3 ms·

This is your argument in a nutshell: Product>Employee. Your argument is fundamentally inhuman. The ultimate point of a product is not the product, it is the be

This is your argument in a nutshell: Product>Employee. Your argument is fundamentally inhuman. The ultimate point of a product is not the product, it is the benefit to mankind. If you sacrifice people for the product, you are imbuing a product as god. That's completely the opposite of reality, in which products are the "product" of humans (and if we're continuing with deities as a part of this analogy, humans would therefore be divine, not products). A company does not exist in a vacuum, it exists within many larger societal themes. When a company chooses to pursue profit while negatively impacting the aggregate economy, it is the point of regulation to punish such behavior. Without regulation, the whole world gets torn asunder, as it nearly has been many times in recent history. TL;DR: The correct answer, IMHO, is People>Product. To think otherwise is to err morally.

lettergram 13y ago
>> This is your argument in a nutshell: Product > Employee. That's an incorrect statement. I think its an individual > everyone else (an example would be you care for your family more than your neighbor). A company is owned by someone, if its the stock holders then its a group, if its a private enterprise than its an individual. In either case, the employees want to benefit and so does the employer and its not "morally" correct to abuse either one. Rather, its "moral" to allow each employee to decide what he is willing to work for and an employer what he is willing to pay. My initial rejection of unions were based on the idea that the government came in and has a tendency to side with the unions (likely to garner more votes). For your other point: The government can be as bad or worse to the economy than any company. If that's your argument you'd have to ignore a significant portion of history where inappropriate regulation has damaged humanity. The point is, the only "moral" regulation is one that robs no one.

lettergram 13y ago

>> This is your argument in a nutshell: Product > Employee. That's an incorrect statement. I think its an individual > everyone else (an example would be you care for your family more than your neighbor). A company is owned by someone, if its the stock holders then its a group, if its a private enterprise than its an individual. In either case, the employees want to benefit and so does the employer and its not "morally" correct to abuse either one. Rather, its "moral" to allow each employee to decide what he is willing to work for and an employer what he is willing to pay. My initial rejection of unions were based on the idea that the government came in and has a tendency to side with the unions (likely to garner more votes). For your other point: The government can be as bad or worse to the economy than any company. If that's your argument you'd have to ignore a significant portion of history where inappropriate regulation has damaged humanity. The point is, the only "moral" regulation is one that robs no one.