5 ms·

> handsome whistleblower bonuses (i.e. enough to retire on) should be paid to individuals Is this money coming from the government or the company? Because I’m

> handsome whistleblower bonuses (i.e. enough to retire on) should be paid to individuals Is this money coming from the government or the company? Because I’m guessing the startup using fake job postings to signal growth probably doesn’t have enough runway to cover the handsome retirement of a 30-year old.

mway 2y ago
Sounds like a "them problem". If it weren't punitive, it wouldn't be a deterrent.
- paulcole 2y ago
  I mean it’s not a them problem if they just can’t afford to pay it. What are you going to do, rat on your employer to get money from them they know they can’t pay so they just go out of business and you lose your job?
  - mway 2y ago
    I mean, yeah. It's still a them problem, because they can choose to engage or not engage in those practices while knowing the consequences. What are you going to do, never penalize companies when it might hurt their bottom line? Just because they can't pay it doesn't mean there shouldn't be repercussions. That would be like saying that a person can't be fined because they don't have the money. AFAIK the judicial system will happily levy costs on you that you can't afford, and it is 100% a "you problem".
- drstewart 2y ago
  >If it weren't punitive, it wouldn't be a deterrent. This is why I don't understand people who are against the death penalty and punishing mandatory minimum sentences. As you correctly point out, harsh retribution is a good deterrent.
  - majewsky 2y ago
    Because the actions that lead to death penalties are usually committed without a calm and collected risk-benefit analysis, whereas economic decisions of a corporation absolutely are.
    - thunky 2y ago
      > the actions that lead to death penalties are usually committed without a calm and collected risk-benefit analysis Really? I thought death penalty is typically reserved for premeditated acts where the criminal did actually think it through.
      - paulcole 2y ago
        > where the criminal did actually think it through Until we can get into the criminal's brain we can't know the extent to which they thought it through. We're just basically saying, "Anybody would know that they shouldn't kill somebody and it seems like they probably thought about killing this person before they did it." I doubt there's going to be a stat that satisfies you here, but this one is interesting: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates... I haven't ever seen non-anecdotal evidence (flimsy or otherwise) that makes me think the death penalty acts as a deterrent.
        thunky 2y ago
        > Until we can get into the criminal's brain we can't know the extent to which they thought it through. Sure we can, based on their actions. For example, we know that the guy that killed 60 people in Vegas planned it out ahead of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Preparation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Prepar.... I'm not the one saying that the penalty works as a deterrent. It probably didn't in this case since the guy killed himself. Although he may have preferred death to a life in prison.
- arp242 2y ago
  Just prosecute individuals making these kind of decisions. Currently you can get away with almost all white-collar crime as he company picks up the bill. Only the most outrageous of the outrageous ever ends up being prosecuted, and even that doesn't always happen. Much of this tomfoolery will quickly end if you actually start holding people accountable. Giving some corporation a fine is not that.
aguaviva 2y ago
Presumably the government will backstop it by a certain amount X, to be increased to Y > X if such funds can be clawed back from the principals / company. Not equivalent to the most attractive exit they hope to make (if they stayed with the company and if it paid out), of course -- but enough to make it worth their trouble, to hedge the diminished employment prospects that will be incurred as a price for sticking their neck out, and to convince these companies that they're running a significant risk in pulling shenanigans like this.

mway 2y ago

Sounds like a "them problem". If it weren't punitive, it wouldn't be a deterrent.

paulcole 2y ago
I mean it’s not a them problem if they just can’t afford to pay it. What are you going to do, rat on your employer to get money from them they know they can’t pay so they just go out of business and you lose your job?
- mway 2y ago
  I mean, yeah. It's still a them problem, because they can choose to engage or not engage in those practices while knowing the consequences. What are you going to do, never penalize companies when it might hurt their bottom line? Just because they can't pay it doesn't mean there shouldn't be repercussions. That would be like saying that a person can't be fined because they don't have the money. AFAIK the judicial system will happily levy costs on you that you can't afford, and it is 100% a "you problem".
drstewart 2y ago
>If it weren't punitive, it wouldn't be a deterrent. This is why I don't understand people who are against the death penalty and punishing mandatory minimum sentences. As you correctly point out, harsh retribution is a good deterrent.
- majewsky 2y ago
  Because the actions that lead to death penalties are usually committed without a calm and collected risk-benefit analysis, whereas economic decisions of a corporation absolutely are.
  - thunky 2y ago
    > the actions that lead to death penalties are usually committed without a calm and collected risk-benefit analysis Really? I thought death penalty is typically reserved for premeditated acts where the criminal did actually think it through.
    - paulcole 2y ago
      > where the criminal did actually think it through Until we can get into the criminal's brain we can't know the extent to which they thought it through. We're just basically saying, "Anybody would know that they shouldn't kill somebody and it seems like they probably thought about killing this person before they did it." I doubt there's going to be a stat that satisfies you here, but this one is interesting: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates... I haven't ever seen non-anecdotal evidence (flimsy or otherwise) that makes me think the death penalty acts as a deterrent.
      - thunky 2y ago
        > Until we can get into the criminal's brain we can't know the extent to which they thought it through. Sure we can, based on their actions. For example, we know that the guy that killed 60 people in Vegas planned it out ahead of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Preparation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Prepar.... I'm not the one saying that the penalty works as a deterrent. It probably didn't in this case since the guy killed himself. Although he may have preferred death to a life in prison.
arp242 2y ago
Just prosecute individuals making these kind of decisions. Currently you can get away with almost all white-collar crime as he company picks up the bill. Only the most outrageous of the outrageous ever ends up being prosecuted, and even that doesn't always happen. Much of this tomfoolery will quickly end if you actually start holding people accountable. Giving some corporation a fine is not that.

aguaviva 2y ago

Presumably the government will backstop it by a certain amount X, to be increased to Y > X if such funds can be clawed back from the principals / company. Not equivalent to the most attractive exit they hope to make (if they stayed with the company and if it paid out), of course -- but enough to make it worth their trouble, to hedge the diminished employment prospects that will be incurred as a price for sticking their neck out, and to convince these companies that they're running a significant risk in pulling shenanigans like this.