3 ms·

I refuse to work with all of them. Until I have to pay my rent. So, to me, people saying that won't work for Rio or Fakebook or Tesla or whoever, it means the

I refuse to work with all of them. Until I have to pay my rent. So, to me, people saying that won't work for Rio or Fakebook or Tesla or whoever, it means they/we/I that have that luxury. I tend to think of it like I think of global warming or any other problem of capitalism and crimes against humanity -- your job/lifestyle has some (tiny) effect, but if you actually want to have a different world, you have to do the real work of changing 'the system' -- e.g. in the US, that might be pushing for publicly-funded elections, for public media, against dark money, for rich people to pay taxes, etc. You work for Wall Street? Madison Avenue? K Street? eh -- sucks for your conscience, if you have one, but it's not making much difference if/when you decide to cash out and become a virtue-signaling city-hippie -- someone will gladly take your place. I think a good parallel is thinking of the 'benevolent' (Northern) bankers and the 'evil' (Southern) slaveowners. My reading of history suggests the bankers were at least as evil as the slaveowners. So next time we're lauding Tesla and condemning Chevron...

bedobi 5y ago
I can see where you're coming from, and this is kind of why I mentioned > ...I'm no saint myself! I work in the travel industry and ask myself to what degree I enable massive CO2 emissions for people's leisure, wasteful businesses having in person meetings that they probably don't need to etc etc. That said, I don't think I agree that just because you not taking a job at Rio Tinto or Facebook or whatever won't change the world, you might as well take the job, or that someone else will gladly take your place. Some of these companies are overwhelmingly likely to, due to their controversy, not attract as good talent at as good rates as they otherwise would, and that's a good thing IMO.
- readonthegoapp 5y ago
  yes, i think we agree that, at least in theory, companies with bad reps could find it more difficult to find people, find the best people, find people for as low a salaries as they would like, etc. otoh, i think you could just as easily argue that these companies are attracting the absolute best talent, paying them the highest salaries, and being happy to do so -- because their business model enjoys insane profits. employees might have to leave a bit more of their conscience at the door, but there are all sorts of ways to justify that to oneself. what is the 'absolute best talent' for a company with a less-than-stellar reputation? really, it's probably the same employee as for most companies -- someone whose beliefs/behaviors most closely model the expected and ideal behavior of corporations -- sociopaths. serial killers, even -- as long as they didn't kill their fellow employees. it's expensive to find talent in this market! it reminds me of the lady, Lucy Hughes, of marketing firm, Initiative -- in the movie, The Corporation, she's tells how a friend asked her, "Lucy, is (manipulating children with your advertising) ethical?" She says, basically, "Well I don't know if it's ethical or not, but at Initiative our job is to move product." :-D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQYsk-8dWg&t=4090s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQYsk-8dWg&t=4090s

bedobi 5y ago

I can see where you're coming from, and this is kind of why I mentioned > ...I'm no saint myself! I work in the travel industry and ask myself to what degree I enable massive CO2 emissions for people's leisure, wasteful businesses having in person meetings that they probably don't need to etc etc. That said, I don't think I agree that just because you not taking a job at Rio Tinto or Facebook or whatever won't change the world, you might as well take the job, or that someone else will gladly take your place. Some of these companies are overwhelmingly likely to, due to their controversy, not attract as good talent at as good rates as they otherwise would, and that's a good thing IMO.

readonthegoapp 5y ago
yes, i think we agree that, at least in theory, companies with bad reps could find it more difficult to find people, find the best people, find people for as low a salaries as they would like, etc. otoh, i think you could just as easily argue that these companies are attracting the absolute best talent, paying them the highest salaries, and being happy to do so -- because their business model enjoys insane profits. employees might have to leave a bit more of their conscience at the door, but there are all sorts of ways to justify that to oneself. what is the 'absolute best talent' for a company with a less-than-stellar reputation? really, it's probably the same employee as for most companies -- someone whose beliefs/behaviors most closely model the expected and ideal behavior of corporations -- sociopaths. serial killers, even -- as long as they didn't kill their fellow employees. it's expensive to find talent in this market! it reminds me of the lady, Lucy Hughes, of marketing firm, Initiative -- in the movie, The Corporation, she's tells how a friend asked her, "Lucy, is (manipulating children with your advertising) ethical?" She says, basically, "Well I don't know if it's ethical or not, but at Initiative our job is to move product." :-D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQYsk-8dWg&t=4090s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQYsk-8dWg&t=4090s