Franchise group files to block [Seattle's] $15 minimum-wage phase-in

[Canard DuJour]

Of course not. I don't think they should, either--welfare is the job of government, not of business. You're just being a Luddite.

I'm merely questioning the motives, the strategy and the social effects of the current business strategy of eliminating costs, and consequently, jobs. My question still remains: when we come to the point where a high percentage of paid work has gone for ever (computerization and the self service industry), where does the money that all newly unemployed require in order to, not only survive, but expect a reasonable standard of living come from? Who pays the Bills?

Who, moreover, is going to provide the revenue that makes mass production profitable in the first place?

 

[DBT]

I do not believe that "cost to society" is an entry on their balance sheets. They're not compensated for the burden of those costs.

Isn't it a matter of considering the consequences of a set of business decisions - simply asking the question - ''where are our proposed actions going to take us in the long term?''

 

[Togo]

Again, here you come with "It's too complicated for you to talk about it. Only the experts know. Have faith they are honest and they are reducing costs as only they know how." The standard you are setting is the lowest priced food regardless of anything else...hardly what I would want to swallow.

Not "only the experts know", but rather "only those with access to the detailed data know".

You also have quite a lack of respect for the skills of experts.

I'm an expert. I also have privileged access to company's data. Are you going to 'respect'* my views on this?

Companies spend money on stuff that won't reduce their costs all the time. Automation is one of those things that you spend money on because it makes you look good, and because you're afraid other people will save money and then you'll be behind.

(*By which I fear you mean 'accept without question')

 

[bleubird]

Who would want live in a society that is promoted by some here?It is cold and mean.Do they not see that in the long term such a system will cost even the 1% more.If corporations wish to be people,than they have the responsibility to be good citizens.
I guess some people did not get enough hugs as children.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Companies spend money on stuff that won't reduce their costs all the time.

And usually waste a ton of money in the process.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course not. I don't think they should, either--welfare is the job of government, not of business. You're just being a Luddite.

I'm merely questioning the motives, the strategy and the social effects of the current business strategy of eliminating costs, and consequently, jobs. My question still remains: when we come to the point where a high percentage of paid work has gone for ever (computerization and the self service industry), where does the money that all newly unemployed require in order to, not only survive, but expect a reasonable standard of living come from? Who pays the Bills?

A negative income tax, funded by taxes on business.

 

[Emily Lake]

I do not believe that "cost to society" is an entry on their balance sheets. They're not compensated for the burden of those costs.

Isn't it a matter of considering the consequences of a set of business decisions - simply asking the question - ''where are our proposed actions going to take us in the long term?''

Certainly, businesses should consider the long term consequences of actions. So should individuals. So should governments. None of them, however, seem to do so nearly as often as I would expect. Holding one of these players to a standard, while excusing the others from that same standard seems shortsighted to me.

Now if you're looking at the choices of a single company, and chastising them for making a heartless and unecessary decision, and you can back that up with actual numbers showing that their decision was actually unecessary... then I have no problem with your opinion. But to blithely assume that ALL businesses are making heartless decisions and that ALL of them are unnecessary, well that's just a poor assumption. At least some of those businesses are making a choice between some people losing their jobs and all of them losing their jobs. It's a hasty generalization sort of an approach that I tend to find frustrating.

 

[ZiprHead]

Companies spend money on stuff that won't reduce their costs all the time.

And usually waste a ton of money in the process.

I remember the hospital system I worked for hired a consulting company to help them cut costs. They paid them $1.1 million. I almost burst from trying not to scream, "I know how to save $1.1 million!!!". They cut back on employees through attrition and, shortly after I left, cut everyone's pay by 10 percent. I could have told them to do that for $500,000. But hey, I'm a helper at heart.

 

[DBT]

I'm merely questioning the motives, the strategy and the social effects of the current business strategy of eliminating costs, and consequently, jobs. My question still remains: when we come to the point where a high percentage of paid work has gone for ever (computerization and the self service industry), where does the money that all newly unemployed require in order to, not only survive, but expect a reasonable standard of living come from? Who pays the Bills?

A negative income tax, funded by taxes on business.

To fund a national citizen's income?

 

[DBT]

Isn't it a matter of considering the consequences of a set of business decisions - simply asking the question - ''where are our proposed actions going to take us in the long term?''

Certainly, businesses should consider the long term consequences of actions. So should individuals. So should governments. None of them, however, seem to do so nearly as often as I would expect. Holding one of these players to a standard, while excusing the others from that same standard seems shortsighted to me.

Now if you're looking at the choices of a single company, and chastising them for making a heartless and unecessary decision, and you can back that up with actual numbers showing that their decision was actually unecessary... then I have no problem with your opinion. But to blithely assume that ALL businesses are making heartless decisions and that ALL of them are unnecessary, well that's just a poor assumption. At least some of those businesses are making a choice between some people losing their jobs and all of them losing their jobs. It's a hasty generalization sort of an approach that I tend to find frustrating.

I didn't mention anything about ''heartless decisions'' or make assumptions about motives. My question was: Isn't it a matter of considering the consequences of a set of business decisions - simply asking the question - ''where are our proposed actions going to take us in the long term?'' - in regard to corporate policies and decision making. Which has nothing to do with what I may or may not believe they do in their boardroom meetings.

 

[Emily Lake]

Certainly, businesses should consider the long term consequences of actions. So should individuals. So should governments. None of them, however, seem to do so nearly as often as I would expect. Holding one of these players to a standard, while excusing the others from that same standard seems shortsighted to me.

Now if you're looking at the choices of a single company, and chastising them for making a heartless and unecessary decision, and you can back that up with actual numbers showing that their decision was actually unecessary... then I have no problem with your opinion. But to blithely assume that ALL businesses are making heartless decisions and that ALL of them are unnecessary, well that's just a poor assumption. At least some of those businesses are making a choice between some people losing their jobs and all of them losing their jobs. It's a hasty generalization sort of an approach that I tend to find frustrating.

I didn't mention anything about ''heartless decisions'' or make assumptions about motives. My question was: Isn't it a matter of considering the consequences of a set of business decisions - simply asking the question - ''where are our proposed actions going to take us in the long term?'' - in regard to corporate policies and decision making. Which has nothing to do with what I may or may not believe they do in their boardroom meetings.

I was inferring and paraphrasing from this:

Do you think that the companies involved have sat down in their boardrooms and worked out the overall cost of their computerization programs, self service industry, etc, to society in terms of helping create an increasing percentage of a permanently unemployed class, and welfare dependence?

I interpreted that to imply that you were critical of their business practices based on the effect on society; specifically that these business practices cause unemployment and poverty... and that therefore you would consider them to be heartless (because they put people our of work and make them need welfare) and unnecessary (as you've implied that these decisions are being made by the executives who aren't actually being financially affected by them).

Is my inference of your statement and its subtext incorrect?

Just because you don't use the literal phrase doesn't mean that the meaning isn't implicitly present in your statement.

 

[DBT]

I didn't mention anything about ''heartless decisions'' or make assumptions about motives. My question was: Isn't it a matter of considering the consequences of a set of business decisions - simply asking the question - ''where are our proposed actions going to take us in the long term?'' - in regard to corporate policies and decision making. Which has nothing to do with what I may or may not believe they do in their boardroom meetings.

I was inferring and paraphrasing from this:

Do you think that the companies involved have sat down in their boardrooms and worked out the overall cost of their computerization programs, self service industry, etc, to society in terms of helping create an increasing percentage of a permanently unemployed class, and welfare dependence?

I interpreted that to imply that you were critical of their business practices based on the effect on society; specifically that these business practices cause unemployment and poverty... and that therefore you would consider them to be heartless (because they put people our of work and make them need welfare) and unnecessary (as you've implied that these decisions are being made by the executives who aren't actually being financially affected by them).

Is my inference of your statement and its subtext incorrect?

Just because you don't use the literal phrase doesn't mean that the meaning isn't implicitly present in your statement.

No, you went a bit too far in assuming that implied that executives in their boardrooms produce 'heartless decisions'' as a routine matter. That wasn't the intention. Look at it in the context of a progressive loss of jobs through computerization/mechanization, which appears to an inevitable part of our technological progress, and a matter of boardroom decision making.

My question was, and still is; do the heads of industry consider the impact of their decisions in social terms? They may or they may not, I don't know. I don't know what they think or what they feel about the social consequences of reducing staff numbers.

 

[Canard DuJour]

No, you went a bit too far in assuming that implied that executives in their boardrooms produce 'heartless decisions'' as a routine matter. That wasn't the intention. Look at it in the context of a progressive loss of jobs through computerization/mechanization, which appears to an inevitable part of our technological progress, and a matter of boardroom decision making.

My question was, and still is; do the heads of industry consider the impact of their decisions in social terms? They may or they may not, I don't know. I don't know what they think or what they feel about the social consequences of reducing staff numbers.

Some do IME, but can't act accordingly without disadvantaging the firms they're supposed to be advantaging. Like it or not, that bit has to come from government.

 

[Togo]

My question was, and still is; do the heads of industry consider the impact of their decisions in social terms? They may or they may not, I don't know. I don't know what they think or what they feel about the social consequences of reducing staff numbers.

In the boardroom, not routinely, no. They have a range of considerations, of course, but in general they're more keen to worry about social consequences with their own money then they are with a company's money, where it would be counted against 'performance'.

They're also quite slow to take responsibility for their own effect on the market. The board of Nestle were quite upset with the scandal about promoting baby-milk products in Africa. They regarded what happened in Africa as the responsibility of franchisees and agents, not Nestle. The idea that they should be responsible for limiting the actions of people on a continent they had never visited was something that took quite a bit of persuading for them to even consider as legitimate.

I only have direct experience with 3-4 examples, and indirect with maybe 40-50, depending on how you define a 'captain of industry'

 

[Emily Lake]

No, you went a bit too far in assuming that implied that executives in their boardrooms produce 'heartless decisions'' as a routine matter. That wasn't the intention. Look at it in the context of a progressive loss of jobs through computerization/mechanization, which appears to an inevitable part of our technological progress, and a matter of boardroom decision making.

My question was, and still is; do the heads of industry consider the impact of their decisions in social terms? They may or they may not, I don't know. I don't know what they think or what they feel about the social consequences of reducing staff numbers.

I apologize for inferring too far.

In reference to your embedded question, my initial response still stands: I don't believe "societal good" is an entry on their balance sheets. Societal good does not impact the company's bottom line - for either good or ill. They don't gain when they help societal good along, nor do they lose when they hinder it. In fact, they may very well lose when they attempt to help societal good along, because societal good often has a large uncompensated cost to it.

Considerations of societal good would, therefore, be done solely out of the "goodness" of the company's "heart". And goodwill doesn't translate into profit very well.