5 ms·

> The comments here are disheartening. I get it, a lot of people hate Amazon and that perfectly ok, but why can't we be happy when companies do nice things? Be

by bogwog 5y ago

> The comments here are disheartening. I get it, a lot of people hate Amazon and that perfectly ok, but why can't we be happy when companies do nice things? Because the benefit of the doubt is for people/companies who haven't repeatedly (some might even say enthusiastically) shown that they don't deserve it. At this point, it's always safe to assume ulterior motives anytime Amazon does something that seems good.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
Even accepting that, why go on to assume that it's a zero-sum game between Amazon and the employee? Why can't be what's good value for Amazon also be good value for the employee?
gruez 5y ago
>At this point, it's always safe to assume ulterior motives anytime Amazon does something that seems good. It's a self-reinforcing cycle amazon is bad -> therefore when amazon does something good, it's bad -> amazon is bad -> ...
krapp 5y ago
>At this point, it's always safe to assume ulterior motives anytime Amazon does something that seems good. I assume, in this case, there are tax benefits and that Amazon gets a cut of revenue.
- decebalus1 5y ago
  You assume correctly https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/furthering-your-employees-education-is-good-for-business https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/furthering-... "As the employer, you may deduct the entire amount that you pay for the employee's educational costs as a business expense. However, only $5,250 is not considered wages and therefore, not subject to payroll taxes. Amounts over the annual limit are subject to income and payroll taxes."
BeetleB 5y ago
When I read this, I always think of Congressman Floyd Spence: The American reaction to a Russian SALT treaty during the Cold War is one well-known example of naïve cynicism in history. Political leaders negotiating on behalf of the United States discredited the offer simply because it was proposed by the Russian side.[1][9] Former U.S. congressman Floyd Spence indicates the use of naïve cynicism in this quote: "I have had a philosophy for some time in regard to SALT, and it goes like this: the Russians will not accept a SALT treaty that is not in their best interest, and it seems to me that if it is their best interests, it can‘t be in our best interest." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_cynicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_cynicism
q1w2 5y ago
This is intellectually lazy. You assume everything good is done in bad faith by people you've labelled "bad" and then judged them to be bad based on acts you've assumed were done in bad faith. ...it's the epitome of bias.
- bogwog 5y ago
  I believe people can always redeem themselves, but corporations need to be held to higher standards since they're 90% of what determines the quality of life in this country. > You assume everything good is done in bad faith by people you've labelled "bad" and then judged them to be bad based on acts you've assumed were done in bad faith. I assume what Amazon does is bad by default, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's good if I'm proven otherwise (maybe someone convinces me, or I do my own research and come to that conclusion). I'm just always going to assume the worst, and that's going to put them at a permanent disadvantage when competing for my patronage. That's like, peak capitalism: penalize bad behavior through the market. Idk why I need to explain this, since I'm pretty sure everyone understands the concept of a reputation. Is it "intellectually lazy" to not invite a registered sex offender to your child's birthday party? This is basically the same thing, but less dramatic.
  - q1w2 5y ago
    It's always interesting to see people who think other people should be held to a higher standard, and seldom think they themselves should be held to those standards. It reminds me of the protesters happy to destroy other people's property, but then signal outrage when their own property is destroyed.
    - bogwog 5y ago
      How does that apply here? To what standards am I not holding myself to? I don't lie[1] and cheat[2] and try to exploit everyone in my life[3]. Hell, I even pay my taxes![4] Plus, again, I'm talking about corporations, not people. Corporations are not people. For example, Microsoft is a rotten company and I will never be their customer if I can avoid it. But I have absolutely nothing against Microsoft's employees (except maybe some of the C suite) [1] https://nypost.com/2020/05/01/jeff-bezos-may-have-lied-to-congress-about-amazon-lawmakers/ https://nypost.com/2020/05/01/jeff-bezos-may-have-lied-to-co... [2] https://www.bookweb.org/news/aba-releases-report-detailing-amazons-anti-competitive-behavior-1625433 https://www.bookweb.org/news/aba-releases-report-detailing-a... [3] https://time.com/5629233/amazon-warehouse-employee-treatment-robots/ https://time.com/5629233/amazon-warehouse-employee-treatment... [4] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/biden-singles-out-amazon-for-not-paying-federal-taxes/ar-BB1fbin8 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/biden-singles-out-...
ineedasername 5y ago
Do any but an extremely small handful of companies do anything for its employees that isn't self-serving on some level? Does it really matter that giving employees benefits like this is in Amazon's best interest when it is also in the interests of the employees themselves? Should we decry Amazon providing warehouse workers with a parking lot as some cynical ploy to get workers to come to work? Not every benefit given to employees is bad just because it also benefits the company.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> it's always safe to assume ulterior motives anytime Amazon does something that seems good You don't see how that attitude, if held by more people, creates the situation it holds in contempt? If I'm working with someone who responds like that to acts of goodwill, I don't have an incentive to be nice. Being a human, I'll likely be spiteful. (And goodwill doesn't have to be purely altruistic to be good. Win-wins exist.)

by bogwog 5y ago

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago

Even accepting that, why go on to assume that it's a zero-sum game between Amazon and the employee? Why can't be what's good value for Amazon also be good value for the employee?

gruez 5y ago

>At this point, it's always safe to assume ulterior motives anytime Amazon does something that seems good. It's a self-reinforcing cycle amazon is bad -> therefore when amazon does something good, it's bad -> amazon is bad -> ...

krapp 5y ago

>At this point, it's always safe to assume ulterior motives anytime Amazon does something that seems good. I assume, in this case, there are tax benefits and that Amazon gets a cut of revenue.

decebalus1 5y ago
You assume correctly https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/furthering-your-employees-education-is-good-for-business https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/furthering-... "As the employer, you may deduct the entire amount that you pay for the employee's educational costs as a business expense. However, only $5,250 is not considered wages and therefore, not subject to payroll taxes. Amounts over the annual limit are subject to income and payroll taxes."

BeetleB 5y ago

When I read this, I always think of Congressman Floyd Spence: The American reaction to a Russian SALT treaty during the Cold War is one well-known example of naïve cynicism in history. Political leaders negotiating on behalf of the United States discredited the offer simply because it was proposed by the Russian side.[1][9] Former U.S. congressman Floyd Spence indicates the use of naïve cynicism in this quote: "I have had a philosophy for some time in regard to SALT, and it goes like this: the Russians will not accept a SALT treaty that is not in their best interest, and it seems to me that if it is their best interests, it can‘t be in our best interest." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_cynicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_cynicism

q1w2 5y ago

This is intellectually lazy. You assume everything good is done in bad faith by people you've labelled "bad" and then judged them to be bad based on acts you've assumed were done in bad faith. ...it's the epitome of bias.

bogwog 5y ago
I believe people can always redeem themselves, but corporations need to be held to higher standards since they're 90% of what determines the quality of life in this country. > You assume everything good is done in bad faith by people you've labelled "bad" and then judged them to be bad based on acts you've assumed were done in bad faith. I assume what Amazon does is bad by default, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's good if I'm proven otherwise (maybe someone convinces me, or I do my own research and come to that conclusion). I'm just always going to assume the worst, and that's going to put them at a permanent disadvantage when competing for my patronage. That's like, peak capitalism: penalize bad behavior through the market. Idk why I need to explain this, since I'm pretty sure everyone understands the concept of a reputation. Is it "intellectually lazy" to not invite a registered sex offender to your child's birthday party? This is basically the same thing, but less dramatic.
- q1w2 5y ago
  It's always interesting to see people who think other people should be held to a higher standard, and seldom think they themselves should be held to those standards. It reminds me of the protesters happy to destroy other people's property, but then signal outrage when their own property is destroyed.
  - bogwog 5y ago
    How does that apply here? To what standards am I not holding myself to? I don't lie[1] and cheat[2] and try to exploit everyone in my life[3]. Hell, I even pay my taxes![4] Plus, again, I'm talking about corporations, not people. Corporations are not people. For example, Microsoft is a rotten company and I will never be their customer if I can avoid it. But I have absolutely nothing against Microsoft's employees (except maybe some of the C suite) [1] https://nypost.com/2020/05/01/jeff-bezos-may-have-lied-to-congress-about-amazon-lawmakers/ https://nypost.com/2020/05/01/jeff-bezos-may-have-lied-to-co... [2] https://www.bookweb.org/news/aba-releases-report-detailing-amazons-anti-competitive-behavior-1625433 https://www.bookweb.org/news/aba-releases-report-detailing-a... [3] https://time.com/5629233/amazon-warehouse-employee-treatment-robots/ https://time.com/5629233/amazon-warehouse-employee-treatment... [4] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/biden-singles-out-amazon-for-not-paying-federal-taxes/ar-BB1fbin8 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/biden-singles-out-...

ineedasername 5y ago

Do any but an extremely small handful of companies do anything for its employees that isn't self-serving on some level? Does it really matter that giving employees benefits like this is in Amazon's best interest when it is also in the interests of the employees themselves? Should we decry Amazon providing warehouse workers with a parking lot as some cynical ploy to get workers to come to work? Not every benefit given to employees is bad just because it also benefits the company.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> it's always safe to assume ulterior motives anytime Amazon does something that seems good You don't see how that attitude, if held by more people, creates the situation it holds in contempt? If I'm working with someone who responds like that to acts of goodwill, I don't have an incentive to be nice. Being a human, I'll likely be spiteful. (And goodwill doesn't have to be purely altruistic to be good. Win-wins exist.)