Minimum Wage: What's the Other Argument?

[rah]

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.

And I'm saying I disagree. I'm saying the business corporation that generates a profit for it's shareholders is a tool to generate profits for it's shareholders. Plain and simple. They're provided protections because that activity is recognized as being beneficial to society.

I can't be any plainer than that.

 

[Lexicus]

They're provided protections because that activity is recognized as being beneficial to society.

I don't know why you'd say you disagree, when in fact you agree since this is exactly what I just said.

The question is, what happens when the pursuit of profit is not beneficial to society? And that is the discussion you've successfully avoided...until now.

 

[rah]

No I haven't avoided it. I'm saying that is not always going to be. As long as it's not doing blatant damage to the society, it's ok that the pursuit of profit is the primary goal. Is that clear yet.

The benefit to society is a byproduct which is why they're given protection. It's not the primary purpose that you keep saying it is.

 

[metalhead]

No, that's wrong. Benefit to society is the only reason you give people who incorporate special protections. Pursuit of profit may be the primary or only goal of the person setting up the corporation, but incorporation is agnostic as to the goal of the person or people who create them. They exist solely to facilitate people creating organizations that carry out business and other social functions, by allowing them to do so without risking their personal assets, because society benefits from people being able to do those things.

 

[rah]

I disagree. As I've said. The protection is given because it can generate a benefit. It doesn't always.
People wouldn't do it if it didn't generate a profit (at least most wouldn't).

Would you invest 10,000 dollars if you were told that the goal was not to make a profit?

 

[Lexicus]

I dunno, I'm not sure how to explain it more simply. You're just wrong.
The corporation is a legal device where multiple people can be a single legal entity...and the earliest example of it in Western history is monasteries and churches, not entities that existed for profit. The closer forebears of the modern business corporation are the royally-chartered corporations which were done to fulfill purposes deemed important by the governments that chartered them (eg East India Company, VOC - folks like Adam Smith vigorously denounced the use of these corporations as vehicles for profit-making without any concern for the effects on society).
In the early US corporations were chartered to accomplish some specific purpose (like building a bridge) that required more capital than could be provided by a single person. When the bridge was built, they were dissolved.
Today we have corporations that exist not to make a profit, but for completely unrelated reasons. Like labor unions, churches, charities, etc.
So you are just wrong. There is no other way to put it. The purpose of corporations is social utility, and profitable business activity is only one of many things corporations do that are deemed to be socially useful.

 

[El_Machinae]

There's a semantic issue here, I am sure.

I'm also going to point out that there's some confusion about aggregate effects. Even if not all corporations create a net positive, the aggregate whole must, or the laws are wrong.

 

[rah]

Rich guys wrote these laws.
You really think their motive wasn't profit.
Simply amazing.

And these non profit corps that you guys keep mentioning weren't the ones you were complaining about. They only came up later to cloud the issue. The discussion was about corps that are evil because their main motivation is making a profit instead of saving the world.

 

[Lexicus]

The discussion was about corps that are evil because their main motivation is making a profit instead of saving the world.

You might consider actually reading the discussion...

 

[rah]

Hmm, you guys were discussing automation eliminating jobs and whether it should be discouraged and how corporations were responsible for people's jobs and should make concessions if they used automation to increase profits and eliminated jobs.

That's what I read. And when I said that CORPS OWE YOU SQUAT. Which part did I miss?

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I literally don't know how you're missing what we're saying. Of course corps owe us, they're given all types of protections by us.

 

[rah]

I don't see how you guys can be so naive to think that corporations think they actually do owe you something.

 

[El_Machinae]

Think? No, I don't think they think they owe us something. How did you infer that?

 

[rah]

People here seem to think they should.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, they should. They don't think they owe us, but they're wrong. They do.
Corporate laws were set up so that society benefits, that's why we gave them special protections. It they don't behave in ways that benefit society, we change the laws.

 

[Daw]

That 'spectre is haunting Europe'; it has been since 1848 at least.

 

[Lexicus]

Hmm, you guys were discussing automation eliminating jobs and whether it should be discouraged and how corporations were responsible for people's jobs and should make concessions if they used automation to increase profits and eliminated jobs.

That's what I read. And when I said that CORPS OWE YOU SQUAT. Which part did I miss?

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.

I don't see how you guys can be so naive to think that corporations think they actually do owe you something.

What do you mean by this? To owe something is a moral obligation, therefore to believe someone owes you something is a normative claim, not a positive one.
I don't think I'm exhibiting "naivete" here. I'm very well aware of all the ways in which corporations (and the government, and many people including you ironically) behave as though they (corporations) don't owe society anything. If I were unaware of that, it might be considered naive...but I don't so it ain't.
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.

 

[Commodore]

Yes, they should. They don't think they owe us, but they're wrong. They do.
Corporate laws were set up so that society benefits, that's why we gave them special protections. It they don't behave in ways that benefit society, we change the laws.

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...

 

[Lexicus]

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...

No, that's what they do to make the profit we were talking about. They don't do that because they owe society.

 

[Commodore]

No, that's what they do to make the profit we were talking about. They don't do that because they owe society.

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