4 ms·

> but what you have written is different from "concerned about inequality". I don't think so. Henry Ford for example realized that paying solid wages allows pe

> but what you have written is different from "concerned about inequality". I don't think so. Henry Ford for example realized that paying solid wages allows people to buy more cars [1], in turn increasing the profits for Ford. Reducing inequality in a society strongly correlates with social peace and happiness, which in turn fosters the economy. Good social equality also helps a larger part of the population to achieve good education, broadening the pool of skilled labor. Certainly, a single bad actor in a good environment can reap benefits from behaving "anti-social", but in the long run that's a spiral to the bottom. So I think that smart companies should be concerned about a raise in inequality, even if it's only for their own good. And making sure that you keep inequality low in your own workforce is the first step. [1] http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/677-5-dollar-a-day http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/...

yummyfajitas 13y ago
Henry Ford for example realized that paying solid wages allows people to buy more cars [1]... More precisely, Henry Ford convinced a bunch of innumerate reporters and politicians that paying solid wages allows people to buy more cars. Showing that high wages alone [1] only hurt Ford is simple math. Say a car costs X to build and Ford can sell them for X+P. If Ford gives a worker X+P in wages, and the worker spends X+P on a Ford car, Ford winds up losing X. [1] Higher wages helped Ford to poach more productive workers from the competition.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  > Showing that high wages alone [1] only hurt Ford is simple math. If Ford is the only company paying high wages - yes. However, somebody needs to buy the products and services that companies offer and the more people can afford a service, the broader the potential customer base. A high inequality concentrates a huge share of the income and capital at the upper end of the scale. However, there's only so many cars a person can buy and drive, only a limited amount of phones you'll buy, only a strictly limited amount of haircuts you'll need, not matter how high your income is. The trickle down effect that's always promoted is a myth.
davidw 13y ago
Keep in mind that there are a couple ways of achieving inequality: * Rich people at the top and extremely poor people at the bottom. I generally think this is a bad thing. * People who are ok at the bottom, and really, really rich people at the top. I'm less convinced this is a problem. In any event though, this is swerving into kind of philosophical terrain about what we all view as the best society. I too got out of Silicon Valley because I didn't like it, but that's fine, the world is a big place and there is room for different ways of doing things without hating on some large, successful companies because they don't have a political view that you happen to like.
- room271 13y ago
  I don't hate these companies. But I do think their existence is damaging to society. The world is a big place, but these companies operate in the country I live in, invariably pay no tax (or little enough so as not to be meaningful), and generate/perpetuate inequality - which itself is associated with a host of problems from crime to mental well-being to economic growth itself.
- triplesec 13y ago
  I'm not convinced by your dichotomy. There are many other distributions possible, and this binary appears to limit the argument to serve your needs. Data?

yummyfajitas 13y ago

Henry Ford for example realized that paying solid wages allows people to buy more cars [1]... More precisely, Henry Ford convinced a bunch of innumerate reporters and politicians that paying solid wages allows people to buy more cars. Showing that high wages alone [1] only hurt Ford is simple math. Say a car costs X to build and Ford can sell them for X+P. If Ford gives a worker X+P in wages, and the worker spends X+P on a Ford car, Ford winds up losing X. [1] Higher wages helped Ford to poach more productive workers from the competition.

Xylakant 13y ago
> Showing that high wages alone [1] only hurt Ford is simple math. If Ford is the only company paying high wages - yes. However, somebody needs to buy the products and services that companies offer and the more people can afford a service, the broader the potential customer base. A high inequality concentrates a huge share of the income and capital at the upper end of the scale. However, there's only so many cars a person can buy and drive, only a limited amount of phones you'll buy, only a strictly limited amount of haircuts you'll need, not matter how high your income is. The trickle down effect that's always promoted is a myth.

davidw 13y ago

Keep in mind that there are a couple ways of achieving inequality: * Rich people at the top and extremely poor people at the bottom. I generally think this is a bad thing. * People who are ok at the bottom, and really, really rich people at the top. I'm less convinced this is a problem. In any event though, this is swerving into kind of philosophical terrain about what we all view as the best society. I too got out of Silicon Valley because I didn't like it, but that's fine, the world is a big place and there is room for different ways of doing things without hating on some large, successful companies because they don't have a political view that you happen to like.

room271 13y ago
I don't hate these companies. But I do think their existence is damaging to society. The world is a big place, but these companies operate in the country I live in, invariably pay no tax (or little enough so as not to be meaningful), and generate/perpetuate inequality - which itself is associated with a host of problems from crime to mental well-being to economic growth itself.
triplesec 13y ago
I'm not convinced by your dichotomy. There are many other distributions possible, and this binary appears to limit the argument to serve your needs. Data?