5 ms·

Gotta love the knock-on effect of these systems. - Don't want to pay labor enough to live (for whatever reason) - Outsource, offshore, automate, etc - Margin

Gotta love the knock-on effect of these systems. - Don't want to pay labor enough to live (for whatever reason) - Outsource, offshore, automate, etc - Margins and revenue go up - Two to Three Years go by - Refusal to pay local living wages results in decline of product sales at local prices, feeding the cycle of further cuts rather than pay labor - Cities decline as secondary and tertiary businesses dry up due to lack of income/revenue from prior customers who got outsourced/offshored - Executives parachute out successfully - New leadership comes in with radical idea to onshore/insource, i.e. pay labor to survive - Company thrives because all that income goes into local businesses who in turn support the company by buying its products to support their city/country - Leader heralded by press as "great savior of city/nation" when all they did was take slightly less than the prior asshole to ensure workers were paid enough to consume, thus increasing business, thus increasing tax flows, thus breaking the prior negative-feedback cycle and charging the positive-feedback loop for a bit - Leader parachutes out successfully - New leadership comes in to repeat the cycle, but faster this time The irony being that these "business cycles" could be far more manageable and less harmful with sufficient incentives against them (like minimum wage laws or worker protections). None of this exists in a vacuum, and this outcome was wholly predictable even by the anti-H1B camps (like myself). The problem for the past half-century has been a stalwart refusal to pay labor to survive as asset prices rise by those in command of Capital, and simply toggling H1B visas without addressing the ability to outsource and offshore was always going to end this way. Current government incentives (at-will employment, appalling minimum wage, lack of social safety nets, copious tax loopholes, lack of regulation, anti-Union legislation, preserving housing values, tax breaks for the wealthy) all but guarantee this outcome over, and over, and over again. Attacking one of those points by itself just means the rest will be exploited that much more. Comprehensive legislation that re-orients the whole of the economy back towards equilibrium is what's needed, not piecemeal hackjobs like this H1B stunt.

irishcoffee 8mo ago
Ever hear of the court case involving the Dodge brothers and Ford? Maybe we fucked up there, and a century later, we finally arrived at this current state. > In the landmark 1919 case Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of minority shareholders John and Horace Dodge, holding that a corporation’s primary purpose is to maximize profit for its shareholders. The court ordered Ford to pay out significant accumulated dividends, limiting Henry Ford's ability to prioritize employee wages and consumer prices over shareholder returns.
- stego-tech 8mo ago
  We absolutely fucked up there. There definitely needs to be protections for shareholders to reduce the chance of exploitation and fraud, but part of the “free market” as it were is for shareholders to fuck off to other companies if they don’t like how one is run. The “shareholder value” mandate is one of the greatest perversions of the “free market” out there, miles above any discourse about minimum wages or worker protection laws. Undo that decision along with the Reagan-era ruling permitting share buybacks, and you’d substantially weaken the Boardroom and C-Suite while turning off the two single biggest incentives to the current system of exploitation.
  - irishcoffee 8mo ago
    I agree with you. How do we undo those things?
    - stego-tech 8mo ago
      Typically? Legislation would handle it, but most western democracies are so captured by Capital that getting this done nationally would take decades of time we simply do not have, and be far too risky. Another court opinion reversing those decisions in some part is an alternative, but equally unlikely given current politicization of SCOTUS. International treaties could work, if we still didn't have the military and economic might to twist arms in our favor - though with the EU very firmly refuting America's trade policies and expansionist regime, these might be closer than we think. International finance could also apply pressure for a reversal through pulling investment or only funding firms focused on fundamentals and long-term strategy over quarterly results and share prices alone. Unfortunately we still hold most of the Capital, so that's going to take time to create change. Then there's the thing. The thing could do it, but it would destabilize global geopolitics in the process by removing the sole remaining stabilizing superpower from the board for the thing. It's always an option, but also one of absolute last resort as a way of resolving the otherwise unresolvable. I am personally strongly opposed to the thing, but man I don't see many ways of avoiding it this far into the current mess. The more likely immediate course of action is continued protests, riots, and rising violence - just short of becoming the thing, but still bad enough to send a signal to the world that our way of doing things was unsustainable and that everyone else needs to reign things in immediately or risk following suit. China seems to acutely understand this, hence why they take great pains to incarcerate and reign-in Capital lest toxic western economic practices take root within their party or economy; France is in the midst of a similar such moment, and we don't know where they'll end up. Unfortunately I don't have a clear-cut answer other than "apply pressure to those in power such that compliance with the demands of their people is more palatable than taking funds from Capital or acting in their self-interest."
skeledrew 8mo ago
Almost sounds like there's a deep flaw in the very core of the system...

irishcoffee 8mo ago

Ever hear of the court case involving the Dodge brothers and Ford? Maybe we fucked up there, and a century later, we finally arrived at this current state. > In the landmark 1919 case Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of minority shareholders John and Horace Dodge, holding that a corporation’s primary purpose is to maximize profit for its shareholders. The court ordered Ford to pay out significant accumulated dividends, limiting Henry Ford's ability to prioritize employee wages and consumer prices over shareholder returns.

stego-tech 8mo ago
We absolutely fucked up there. There definitely needs to be protections for shareholders to reduce the chance of exploitation and fraud, but part of the “free market” as it were is for shareholders to fuck off to other companies if they don’t like how one is run. The “shareholder value” mandate is one of the greatest perversions of the “free market” out there, miles above any discourse about minimum wages or worker protection laws. Undo that decision along with the Reagan-era ruling permitting share buybacks, and you’d substantially weaken the Boardroom and C-Suite while turning off the two single biggest incentives to the current system of exploitation.
- irishcoffee 8mo ago
  I agree with you. How do we undo those things?
  - stego-tech 8mo ago
    Typically? Legislation would handle it, but most western democracies are so captured by Capital that getting this done nationally would take decades of time we simply do not have, and be far too risky. Another court opinion reversing those decisions in some part is an alternative, but equally unlikely given current politicization of SCOTUS. International treaties could work, if we still didn't have the military and economic might to twist arms in our favor - though with the EU very firmly refuting America's trade policies and expansionist regime, these might be closer than we think. International finance could also apply pressure for a reversal through pulling investment or only funding firms focused on fundamentals and long-term strategy over quarterly results and share prices alone. Unfortunately we still hold most of the Capital, so that's going to take time to create change. Then there's the thing. The thing could do it, but it would destabilize global geopolitics in the process by removing the sole remaining stabilizing superpower from the board for the thing. It's always an option, but also one of absolute last resort as a way of resolving the otherwise unresolvable. I am personally strongly opposed to the thing, but man I don't see many ways of avoiding it this far into the current mess. The more likely immediate course of action is continued protests, riots, and rising violence - just short of becoming the thing, but still bad enough to send a signal to the world that our way of doing things was unsustainable and that everyone else needs to reign things in immediately or risk following suit. China seems to acutely understand this, hence why they take great pains to incarcerate and reign-in Capital lest toxic western economic practices take root within their party or economy; France is in the midst of a similar such moment, and we don't know where they'll end up. Unfortunately I don't have a clear-cut answer other than "apply pressure to those in power such that compliance with the demands of their people is more palatable than taking funds from Capital or acting in their self-interest."

skeledrew 8mo ago

Almost sounds like there's a deep flaw in the very core of the system...