5 ms·

Samsung is responsible for a large portion of GDP in Korea. Arguably, Samsung has contributed a lot to Korea's "Miracle on the Han River". With Korea's current

Samsung is responsible for a large portion of GDP in Korea. Arguably, Samsung has contributed a lot to Korea's "Miracle on the Han River". With Korea's current progressive "Moon's" government, Korea is going through a lot of changes (higher minimum wage, a lot of focus on gender equality, stronger labor union, shorter work hours, stronger punishment for corruptions within companies, etc), and traditional "chaebol" companies are having trouble adapting to some of these changes. There are also a lot of eyeballs on past and current shady behaviors by "chaebol" companies. As one of the biggest "chaebol" companies, Samsung is also being affected by the changes, and this article shows one of them. One question I have is how beneficial these changes would be for GDP of Korea. On paper, these changes sound nice as they would benefit employees and make things "fair". But changing things dramatically can have side effects (ex. higher minimum wage led to many small shops closing). More regulations might limit Samsung's ability to compete internationally, which is bad as Samsung (and Korea in general) rely heavily on export-based economy.

sersi 7y ago
That's a good point... Making changes quickly and dramatically does have some effects that might be negative. However, it's usually very difficult for such changes to happen slowly and progressively. Those kind of changes tend to come when a large percent of the population is fed up with the way things are and start to agitate for changes. At that point, it's unlikely to happen progressively... So it's a bit of a catch 22, as long as the people who benefit from the current state of society are in power (or control those who are in power), change are unlikely to come progressively since it would be disadvantageous to them but, once they lose the reigns (as they inevitably do), change happen so fast that it's both potentially bad for the society at large and worse for the ones who used to be at the top. I'm not sure there are many examples of enlightened robber barons who allowed progressive changes that were counter to their interests but improved society as a whole.
- wallace_f 7y ago
  >I'm not sure there are many examples of enlightened robber barons who allowed progressive changes that were counter to their interests but improved society as a whole. Bill Gates' charitable work comes to mind. I wouldn't call him really a robber baron as the term implies wealth gained unfairly or from others involuntarily. The Fed is printing almost another half trillion in cash to inject, subsidize Wall St., for example. I also don't know if the term applies fairly to Samsung, as while the Korean history of chaebol companies was fueled by crony capitalism, their wealth does primarily come from their export-driven business where they compete globally. It's not like a JP Morgan (the person) or JP Morgan (the Wall St bank today) who really rely on borderline slavery from captive labor markets, or welfare from taxpayers.
  - Ericson2314 7y ago
    Gosh, Carnegie's reputation laundering was truly his greatist innovation. That knock-off Gates should give him more credit.
  - bagacrap 7y ago
    Well many people think Microsoft's behavior was monopolistic, so yes, unfair, and exploiting monopolies is a robber baron motif. They're also known for exploiting their workers but I don't think Bill did that (so far as I know he didn't actively suppress wages like Jobs). In any case he was much maligned at a certain point in history and his charitable work is a little too over-publicized and under-delivering for me to take seriously. Even if Bill is sincere, gp made the claim that robber barons don't work against their own interest, and I don't see where in the Gates example a man is working against himself.
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    > > I'm not sure there are many examples of enlightened robber barons who allowed progressive changes that were counter to their interests but improved society as a whole. > Bill Gates' charitable work comes to mind. I wouldn't call him really a robber baron as the term implies wealth gained unfairly or from others involuntarily. And yet, even Elizabeth Warren crippled social democratic policies are going too far. Paying taxes should be the litmus test for Bill Gates (and other billionaires), not throwing some scraps into unspecified charity. Bill Gates is just a smarter Rockefeller that saw the writing on the wall and cashed out early. Call it an "ex-robber baron".
    - wallace_f 7y ago
      This is just a statement of opinions without any reasoning or substantiation. I get it that social media is extremely biased to the left and people agree with this kind of thing, but it's disconcerting that people cannot respond to the discussion which follows from first principles and logical reasoning. For example, by responding to the reasoning I gave. Not just saying "I disagree, and Elizabeth Warren isn't even socialist enough for me." It's so unconvincing.
nemonemo 7y ago
Much of Samsung's production happens outside SK so I don't think the influence of SK labor policies on Samsung is not as significant as one might think. If anything, such labor policies as well as this kind of prosecution and sentencing for those powerful people would help the long term health of the country and even Samsung itself.
hardwaresofton 7y ago
> One question I have is how beneficial these changes would be for GDP of Korea. On paper, these changes sound nice as they would benefit employees and make things "fair". But changing things dramatically can have side effects (ex. higher minimum wage led to many small shops closing). More regulations might limit Samsung's ability to compete internationally, which is bad as Samsung (and Korea in general) rely heavily on export-based economy. Does GDP matter if a large segment of the population is miserable? Samsung's ability to compete internationally is important but I'd rank that as a second to the health and happiness of it's populace. > higher minimum wage led to many small shops closing I don't quite buy this -- higher minimum wages might indeed increase costs for small shops, but this is a shallow assessment: - A clearer definition of "small shop" is needed -- most really small shops are run by the owner/owner's family, no? If this is not the case, then I'd argue that businesses that are dependent on not paying workers a living wage should not exist (if Korea's people wish it so). - Higher wages usually means more money spent on goods for all but the upper echelon of the population who may or may not be more interested in amassing wealth for whatever reason
- zanny 7y ago
  The only major conservative / anti-progressive argument on this topic I'd give credence to is that corporate power and influence and the resulting abuse of workers is a necessary evil to compete globally. That if you made your nation unto an island with 20 hour work weeks, 2 months paid vacation, a 20 dollar minimum wage (or UBI), public housing, public transit, etc that your economy would rot as capital went places where more exploitation means more profit overall. Not to say that is an inevitability or even a correct interpretation, but it does lean heavily on the argument that a healthy, educated, rational, and free populace can compete with the export yields of wage slaves overdosing on drugs even if they aren't compelled to do work nobody wants to do for a price nobody wants to take. The question is if people wanting things enough to drive an economy over them needing things. Historically almost all wealth was built on exploitations - of land, of resources, and of people. What if preventing the exploitation and suffering of your fellows causes everyone to suffer in the long term from economic stagnation? Its a dystopic way to look at the world but given the major economic powerhouses of this and recent eras I just don't see the evidence that its entirely wrong.
Animats 7y ago
Traditional "chaebol" companies are having trouble adapting to some of these changes. It shocked a lot of people, inside and outside South Korea, when Hanjin Shipping was allowed to go bust. Not resold, reorganized, but immediate bankruptcy and liquidation. Management was expecting a bailout right up to the end. Ships were stuck all over the planet, and empty blue Hanjin containers piled up in ports. That's when the chaebol realized the rules have changed.
krageon 7y ago
Having a liveable minimum wage works fine in many, many countries. Every time there is talk of raising the minimum wage in a country where it is expected to exploit workers and sleep well at night there are all these big scare stories about "small business" which will suffer and all the "jobs" that will leave. I personally think those people are missing the point and are also for some reason negligent in looking at other regimes that have such policies, where they work fine.

sersi 7y ago

That's a good point... Making changes quickly and dramatically does have some effects that might be negative. However, it's usually very difficult for such changes to happen slowly and progressively. Those kind of changes tend to come when a large percent of the population is fed up with the way things are and start to agitate for changes. At that point, it's unlikely to happen progressively... So it's a bit of a catch 22, as long as the people who benefit from the current state of society are in power (or control those who are in power), change are unlikely to come progressively since it would be disadvantageous to them but, once they lose the reigns (as they inevitably do), change happen so fast that it's both potentially bad for the society at large and worse for the ones who used to be at the top. I'm not sure there are many examples of enlightened robber barons who allowed progressive changes that were counter to their interests but improved society as a whole.

wallace_f 7y ago
>I'm not sure there are many examples of enlightened robber barons who allowed progressive changes that were counter to their interests but improved society as a whole. Bill Gates' charitable work comes to mind. I wouldn't call him really a robber baron as the term implies wealth gained unfairly or from others involuntarily. The Fed is printing almost another half trillion in cash to inject, subsidize Wall St., for example. I also don't know if the term applies fairly to Samsung, as while the Korean history of chaebol companies was fueled by crony capitalism, their wealth does primarily come from their export-driven business where they compete globally. It's not like a JP Morgan (the person) or JP Morgan (the Wall St bank today) who really rely on borderline slavery from captive labor markets, or welfare from taxpayers.
- Ericson2314 7y ago
  Gosh, Carnegie's reputation laundering was truly his greatist innovation. That knock-off Gates should give him more credit.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  Well many people think Microsoft's behavior was monopolistic, so yes, unfair, and exploiting monopolies is a robber baron motif. They're also known for exploiting their workers but I don't think Bill did that (so far as I know he didn't actively suppress wages like Jobs). In any case he was much maligned at a certain point in history and his charitable work is a little too over-publicized and under-delivering for me to take seriously. Even if Bill is sincere, gp made the claim that robber barons don't work against their own interest, and I don't see where in the Gates example a man is working against himself.
- JetSpiegel 7y ago
  > > I'm not sure there are many examples of enlightened robber barons who allowed progressive changes that were counter to their interests but improved society as a whole. > Bill Gates' charitable work comes to mind. I wouldn't call him really a robber baron as the term implies wealth gained unfairly or from others involuntarily. And yet, even Elizabeth Warren crippled social democratic policies are going too far. Paying taxes should be the litmus test for Bill Gates (and other billionaires), not throwing some scraps into unspecified charity. Bill Gates is just a smarter Rockefeller that saw the writing on the wall and cashed out early. Call it an "ex-robber baron".
  - wallace_f 7y ago
    This is just a statement of opinions without any reasoning or substantiation. I get it that social media is extremely biased to the left and people agree with this kind of thing, but it's disconcerting that people cannot respond to the discussion which follows from first principles and logical reasoning. For example, by responding to the reasoning I gave. Not just saying "I disagree, and Elizabeth Warren isn't even socialist enough for me." It's so unconvincing.

nemonemo 7y ago

Much of Samsung's production happens outside SK so I don't think the influence of SK labor policies on Samsung is not as significant as one might think. If anything, such labor policies as well as this kind of prosecution and sentencing for those powerful people would help the long term health of the country and even Samsung itself.

hardwaresofton 7y ago

> One question I have is how beneficial these changes would be for GDP of Korea. On paper, these changes sound nice as they would benefit employees and make things "fair". But changing things dramatically can have side effects (ex. higher minimum wage led to many small shops closing). More regulations might limit Samsung's ability to compete internationally, which is bad as Samsung (and Korea in general) rely heavily on export-based economy. Does GDP matter if a large segment of the population is miserable? Samsung's ability to compete internationally is important but I'd rank that as a second to the health and happiness of it's populace. > higher minimum wage led to many small shops closing I don't quite buy this -- higher minimum wages might indeed increase costs for small shops, but this is a shallow assessment: - A clearer definition of "small shop" is needed -- most really small shops are run by the owner/owner's family, no? If this is not the case, then I'd argue that businesses that are dependent on not paying workers a living wage should not exist (if Korea's people wish it so). - Higher wages usually means more money spent on goods for all but the upper echelon of the population who may or may not be more interested in amassing wealth for whatever reason

zanny 7y ago
The only major conservative / anti-progressive argument on this topic I'd give credence to is that corporate power and influence and the resulting abuse of workers is a necessary evil to compete globally. That if you made your nation unto an island with 20 hour work weeks, 2 months paid vacation, a 20 dollar minimum wage (or UBI), public housing, public transit, etc that your economy would rot as capital went places where more exploitation means more profit overall. Not to say that is an inevitability or even a correct interpretation, but it does lean heavily on the argument that a healthy, educated, rational, and free populace can compete with the export yields of wage slaves overdosing on drugs even if they aren't compelled to do work nobody wants to do for a price nobody wants to take. The question is if people wanting things enough to drive an economy over them needing things. Historically almost all wealth was built on exploitations - of land, of resources, and of people. What if preventing the exploitation and suffering of your fellows causes everyone to suffer in the long term from economic stagnation? Its a dystopic way to look at the world but given the major economic powerhouses of this and recent eras I just don't see the evidence that its entirely wrong.

Animats 7y ago

Traditional "chaebol" companies are having trouble adapting to some of these changes. It shocked a lot of people, inside and outside South Korea, when Hanjin Shipping was allowed to go bust. Not resold, reorganized, but immediate bankruptcy and liquidation. Management was expecting a bailout right up to the end. Ships were stuck all over the planet, and empty blue Hanjin containers piled up in ports. That's when the chaebol realized the rules have changed.

krageon 7y ago

Having a liveable minimum wage works fine in many, many countries. Every time there is talk of raising the minimum wage in a country where it is expected to exploit workers and sleep well at night there are all these big scare stories about "small business" which will suffer and all the "jobs" that will leave. I personally think those people are missing the point and are also for some reason negligent in looking at other regimes that have such policies, where they work fine.