4 ms·

> Virtually every large american company needs clear laws on working with China. I partially agree. Yes, the Federal government should heavily regulate trade wi

by jerrac 6y ago

> Virtually every large american company needs clear laws on working with China. I partially agree. Yes, the Federal government should heavily regulate trade with China. But companies don't need to wait on the Government to do what is right. Companies could have ignored any Government push to do business in China. Outsourcing ethics to Government regulation is just plain wrong.

cgriswald 6y ago
It seems it's been a necessary course of action over the course of the last two centuries regardless of the morality of it.
linuxftw 6y ago
> Companies could have ignored any Government push to do business in China. The corporations are the ones that wanted it.
thephyber 6y ago
> Outsourcing ethics to Government regulation is just plain wrong. This is a category error. Companies have an existential incentive to chase profits (and their managers can be sued by the shareholders for doing anything less). Their incentive to avoid violating laws, morals, and ethics is far lower. > is just plain wrong What is the consequence? Does anyone in the USA strictly avoid buying anything from any company with dubious ethics? We all have knee-jerk reactions to outrage, but where we either (1) don't have enough transparency to know or (2) don't have reasonable alternatives, there is no ability for individual non-governmental entities to shape those incentives. The closest we get are internet mobs organizing boycotts, but lots of people reject that method for completely rational reasons.
- jerrac 6y ago
  > This is a category error. Companies have an existential incentive to chase profits (and their managers can be sued by the shareholders for doing anything less). Their incentive to avoid violating laws, morals, and ethics is far lower. Holding firm to a strong sense of ethics and morals is a risky thing to do. Whether you're representing a company, or just acting as an individual. But that risk does not justify NOT holding firm. So, if you run a company, and you're afraid of getting sued by your shareholders for not pursuing profit at the expense of your ethics and morals, I'd suggest finding a new job. Or, just maybe, your shareholders aren't so blinded by greed that they would not support your company doing what is right.
  - hkeide 6y ago
    And the people who don't go and find a new job will replace you in the market place. It's natural selection.
  - spaced-out 6y ago
    >So, if you run a company, and you're afraid of getting sued by your shareholders for not pursuing profit at the expense of your ethics and morals, I'd suggest finding a new job. Maybe this is what happens, and the people who are left in charge at those companies are the ones who don't care?
  - thephyber 6y ago
    I agree that's how things should work, but I agree with a sibling comment that the fitness function of companies right now in the USA doesn't select for the attributes you are describing. I act that way, but I've never worked for any of the most successful companies in my industry. That's probably not a coincidence.
  - usefulcat 6y ago
    > So, if you run a company, and you're afraid of getting sued by your shareholders for not pursuing profit at the expense of your ethics and morals, I'd suggest finding a new job. Who’s to say that’s not exactly what normally happens? In which case it should surprise no one that those who remain are disproportionately lacking in ethics and morals.

by jerrac 6y ago

cgriswald 6y ago

It seems it's been a necessary course of action over the course of the last two centuries regardless of the morality of it.

linuxftw 6y ago

> Companies could have ignored any Government push to do business in China. The corporations are the ones that wanted it.

thephyber 6y ago

> Outsourcing ethics to Government regulation is just plain wrong. This is a category error. Companies have an existential incentive to chase profits (and their managers can be sued by the shareholders for doing anything less). Their incentive to avoid violating laws, morals, and ethics is far lower. > is just plain wrong What is the consequence? Does anyone in the USA strictly avoid buying anything from any company with dubious ethics? We all have knee-jerk reactions to outrage, but where we either (1) don't have enough transparency to know or (2) don't have reasonable alternatives, there is no ability for individual non-governmental entities to shape those incentives. The closest we get are internet mobs organizing boycotts, but lots of people reject that method for completely rational reasons.

jerrac 6y ago
> This is a category error. Companies have an existential incentive to chase profits (and their managers can be sued by the shareholders for doing anything less). Their incentive to avoid violating laws, morals, and ethics is far lower. Holding firm to a strong sense of ethics and morals is a risky thing to do. Whether you're representing a company, or just acting as an individual. But that risk does not justify NOT holding firm. So, if you run a company, and you're afraid of getting sued by your shareholders for not pursuing profit at the expense of your ethics and morals, I'd suggest finding a new job. Or, just maybe, your shareholders aren't so blinded by greed that they would not support your company doing what is right.
- hkeide 6y ago
  And the people who don't go and find a new job will replace you in the market place. It's natural selection.
- spaced-out 6y ago
  >So, if you run a company, and you're afraid of getting sued by your shareholders for not pursuing profit at the expense of your ethics and morals, I'd suggest finding a new job. Maybe this is what happens, and the people who are left in charge at those companies are the ones who don't care?
- thephyber 6y ago
  I agree that's how things should work, but I agree with a sibling comment that the fitness function of companies right now in the USA doesn't select for the attributes you are describing. I act that way, but I've never worked for any of the most successful companies in my industry. That's probably not a coincidence.
- usefulcat 6y ago
  > So, if you run a company, and you're afraid of getting sued by your shareholders for not pursuing profit at the expense of your ethics and morals, I'd suggest finding a new job. Who’s to say that’s not exactly what normally happens? In which case it should surprise no one that those who remain are disproportionately lacking in ethics and morals.