Minimum Wage: What's the Other Argument?

[Lexicus]

Motivation is irrelevant, it still pays their debt to society.

That is completely ridiculous. You can't pay your debts by selling things to your creditors; that isn't how that works. We pay corporations for the things they produce, it is a simple transaction.

 

[rah]

Right, and 'corps are evil because they want to make a profit' is just what you thought anyone was saying because of your misunderstanding of what I at least meant by "corporation", which hopefully has now been cleared up.

So you don't think corps are evil because they want to make a profit. Ok, at least we agree there. CEO's are tasked with making a profit. (in the corporations I was talking about) but then why do you say just a few sentences later.

In fact, I think you're the one who's exhibiting naivete as you seem to have very little grasp of all the terrible real-world consequences of the view you're advocating.

That sure sounds to me like you're saying that corporations that prioritize making a profit are evil.

I'm obviously wasting my time here.

 

[Lexicus]

That sure sounds to me like you're saying that corporations that prioritize making a profit are evil.

I'm obviously wasting my time here.

Pursuing profit is perfectly fine with me, within limits.
The problem (as I've been trying to establish for so long, but it just doesn't compute with you apparently) is when the pursuit of profit leads businesses to do things that are wrong. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that this happens, but it manifestly does.
Poisoning people is just one common example of things corporations do that are clearly wrong, in order to pursue profits. The coal industry for example causes about $100 billion/year worth of health problems (including 13,000 premature deaths per year) in its pursuit of profit.
Do you think killing 13,000 people per year for profit is evil? If not, what do you think it is?

 

[rah]

I agreed with you on limits. We were disagreeing on what the limit should be.
I said in many posts that poisoning people was not acceptable.
I thought when you started harping on what the obligations of the corporation should be when they substituted automation for workers for profit was past what I would consider the limit to be.
That when our discussion seems to have gone off the rails.

I'm comfortable with public opinion impacting when they get to that level.
It was like when Walgreens was purchased and was going to do an inversion to save buko bucks in taxes. The government tried to see what they could do to stop it from happening. They could not come up with anything effective. But market forces, in the form of public opinion did do the trick when a grass roots effort started. It is my contention that this should be sufficient. Government involvement isn't always the answer, and sometimes won't work. Without public uprising, Walgreens would have just taken their ball and left. It would have cost the US gov billions of dollars in taxes. Public opinion translate to profit.

 

[metalhead]

So then where is the limit? When is it acceptable to regulate or restrict or tax corporate actions in pursuit of greater profits, and when is it not?

Corporations are prevented by law from the type of coordinated action required to plan for the automated future in a way that a company which decides not to automate is disadvantaged in the marketplace. That type of planning can only happen at a governmental level.

 

[rah]

So then where is the limit? When is it acceptable to regulate or restrict or tax corporate actions in pursuit of greater profits, and when is it not?

Yep, that's the 64 thousand dollar question, and we will disagree on that. When it comes to automation, I don't believe the government should have any say. You guys lean towards the socialist side so you think they should. I lean more towards the capitalist side and think otherwise. A smart company will figure that there will be public blowback and will take steps to avoid bad publicity which could negatively impact profits. I think that is enough oversight even though the outcome may not be the best for "society". We will agree to disagree.

A lot of jobs have been lost due to 'good intentioned' government intervention.
I'm not saying we should have sweat shops but maybe if the interventions had been thought through or even negotiated differently, maybe fewer jobs would have been lost. Even now you can see changes where some of these jobs are coming back home. Some of this is due to more creative thinking and again, public opinion, but still driven overall by profit.

 

[Lexicus]

Why are you still arguing as though we said automation should be forbidden or something, when no one has said that and we've said several times in very clear terms that we're not saying that?

We are talking about government social policy to limit the dislocating effects of automation, not banning automation or prohibitively taxing it. What part of that is unclear?

 

[rah]

Well that is a much more reasonable way of stating it then when you said.

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. The question is what public policies with respect to corporations will lead to better social outcomes.

I tend to agree with you that discouraging automation is not a good idea...but I've no problem with (for example) taxing corporations and spending on social services like new job training or unemployment insurance. I've no problem using tax incentives to drive corporations to create their own insurance and benefit pools for laid-off workers. Etc.

It should be obvious why I had some confusion.

It is now more clear and while I don't agree with you 100% there is some common ground.

 

[metalhead]

Yep, that's the 64 thousand dollar question, and we will disagree on that. When it comes to automation, I don't believe the government should have any say. You guys lean towards the socialist side so you think they should. I lean more towards the capitalist side and think otherwise. A smart company will figure that there will be public blowback and will take steps to avoid bad publicity which could negatively impact profits. I think that is enough oversight even though the outcome may not be the best for "society". We will agree to disagree.

Why is it preferable to allow for corporate profits to take priority over the best interests of society?

 

[Lexicus]

No, I have to say I don't understand why you were confused. The second bit of that quoted post is exactly what I mean by 'social policy to limit the dislocating effects of automation.' There is nothing in there about banning automation.

 

[rah]

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.

It was the first part.

 

[Lexicus]

So it was supposed to be 'obvious' to me that you zeroed in on one thing I said, misinterpreted it, and ignored everything else I had said in the thread? (in fact, it was, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt...)

 

[rah]

Why is it preferable to allow for corporate profits to take priority over the best interests of society?

Preferable isn't part of the equation as far as I'm concerned. Most corporations were created to generate a profit for the investors. They didn't all get together and say let's benefit society, they said, let's make some money. The rich guys wrote the rules so they could make money more safely.

My position is that corporations will try to benefit society if they feel it will generate profits. And with the exception of not harming society, why should there be any higher goal?

Our corporation contributes millions of dollars to many different charities that benefit society. While a few may think that's the purpose, the general purpose is so they can list these contributions to make us look like good corporate citizens and garner positive public opinion that will translate to bigger profits. WIN WIN.

 

[rah]

So it was supposed to be 'obvious' to me that you zeroed in on one thing I said, misinterpreted it, and ignored everything else I had said in the thread? (in fact, it was, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt...)

Well since my first post in this thread was right after you said that, yeah i figured it would be obvious. Don't be so touchy.

 

[Lexicus]

Amused would be a better word.

 

[El_Machinae]

And they pay what they owe society everyday by mass-producing the goods and providing the services that make our modern lives so comfortable and awesome. Of course, everyone forgets that part...

It's interesting, if you'd said "they" was business, I'd almost have agreed. Except, I don't think business 'owes' for anything other than the fact that we protect their property rights and contracts.

I'm a huge, HUGE believer in the consumer surplus. It doesn't pay the bills, but it's basically the source of all our wealth.

But, in my post 'they' referred to corporations. And then your statement is a little weird. It's assuming that the current balance of privileges and protections that they get is 'perfect', and that they are justified completely by their output. ... I just don't think that follows. They have privileges and so they have obligations. Their obligation doesn't begin and end with providing us 'stuff'.

We create the laws regarding corporation for our benefits. That we shoot for "win/win" is merely for incentive.

 

[rah]

Amused would be a better word.

Conceded.
And I actually respect you opinions regardless of how much I disagree with most of them.
If I didn't, I wouldn't have taken the time to try to express that difference.

 

[Lexicus]

Conceded.
And I actually respect you opinions regardless of how much I disagree with most of them.
If I didn't, I wouldn't have taken the time to try to express that difference.

My whole point was we didn't really have any difference of opinion! And that should have been clear from reading what I said in context

But it's alright, I can't judge you for jumping in on one questionable-looking statement, I do that all the time.

 

[metalhead]

Preferable isn't part of the equation as far as I'm concerned. Most corporations were created to generate a profit for the investors. They didn't all get together and say let's benefit society, they said, let's make some money. The rich guys wrote the rules so they could make money more safely.

My position is that corporations will try to benefit society if they feel it will generate profits. And with the exception of not harming society, why should there be any higher goal?

Because we can build a better society. Because the profit motive is an extremely powerful one, and there is simply no reason not to use it as a force for a better society.

I understand why the status quo is the way it is. I'm arguing that it can (and has to) change, not just for the betterment of society, but for the long-term health and profitability of the corporations themselves. The kind of planning needed to ensure this is not something corporations are equipped to handle, nor is it the kind of planning they can legally do.

 

[rah]

Yeah sometimes I am surprised when we do agree. Ages ago before the internet I leaned much more to the right. But many years of trading ideas with those that have differing opinions has modified some of my stances. (not that much, but more than I like to admit. )

And yeah, I fall for the one questionable-looking statement a lot too.