3 ms·

i'm sorry but > All companies care about safety is naive at best. yes, all companies care about safety...after profits we've structured corporations that th

i'm sorry but > All companies care about safety is naive at best. yes, all companies care about safety...after profits we've structured corporations that this is the main driver, full stop. as an example, earlier in my career i worked in aviation test equipment. for commercial and govt't agencies. let's just say i avoid flying anywhere at all costs now if i can. why? because, as always, safety is secondary to profits (and most of the time, you hope it is secondary and not ternary or worse). and this was in a 'highly regulated' industry.

brookst 2y ago
Meh — you’re getting into mind reading. Safety and profits are related. If you prefer to think every person who works at any company is a moustache-twirling villain, have at it. That hasn’t been my experience.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Safety and profits are related. Except the relationship is not strong enough to compel companies to always do the right thing (or even to do so adequately often). Especially when they perceive that the market will let them get away with it. For example when negative impacts are scheduled to occur far into the future (or in the present but affecting non-customers, or the environment). Or when they occur in the present, but (as with seatbelts before they were mandatory) the customers just don't perceive the risks. If you prefer to think every person who works at any company is a moustache-twirling villain The comment you initially chimed in on was definitely quite hyperbolic. But this take is also. Of course not "every" person working at a company needs to be ethically challenged for bad things to happen. All that's need are a few bad apples (whom we know are in no short supply) at approrpriate levels of responsibility. The rest will simply go along, to keep their jobs. You know that.
from-nibly 2y ago
Everything a company does must be "after profits" if you lose money on everything you do then you aren't running a company you are running (poorly I might add) a charity. First it has to be profitable, then it has to be useful to the customer.

brookst 2y ago

Meh — you’re getting into mind reading. Safety and profits are related. If you prefer to think every person who works at any company is a moustache-twirling villain, have at it. That hasn’t been my experience.

aguaviva 2y ago
Safety and profits are related. Except the relationship is not strong enough to compel companies to always do the right thing (or even to do so adequately often). Especially when they perceive that the market will let them get away with it. For example when negative impacts are scheduled to occur far into the future (or in the present but affecting non-customers, or the environment). Or when they occur in the present, but (as with seatbelts before they were mandatory) the customers just don't perceive the risks. If you prefer to think every person who works at any company is a moustache-twirling villain The comment you initially chimed in on was definitely quite hyperbolic. But this take is also. Of course not "every" person working at a company needs to be ethically challenged for bad things to happen. All that's need are a few bad apples (whom we know are in no short supply) at approrpriate levels of responsibility. The rest will simply go along, to keep their jobs. You know that.

from-nibly 2y ago

Everything a company does must be "after profits" if you lose money on everything you do then you aren't running a company you are running (poorly I might add) a charity. First it has to be profitable, then it has to be useful to the customer.