4 ms·

I understand Ford asked "what if we treated people well?", but he did it in the context of "useless extra billions" (to use your language) - he paid people a li

by whakim 5y ago

I understand Ford asked "what if we treated people well?", but he did it in the context of "useless extra billions" (to use your language) - he paid people a little bit better than his competitors in order to enable a competitive advantage which earned him more money. If treating them worse would have earned him more money, he would have done that instead. (n.b. that the increased wage also came with a bunch of moralistic lifestyle strings attached that were rigorously enforced.) My point is that there exist businesses and business owners who aren't solely motivated by increasing their share of the profits (even though our system strongly encourages this) - I just don't think Henry Ford just is a good example of that.

wpietri 5y ago
Would you please cite your sources for Ford's motivations being solely pecuniary? I am not trying to set up him up as an example of an amazing do-gooder; he was in many ways awful. But I don't think his biography fits with the notion that he was only in it for the money.
- whakim 5y ago
  [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/?sh=7f528b6f766d https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-stor... I actually agree with you that as a person he wasn't "only in it for the money" - I am only arguing that his wage-setting policies were purely about the money.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    That is nothing like a reliable source. It's an opinion piece from a far-right ideologue with an ax to grind. It contains not one word from Ford himself. Ford's whole life shows that he was up to more than just maximizing profit. Look at his energetic pacifism or his vigorous paternalism toward workers. Or his antisemitism for that matter. Wealth to him was a means to a variety of ends. If you want to argue that the the higher wage was purely profit-driven, you'll have to show it was not just profitable, but unrelated to those other motivations that drove him. I don't think that's doable. And if it were, I'm not seeing it as relevant to my point, which is that Bezos is being mean-spirited and short-sighted even in comparison to jerks like Henry Ford.
    - whakim 5y ago
      > That is nothing like a reliable source. It's an opinion piece from a far-right ideologue with an ax to grind. It contains not one word from Ford himself. I simply picked it as one of the many long list of sites that you'll find if you simply search "Henry Ford $5 wage". They all tie the increased wages to turnover issues and financial motivations. If you disagree with what appears to be the prevailing wisdom, then please feel free to cite sources to refute it. > Ford's whole life shows that he was up to more than just maximizing profit. Look at his energetic pacifism or his vigorous paternalism toward workers. Or his antisemitism for that matter. Wealth to him was a means to a variety of ends. You'll see I said that 'I actually agree with you that as a person he wasn't "only in it for the money" - I am only arguing that his wage-setting policies were purely about the money.' You'll need to back up the last statement with sources. > If you want to argue that the the higher wage was purely profit-driven, you'll have to show it was not just profitable, but unrelated to those other motivations that drove him. I don't think that's doable. And if it were, I'm not seeing it as relevant to my point, which is that Bezos is being mean-spirited and short-sighted even in comparison to jerks like Henry Ford. The onus is on you to disprove what most people have to say about the issue. It's also not even clear that Bezos would earn more money even if he raised wages; Amazon already pays a $15 minimum wage which is much higher than the competition (and much higher than the $7ish federal minimum wage), so I think it's pretty clear that both Henry Ford and Jeff Bezos paid/are paying enough in order to avoid extremely high turnover while asking their workers to do laborious jobs.
      - wpietri 5y ago
        If your approach to understanding this is to randomly Google things and pick the first link that looks like it agrees with you, I'm not seeing a lot of utility in further discussing this. You clearly have an opinion on Ford. From my perspective, you're welcome to keep being wrong about the topic.
        whakim 5y ago
        > randomly Google things and pick the first link that looks like it agrees with you The entire first page of Google agrees with me, which seems a reasonable proxy for the prevailing wisdom. I don't have a particularly strongly-held opinion on the matter to be honest, but what you're saying isn't what the internet writ large appears to be saying, so I would love to see the sources which support your point of view.

by whakim 5y ago

wpietri 5y ago

Would you please cite your sources for Ford's motivations being solely pecuniary? I am not trying to set up him up as an example of an amazing do-gooder; he was in many ways awful. But I don't think his biography fits with the notion that he was only in it for the money.

whakim 5y ago
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/?sh=7f528b6f766d https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-stor... I actually agree with you that as a person he wasn't "only in it for the money" - I am only arguing that his wage-setting policies were purely about the money.
- wpietri 5y ago
  That is nothing like a reliable source. It's an opinion piece from a far-right ideologue with an ax to grind. It contains not one word from Ford himself. Ford's whole life shows that he was up to more than just maximizing profit. Look at his energetic pacifism or his vigorous paternalism toward workers. Or his antisemitism for that matter. Wealth to him was a means to a variety of ends. If you want to argue that the the higher wage was purely profit-driven, you'll have to show it was not just profitable, but unrelated to those other motivations that drove him. I don't think that's doable. And if it were, I'm not seeing it as relevant to my point, which is that Bezos is being mean-spirited and short-sighted even in comparison to jerks like Henry Ford.
  - whakim 5y ago
    > That is nothing like a reliable source. It's an opinion piece from a far-right ideologue with an ax to grind. It contains not one word from Ford himself. I simply picked it as one of the many long list of sites that you'll find if you simply search "Henry Ford $5 wage". They all tie the increased wages to turnover issues and financial motivations. If you disagree with what appears to be the prevailing wisdom, then please feel free to cite sources to refute it. > Ford's whole life shows that he was up to more than just maximizing profit. Look at his energetic pacifism or his vigorous paternalism toward workers. Or his antisemitism for that matter. Wealth to him was a means to a variety of ends. You'll see I said that 'I actually agree with you that as a person he wasn't "only in it for the money" - I am only arguing that his wage-setting policies were purely about the money.' You'll need to back up the last statement with sources. > If you want to argue that the the higher wage was purely profit-driven, you'll have to show it was not just profitable, but unrelated to those other motivations that drove him. I don't think that's doable. And if it were, I'm not seeing it as relevant to my point, which is that Bezos is being mean-spirited and short-sighted even in comparison to jerks like Henry Ford. The onus is on you to disprove what most people have to say about the issue. It's also not even clear that Bezos would earn more money even if he raised wages; Amazon already pays a $15 minimum wage which is much higher than the competition (and much higher than the $7ish federal minimum wage), so I think it's pretty clear that both Henry Ford and Jeff Bezos paid/are paying enough in order to avoid extremely high turnover while asking their workers to do laborious jobs.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      If your approach to understanding this is to randomly Google things and pick the first link that looks like it agrees with you, I'm not seeing a lot of utility in further discussing this. You clearly have an opinion on Ford. From my perspective, you're welcome to keep being wrong about the topic.
      - whakim 5y ago
        > randomly Google things and pick the first link that looks like it agrees with you The entire first page of Google agrees with me, which seems a reasonable proxy for the prevailing wisdom. I don't have a particularly strongly-held opinion on the matter to be honest, but what you're saying isn't what the internet writ large appears to be saying, so I would love to see the sources which support your point of view.