3 ms·

> corporations are mostly authoritarian There is a pretty big difference to an authoritarian state: Companies have to obey local laws that other people make, a

> corporations are mostly authoritarian There is a pretty big difference to an authoritarian state: Companies have to obey local laws that other people make, and they have to treat their employees good enough that they don't quit. Once companies start making their own laws (by bribing officials) or when they treat employees like shit (because they don't have other options), then they are just as problematic as other autocracies. Good, healthy corporations work together with the society, and while decisions are made top down, they are not made in a vacuum -- no corporation can decide that their employees need to work 7 days a week, when the local laws prevent that.

ianai 4y ago
“Companies have to obey local laws that other people make, and they have to treat their employees good enough that they don't quit.” This would be true if one person quitting meant anything other than a job opening and search for a fill. Having worked under terrible conditions, I can tell you the person they hire will have no idea why the previous person left. It might not take long for the new person to figure it out. But market realities tend to make it take months to years for that new person to then turn around head to a new position. Meanwhile this is all enough for bad management to claim success. Companies only obey local laws in so far as the threat of prosecution is real. This threat is undermined way too easily.
- TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
  It usually does apply to skilled labour, as the new worker will need to be trained to fill the position, with profit loss for the duration. Everything is a tradeoff.
  - ianai 4y ago
    I was talking about skilled labor experiences.
sva_ 4y ago
> Once companies start making their own laws (by bribing officials) or when they treat employees like shit (because they don't have other options), then they are just as problematic as other autocracies. I don't think it is as clear cut as you say. I think for example, that there is some lobbyism that is justified, in that they communicate with politicians in a way that can enable, say, innovation. But there's also lobbyism which might as well be called corruption. It doesn't seem obvious where exactly to draw the line here, so it is hard to conclude if and how problematic a company is.
- newaccount74 4y ago
  > It doesn't seem obvious where exactly to draw the line here In my opinion it's pretty clear: Lobbyism is okay as long as it is public and doesn't involve bribes. It's bad when it happens behind closed doors and involves either direct or indirect payments (eg. awarding contracts to friends of lawmakers).

ianai 4y ago

“Companies have to obey local laws that other people make, and they have to treat their employees good enough that they don't quit.” This would be true if one person quitting meant anything other than a job opening and search for a fill. Having worked under terrible conditions, I can tell you the person they hire will have no idea why the previous person left. It might not take long for the new person to figure it out. But market realities tend to make it take months to years for that new person to then turn around head to a new position. Meanwhile this is all enough for bad management to claim success. Companies only obey local laws in so far as the threat of prosecution is real. This threat is undermined way too easily.

TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
It usually does apply to skilled labour, as the new worker will need to be trained to fill the position, with profit loss for the duration. Everything is a tradeoff.
- ianai 4y ago
  I was talking about skilled labor experiences.

sva_ 4y ago

> Once companies start making their own laws (by bribing officials) or when they treat employees like shit (because they don't have other options), then they are just as problematic as other autocracies. I don't think it is as clear cut as you say. I think for example, that there is some lobbyism that is justified, in that they communicate with politicians in a way that can enable, say, innovation. But there's also lobbyism which might as well be called corruption. It doesn't seem obvious where exactly to draw the line here, so it is hard to conclude if and how problematic a company is.

newaccount74 4y ago
> It doesn't seem obvious where exactly to draw the line here In my opinion it's pretty clear: Lobbyism is okay as long as it is public and doesn't involve bribes. It's bad when it happens behind closed doors and involves either direct or indirect payments (eg. awarding contracts to friends of lawmakers).