5 ms·

Given the source, I interpreted it as referring to how companies treat their employees (i.e. worker bees). The story suggests that, all other things being equa

by beloch 7y ago

Given the source, I interpreted it as referring to how companies treat their employees (i.e. worker bees). The story suggests that, all other things being equal, consumers might gravitate towards companies with a reputation for treating their employees well. Mark, Barry, and Willy produce the same product at the same price, so how they treat their employees becomes how they differentiate themselves and win over consumers. The problem is, all things are rarely equal and, if they are, businesses usually find ways of differentiating themselves that consumers care more about than happy employees. When Mark starts losing business to Barry, he's going to cut his prices, spend more on advertising, etc.. Treating his bees poorly may actually help him squeeze more honey out of them at less cost, so Barry might not be able to match him without starting to mistreat his bees a little too. Willy's costs are probably the highest of the three, but maybe he can use clever advertising to portray his product as a luxury item that's somehow better than Barry's or Mark's, even if it's identical. If that fails he'll have to choose between happy bees and not going bankrupt. I'd like to live in a world where a virtuous feedback loop would lead to companies treating their employees better and better, but history says that's not the world we live in. We live in a world that has had to come up with labour unions when spirals of mistreatment and cost-cutting got out of hand. We live in a world where executive pay is going stratospheric while employee benefits are stagnant. Perhaps it would be a better world if people cared more about how companies treat their employees, but I honestly don't see how you get people browsing Amazon to choose the honey that's $2/jar more just because it came from slightly happier bees.

teapourer 7y ago
I interpreted it a bit more broadly as a message about a company's image in the media (though this may be influenced by how it is reputed to treat its workers). I thought the author's point was that if your company's only value proposition is that you are "less evil" than some company B (but with virtually the same product), then your position is extremely vulnerable.
gridlockd 7y ago
> I'd like to live in a world where a virtuous feedback loop would lead to companies treating their employees better and better, but history says that's not the world we live in. The world we live in has historically treated workers better and better, with some ups and downs, mostly for economic reasons. The primary factor that determines worker welfare is the price of labor. If labor is cheap due to low demand and lots of people compete for jobs, they will accept being mistreated. If labor is expensive due to high demand and fewer people competing for jobs, they will not accept being mistreated. They will move on to greener pastures. This is different across industries, of course. The plight is upon those who have little to offer to the demands of the economy. If nobody wants to eat honey anymore, having bees work for free wouldn't save the company. What we also have learned from history, but tend to forget, is that price fixing doesn't solve the problem. > We live in a world where executive pay is going stratospheric while employee benefits are stagnant. This is numerically irrelevant, because there are very few such executives. Cutting into their compensation to pay the many lower-tier workers a tiny bit more would make no difference.
- peteradio 7y ago
  CEO pay is a scapegoat. The real transfer has gone to shareholders. US is basically bisected to two classes now where the below class lives inside a meatgrinder with no realistic way out.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    Shareholders are scapegoats as well. Just as dividing up CEO compensation among workers would be a drop in the bucket, dividing company profits (or just dividends) amongst them often wouldn't amount to a substantial difference. Shareholders only have made paper profits in the S&P 500 because the governments of the world have decided that debt has to be cheap in order to avoid another liquidity crisis, therefore assets must be relatively expensive. This isn't a wealth transfer, it's price inflation. Warren Buffett may have a bigger dollar valuation to his name today, but he couldn't buy any more stock or real estate with it.
mdorazio 7y ago
> The story suggests that, all other things being equal, consumers might gravitate towards companies with a reputation for treating their employees well. I got that feeling as well, but I think it's not really well-supported in the real world. Some consumers gravitate towards companies with a good reputation / ethical platform / health focus / whatever. But the vast majority of consumers choose on price or value separate from these things. For example, in the US how many people shop at Whole Foods vs. normal supermarkets? I'd be surprised if it's more than 1 in 10.
adventurechange 7y ago
You got me there, Quote:'The problem is, all things are rarely equal and, if they are, businesses usually find ways of differentiating themselves that consumers care more about than happy employees.'...but... "'Ethical' behavior rules the internal- and security policy social", anyone ?? P-:
zentiggr 7y ago
> I'd like to live in a world where a virtuous feedback loop would lead to companies treating their employees better and better, but history says that's not the world we live in. This sort of comment always reminds me of the quintessential answer: "That's funny, I always thought the world is what we make of it." If the only way we can 'make consumers choose better' is to continually publish and broadcast the worst corporate behavior in order to spur these kinds of shifts, then so be it. Scream loudly about WalMart subverting local government and historical societies to build a store within sight of Tenochtitlan. Republish over and over about Amazon's treatment of their fulfillment workers. Shame them all until the baseline is as much better as we can make it, and keep pushing against the entropy. That's how we make the world better.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  The world is what We make it, not what I make it. The coordination problem is not trivial. Look at our lord and savior Bill Gates saving the USA from novel Corovirus. He could only do that after amassing a fortune from being a criminally savage businessperson for decades.
  - zentiggr 7y ago
    Agreed it's not a trivial problem. That was my point, that we need to show the cases of worst behavior often, loudly, and broadly so that people are informed and have the option to make choices. Got a bone to pick about BG, gotcha.
  - glofish 7y ago
    This is an excellent point. Bill Gates has money because he created a product that set back science for decades. It still hurts science today. The way Windows differentiates itself from Unix for the sole reason of not being compatible has set back society immensely. Today, after having made all this money exploiting society in general and science in particular, he is putting money back into science. Look, I get it, the damage is already done, so him putting money back we gain some back. And I also get it. If he didn't do it someone else would have. But does that absolve the sins of the individual?
elicash 7y ago
> We live in a world that has had to come up with labour unions when spirals of mistreatment and cost-cutting got out of hand The OP story is one reason that unions in certain geographies will attempt to unionize the entire industry all at once, so that there's no competitive disadvantage for one employer against another on labor costs. If you're organizing janitors in Miami, building owners will need to hire SOME contracting service to maintain the building but want the cheapest, still-quality one available. So if the workers do it together, it actually makes the fight with the employers easier not harder because they're less worried about losing business. Of course, this also means the lack of union density makes it harder for any individual place to unionize.

by beloch 7y ago

teapourer 7y ago

I interpreted it a bit more broadly as a message about a company's image in the media (though this may be influenced by how it is reputed to treat its workers). I thought the author's point was that if your company's only value proposition is that you are "less evil" than some company B (but with virtually the same product), then your position is extremely vulnerable.

gridlockd 7y ago

> I'd like to live in a world where a virtuous feedback loop would lead to companies treating their employees better and better, but history says that's not the world we live in. The world we live in has historically treated workers better and better, with some ups and downs, mostly for economic reasons. The primary factor that determines worker welfare is the price of labor. If labor is cheap due to low demand and lots of people compete for jobs, they will accept being mistreated. If labor is expensive due to high demand and fewer people competing for jobs, they will not accept being mistreated. They will move on to greener pastures. This is different across industries, of course. The plight is upon those who have little to offer to the demands of the economy. If nobody wants to eat honey anymore, having bees work for free wouldn't save the company. What we also have learned from history, but tend to forget, is that price fixing doesn't solve the problem. > We live in a world where executive pay is going stratospheric while employee benefits are stagnant. This is numerically irrelevant, because there are very few such executives. Cutting into their compensation to pay the many lower-tier workers a tiny bit more would make no difference.

peteradio 7y ago
CEO pay is a scapegoat. The real transfer has gone to shareholders. US is basically bisected to two classes now where the below class lives inside a meatgrinder with no realistic way out.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  Shareholders are scapegoats as well. Just as dividing up CEO compensation among workers would be a drop in the bucket, dividing company profits (or just dividends) amongst them often wouldn't amount to a substantial difference. Shareholders only have made paper profits in the S&P 500 because the governments of the world have decided that debt has to be cheap in order to avoid another liquidity crisis, therefore assets must be relatively expensive. This isn't a wealth transfer, it's price inflation. Warren Buffett may have a bigger dollar valuation to his name today, but he couldn't buy any more stock or real estate with it.

mdorazio 7y ago

> The story suggests that, all other things being equal, consumers might gravitate towards companies with a reputation for treating their employees well. I got that feeling as well, but I think it's not really well-supported in the real world. Some consumers gravitate towards companies with a good reputation / ethical platform / health focus / whatever. But the vast majority of consumers choose on price or value separate from these things. For example, in the US how many people shop at Whole Foods vs. normal supermarkets? I'd be surprised if it's more than 1 in 10.

adventurechange 7y ago

You got me there, Quote:'The problem is, all things are rarely equal and, if they are, businesses usually find ways of differentiating themselves that consumers care more about than happy employees.'...but... "'Ethical' behavior rules the internal- and security policy social", anyone ?? P-:

zentiggr 7y ago

> I'd like to live in a world where a virtuous feedback loop would lead to companies treating their employees better and better, but history says that's not the world we live in. This sort of comment always reminds me of the quintessential answer: "That's funny, I always thought the world is what we make of it." If the only way we can 'make consumers choose better' is to continually publish and broadcast the worst corporate behavior in order to spur these kinds of shifts, then so be it. Scream loudly about WalMart subverting local government and historical societies to build a store within sight of Tenochtitlan. Republish over and over about Amazon's treatment of their fulfillment workers. Shame them all until the baseline is as much better as we can make it, and keep pushing against the entropy. That's how we make the world better.

lonelappde 7y ago
The world is what We make it, not what I make it. The coordination problem is not trivial. Look at our lord and savior Bill Gates saving the USA from novel Corovirus. He could only do that after amassing a fortune from being a criminally savage businessperson for decades.
- zentiggr 7y ago
  Agreed it's not a trivial problem. That was my point, that we need to show the cases of worst behavior often, loudly, and broadly so that people are informed and have the option to make choices. Got a bone to pick about BG, gotcha.
- glofish 7y ago
  This is an excellent point. Bill Gates has money because he created a product that set back science for decades. It still hurts science today. The way Windows differentiates itself from Unix for the sole reason of not being compatible has set back society immensely. Today, after having made all this money exploiting society in general and science in particular, he is putting money back into science. Look, I get it, the damage is already done, so him putting money back we gain some back. And I also get it. If he didn't do it someone else would have. But does that absolve the sins of the individual?

elicash 7y ago

> We live in a world that has had to come up with labour unions when spirals of mistreatment and cost-cutting got out of hand The OP story is one reason that unions in certain geographies will attempt to unionize the entire industry all at once, so that there's no competitive disadvantage for one employer against another on labor costs. If you're organizing janitors in Miami, building owners will need to hire SOME contracting service to maintain the building but want the cheapest, still-quality one available. So if the workers do it together, it actually makes the fight with the employers easier not harder because they're less worried about losing business. Of course, this also means the lack of union density makes it harder for any individual place to unionize.