3 ms·

> moral and fiscal responsibility Left to their own devices there are no morals in business. The only fiscal responsibility is to keep profits high. > Most em

by mhurron 13y ago

> moral and fiscal responsibility Left to their own devices there are no morals in business. The only fiscal responsibility is to keep profits high. > Most employees ... have no control over what decisions business owners make ... so why should they share the downside? You mean the Human Resources. You don't complain when any other resource is sold or retired to save money, why should the business care specially about this resource type?

gjm11 13y ago
(I am having trouble figuring out whether you wrote what you did with tongue in cheek and deliberate cynicism. I'm taking it at face value, and apologize if I've misconstrued.) > why should the business care specially about this resource type? Because people are often hurt when they are "sold or retired to save money" whereas, so far at least, other "resources" don't have that capacity. This is also the reason why, generally, people cannot be explicitly bought or sold as other resources can. This is widely considered a Good Thing, although indeed an idealized amoral business (or its owners) might well think it unfortunate.
- mhurron 13y ago
  > whether you wrote what you did with tongue in cheek and deliberate cynicism No it was unfortunately serious. > people are often hurt If you still believe that any business still cares about this you haven't been paying attention. If you are not at the top, you are just a cog in a machine and will be treated as such. You are just a human resource, a resource that is one of the largest, if not the largest, singly money drain. As I said, left to their own devices a business does not have any moral duty and the only fiscal duty they pursue is maximizing profits for themselves.
  - gjm11 13y ago
    I wasn't claiming that any business does care about this (though in fact I bet some do, at least a bit). Only suggesting that they should. Your question (which, I now take it, was intended to express businesses' attitudes rather than your own) was "why should the business care?". I agree that they commonly don't, and that there are structural reasons why they commonly don't. But I think most would say that they should.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
>The only fiscal responsibility [for a business] is to keep profits high. >You don't complain when any other resource [other than Human Resources] is sold or retired to save money It's funny that you point this out. Our treatment of and relationship to corporations is interesting. On one hand, we want to treat them as faceless entities or machines that have only the fiscal responsibility of generating profits. In this view, their impact on "regular" employees is an unfortunate by-product of this responsibility and no-one's fault. On the other hand, we grant them full person-hood, where convenient. Further, the profits they generate do frequently accrue to actual human beings. So, the corporation seems to have become nothing but a tool (or weapon) for redistributing wealth in ways for which no-one should be held accountable.

by mhurron 13y ago

gjm11 13y ago

(I am having trouble figuring out whether you wrote what you did with tongue in cheek and deliberate cynicism. I'm taking it at face value, and apologize if I've misconstrued.) > why should the business care specially about this resource type? Because people are often hurt when they are "sold or retired to save money" whereas, so far at least, other "resources" don't have that capacity. This is also the reason why, generally, people cannot be explicitly bought or sold as other resources can. This is widely considered a Good Thing, although indeed an idealized amoral business (or its owners) might well think it unfortunate.

mhurron 13y ago
> whether you wrote what you did with tongue in cheek and deliberate cynicism No it was unfortunately serious. > people are often hurt If you still believe that any business still cares about this you haven't been paying attention. If you are not at the top, you are just a cog in a machine and will be treated as such. You are just a human resource, a resource that is one of the largest, if not the largest, singly money drain. As I said, left to their own devices a business does not have any moral duty and the only fiscal duty they pursue is maximizing profits for themselves.
- gjm11 13y ago
  I wasn't claiming that any business does care about this (though in fact I bet some do, at least a bit). Only suggesting that they should. Your question (which, I now take it, was intended to express businesses' attitudes rather than your own) was "why should the business care?". I agree that they commonly don't, and that there are structural reasons why they commonly don't. But I think most would say that they should.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

>The only fiscal responsibility [for a business] is to keep profits high. >You don't complain when any other resource [other than Human Resources] is sold or retired to save money It's funny that you point this out. Our treatment of and relationship to corporations is interesting. On one hand, we want to treat them as faceless entities or machines that have only the fiscal responsibility of generating profits. In this view, their impact on "regular" employees is an unfortunate by-product of this responsibility and no-one's fault. On the other hand, we grant them full person-hood, where convenient. Further, the profits they generate do frequently accrue to actual human beings. So, the corporation seems to have become nothing but a tool (or weapon) for redistributing wealth in ways for which no-one should be held accountable.