4 ms·

There are so many comments in this thread justifying this behavior. > The last thing you want is key employees jumping ship > Of course they do. How else do y

There are so many comments in this thread justifying this behavior. > The last thing you want is key employees jumping ship > Of course they do. How else do you get people to stick around on a sinking ship? > While it looks immoral if you don't understand the mechanics, people are simply responding to incentives around bankruptcy laws Do people really believe that the mechanics of bankruptcy laws, and the incentives to retain executives instead of workers, are just part of the natural order of the universe? That they appeared out of nowhere, align perfectly with morality, and haven't been deliberately structured this way to protect the ruling class?

devmunchies 6y ago
>...are just part of the natural order of the universe? That they appeared out of nowhere, align perfectly with morality... Do you think morality is part of the natural order of the universe? It’s definitely not.
- falcor84 6y ago
  I'm not going to take a side here, but there would be quite a few philosophers, legal professionals and political scientists who would argue that. Wikipedia would be a good starting point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
- wolfram74 6y ago
  It isn't part of the natural universe, but neither is bankruptcy law, so why care overly about it when thinking whether or not to change things? What is economically viable does depend a bit on physical law, but it also depends a great deal by the legal ecology we humans decide upon collectively.
jonahbenton 6y ago
No, they are not part of the natural order of the universe, but with respect, thinking about this in "ruling class" terms is completely wrong. Neither word "ruling" nor "class" means anything in modern Western society, and neither do the two of them together. Using inaccurate and imprecise language commits two sins- fails to communicate why things are and fails to elucidate how they might be changed. The word owner has precise meaning, as does the word creditor. This behavior is entirely about protecting the interests of owners and creditors. Sometimes people/orgs playing these roles are large and powerful but often they are not. There is a huge literature here. The most recent best book I've read on these issues is Katarina Pistor "The Code of Capital." Highly recommend pursuing a path to adopt more precise language on these matters. Cheers.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Zenbit_UX 6y ago
  You pedantic rant aside, you didn't actually explain your point. How does paying large bonuses to executives protect the interest of creditors? I'm no expert but this sounds like how a person declaring bankruptcy might max out their credit cards at the apple store then sell them off for cash on Craigslist. I.e. Draining the bank so it doesn't go to creditors. This same pool of money used for gratuitous bonuses could also be paying worker severance, so you justifying it as otherwise moral is exactly the GP's point.
  - eat_veggies 6y ago
    I'm not sure jonahbenton is trying to justify it as moral, but rather trying to identify who exactly I mean by the hand-wavy "ruling class." Their point is well taken.
  - jonahbenton 6y ago
    Heh, no, I didn't say it was moral, and my point wasn't to explain, it was to redirect. But to explain- In fantasy world the money going to bonuses could go to severance, but in reality that is a misuse of cash, in some cases illegal. The owners are the only ones entitled to the cash in the business, well, after creditors are repaid. Reducing the debt owed to creditors is the function of bankruptcy. Workers are not owners and they definitely are not creditors. Giving them severance could in fact be considered stealing. Putting cash into keeping operations going to service debt- THAT is how the owner/creditor dynamic plays out. And key employees- managers- without whom the business crank does not turn- they become MORE valuable. Hence, bonuses. Is this moral? No. It isn't. I never said it was. But the way to make it moral isn't to rant- which I didn't do- and make use of undefinable and wrong/inapplicable terms like "ruling class". Neither "ruling" nor "class" has anything to do with these dynamics. There are a very precisely defined set of roles and relationships here, enshrined in law, going back to tradition, for thousands of years. The way to make it moral is to understand what an owner is, what a creditor is, how the law works, and then to define what morality means. Does it mean that workers become creditors, that labor creates a debt? That might be one avenue to explore, from a moral universe perspective. But changes to one role will change the other roles, and what one person considers moral, others may not. My experience is that most people who make claims of immorality do not understand ownership, a foundation principle upon which nearly all societies that have practiced philosophy and have attempted to define morality have been based on. Forgive me but you cannot talk intelligently about morality if you do not understand ownership. That's my point. Cheers, best wishes.
lm28469 6y ago
It's HN (aka people making 3-10x the minimum salary of their country) and an American issue (aka individualism is king), most of them have an easier time projecting as the exec getting free money for their "good" work than the employees getting abused, because they're closer to the former and never experienced the later. These people don't think about such things as "moral" or "common good". It doesn't matter if many other countries successfully banned these practices because in their mind it's the only way.
lend000 6y ago
Perhaps you should read the threads and try to "understand the mechanics" rather than judging the first line. The whole point of the "while it looks immoral" thread is that corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy laws are broken and incentivize these consequences.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

devmunchies 6y ago

>...are just part of the natural order of the universe? That they appeared out of nowhere, align perfectly with morality... Do you think morality is part of the natural order of the universe? It’s definitely not.

falcor84 6y ago
I'm not going to take a side here, but there would be quite a few philosophers, legal professionals and political scientists who would argue that. Wikipedia would be a good starting point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
wolfram74 6y ago
It isn't part of the natural universe, but neither is bankruptcy law, so why care overly about it when thinking whether or not to change things? What is economically viable does depend a bit on physical law, but it also depends a great deal by the legal ecology we humans decide upon collectively.

jonahbenton 6y ago

No, they are not part of the natural order of the universe, but with respect, thinking about this in "ruling class" terms is completely wrong. Neither word "ruling" nor "class" means anything in modern Western society, and neither do the two of them together. Using inaccurate and imprecise language commits two sins- fails to communicate why things are and fails to elucidate how they might be changed. The word owner has precise meaning, as does the word creditor. This behavior is entirely about protecting the interests of owners and creditors. Sometimes people/orgs playing these roles are large and powerful but often they are not. There is a huge literature here. The most recent best book I've read on these issues is Katarina Pistor "The Code of Capital." Highly recommend pursuing a path to adopt more precise language on these matters. Cheers.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Zenbit_UX 6y ago
You pedantic rant aside, you didn't actually explain your point. How does paying large bonuses to executives protect the interest of creditors? I'm no expert but this sounds like how a person declaring bankruptcy might max out their credit cards at the apple store then sell them off for cash on Craigslist. I.e. Draining the bank so it doesn't go to creditors. This same pool of money used for gratuitous bonuses could also be paying worker severance, so you justifying it as otherwise moral is exactly the GP's point.
- eat_veggies 6y ago
  I'm not sure jonahbenton is trying to justify it as moral, but rather trying to identify who exactly I mean by the hand-wavy "ruling class." Their point is well taken.
- jonahbenton 6y ago
  Heh, no, I didn't say it was moral, and my point wasn't to explain, it was to redirect. But to explain- In fantasy world the money going to bonuses could go to severance, but in reality that is a misuse of cash, in some cases illegal. The owners are the only ones entitled to the cash in the business, well, after creditors are repaid. Reducing the debt owed to creditors is the function of bankruptcy. Workers are not owners and they definitely are not creditors. Giving them severance could in fact be considered stealing. Putting cash into keeping operations going to service debt- THAT is how the owner/creditor dynamic plays out. And key employees- managers- without whom the business crank does not turn- they become MORE valuable. Hence, bonuses. Is this moral? No. It isn't. I never said it was. But the way to make it moral isn't to rant- which I didn't do- and make use of undefinable and wrong/inapplicable terms like "ruling class". Neither "ruling" nor "class" has anything to do with these dynamics. There are a very precisely defined set of roles and relationships here, enshrined in law, going back to tradition, for thousands of years. The way to make it moral is to understand what an owner is, what a creditor is, how the law works, and then to define what morality means. Does it mean that workers become creditors, that labor creates a debt? That might be one avenue to explore, from a moral universe perspective. But changes to one role will change the other roles, and what one person considers moral, others may not. My experience is that most people who make claims of immorality do not understand ownership, a foundation principle upon which nearly all societies that have practiced philosophy and have attempted to define morality have been based on. Forgive me but you cannot talk intelligently about morality if you do not understand ownership. That's my point. Cheers, best wishes.

lm28469 6y ago

It's HN (aka people making 3-10x the minimum salary of their country) and an American issue (aka individualism is king), most of them have an easier time projecting as the exec getting free money for their "good" work than the employees getting abused, because they're closer to the former and never experienced the later. These people don't think about such things as "moral" or "common good". It doesn't matter if many other countries successfully banned these practices because in their mind it's the only way.

lend000 6y ago

Perhaps you should read the threads and try to "understand the mechanics" rather than judging the first line. The whole point of the "while it looks immoral" thread is that corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy laws are broken and incentivize these consequences.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]