Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[luutzu]

Higher taxes might have to be the case, but companies should have more money to pay taxes because they aren't paying as many staff, if we really got to the stage where almost all the work was automated we might have to have almost everybody on the dole and to earn extra you have to invest and own a piece of the system.

There would be a push from both sides, eg the increased productivity of automation would flow through to other parts of society either through the ability to pay higher taxes to fund pensions while still earning a satisfactory return on investment, or lower prices and decreased cost of living, so pensions could be lower.

No it wouldn't have to be government owned, you would just make the pension a really low based pension with the idea that most of society owns the productive economy, rather than teaching kids to think about what they want to
do for a job, we would teach them to be investors.

I caught a bit of an interview with some former McDonalds' CEO... and the old rich guy was saying how Sanders $15 an hour minimum wage will put millions out of work.

Why? Because he just went to some expo where there are machines that cost $35K and will do all the chips you ever need.

So I'm guessing that workers will either have to "study hard" and move up from the "temporary" job at McDonalds or be replaced if they ask for a living wage.

I guess the same goes for all the workers at all the other US chicken corporations - either wear diapers or crap your pants or don't drink or eat while you're stuck to the production line... else we'll replace you with some other machine we'll surely come up with if you dare ask for a toilet break with your meal break.

----

To have people wanting to run their own business, be their own boss... you will have to reduce the size and influence of big corporations.

If we allow corporations to dominate, and we are despite what we hear in the press, they will destroy jobs and communities.

Take the supermarket giants... where they open up smaller retailers will soon closed. And if it later prove that the area is not profitable enough, these retail giants will move the heck out of town and the local communities will better hope the family that used to run a local supermarket or bakery haven't kill themselves or forced into early and indefinite retirement from too much debt while they were at war with the big boys.

 

[luutzu]

Does that same CEO have a moral responsibility to shareholders to ensure the company remains sufficiently competitive to survive?

Since when does management have any moral responsibility to shareholders?

Just bigger bonuses and more perks with free investor capital

 

[SirRumpole]

Does that same CEO have a moral responsibility to shareholders to ensure the company remains sufficiently competitive to survive?

Of course yes, but imo a truly moral CEO would not consider shareholders his only moral responsibility.

 

[luutzu]

Of course yes, but imo a truly moral CEO would not consider shareholders his only moral responsibility.

If the company is smaller, if the workers also own the business - and I don't mean a few hundred shares out of a billion shares - then all parties are better served, including the consumers.

Imagine Steve firing Joe down the street so he could get a bigger bonus and get that latest BMW. Or that Joe turn up and does the bare minimum he could get away with. Or the company they run could dump the waste onto the river and lakes they all bring their kids to on picnics.

The company these co-op would run might not be as "profitable" as the accounting system want, but that's because its profits are shared and doesn't just go to some idiot from far far away.

 

[Value Collector]

Well it comes down to your moral system.

You are a CEO of a company. You have 10 loyal and productive workers that you can replace with one machine.

Do you have a moral responsibility to them ?

I don't think companies are responsible to give people life time employment, you are generally hired to fill a role, and if that role becomes obselete and you are no longer needed, the company has no moral obligation to keep you especially in a country with social safety nets.

A responsible company would probably try to reallocate staff into other areas, if there are still tomany staff let the oldest staff retire, and give people plenty of notice and they should be fine. It really is every persons job to take care of them selves if you are living pay check to pay check after 20 years you need to look at your self.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't think companies are responsible to give people life time employment, you are generally hired to fill a role, and if that role becomes obselete and you are no longer needed, the company has no moral obligation to keep you especially in a country with social safety nets.

A responsible company would probably try to reallocate staff into other areas, if there are still tomany staff let the oldest staff retire, and give people plenty of notice and they should be fine. It really is every persons job to take care of them selves if you are living pay check to pay check after 20 years you need to look at your self.

And you think you are a moral person crapping on about morals being to do with the well being of others ?

So your morals boil down to everyone for themselves ?

Glad we got down to the nitty gritty of your argument.

 

[cynic]

Of course yes, but imo a truly moral CEO would not consider shareholders his only moral responsibility.

So if the company were to fail by losing it's competitive edge, what would then happen to the company employees and the shareholders?

 

[SirRumpole]

So if the company were to fail by losing it's competitive edge, what would then happen to the company employees and the shareholders?

Lots of things could be done. Retraining and placement in other areas of the firm, getting the employees jobs elsewhere etc.

Are you are suggesting that morality has no place in business ?

 

[luutzu]

I don't think companies are responsible to give people life time employment, you are generally hired to fill a role, and if that role becomes obselete and you are no longer needed, the company has no moral obligation to keep you especially in a country with social safety nets.

A responsible company would probably try to reallocate staff into other areas, if there are still tomany staff let the oldest staff retire, and give people plenty of notice and they should be fine. It really is every persons job to take care of them selves if you are living pay check to pay check after 20 years you need to look at your self.

 

[luutzu]

So if the company were to fail by losing it's competitive edge, what would then happen to the company employees and the shareholders?

Why must greater efficiency comes at the costs of firing people?

First, don't hire too many people. Management are paid to plan ahead right?

Second, if times are tough, ask all in the company to make sacrifices. e.g. All take every second Friday off instead of firing 10% of the workforce in one hit. Maybe the CEO get a pay cut.

Then as SirR was saying... retrain, put real effort into investment and innovation to expand markets and sales.

To hire then fire with every annual report to make the numbers may actually do more harm to the company's long term economic future. Morale will go; those who can will get the heck out; those who are better at pleasing the boss get to stay... Companies like that will sooner or later close or be taken over.

ey, I'm starting to feel like the ugly chick at an orgy. ha ha

 

[cynic]

Lots of things could be done. Retraining and placement in other areas of the firm, getting the employees jobs elsewhere etc.

Are you are suggesting that morality has no place in business ?

What I am saying is that sometimes the moral decision isn't nearly so straightforward as some like to think. If the company goes down all employees and shareholders will be impacted.

Some years ago, I recall seeing a news report of an incident on a naval vessel where the captain had the unenviable task of making a difficult decision to prevent the ship from sinking. He commanded the requisite actions, knowing full well, that a number of sailors were certain to perish as a direct consequence.

Would those sailors have died alongside many others if the ship had been allowed to sink? If not, would a larger number of other sailors have perished instead? Or was the value of the ship generally seen as outweighing the lives of sailors?

 

[SirRumpole]

What I am saying is that sometimes the moral decision isn't nearly so straightforward as some like to think. If the company goes down all employees and shareholders will be impacted.

Some years ago, I recall seeing a news report of an incident on a naval vessel where the captain had the unenviable task of making a difficult decision to prevent the ship from sinking. He commanded the requisite actions, knowing full well, that a number of sailors were certain to perish as a direct consequence.

Would those sailors have died alongside many others if the ship had been allowed to sink? If not, would a larger number of other sailors have perished instead? Or was the value of the ship generally seen as outweighing the lives of sailors?

Running a company is not a matter of life and death. Let's not get sidetracked.

 

[cynic]

Why must greater efficiency comes at the costs of firing people?

My comments were in relation to another poster's questioning of the moral duty of a CEO in the hypothetical scenario where an opportunity to replace 10 employees with one machine is present!

Please consider them within that context.

 

[cynic]

Running a company is not a matter of life and death. Let's not get sidetracked.

It may be life and death to the careers of the staff, the wealth of the shareholders and the company itself!

Think of the ship as a company that needs to remain afloat in a competitive environment, the sailors are the staff, and the captain is the CEO!

Please do not pretend that you don't see some parrallels with moral dilemmas faced by captains/CEOs.

 

[SirRumpole]

It may be life and death to the careers of the staff, the wealth of the shareholders and the company itself!

Think of the ship as a company that needs to remain afloat in a competitive environment, the sailors are the staff, and the captain is the CEO!

Please do not pretend that you don't see some parrallels with moral dilemmas faced by captains/CEOs.

There are always parallels you can draw, but please don't pretend to equate letting people die with giving them the sack. If you do, then I have doubts about your sanity.

As you said yourself, please keep it within the context originally discussed.

 

[cynic]

There are always parallels you can draw, but please don't pretend to equate letting people die with giving them the sack. If you do, then I have doubts about your sanity.

Whether it be loss of life or loss of employment, the key point is that the loss (and not the degree of severity) is simply one of several parallels in the analogy I presented. The difficult moral dilemma faced by the person in charge is another.

However, given that I recognise how unpalatable discussions pertaining to loss of life can be, let's take things down a couple of notches by pretending that the sailors only stood to have a bit of an unpleasant experience before losing their jobs.

Well we just made the captains job one heck of a lot easier! Now all that he has to do to save the ship is make a decision knowing that a few sailors will lose their jobs.

Was his decision morally correct?

 

[SirRumpole]

Whether it be loss of life or loss of employment, the key point is that the loss (and not the degree of severity) is simply one of several parallels in the analogy I presented. The difficult moral dilemma faced by the person in charge is another.

However, given that I recognise how unpalatable discussions pertaining to loss of life can be, let's take things down a couple of notches by pretending that the sailors only stood to have a bit of an unpleasant experience before losing their jobs.

Well we just made the captains job one heck of a lot easier! Now all that he has to do to save the ship is make a decision knowing that a few sailors will lose their jobs.

Was his decision morally correct?

I can't say unless I know what other options he had for the sailors other than to sack them. Company directors do have other options as I have said, which makes this comparison ridiculous.

 

[cynic]

I can't say unless I know what other options he had for the sailors other than to sack them. Company directors do have other options as I have said, which makes this comparison ridiculous.

Those other options you mention typically require resources, (most notably time and money). Reckless expenditure of either, serves to diminish the efficiencies gained elsewhere. So much for retaining a competitive edge in the face of the changing tides of commerce!

The captain needs to act quickly! There may not be sufficient time to get those unfortunate sailors into a safer position before the entire ship goes past the point of redemption!

 

[Value Collector]

And you think you are a moral person crapping on about morals being to do with the well being of others ?

So your morals boil down to everyone for themselves ?

Glad we got down to the nitty gritty of your argument.

It works both ways, you are responsible for your own well being to, I did say I believe in having social safety nets, but yes you should be looking out for your self and your own future too. That's is Called being responsible, atleast having enough saving to last you 3 - 6 months, I can't see me saying that makes me immoral..

 

[luutzu]

Those other options you mention typically require resources, (most notably time and money). Reckless expenditure of either, serves to diminish the efficiencies gained elsewhere. So much for retaining a competitive edge in the face of the changing tides of commerce!

The captain needs to act quickly! There may not be sufficient time to get those unfortunate sailors into a safer position before the entire ship goes past the point of redemption!

Yea, but you're assuming that these captains of industry always need to sack people to save the sinking ship. That's not always the case, it is rarely the case.

It is true that there are good and well intended CEOs and business owners. I started out working for a small business owner who went broke and have to laid off people - it really really break his heart. I have also seen good executives who have to let a big chunk of his company go because the project is over.

So there are cases when certain cuts must be made.. but we all know companies does these for no other reason than merely to make more profit.

There are plenty of cases where older more senior employee are fired and younger graduate are brought in to replace them... all so that it save the company a few grands a year.

Plenty of cases where very profitable company firing people, ship jobs overseas to cheaper labour, then push to lower pay and less benefits to those they can't yet fire... all so that executives can get that bonus and shareholders their dividends.

Then there are cases of cutting on safety and quality... all in the calculus of chances of accidents, the costs of that accident or defect, and how much it would benefit the company until that happen.

For instance... GM decided to use some cheaper ignition switch, or a chip to it... saving maybe 20 cents per chip. They know it's defective and could cause death... but save the cash upfront, let the potenital victim sue and see where it goes.