Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[luutzu]

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..

You're alright dude.

 

[cynic]

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.

Perhaps not always the case, but it does actually happen! From my personal experience, I am of a very different opinion to yourself regarding the frequency of such cases.

Either way, the parallels within the naval counter example, do serve to demonstrate that the questions regarding moral correctness of actions aren't necessarily as simple as they initially seem!

 

[Value Collector]

You're alright dude.

Lol, the Star Wars references are getting lost me.

maybe try a captain America reference.

 

[Value Collector]

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

Off course the Shareholders are not the only thing to be considered, they are one of the main ones though.

A ceo has the responsibility to run the assets for the best outcomes for the shareholders, the employees, debt holders, environment, suppliers and probably other stake holders I have missed.

But that doesn't mean it has the responsibility to over employ or to guarantee life time jobs for everyone, I don't see anything wrong with returning unused labour back to the labour pool so it can be used in other areas.

 

[SirRumpole]

But that doesn't mean it has the responsibility to over employ or to guarantee life time jobs for everyone, I don't see anything wrong with returning unused labour back to the labour pool so it can be used in other areas.

Yep, someone elses problem.

If those unused labour resources never work again that's not your worry is it ?

 

[smallwolf]

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

- hire in the up-turn of business, fire in the down-turn.

- move resources OS. it effects the bottom line (cause that has gotta be good *sarcasm*) and your (possible) dividends

- make it cheaper, sell it cheaper to the customer. customers generally (broad sweeping statement) pick the cheaper option in a supermarket environment.

it does not have to be that way, but just is...

 

[luutzu]

Lol, the Star Wars references are getting lost me.

maybe try a captain America reference.

Gone to the Dark side. Noooo...

Can't remember much about CA. Well, you might fit him... a straight up capitalist pig. ha ha

 

[luutzu]

Perhaps not always the case, but it does actually happen! From my personal experience, I am of a very different opinion to yourself regarding the frequency of such cases.

Either way, the parallels within the naval counter example, do serve to demonstrate that the questions regarding moral correctness of actions aren't necessarily as simple as they initially seem!

There's very little and very few parallels.

For one, it's often the Captain of Industry that cause the crash themselves, then fire the sailors.

Or they get rid of the sailors here because the sailors over there are cheaper and less whiny.

It would be a mistake to think that CEOs and corporate directors make decisions like normal human being. Even the nicest of them, once they are in that position will be "convinced" of the need to "serve the shareholders" by doing all they can to make the most profit and gain the most rewards possible - and the easiest way to do that is cutting costs. With costs meaning everything you have to pay for.

The bigger the corporations, the further the management is from their employees and the community affected. Not to mention the bigger their pay - and with bigger pay come bigger ego.

Add these two alone and you'd get people who earn millions a year and think they're being underpaid, yet at the same time would consider it too expensive to pay their people $x an hour - whatever x is, it's too much (for the lower runk).

 

[luutzu]

- hire in the up-turn of business, fire in the down-turn.

- move resources OS. it effects the bottom line (cause that has gotta be good *sarcasm*) and your (possible) dividends

- make it cheaper, sell it cheaper to the customer. customers generally (broad sweeping statement) pick the cheaper option in a supermarket environment.

it does not have to be that way, but just is...

Corporation, and those who run it, as a whole are pretty stupid, and deadly.

They find ways to cut costs, and the highest costs are personnel... But if personnel/people aren't earning enough, who's going to buy the goods?

Then some other corp. comes in with credit and debt offering... And knowing people are desperate, charge insane interest... How can people pay that extortion rate of interests? They'd go bankrupt. But then there are others who won't go bankrupt, yet. and on and on until there's no one around to exploit and extort.

Then either revolution where the upper crust got their heads handed to them or the world goes to heck.

 

[SirRumpole]

Corporation, and those who run it, as a whole are pretty stupid, and deadly.

They find ways to cut costs, and the highest costs are personnel... But if personnel/people aren't earning enough, who's going to buy the goods?

Then some other corp. comes in with credit and debt offering... And knowing people are desperate, charge insane interest... How can people pay that extortion rate of interests? They'd go bankrupt. But then there are others who won't go bankrupt, yet. and on and on until there's no one around to exploit and extort.

Then either revolution where the upper crust got their heads handed to them or the world goes to heck.

What are you doing on this forum ?

You sound almost morally socialist !

It appears Canoz hasn't caught up with you yet.

 

[cynic]

There's very little and very few parallels.

For one, it's often the Captain of Industry that cause the crash themselves, then fire the sailors.

Or they get rid of the sailors here because the sailors over there are cheaper and less whiny.

It would be a mistake to think that CEOs and corporate directors make decisions like normal human being. Even the nicest of them, once they are in that position will be "convinced" of the need to "serve the shareholders" by doing all they can to make the most profit and gain the most rewards possible - and the easiest way to do that is cutting costs. With costs meaning everything you have to pay for.

The bigger the corporations, the further the management is from their employees and the community affected. Not to mention the bigger their pay - and with bigger pay come bigger ego.

Add these two alone and you'd get people who earn millions a year and think they're being underpaid, yet at the same time would consider it too expensive to pay their people $x an hour - whatever x is, it's too much (for the lower runk).

My posts on this matter were intended to highlight that, the question of morality, when faced with a decision involving obsolescence of staff, isn't always as straightforward as it might at first seem!

I am not making general claims to altruism underlying the motivation behind CEO conduct in all matters!

 

[Tisme]

- make it cheaper, sell it cheaper to the customer. customers generally (broad sweeping statement) pick the cheaper option in a supermarket environment.

...

Of course it's little more complicated than just cheaper, but your use of the word option is a good one.

By way of future trends here, since he GFC brand loyalty globally has taken a hit with upto ~90% of shoppers not differentiating the branded versus plain packaging product enough to dictate a purchase. About 30% are mostly rusted on brand addicts, ~25% supersavers, similarly ~25% are bulk buyers and the rest are budget constrained to cheap by necessity. About 60% actively scout for specials.

 

[luutzu]

Of course it's little more complicated than just cheaper, but your use of the word option is a good one.

By way of future trends here, since he GFC brand loyalty globally has taken a hit with upto ~90% of shoppers not differentiating the branded versus plain packaging product enough to dictate a purchase. About 30% are mostly rusted on brand addicts, ~25% supersavers, similarly ~25% are bulk buyers and the rest are budget constrained to cheap by necessity. About 60% actively scout for specials.

Did you just pull those stats out of thin air or what?

 

[luutzu]

My posts on this matter were intended to highlight that, the question of morality, when faced with a decision involving obsolescence of staff, isn't always as straightforward as it might at first seem!

I am not making general claims to altruism underlying the motivation behind CEO conduct in all matters!

Nice try Matrix Monk. The only one whose multi-syllabic, proper sentence structure tendencies could help them getting away with murder is McTisme, and you ain't that drunk sounding.

What were we on about?

 

[luutzu]

What are you doing on this forum ?

You sound almost morally socialist !

It appears Canoz hasn't caught up with you yet.

I'm a lost Socialist? A confused Capitalist?

A mild Socialist in words but a deadly Capitalist in deed?

Ah dam it! I'm a Red.

Well, I guess you can take the boy away from the Reds but you can't get the Red out of the boy.

Noco was on to me though... but then noco was onto a lot of people

 

[Tisme]

Did you just pull those stats out of thin air or what?

Nope . one of my many disciplines

 

[Tisme]

I'm a lost Socialist? A confused Capitalist?

A mild Socialist in words but a deadly Capitalist in deed?

Ah dam it! I'm a Red.

Well, I guess you can take the boy away from the Reds but you can't get the Red out of the boy.

Noco was on to me though... but then noco was onto a lot of people

Just old school capitalism when entrepreneurs built business based on national pride, philanthropy and social ethics. bit like looking at Labor and Liberal and convincing yourself your are voting per your parent's moral politics.

 

[Value Collector]

Yep, someone elses problem.

If those unused labour resources never work again that's not your worry is it ?

It should fall back on society in general to look after people who are unemployable, why should it be a single companies problem? Hence the reason I said we need social safety nets.

First and formost it is your responsibility to look after yourself, and if you can't then we have safety nets, I can't see anything immoral with that. I mean part of being a moral person is to do your best not to be a burden on others.

Some of you guys think that morality is a one street, and it only comes from giving everything you have to those around you and sacrificing your self.

 

[luutzu]

It should fall back on society in general to look after people who are unemployable, why should it be a single companies problem? Hence the reason I said we need social safety nets.

First and formost it is your responsibility to look after yourself, and if you can't then we have safety nets, I can't see anything immoral with that. I mean part of being a moral person is to do your best not to be a burden on others.

Some of you guys think that morality is a one street, and it only comes from giving everything you have to those around you and sacrificing your self.

It's all coming back to me now

----

How can gov't, assuming they wanted to, provide safety nets if corporations aren't paying their fair share of taxes?

Small, medium enterprises tend to pay proper rate of tax - large multinationals tend to have their ways with the law and law-makers.

So when corporations convinced politicians that cutting tax on them will create more jobs; that to attract their capital and innovation, gov't must be "competitive" and remove red tapes like environmental wasteland, workers rights - making it easier to hire and fire without a second thought...

Or when corporations fund political campaigns, but public and behind the scenes, to have certain leaders and political do gooders remove... or to fund their more understanding opponents... and results in bigger loopholes and lowering of non loopholes... where then do gov't get the fund to provide safety nets?

Tax the poor more because they're the ones who tend to use it anyway?

Increase GST; sell off public assets; cut services; cut education funding; privatise medical care; bring in US system of indebting university students etc. etc.

These are some of the innovative thinking corporations do, everywhere they operates. And they are getting away with it too.

So when gov't fund the roads and infrastructures, train the future employees, provide security and gunboats to kick azz and take names when assets are stolen or infringed... yet commission from corporations are not returned in kind... who then should fund it?


In the good old days, imperial armies would liberate a neighbour or two then get all its booties to the King's and Emperor's coffers.

In the more recent old days, liberation armies conquer and vanquish the barbarians, corporations and merchants move in to establish trades and the booties are shared with the sovereign.

Nowadays, liberation armies take over barbaric states with lots of oil and strategic position to secure trade routes and opening markets... corporations moves in, profit from both their own gov't and the abandoned booties... but then bring the hoards back to some offshore haven.

How can a nation keep the plebs happy at home, keep the peace abroad with that kind of attitude?

Wait, are corporations for peace? That's their long game?

 

[cynic]

View attachment 66881

It's all coming back to me now

----

How can gov't, assuming they wanted to, provide safety nets if corporations aren't paying their fair share of taxes?

Small, medium enterprises tend to pay proper rate of tax - large multinationals tend to have their ways with the law and law-makers.

So when corporations convinced politicians that cutting tax on them will create more jobs; that to attract their capital and innovation, gov't must be "competitive" and remove red tapes like environmental wasteland, workers rights - making it easier to hire and fire without a second thought...

Or when corporations fund political campaigns, but public and behind the scenes, to have certain leaders and political do gooders remove... or to fund their more understanding opponents... and results in bigger loopholes and lowering of non loopholes... where then do gov't get the fund to provide safety nets?

Tax the poor more because they're the ones who tend to use it anyway?

Increase GST; sell off public assets; cut services; cut education funding; privatise medical care; bring in US system of indebting university students etc. etc.

These are some of the innovative thinking corporations do, everywhere they operates. And they are getting away with it too.

So when gov't fund the roads and infrastructures, train the future employees, provide security and gunboats to kick azz and take names when assets are stolen or infringed... yet commission from corporations are not returned in kind... who then should fund it?


In the good old days, imperial armies would liberate a neighbour or two then get all its booties to the King's and Emperor's coffers.

In the more recent old days, liberation armies conquer and vanquish the barbarians, corporations and merchants move in to establish trades and the booties are shared with the sovereign.

Nowadays, liberation armies take over barbaric states with lots of oil and strategic position to secure trade routes and opening markets... corporations moves in, profit from both their own gov't and the abandoned booties... but then bring the hoards back to some offshore haven.

How can a nation keep the plebs happy at home, keep the peace abroad with that kind of attitude?

Wait, are corporations for peace? That's their long game?

I always thought their long game was survival. Squeeze as many golden eggs as possible without crippling or killing the geese laying them.

Failure to strike the correct balance, potentially condemns both the geese and their corporate farmers to a fate worse than Hades!

Another pearl of wisdom, proudly brought to you by your faithful matrix monk.