Humans can be motivated by many things, profit and looking good included. I'm vaguely aware of a philosophical branch that postulates that all actions are selfish, but that ain't science and so I disagree. People will sacrifice their pyramid of needs towards s greater good, I've never heard of a company utterly scuttling profits over the greater good though.
On that note, in this case Amazon obviously is shedding profit for a greater good here, especially if they actually lobby, so in this case I believe they (particularly the people that made this decision) deserve praise.
(0)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Coleman_%28train_dispatc...?
Reverse, Do you think that a company such as amazon should be paying their fulltime and part time employee a wage that requires government subsidies (that you and I pay for) to survive while enjoying the amount of revenue and profit they are receiving?
Yes, I do. I think most people misunderstand government subsidies when they make this argument. The idea that the company you work for is responsible for maintaining your standard of living is a weird one, that doesn't really come from any obvious moral principle. We, as a society, have decided that we don't want people to have a standard of living below a certain level. Therefore we, as a society, should provide the resources to ensure that that happens. If Amazon wants to come to those people and say "we'll give you $X/hour to do this task for us", and those people say "Yes", then I don't see any good reason for that to change the moral calculus of society at large, or for Amazon to suddenly become responsible for that person's general welfare.
On that basis, is the implication here that hearing anonymous and vague internet praise actually tips the utility calculus of the company in some way?
Because if not it's hard to know why anyone should praise them -- as opposed to acknowledging the decision, or silently mentally updating one's assessment, or not engaging with the news at all, or criticizing them for not doing more.
In aggregate, yes. You seem to be trying to reduce this to "who cares about silly comments on the internet", but of course, that isn't the point. The point is about where our moral sentiments ought lie, collectively. And yes, the rollup of all the individuals making throwaway comments on the internet actually do synthesize much of our collective worldview. So yes, I do think that anonymous and vague internet praise actually tips the utility calculus of all companies. If you don't, then you haven't been paying much attention for the last decade.
Motives matter.
They're obviously caving into pressure - from unions, social activists and Bernie Sanders.
>especially if they actually lobby
Which they'll do especially because they don't want to be put at a competitive disadvantage by companies who pay minimum wage.
You could say that and you would be right. Why should anyone praise you if your underlying motivations are self-centered? You seem to be asserting that this is fundamental human nature, however, which is a belief which has been refuted plenty of times throughout history.
You had as an unstated axiom that self-interested action are not praiseworthy. You still have not made an argument for that, though you have pointed out that a world composed only of self-interested action would be an unpleasant one (I agree).
However, using a more realistic understanding, where actions come from a multitude of motivations, why do you consider a given action's being self-interested to exclude it from praiseworthiness?
That's not actually true.. it's a caricatured straw-man argument, usually employed by people who want to attack Capitalism in the general sense.
Of course companies have to make a profit to survive; but not all companies ruthlessly optimize every single variable to squeeze out the last $0.0000001 of profit, regardless of the side effects. At the end of the day companies are made up of people, and even if big-shot CEO's tend to have more pyschopathic tendencies than average, they're still human beings. And they usually answer to boards, and are advised by other managers, who are also human beings.
Not saying all companies are noble, virtuous, and pure or anything. But hyperbole in the other direction is just as inaccurate.
I agree with you, though. The idea that companies have to be like zombies, mindlessly shambling toward revenue, is false. If a company acts that way, it was a choice on somebody's part, not an immutable law of nature. If somebody in charge decides they want it to act differently, they have that option too.
To say corporations are all bad all the time is bullshit. Likewise to say corporations are all good all the time is also bullshit. Like everything, there are pros and cons. Overall I think our capitalist economy does more good than bad. If it didn't, none of us would be able to be having this debate because we would be too worried about the next meal.
Clean water access? Paid for my government. Cheap and healthy food? Government subsidies. Energy? Government funds majority of research. Infrastructure was mostly inlaid by Government implemented New Deal/other job creation programs.
Corporations had little to no involvement in 'doing the work' here. Access to cheap/healthy food was before corporations were the majority of agriculture due to government subsidy. Energy is largely built on research which is largely funded by the government. The majority of interstate groundwork as it's been laid out today was started by the government's roadbuilding job-creation programs.
While large legal entities may have their benefits, one shouldn't subscribe undue merit to them in the pursuit of attempting to dissuade undue chagrin.
There is no such thing as altruism: everyone has their agenda.
FFS -- it was shaming of amazon's pay rate for their employees that caused the change in behavior in the first place.
I think it is rational to look at what and why actions were taken. Do you believe that the raise of the minimum wage at Amazon was out of good nature? Was it a decision to mitigate brand perception costs against labor costs after a bunch of national stories reported that they were paying so little in markets that their workers were forced to also take government subsidies while they have had their most profitable quarters ever? As far as the push to get the minimum wage raised -- is it not a reasonable view that it is in amazons best interest to further reduce the reoccurring labor costs effectively by ensuring their competitors are also forced to match their labor cost?
The bottom line is if Amazon (or any company for that matter) wants to treat their employees better than the minimum wage -- they were and still are able to do so. Amazon happened to be in a state where because of the publicity pressure (showing their full time employees unable to live on their wage) it was more cost effective to make a change than not.
Does it matter what the rationale was? I know if I was an Amazon minimum wage employee I could care less what the rationale was. I'd just be thrilled to be getting a pay raise. Where I live the minimum wage is only $11.25/hour. Getting a bump to $15 will be a big deal for those people.
If you're Amazon, yes, it matters a ridiculous amount.
The last thing you'll want is for people to realize that the union drives actually worked. That would mean more union drives and more pay rises on the horizon. Can't have that!
Count the number of mentions of the reason for their decision in their press releases:
https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det...
He wanted people to have free time so they could appreciate the stuff they buy. Capitalism at its finest.
Which is why a tory chancellor wanted a higher minimum wage - to cut the social security bill
For publicly traded companies, there is: https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/s...
> Having chosen a for-profit corporate form, the craigslist directors are bound by the fiduciary duties and standards that accompany that form. Those standards include acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders.
"Value" yes, but again says nothing about "profit". The court acknowledged different stockholders can and do have different and even conflicting definitions for value, and that a contract (not a law) should be used to resolve those differences. In the end the only thing that the judge ruled against were actions specifically designed to destroy the value of the company's stock by making it harder to buy and sell. He didn't order e.g. that Craigslist raise ad prices even though it's widely believed they hold a ton of pricing power and are deliberately avoiding maximizing profit because they prioritize community.
I am not nit-picking, asking in good faith: is that enacted into a law ? Or is that part of a contract between shareholders and the board of executives ?
I have heard about that walmart competitor run like a family business and that gives every employees a voice (a cooperative ?).
according to this ny times article [2] it states:
`There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” — even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees. But this belief is utterly false. To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”`
the ny times article also cites some sources such as supreme court case; it’s well worth a read
[1] https://www.sandiegobusinesslawyerblog.com/fiduciary-duties-...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
It is true that companies are not required to "pursue profit at the expense of everything else".
But it is also true that companies are held to legal standards that "include acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders" (Ebay v Newmark). This was famously weaponized against Craigslist several years ago, who were successfully sued over their refusal to let shareholders change corporate culture.
That certainly bucks the trend and is praiseworthy.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/3/17934194/amazon-minimum-w...
Was our skepticism perhaps reasonable?
Amazon (and all companies) spend most of their time/resources figuring out how to make more money and gain more power; I think it's appropriate that we as consumers, in turn, spend our time demanding more of them in terms of both value delivered and net benefit to society.
I don’t think Amazon deserves much sympathy. They're one of the most powerful companies in the world, have made a small group of people very rich while continuing to treat employees poorly. It's great that they're making this move but I don’t think we as consumers/citizens should be merely satisfied with it.
If good behavior isn't rewarded, how do you think companies might act in the future.
People, as well as companies, respond to incentives.