3 ms·

Forgive the eye-roll, but this is classic HN reductionism. How many things can you think of - right now - for which there is clear evidence of benefit yet soci

Forgive the eye-roll, but this is classic HN reductionism. How many things can you think of - right now - for which there is clear evidence of benefit yet society has not adopted action? Systemic change is slow, sometimes laws help advance systemic change. The gender disparity gap in leadership is closing, but network effects will continue to operate to create inequitible opportunity for quite some time.

cm2187 4y ago
In term of things that are more profitable, companies tend to be very good at optimising for that, that’s the nature of a free market, economic darwinism through competition. If your objective is equity, not economic performance, then it’s a different objective but that’s not the one quoted by the senator.
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
  Companies exist within systems that are more than just "pure capitalism", and whose individual-level actors (who often hold decision-making authority) are motivated by more than just "maximizing company returns". The free market is not some independent force of physics, it's operating in a highly complex, multi-factorial society with individual actors and competing forces. For instance: I have seen people lobby for hires - yes, including two instances of appointing board members - based on personal associations vs. a sober-eyed review of qualifications (guess which gender typically benefits?). The idea that "if it was better the market will make it so" may be right in the fullness of time, but we live in what is effectively a zero-sum society when viewing the present. Patience for the long-tail of change advantages the already advantaged.
honkdaddy 4y ago
>How many things can you think of - right now - for which there is clear evidence of benefit yet society has not adopted action Which ones can you think of? Keep in mind the article is talking about markets and fiscal health of the company itself, not society as a whole. It's pretty easy to make the case "society would be better if we did the beneficial things", the question at hand is whether it's the governments place to push these on private actors.

cm2187 4y ago

In term of things that are more profitable, companies tend to be very good at optimising for that, that’s the nature of a free market, economic darwinism through competition. If your objective is equity, not economic performance, then it’s a different objective but that’s not the one quoted by the senator.

HelloMcFly 4y ago
Companies exist within systems that are more than just "pure capitalism", and whose individual-level actors (who often hold decision-making authority) are motivated by more than just "maximizing company returns". The free market is not some independent force of physics, it's operating in a highly complex, multi-factorial society with individual actors and competing forces. For instance: I have seen people lobby for hires - yes, including two instances of appointing board members - based on personal associations vs. a sober-eyed review of qualifications (guess which gender typically benefits?). The idea that "if it was better the market will make it so" may be right in the fullness of time, but we live in what is effectively a zero-sum society when viewing the present. Patience for the long-tail of change advantages the already advantaged.

honkdaddy 4y ago

>How many things can you think of - right now - for which there is clear evidence of benefit yet society has not adopted action Which ones can you think of? Keep in mind the article is talking about markets and fiscal health of the company itself, not society as a whole. It's pretty easy to make the case "society would be better if we did the beneficial things", the question at hand is whether it's the governments place to push these on private actors.