5 ms·

I'm sure people would still be griping, but nothing is static. The cost of everything keeps increasing and honestly, depending on where you live even at 20 doll

by suby 4y ago

I'm sure people would still be griping, but nothing is static. The cost of everything keeps increasing and honestly, depending on where you live even at 20 dollars an hour it will be hard to make ends meet. There will always be a struggle between labor and employer where each will seek to maximize their share, it's the system we have set up. I really don't think people should be faulted for pushing for more when it's literally a companies goal to pay people as little as is functionally possible. Amazon is the target because they are the largest. If you increase the wage Amazon pays, you increase the wage their competitors pay.

oarsinsync 4y ago
> when it's literally a companies goal to pay people as little as is functionally possible The meme that “fiduciary duty” means “maximise revenue at all costs” needs to die. This is a falsehood that has been debunked repeatedly.
- suby 4y ago
  Your two sentences in this thread is hardly debunking anything. What is Amazon maximizing if not profit? It certainly is not employee share of revenue or employee well being.
  - macintux 4y ago
    The point is that there’s no law that says companies must maximize profit at the expense of everything else. The fiduciary duty is to be responsible with shareholder’s money, not to maximize return on investment.
    - verall 4y ago
      It doesn't matter if it is the law or not if Amazon is made up of a large group of managers with competing interests that all boil to maximizing profit in order to meet their individual key goals. The GP said nothing about it being the law, simply that it is how Amazon, as a giant megacorporation, acts in practice.
      - otikik 4y ago
        It does matter because assuming it as a matter-of-fact prevents discussing or even conceiving alternatives. It prevents you from asking: What should the companies fiduciary duty be? (Perhaps respecting the law and not busting unions?)
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Corporations are allowed to exist to create a positive net good. ie: the social contract works so long as we can plausibly reason that they, you know, actually benefit people more than they harm. Maximizing profit is a lie told to children for reasons I won't get into, but when it displaces the social contract, the end result is a justification of all sorts of socially pathological behavior, this included.
    - arrosenberg 4y ago
      Everything you just said stopped being true in the 70s and 80s. Yes, B-corps are a thing, but the laws as currently constructed encourage profit extraction above nearly everything else.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        That would be true if people believed economists like Milton Friedman created reality instead of what was really much more mundane. Those who do so are attributing supernatural powers to a mere mortal.
        arrosenberg 4y ago
        It is true, regardless of what you believe. There is a ton if empirical evidence for it. Having the patience to push and set legal precedent isn't a superpower. Not sure what your point is here.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        I just don't base truth on what Milton Friedman supposedly says or what legal precedent is. There are much better epistemological firmaments than those on which to ground reality.
  - pjmorris 4y ago
    Corporations have no fiduciary duty to produce a profit. Thinking that they do has been attributed to Milton Friedman's 1971 NY editorial [0], but some argue that the notion can't be pinned on him [1] It's more accurate to say that fiduciary responsibilities are to ensure the corporation doesn't violate the law and that the firm doesn't go out of business [2]. [0] 'The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits', Friedman [1] https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6540&context=law_lawreview https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Shareholder-Value-Myth-Shareholders-Corporations/dp/1605098132 https://www.amazon.com/Shareholder-Value-Myth-Shareholders-C...
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  The only point of a company is to maximize shareholder value. You're right, that doesn't always mean "maximize revenue at all costs.” It usually does though, because especially as a growth company that's what shareholders want. Obviously there are competing priorities, but overall most shareholders want to maximize discounted profit, and all their priorities reflect how that should be done.
  - onethought 4y ago
    That’s not true though. The shareholders are people so what they want are as varied as what people want. Does Elon want SpaceX to be super profitable or does he want to make life multi planetary? (They aren’t mutually exclusive, but it’s weird to think that he is just trying to make as much profit as possible).
    - Gibbon1 4y ago
      One can also consider that the state is also a party because they license and privilege corporations and stockholders.
    - Lich 4y ago
      > but it’s weird to think that he is just trying to make as much profit as possible Why is it weird to think that?
      - dahdum 4y ago
        More wealth isn’t enough to satiate his ego, he absolutely craves legacy. As of now he’ll still be a small footnote in history, kids will likely learn about Henry Ford 150 years from now but Musk isn’t worth much of an appearance. Tesla is just an iterative step in EV / battery manufacturing, and is likely to be dwarfed by competition over the next 50 years, even if it does really well. SpaceX gives him the chance to truly make history. People will learn about our first manned trip to Mars and the first colony. Perhaps even for thousands of years.
        4y ago
vorpalhex 4y ago
> The cost of everything keeps increasing and honestly, depending on where you live even at 20 dollars an hour it will be hard to make ends meet. And if you bump everyone to $20, things will get more expensive and then you'll have to bump them to $22, and then everything will get more expensive so you'll...
- snewman 4y ago
  This is so exaggerated as to be silly. The cost of "things" has many components, and only a small fraction of them trace back to the hourly wage of low-paid domestic workers. Increasing low-end wages by 10% does not result in 10% additional inflation.
- HarryHirsch 4y ago
  A wage-price spiral would be preferable to the asset inflation that two decades of zero-interest policy have brought us.
- 300bps 4y ago
  I think you’ve just invented the Wage-Price Spiral. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage-price_spiral https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage-price_spiral
- chownie 4y ago
  Except that's not at all true. Historic raises in the minimum wage did not cause an inflationary response in goods nor currency.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >Historic raises in the minimum wage did not cause an inflationary response in goods nor currency. The "historic raises in the minimum wage" were also very conservative and decried by proponents of $15/$20/whatever minimum wage as being too low. A one time pay bump won't cause serious issues, but giving in to ever increasing demands for minimum wage (ie. $15 last year, $20 this year, $25 the year after) will.

by suby 4y ago

oarsinsync 4y ago

> when it's literally a companies goal to pay people as little as is functionally possible The meme that “fiduciary duty” means “maximise revenue at all costs” needs to die. This is a falsehood that has been debunked repeatedly.

suby 4y ago
Your two sentences in this thread is hardly debunking anything. What is Amazon maximizing if not profit? It certainly is not employee share of revenue or employee well being.
- macintux 4y ago
  The point is that there’s no law that says companies must maximize profit at the expense of everything else. The fiduciary duty is to be responsible with shareholder’s money, not to maximize return on investment.
  - verall 4y ago
    It doesn't matter if it is the law or not if Amazon is made up of a large group of managers with competing interests that all boil to maximizing profit in order to meet their individual key goals. The GP said nothing about it being the law, simply that it is how Amazon, as a giant megacorporation, acts in practice.
    - otikik 4y ago
      It does matter because assuming it as a matter-of-fact prevents discussing or even conceiving alternatives. It prevents you from asking: What should the companies fiduciary duty be? (Perhaps respecting the law and not busting unions?)
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Corporations are allowed to exist to create a positive net good. ie: the social contract works so long as we can plausibly reason that they, you know, actually benefit people more than they harm. Maximizing profit is a lie told to children for reasons I won't get into, but when it displaces the social contract, the end result is a justification of all sorts of socially pathological behavior, this included.
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    Everything you just said stopped being true in the 70s and 80s. Yes, B-corps are a thing, but the laws as currently constructed encourage profit extraction above nearly everything else.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      That would be true if people believed economists like Milton Friedman created reality instead of what was really much more mundane. Those who do so are attributing supernatural powers to a mere mortal.
      - arrosenberg 4y ago
        It is true, regardless of what you believe. There is a ton if empirical evidence for it. Having the patience to push and set legal precedent isn't a superpower. Not sure what your point is here.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        I just don't base truth on what Milton Friedman supposedly says or what legal precedent is. There are much better epistemological firmaments than those on which to ground reality.
- pjmorris 4y ago
  Corporations have no fiduciary duty to produce a profit. Thinking that they do has been attributed to Milton Friedman's 1971 NY editorial [0], but some argue that the notion can't be pinned on him [1] It's more accurate to say that fiduciary responsibilities are to ensure the corporation doesn't violate the law and that the firm doesn't go out of business [2]. [0] 'The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits', Friedman [1] https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6540&context=law_lawreview https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Shareholder-Value-Myth-Shareholders-Corporations/dp/1605098132 https://www.amazon.com/Shareholder-Value-Myth-Shareholders-C...
colinmhayes 4y ago
The only point of a company is to maximize shareholder value. You're right, that doesn't always mean "maximize revenue at all costs.” It usually does though, because especially as a growth company that's what shareholders want. Obviously there are competing priorities, but overall most shareholders want to maximize discounted profit, and all their priorities reflect how that should be done.
- onethought 4y ago
  That’s not true though. The shareholders are people so what they want are as varied as what people want. Does Elon want SpaceX to be super profitable or does he want to make life multi planetary? (They aren’t mutually exclusive, but it’s weird to think that he is just trying to make as much profit as possible).
  - Gibbon1 4y ago
    One can also consider that the state is also a party because they license and privilege corporations and stockholders.
  - Lich 4y ago
    > but it’s weird to think that he is just trying to make as much profit as possible Why is it weird to think that?
    - dahdum 4y ago
      More wealth isn’t enough to satiate his ego, he absolutely craves legacy. As of now he’ll still be a small footnote in history, kids will likely learn about Henry Ford 150 years from now but Musk isn’t worth much of an appearance. Tesla is just an iterative step in EV / battery manufacturing, and is likely to be dwarfed by competition over the next 50 years, even if it does really well. SpaceX gives him the chance to truly make history. People will learn about our first manned trip to Mars and the first colony. Perhaps even for thousands of years.
      - 4y ago

vorpalhex 4y ago

> The cost of everything keeps increasing and honestly, depending on where you live even at 20 dollars an hour it will be hard to make ends meet. And if you bump everyone to $20, things will get more expensive and then you'll have to bump them to $22, and then everything will get more expensive so you'll...

snewman 4y ago
This is so exaggerated as to be silly. The cost of "things" has many components, and only a small fraction of them trace back to the hourly wage of low-paid domestic workers. Increasing low-end wages by 10% does not result in 10% additional inflation.
HarryHirsch 4y ago
A wage-price spiral would be preferable to the asset inflation that two decades of zero-interest policy have brought us.
300bps 4y ago
I think you’ve just invented the Wage-Price Spiral. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage-price_spiral https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage-price_spiral
chownie 4y ago
Except that's not at all true. Historic raises in the minimum wage did not cause an inflationary response in goods nor currency.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Historic raises in the minimum wage did not cause an inflationary response in goods nor currency. The "historic raises in the minimum wage" were also very conservative and decried by proponents of $15/$20/whatever minimum wage as being too low. A one time pay bump won't cause serious issues, but giving in to ever increasing demands for minimum wage (ie. $15 last year, $20 this year, $25 the year after) will.