3 ms·

Because not everyone thinks like Gordon Gecko.

conjectures 6y ago
It's not about that. It's about whether it's a 'stable' solution or not. It's the same reason why most of the chocolate sold isn't fair trade and there's often modern slavery produced beans in mainstream products. Calls for voluntary improvement are great, and may be heeded sometimes, but aren't uniformly reliable when there is no effective legal requirement and financial incentives point the other way.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
minikites 6y ago
The incentives of capitalism dictate that those who don't think like Gordon Gecko be replaced by those who do.
P_I_Staker 6y ago
Businesses are designed to make money. That includes controlling costs. I'm not saying it a good thing, but you don't have to be some cartoon villain to think this way. It's par for the course in capitalism.
- raydev 6y ago
  > It's par for the course in capitalism. If this isn't a defense then what is the point of adding this? We are aware it's par for the course. But "controlling costs" doesn't necessarily mean "paying the absolute minimum of what the market will bear." That thinking may as well belong to a cartoon negligent fool, one who ignores the impacts of their actions simply because those impacts are not immediately obvious to them.
  - P_I_Staker 5y ago
    Hey, I don't expect this to get read, but I wanted to respond. It's important to understand what we're working with here. The reality is that businesses don't just pay people because they need the money to support themselves. They don't see underpaying employees as a "problem", not necessarily at least. So they're not carefully accounting for their employees personal needs so they can provide sufficient pay. That's probably not going to change, at least not much. There's other things that can change. OP: > @employers of HN: Compare your wages with the cost of living in the location you expect your employers to be. Ensure that their rent plus fixed expenses is at most a third of their wage, and ensure that they need to work at most 40 hours a week to earn that. If you do not meet that standard, you are underpaying your employees > That sounds all nice but why would they do that when they can find people who accept to work longer for less? > Because not everyone thinks like Gordon Gecko. Simply reducing the players to cartoon characters that think greed is good doesn't help the problem. I'm not defending our current system, I think that we need to change policies, tax incentives, minimum wage, and real estate policy. I'm also wary of wealth disparity among management and executives, but am even more pessimistic there. I don't think expecting corporations to be altruistic or else calling them villains, fools ect. is the answer. At the end of the day they're concerned that they will get out competed, or about their responsibility to shareholders, and that's how budgets get set. Saying "come on, have a heart" doesn't help.

It's not about that. It's about whether it's a 'stable' solution or not. It's the same reason why most of the chocolate sold isn't fair trade and there's often modern slavery produced beans in mainstream products. Calls for voluntary improvement are great, and may be heeded sometimes, but aren't uniformly reliable when there is no effective legal requirement and financial incentives point the other way.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

minikites 6y ago

The incentives of capitalism dictate that those who don't think like Gordon Gecko be replaced by those who do.

P_I_Staker 6y ago

Businesses are designed to make money. That includes controlling costs. I'm not saying it a good thing, but you don't have to be some cartoon villain to think this way. It's par for the course in capitalism.

raydev 6y ago
> It's par for the course in capitalism. If this isn't a defense then what is the point of adding this? We are aware it's par for the course. But "controlling costs" doesn't necessarily mean "paying the absolute minimum of what the market will bear." That thinking may as well belong to a cartoon negligent fool, one who ignores the impacts of their actions simply because those impacts are not immediately obvious to them.
- P_I_Staker 5y ago
  Hey, I don't expect this to get read, but I wanted to respond. It's important to understand what we're working with here. The reality is that businesses don't just pay people because they need the money to support themselves. They don't see underpaying employees as a "problem", not necessarily at least. So they're not carefully accounting for their employees personal needs so they can provide sufficient pay. That's probably not going to change, at least not much. There's other things that can change. OP: > @employers of HN: Compare your wages with the cost of living in the location you expect your employers to be. Ensure that their rent plus fixed expenses is at most a third of their wage, and ensure that they need to work at most 40 hours a week to earn that. If you do not meet that standard, you are underpaying your employees > That sounds all nice but why would they do that when they can find people who accept to work longer for less? > Because not everyone thinks like Gordon Gecko. Simply reducing the players to cartoon characters that think greed is good doesn't help the problem. I'm not defending our current system, I think that we need to change policies, tax incentives, minimum wage, and real estate policy. I'm also wary of wealth disparity among management and executives, but am even more pessimistic there. I don't think expecting corporations to be altruistic or else calling them villains, fools ect. is the answer. At the end of the day they're concerned that they will get out competed, or about their responsibility to shareholders, and that's how budgets get set. Saying "come on, have a heart" doesn't help.