Small Corporation Woes

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2

16 Replies - 3299 Views - Last Post: 10 October 2012 - 09:12 AM

#16 no2pencil  Icon User is offline

  • Admiral Fancy Pants
  • member icon

Reputation: 5363
  • View blog
  • Posts: 27,325
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Re: Small Corporation Woes

Posted 10 October 2012 - 08:24 AM

I would say that they are under no obligation to do so, however paying low rates will yield less productive employees, which will (imo) yield a lower end product.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#17 lordofduct  Icon User is offline

  • I'm a cheeseburger
  • member icon


Reputation: 2538
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,639
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Re: Small Corporation Woes

Posted 10 October 2012 - 09:12 AM

Moral obligation? That's a rather subjective thing.


From a free-market standpoint (no morals here), they have an incentive to pay less to reap profits to expand the company. They have incentives to pay their employees well to keep employees happy and get good productivity out of them. That's a balancing act.

If a company does so well that they can pay more or whatever... that doesn't cause inflation, THAT IS INFLATION. Inflation/deflation is the value of the dollar changing as the economy (businesses) grow or shrink.



Now do they have a moral obligation to throttle their individual effect on the group economy, and do they have a moral obligation to be neighbourly and pay well?

Well... that depends on your morals. Some people believe the economy should grow unencumbered, others think it should be throttled so other international economies don't get left in the dirt.

See those two things morally can be in conflict. And morals are not in stone laws... they're guidance systems. Sometimes you can't have both. I'm morally opposed to being a killer, I'm also morally opposed to the killing of children... I'm not going to let my killer moral get in the way of defending a child about to be killed.

Are they obligated to consider the grand scope of things? No.

But a business which ignores the fact that it has massive global effect, and acts against it to cause harm under the guise of ignorance... I sure as hell will call them a dickbag douchenozel fucktard and expect other social/governmental systems to kick them in the balls for it. May that be regulation, boycotting, etc.

And that's the way I see the so called "free-market". You want to be free to operate and work with in the incentives/warnings the world generates. That the free-market reacts to the hurdles that the world throws at it, and it should be left to its own accord to do so.

OK... well guess what, social/government retaliation is a fact of life. People will get upset, rally together (sometimes in the forms of gov't), and put up a hurdle for the previous free-market to need to combat. So how about you let THAT incentivise you 'invisible-hand'?

But in that case, such proselytizing about letting the free-market move unencumbered IS it's attempt at combating said hurdle. Which is fine...

But I call bullshit on said messages message that "hurdles create incentives for the free-market to self-regulate... so please remove any hurdles from our path so we can do that".

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 10 October 2012 - 09:23 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2