5 ms·

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but capitalism has allowed this kind of thing for generations. Mining magnates should be forced to work at the coalface. The W

• spurgu 6y ago
  Interesting that you're getting downvoted with a comment that touches on the core of capitalism, or at least points out one of its main pitfalls.
  • djsumdog 6y ago
    It doesn't really add anything to this conversation. "Blame Capitalism" is all the rave, but it doesn't really fit with this argument. There is a lot going on here. One, this is a letter to Facebook when it really seems to be the contracting agency that's at issue. FB may just order their contractors to be like "stop this shit" and they comply, or they buy out the contract and move people in-house. People only have so much time and capacities. A software engineer isn't going to spend a lot of time on the sales room floor, but they might have started off in help-desk support. A CEO might not know what goes on in the warehouse, but he or she may have worked at a McDonalds growing up. If someone hasn't worked entry level jobs elsewhere, would working on the factory really develop empathy? Would that change policy? Probably not. It's so easy to make two boxes, one for the oppressor and the other for the oppressed, and place everyone into those two boxes. If each oppressor works a day in the shoes of the other box, does that make a difference? If the workers throw their wrenches into the gears and seize the means of production, what if they're completely unprepared to keep that machine moving and end up with famine? The issues are complex, much more complex than "Before you get your license, you should have to ride a bike on the streets for two weeks."
    • dao- 6y ago
      > It's so easy to make two boxes, one for the oppressor and the other for the oppressed, and place everyone into those two boxes. If each oppressor works a day in the shoes of the other box, does that make a difference? You've got a point there. The capitalist will most likely continue to act as a capitalist. The incentives are fundamentally wrong, so moralizing on an individual level won't do much, which brings us back to: blame capitalism.
    • hypervisorxxx 6y ago
      Zuckerberg has been to trial in washington and had to speak about AI approaches. This is not the first second or third time international news has been made making objective statements about the technical failures of the product facebook is wants it's moderators to use. To say he has not been made aware and had the opportunity to address these issues over years is giving him too much credit. Blame capitalism is all the rave. So are companies hiding from responsibility. Shell companies shell companies to evade responsibility and incing their companies on remote islands they clearly don't primarily operate on to evade taxes and giving abuses NDAs which effectively offer full silence regardless of any federal felonies committed or else they take severence or healthcare taken away. Companies can do whatever they want under an NDA and sue anyone to the point even if they did something very illegal, they still wouldn't be liable because the fact that someone spoke about it is illegal in the same way a VC investor was caught beating a woman 300 times in a row as she tried to escape the guys san Francisco mansion but the evidence was thrown out because it was obtained illegally and he got a $500 fine instead. Blame capitalism exists because publicly shaming companies away from egregious abuses even to the point of being often illegal is the only way to have some type of check and balance and it always takes a few people beginning by speaking out and losing their jobs and getting nothing for it before the masses come to agreement and hold companies responsible for better practices. Unfortunately this is not just a fun trend. It's a reaction that attempts to check and balance abuses and it often only happens after many yrs and many people have gone silent and a few have chosen to take the risk and speak out. We should definitely have something better than blame capitalism but to say it just appeared out of the blue is a bit misleading.
  • falcolas 6y ago
    Capitalism does not force you to create an immoral business, or to treat your employees (direct and contracted) immorally. It doesn't even really encourage it. Wanting more and more money regardless of the (human) cost does.
    • dao- 6y ago
      > Capitalism does not force you to create an immoral business, or to treat your employees (direct and contracted) immorally. It doesn't even really encourage it. It tends to encourage it by putting those at the top who manage to exploit the most. Capital also begets political power which makes it hard to counter that trend. > Wanting more and more money regardless of the (human) cost Congratulations, you've accidentally defined capitalism.
      • Karunamon 6y ago
        I'd argue that most alternative political systems are responsible for a lot more wasted resource and cost...
        • ckocagil 6y ago
          False dichotomy. Economic systems contain hundreds of sliders a country can adjust, from various tax rates to workers' rights. Adjusting one of these has nothing to do with Stalin's USSR or Mao's China, so I don't understand why you're bringing those up.
          • Karunamon 6y ago
            Because when you slag off "capitalism", the next question is "what else?", and history shows the alternatives are worse.
            • ako 6y ago
              I disagree, e.g, europe, not pure capitalism, not pure communism, not pure socialism, but somewhere in between (depending no country). Overall these countries are not less successful than US (which is also not pure capitalism), and most of it citizen prefer living in europe and would not consider moving to the US. More socialised forms of healthcare, education and unemployement support are main reasons.
• gazillionaire 6y ago
  If you are unhappy with a job, quit. Under capitalism, you have that freedom. Not so much in other systems.
  • djsumdog 6y ago
    Yes, normally you are. We are in a CVOID19 world, which makes that a little more problematic. Still,e the fact that unemployment is dropping and people have found new ways to make money, despite old jobs potentially disappearing forever, is actually a strength of capitalism. Socialism say, "Don't worry we'll take care of you. Here's some welfare," and people become dependent on the State, and the State might give you some new job options to pick from. FDR's new deal gave people jobs that weren't even necessary (Got into a building in TVA and look at the rows and floors of empty cubes; they had a secretary for each floor) and even though people knew that, there was still a sense of pride that at least they were working and trying to contribute. That aided more creatively, and more recovery. COVID is the ultimate test of Capitalism for people to rise up within the new rules of this horrible system, a one where leaders are saying "You literally cannot run your small store, but we're going to let this massive chain keep working" .. where they are literally removing your Capitalists freedoms, and the ones who will survive are the ones who say "Fuck this .. I'm going to find a way to keep afloat .. time to get creative.." and suddenly your store is selling masks and creating more fabric waste to fill our oceans more than ever!
    • gazillionaire 6y ago
      Socialism doesn't give you jobs to choose from, it assigns you a job. That you are supposed to do for the common good, no personal gains allowed.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • slavak 6y ago
        You're either a troll, or _really_ confused about what Socialism is. I know this isn't the spirit of comments HN encourages, but I really can't afford to waste the time on writing a thoughtful reply to someone who is, most likely, purposefully ignorant. So I'll just link you to Wikipedia instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
• erulabs 6y ago
  > should be forced to work Falling back to social engineering and forced labor (hopefully) won't win you many points in the "let's re-architect the system" debate. If the Waltons never stopped stocking shelves and started scaling, we'd never have Walmart. It's possible you think that's a good decision for the world, but it's clearly not the worlds decision for itself.
  • wonnage 6y ago
    Nobody is saying that it has to be their full time job.
• nmfisher 6y ago
  Bezos clearly doesn't fall into this category. He literally built Amazon himself, on his knees, packing books with his bare hands. If there's one billionaire with intimate knowledge of the "lower" levels of his business, it's Bezos.
  • quesera 6y ago
    The business of Amazon has changed greatly since Bezos last packed a book. I'm not here to tell him how to run his business, but let's not pretend he would be happy to work in his warehouse.
    • efitz 6y ago
      Amazon employee here, speaking for myself, not the company. When I was hired, every senior employee (IC and manager, regardless of role) had to go work in a fulfillment center for a week sometime during your first year, learning and then performing all the jobs. I’m a computer guy, but there I was loading trucks, packing boxes, etc. It was a fantastic experience and connected you viscerally to the business. I believe it is still required. This is the culture that Jeff shaped for the company.
      • quesera 6y ago
        I've long thought this was an interesting model, and I've known that Amazon follows it, or at least did at one time. I wouldn't overstate it though -- the ability to tolerate a week of something does not necessarily extrapolate to a month or a year. A week in the rainforest is an adventure. A life in the rainforest is difficult and short. But I don't intend any criticism of Bezos. He has done the math on warehouse employee satisfaction as a contributor to corporate goals, and made his decision. The scrappy days of packing his own shipments are long past, and that experience gives him not-much insight into the working conditions for the people in his warehouses. That's fine, but it's not a basis for deification.
      • meowster 6y ago
        I think it depends on the attitude of the employee. For the people who have good attitudes where working there fulltime is character-building, they are over-qualified. For the people who aren't qualified to have a better job, their attitudes about things suck. For you, I imagine it was a week-long challenge where you knew that you would have a better job afterwards and make a lot more money.