3 ms·
You're right, that's not the way a business' objectives are usually understood in the US, and it's a thought-provoking discussion. I think we could certainly go
by drusenko 14y ago
You're right, that's not the way a business' objectives are usually understood in the US, and it's a thought-provoking discussion. I think we could certainly go back to employers having a bit more responsibility towards their employees.
That being said, we need to distinguish business from charity. While a business may have certain obligations to the productive members of its work-force, I don't see any obligations towards the unproductive ones, and that is where the argument crosses the line into charity.
As an employer, I don't give you a paycheck because you're my family member and I want to support you. I do it because we are in a mutually-beneficial relationship. And it couldn't work any other way -- if you stopped firing the bad apples, your business would literally crumble.
- pron 14y ago> I don't see any obligations towards the unproductive ones, and that is where the argument crosses the line into charity. No one is arguing that you do, but there's a long, long way from assuming responsibilities towards your employees to charity. It's not a line that's easily crossed. > I do it because we are in a mutually-beneficial relationship. Absolutely, but this argument is the one most abused by exploiters. The fact that the worker receives some benefit from the relationship does not mean that the arrangement is fair. Ironically, it is Americans (as well as people in other industrialized nations) who insist on a fair distribution in the ultimatum game[1], while many of them have very strong beliefs about how much exactly workers "deserve". [1] http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/ http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/...