4 ms·

> Not sure, how only one party has ethical obligations. I'm not sure that only one has ethical obligations. But one party is a human being and the other is a l

by jehb 3y ago

> Not sure, how only one party has ethical obligations. I'm not sure that only one has ethical obligations. But one party is a human being and the other is a legal fiction, and so I think most people would support the notion that the human being's needs are paramount.

BurningFrog 3y ago
The company is made up of human beings, who this argument dehumanizes.
- piva00 3y ago
  A company is made of human beings but it's not the human beings, the human beings can all shift around, leave, new ones come, but the company as it is still exist and is not driven by human values but by profit. Profit motive dehumanises anything it touches.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    The company is owned by humans.
    - UncleMeat 3y ago
      “We have to hurt people, otherwise how would we return profits to our investors” is the cardinal sin of the modern world. We’ve tied basic things like retirement to ever growing stock prices and cannot do anything to stand in the way of corporations sucking the world dry anymore.
      - andsoitis 3y ago
        In the case of layoffs, should a company instead invent work juts to keep people busy even if the company doesn’t consider that a good space to spend time on? Or if the workers don’t like it or find it pointless? If so, would you think we should compel companies to aim for (near) zero profit and in the process create jobs / work even if that work isn’t important (e.g. putting luggage upright when it falls over on an airport carousel)?
        UncleMeat 3y ago
        Sure, why not? IMO an employer should have a greater responsibility to its employees and its customers than to its investors. There is a differences between "not important" and "not the most efficient way to increase shareholder value." Corporations regularly refuse to do work that I'd consider important as a customer because their investors don't see it as important.
    - piva00 3y ago
      What is your point? Yes, it's owned by humans.
      - andsoitis 3y ago
        Well, you wrote: > and is not driven by human values but by profit. Profit motive dehumanises anything it touches As a shareholder, I expect the company to be steered for long term profitability. As do all the other shareholders, which also includes pension funds who in turn are there to provide security in retirement for millions of people. I expect my hard earned money that I have invested not to be squandered, not to be unnecessarily paid to engineers who make hundreds of thousands of dollars if their work doesn't contribute meaningfully to the company's long term business. I make separate charitable contributions for people in need. But a company is not the vehicle for that. Besides, the engineers who make hundreds of thousands of dollars at Meta do not need charity.
    - platevoltage 3y ago
      "Corporations are people my friend". Thank you Mr. Romney.

by jehb 3y ago

BurningFrog 3y ago

The company is made up of human beings, who this argument dehumanizes.

piva00 3y ago
A company is made of human beings but it's not the human beings, the human beings can all shift around, leave, new ones come, but the company as it is still exist and is not driven by human values but by profit. Profit motive dehumanises anything it touches.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  The company is owned by humans.
  - UncleMeat 3y ago
    “We have to hurt people, otherwise how would we return profits to our investors” is the cardinal sin of the modern world. We’ve tied basic things like retirement to ever growing stock prices and cannot do anything to stand in the way of corporations sucking the world dry anymore.
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      In the case of layoffs, should a company instead invent work juts to keep people busy even if the company doesn’t consider that a good space to spend time on? Or if the workers don’t like it or find it pointless? If so, would you think we should compel companies to aim for (near) zero profit and in the process create jobs / work even if that work isn’t important (e.g. putting luggage upright when it falls over on an airport carousel)?
      - UncleMeat 3y ago
        Sure, why not? IMO an employer should have a greater responsibility to its employees and its customers than to its investors. There is a differences between "not important" and "not the most efficient way to increase shareholder value." Corporations regularly refuse to do work that I'd consider important as a customer because their investors don't see it as important.
  - piva00 3y ago
    What is your point? Yes, it's owned by humans.
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      Well, you wrote: > and is not driven by human values but by profit. Profit motive dehumanises anything it touches As a shareholder, I expect the company to be steered for long term profitability. As do all the other shareholders, which also includes pension funds who in turn are there to provide security in retirement for millions of people. I expect my hard earned money that I have invested not to be squandered, not to be unnecessarily paid to engineers who make hundreds of thousands of dollars if their work doesn't contribute meaningfully to the company's long term business. I make separate charitable contributions for people in need. But a company is not the vehicle for that. Besides, the engineers who make hundreds of thousands of dollars at Meta do not need charity.
  - platevoltage 3y ago
    "Corporations are people my friend". Thank you Mr. Romney.