4 ms·
> “We cannot allow corporations to put profit over people” This implies corporations should "put people over profit", which is welfare.
by MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
> “We cannot allow corporations to put profit over people”
This implies corporations should "put people over profit", which is welfare.
- vincnetas 5y agoBy people i think we mean "workers". People who do impact on physical reality. And who are, or should be part of corporation. I'm starting to sound like communist :)
- NoahTheDuke 5y agoNo, it doesn't. It means not privileging profits at the expense of people. It's possible to have profit as a goal without hurting people (in this fashion).
- MrBuddyCasino 5y ago> without hurting people You need to be specific. Injuries? Stress? Responsibility? Overtime? General drudgery? People are paid a salary to do something they wouldn't do otherwise. There is always a downside. Laws exist to limit certain downsides, eg undue physical stress, sexual exploitation or too high a risk of injuries. If that was the actual policy goal, you would not say “We cannot allow corporations to put profit over people”, you would be mentioning a specific downside. Doing otherwise would be dishonest sloganeering.
- Mordisquitos 5y agoWhy should they mention a specific downside when they are merely expressing support for the overall idea? Ultimately it is all down to value judgements, in the same way you do not specify what constitutes undue physical stress as opposed to appropriate physical stress, nor when a risk of injury becomes too high.
- MrBuddyCasino 5y agoPlease vote for my new party, The Good Party. Our "overall idea" of policy is that we prefer to do good things. You should vote for us if you, in general, like good things. None of the things that we are in favour for have drawbacks, and given enough time and money, our regime will inevitably result in Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
- Mordisquitos 5y agoI'm sorry, I demand political parties to be specific and detailed as to their ultimate values and how they expect to implement them, unlike HN commenters who do not have such a responsibility. Also, not only do I see no novelty in a political party refusing to recognise any drawback to their policies, but I also lean much more towards Neo-Luddite Automation Restriction.
- MrBuddyCasino 5y ago> Neo-Luddite Automation Restriction Excellent, board the Butlerian Jihad Hilux then, we're riding at dawn.
- alistairSH 5y agoHorse manure. It means an employer shouldn't maximize profit for shareholders at the expense of their employees. You seem to think the labor market is some sort of textbook-perfect market, where employees have roughly equal power and information as employer. That simply isn't true. Thus we need worker protections. And every time an employer finds a new way to profit off bad behavior, we need to add more protections.
- howinteresting 5y agoYes. Corporations should put employee welfare over profit. Next question?
- hellbannedguy 5y agoThe only hugh abuse of welfare in the USA is what politicians let corporations/employers get away with. Fired for no reason=perfectly fine. Severely injured on the job=can't sue the company in most cases, and have to rely on suppar Workman's Comp. (I probally left out a lot of Corporate Welfare. It's early. here, and I need to go back to sleep.)
- JohnFen 5y agoThis is binary thinking. There's an entire spectrum between those two poles.