3 ms·

> If it's someone's job to dump raw industrial waste in the river, and stricter environmental regulations cause them to lose their job, I'm ok with that. I am

> If it's someone's job to dump raw industrial waste in the river, and stricter environmental regulations cause them to lose their job, I'm ok with that. I am not talking about Chinese workers losing jobs, I am talking about US citizens being collateral damage next month when Random Mother Corpo ® decides to lay off an arbitrary number of workers way down the corporate ladder in order to compensate for the bad previsions for next quarter due to $4B of revenues disappearing from the market. edit: I believe you are intentionally derailing the conversation by moving the goal post (by moving from US citizens concerns to other countries with healthcare and social net and then reframing the problem as an environmental problem).

davidw 7y ago
If a company has to do layoffs because they're doing something "wrong", I'm fine with that. The toxic waste thing is just a simple example. I think there should be policies in place to help people who lose their jobs for whatever reason.
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  > If a company has to do layoffs because they're doing something "wrong", I'm fine with that. The toxic waste thing is just a simple example. But the company doing the layoff isn't the same as the company doing the "wrong" thing. Think of the guy selling burgers in front of the stadium not meeting the quota because ticket prices surged and less people buy burgers or the bar owner selling less drinks because suddenly the rights to show NBA games rose up in order to compensate for the $4B of revenues disappearing and he has in turn to pass the buckets to his regular who either buy less drinks or shell out more money than before. edit: I specifically wrote Random Mother Corpo® as in NOT THE NBA . To illustrate the fact that companies and the economy is inter-connected. That boycotting some company or country has some side-effects which bring collateral damage.
  - davidw 7y ago
    It's impossible to predict exactly what happens where in a complex market economy, but yes, there could certainly be 'collateral damage', just as there could be indirect effects from ending pollution, or saving an endangered species or any number of other things.

davidw 7y ago

If a company has to do layoffs because they're doing something "wrong", I'm fine with that. The toxic waste thing is just a simple example. I think there should be policies in place to help people who lose their jobs for whatever reason.

johnchristopher 7y ago
> If a company has to do layoffs because they're doing something "wrong", I'm fine with that. The toxic waste thing is just a simple example. But the company doing the layoff isn't the same as the company doing the "wrong" thing. Think of the guy selling burgers in front of the stadium not meeting the quota because ticket prices surged and less people buy burgers or the bar owner selling less drinks because suddenly the rights to show NBA games rose up in order to compensate for the $4B of revenues disappearing and he has in turn to pass the buckets to his regular who either buy less drinks or shell out more money than before. edit: I specifically wrote Random Mother Corpo® as in NOT THE NBA . To illustrate the fact that companies and the economy is inter-connected. That boycotting some company or country has some side-effects which bring collateral damage.
- davidw 7y ago
  It's impossible to predict exactly what happens where in a complex market economy, but yes, there could certainly be 'collateral damage', just as there could be indirect effects from ending pollution, or saving an endangered species or any number of other things.