regulate. However, businesses are made of people, and those people still have a moral obligation to society, even if most of the ones at the top ignore it. Actions beyond moral shaming need to be taken, but one doesn't preclude the other.
      • pathseeker 8y ago