Minimum Wage: What's the Other Argument?

[Lexicus]

Corporations owe you squat.

On the contrary they owe us for sanctioning their existence.

 

[rah]

That is mutually agreed to. They can choose to not play.

 

[rah]

Show me in any articles of corporation where it states that you're required to guarantee a standard of living for your employees. It will guarantee following certain safety standards.

 

[Lexicus]

They should only serve the needs of society if it's in their interest. It must be a mutual agreement.

Some of those agreements should be obvious. (you will not poison the population) Others, are not.

You are contradicting yourself. It's often in the interest of corporations to poison people. Forcing corporations to adhere to social rules only when it's in their interests to do so is meaningless.

All rights that corporations are granted, such as 4th Amendment protections from search and seizure, are not the same as rights granted to real persons - they are granted on as privileges from the public, the Supreme Court's idiocy notwithstanding.

Show me in any articles of corporation where it states that you're required to guarantee a standard of living for your employees. It will guarantee following certain safety standards.

It varies drastically case-by-case. Many corporations are in fact constituted with social goals like this explicitly laid out. As you probably are aware I am in favor of having all corporations do the same thing. They should be constitutionally mandated to provide social goods such as living wages, community engagement and so forth.

The idea that there is some purpose to be served by allowing corporations to place profit above all, is silly. It also doesn't really match reality since corporations are not run by their shareholders but by the executives, whose interests often divulge wildly from those of the shareholders.

 

[metalhead]

Corporate entities are only a thing because society allows their existence. Therefore they play by the rules society sets for them. I don't expect them to voluntarily do anything for the greater good, but I sure as hell think that they should be made to.

They can agree not to play, sure, but nobody wants to take away their ability to make a profit. So I can't see why they would want to simply on account of being required to give their employees more leave and shorter hours.

 

[rah]

That's where we disagree. You can't legislate that a company not make money. Otherwise there is no incentive for the company to exist. You feel it's better to do serve the community through force and I prefer to let the market place determine it.

If a company offers a bad benefit package, they will not attract the best people.
And that will impact their bottom line.
If they poison the environment they can be fined by the government (an acceptable incentive not to do it for me) or be hurt by the bad publicity (also an acceptable incentive not to do it).

Now I agree that this type of method will not guarantee the best result for society, I don't believe that's the purpose of corporations. You obviously think it should be.
I respectfully agree to disagree.
.

 

[Lexicus]

That's where we disagree. You can't legislate that a company not make money. Otherwise there is no incentive for the company to exist.

It depends. Not all corporations are formed for the purpose of making money. For example my employer, a labor union, is a corporation formed for social purposes and not for making money.

You feel it's better to do serve the community through force and I prefer to let the market place determine it.

This dichotomy is largely false as the market itself could not exist without force, and there is no 'the marketplace,' there are many different potential market systems existing under different regulatory regimes, cultural backgrounds, and so on. There is not one single universal market system opposed by The Government. The market and the state are a single entity and there are many ways the system can work.

Now I agree that this type of method will not guarantee the best result for society, I don't believe that's the purpose of corporations. You obviously think it should be.

Why should society allow corporations to exist if they are going to behave like sociopaths and place the pursuit of money above the health and well-being of people? Usually when people demonstrate a willingness to kill or injure people for money, those people are punished and made to adhere to social standards. Why should businesses be treated any differently? Or, to put the question differently, why should immoral behavior be excused simply because it was carried out in a business capacity?

 

[rah]

Painting all corps as sociopaths is simple fear mongering.
Companies spend billions of dollars in helping societies and public relations.
BECAUSE IT"S GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

If you want to control all aspects of corporations, put up you own money and control them.
OR Let the government use tax payer money and buy/run these companies. (that has always worked so well)

 

[Lexicus]

Painting all corps as sociopaths is simple fear mongering.
Companies spend billions of dollars in helping societies and public relations.
BECAUSE IT"S GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

If you want to control all aspects of corporations, put up you own money and control them.
OR Let the government use tax payer money and buy/run these companies. (that has always worked so well)

This is a complete strawman. Granted you posted this before I finished editing my post, but it is pretty obvious I am not 'painting all corps as sociopaths'. And ironically you're the one taking a (very) one-dimensional view of corporations here.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's very difficult once the conversation drifts to 'fair'. People, especially along political lines, have slightly different moralities. Normally we do okay, but when extrapolated too far (as happens in aggregate) then real conflicts can occur.

I like to drift from 'fair' to 'best'. "Best" is in the eye of the Beholder, obviously. But we all want the majority of the population to be able to get gainful employment and for economic growth to occur in a way that the next generation is better off.

"Fair" is a bit of a diversion. Lots of freedoms are zero-sum, and so where we personally put our 'needle' really can affect the discussion.

 

[rah]

No it's not a strawman.
You go to any corporate website and I guarantee you'll find a list of things they do to support the community. Your issue seems to be that they shouldn't be allowed to decide how they're going to be good citizens. You have to be able to tell them what is required, even it's to the point that it drastically affects their bottom line.
Every company does spend money at this because it has proven to benefit them in the long run, Why isn't that good enough for you.

I've agreed that there is a minimum that should be required, (not poisoning the population or making dangerous products) But to say, you can't operate here unless you provide satisfactory employment to 50% of the population (yes an exaggeration) is just plain silly.

It all comes down to control. If you want total control, then the monetary risk should be all yours.

Any talk of not allowing automation because a people will lose their jobs is hilarious to me.
We couldn't feed the planet without it. What percentage of the US is farmers today compared to 100 years ago. Is that what you really want? We can't put a few farmers out of work.

It comes down to a simple disagreement.
You don't trust profit as an incentive.
I don't totally think so either but think it can be with Minimal regulations. (most corporations are good citizens)
You want total complete regulations because of a few bad apples.

As I said, I respectfully disagree.

 

[Old Hippy]

Now I agree that this type of method will not guarantee the best result for society, I don't believe that's the purpose of corporations. You obviously think it should be.
I respectfully agree to disagree.
.

the purpose of corporations is to limit liability, so that individual shareholders are not responsible for debts or loses, avoiding a claim on their other assets even when gross negligence causes death and loss to a society. 10's of thousands of small companies do this every year, to avoid fines or liabilities. As such society can place any restriction on them including taxes and operating conditions. The fact that governments pander to corporate interests and lobbyists taking their campaign donations from them is just the current state of affairs and can be changed by societies at will.

 

[rah]

I don't disagree with that. I'm saying that if you make those restrictions to onerous, no one will invest any money in you arena and then nobody gets any benefit.
And telling companies they can't save money by automating crosses the line for me.

Keeping people employed is the job of the government. Not corporations. If government does that by telling corporations what to do they better know what they're doing or the corps will take their ball and go home.

 

[Lexicus]

or the corps will take their ball and go home.

In your mind, what does that entail, exactly?

 

[metalhead]

I don't disagree with that. I'm saying that if you make those restrictions to onerous, no one will invest any money in you arena and then nobody gets any benefit.
And telling companies they can't save money by automating crosses the line for me.

Keeping people employed is the job of the government. Not corporations. If government does that by telling corporations what to do they better know what they're doing or the corps will take their ball and go home.

It's not an all-or-nothing thing. You keep coming up with extreme strawmen. Nobody is suggesting that businesses should be prevented from automating. All we're saying is that we need policy that ensures that some of the added profits from automating be used to employ people, and to provide a basic standard of living.

In an unregulated society, automation would serve to increase income and wealth inequality, as the benefits of automation tend to flow mostly to those at the top of the ladder. Economists largely agree that growing inequality is a threat to the economic health of the entire world. Therefore, automation without policy to combat the growth in income inequality that it causes would actually be a bad thing. The goal is not to prevent automation, but merely to mitigate its negative effects.

 

[rah]

You guys are hilarious. You accuse me of being all or nothing when I was responding to comments like.

I am of the belief that the government and society at large have the right to do basically whatever they like with respect to corporations. It's not a mater of right or fair, because (again) a corporation exists at the pleasure of the public.

UBI and shorter work weeks for example. Far more extensive paid leave. Businesses should absolutely be required to serve the needs of society, not just the needs of their owners.

Look in the mirror.

Which is again why I say I respectfully agree to disagree.
That is not the purpose of corporations. And shouldn't be.
I have no problem (and have said it many times already) that if you want to incentive them to be good citizens I have no problem with it. If you want to protect citizens from negligent harm, no problem. But corporations are not formed to solve all the ills of humanity.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't understand what is difficult to understand about what I have said. I am not advocating that governments actually do whatever they like with corporations, I am saying they have the right to do whatever they like with corporations.

Just as saying I have the right to walk around yelling the N-word is not in any sense advocating for actually doing that.

But corporations are not formed to solve all the ills of humanity.

Why not? That seems to me exactly what corporations are for - to improve conditions for humanity. If that's not what they're for, why have them at all?

 

[El_Machinae]

We have two things that are being conflated: businesses and corporations

A business is a dude trying to make money The business serves his interests, and gov't exists to limit the harm it does. A corporation, otoh, is a legal entity with rights and privileges that others don't have. Those are created with the interests of society in mind.

 

[rah]

Why not? That seems to me exactly what corporations are for - to improve conditions for humanity. If that's not what they're for, why have them at all?

Again, that type of thinking I disagree with and we are not going to convince each other any differently. The purpose of a corporation is to reward those who take the risk and invest in it. If you want everyone to get the rewards of a corporation than everyone should be putting up the risk. That doesn't seem to be that hard of a concept. It's like you think every corporation is just gushing profits.

And they're given protections because the jobs they do provide are considered a benefit to society. But they aren't the end all and shouldn't be.

 

[Lexicus]

Again, that type of thinking I disagree with and we are not going to convince each other any differently. The purpose of a corporation is to reward those who take the risk and invest in it. If you want everyone to get the rewards of a corporation than everyone should be putting up the risk. That doesn't seem to be that hard of a concept. It's like you think every corporation is just gushing profits.

And they're given protections because the jobs they do provide are considered a benefit to society. But they aren't the end all and shouldn't be.

You don't seem to realize that not all corporations are businesses (as I have been trying to explain and El_Machinae just explained above).
As Old Hippy also explained, the modern limited liability corporation, the most common form of a business corporation, is actually designed to shield investors from risk...so I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here.

My position is that the form of the corporation you're concerned with, the business corporation that generates a profit for its shareholders, is itself a tool to improve things for society...it is not an end in and of itself.