Y’all don’t think you could at least get a paragraph or two out of that? This may be something that is “just obvious” to you, but different people’s brains work it different ways. To me, at this moment, I see no reason why “cheaper by the dozen” should make it better that uranium is mined off of Indian territory. What do I lose for not having big business?
Actually, John Mace is the judge. If you would like to read the agreement, it is in a link on my sig line.
It was just an offhand comment to msmith537. As far as the small company is more moral than a large company thing, I have no comment. A company is only as moral as the people running it and working in it, regardless of its size.
What do you gain? Is there any reason to believe that the presence of coal and unranium on Indian land woud not have brought dozens or hundreds of small businesses out to do the same thing? Would the net value of the mineral have been much less so as to not attract the attention of investors (who could all buy similar shares in all the interested companies) or would the Hopi have not petitioned the government to interfere with their agreement with the other nation if they were going to receive smaller checks but from more companies?
Let’s consider a different case. We all know that Coca Cola is one of the truly evil conglomerates out in the world. So how do we explain what happened in Northwest Ohio about a dozen years back? That region of Ohio has a very large number of smaller farms (and a few large farms) raising tomatoes that are generally processed for soup and juice rather than sold at veggie stands. Given Ohio’s growing season and the type of crop being produced, there is a fairly short window for harvest that is filled by a large number of migrant workers.
Several years ago, the Coke conglomerate ate up the large, but not large enough, conglomerate that dominated the sale and shipment of tomatoes from that region. The Coke inspectors came in and reviewed the existing processes, reporting their findings to Atlanta. Immediately, Coke issued new rules that the purchased company and all its independent suppliershad to change the way they were doing business The changes? They were ordered to improve the infrastructure of the camps in which the migrants were working, normalize pay procedures so that the migrants were being paid a fair wage and could see when anyone tried to cheat them, provide classroom for the migrants’ kids, and stop turning a blind eye to work abuse problems. Coke also initiated a protocol whereby anyone attempting to circumvent the new rules or bribe government inspectors to ignore abuses was fired if they were an employee or lost their contract if they were a supplier.
Now, did Coke do this because they were kind at heart? Probably not. There was possibly a mixture of genuine good citizenship (snicker if you wish, but I have seen it in corporate offices) and a concern that they not be fined. As long as the government had to send agents out to dozens of operations, imposing a fine here or there, it was worth the risk to the smaller outfits to get caught once a decade or so and pay some small fine, leaving the migrants to suffrer in the meantime. Since Coke knew that the fines levied against them would be heavier (and the publicity would be bad for business), they made it their job to improve the conditions under which their product was harvested.
I know you think that big business is this great efficient and moral enterprise but let me explain how I feel on the matter.
-
Big business is not more efficient. Take the California power crisis. Edison, which is a private company, backed a law that would create competition in the energy market. In order to facilitate this, they took several of their own power generating plants offline. The Los Angeles DWP did not. It seemed like everywhere in the state except those areas that the DWP provides power, experienced rolling blackouts. Corporations sometimes let their own greed get in the way.
-
Wal-Mart is notorious for paying their employees Wal-Mart very little in comparison to union workers. Wal-mart also encourage their employees to seek aid from the government to cover the shortfall generated from low pay. They also drive mom and pop operations out of business and have ruined the character of many a downtown in the pursuit of more market share. Wal-mart is not righteous.
-
Finally big business stifles new ideas. As with many times in history (and I have gone over this countless times in other threads) big business uses government to drive the small competitor out of business. For example, it gets behind regulations in that it can absorb the cost of implementing new regulations and a small business cannot. With less competition tell me how there is an overall increase in innovation?
So as you see, you have your way of looking at it and I have mine.
I’m not sure who you’re addressing, here. Your comments do not describe my views.
FTR, I think any characterization of “big business” as either “good” or “bad” is stupid. There are well-run companies that tread a tight ethical line in their practices; there are ethical companiies that are so slip-shod that they inevitably fail; there are companies that treat ethics as something to be avoided (or reluctantly give ethics lip service as the cost of doing business) and those companies may be efficient or not. As with any human enterprise, there are good, bad, successful, and unsuccessful efforts. My objection to Scott’s original contention (and to yours if you really believe the same), is that it is foolish to characterize any human enterprise as always bad or evil or foolish. Such characterizations distort the reality of individual cases and make any discussion a waste of effort.
The only general observation that I would make about large corporations is that the larger they are the more likely that some manager somewhere is an unethical boob making stupid decisions that will harm people. My reference to Coca Cola as evil was only partly in jest; there are a number of instances when Coke has acted stupidly and probably more than a few instances where they have behaved unethically. And, as I noted, part of their “good” behavior could easily have been pragmatic rather than altruistic. Nevertheless, this big bad company took actions to perform a good service for a number of people which flies in the face of claims that big companies are always evil.
I work for one of those “Big Business” corporations (#40 on the current Fortune 500, if anyone’s looking), and I want to second the notion that the perception of “evil” (really…how grandiose) is what’s important.
We recently acquired a large CA-based healthcare company. I’m sure that if you worked for that company, there woudl be a feeling of apprehension at being bought. In the media, most acquisitions are twinned with the “job cuts” story. Therefore, you would have thoughts of losing your job (and ability to purchase food, shelter, etc.).
Will we cut jobs? Our track record shows that it’s unlikely. However, if we did, I would feel pretty safe in betting on the middle management being dropped first. We need people to do the “dirty work” far more than the middlemen who are trying to groom themselves for the strategic positions (and, for the record, I’m as “middle” as it gets).
Big Business Evil? Beyond acquisition-associated job-loss and some personal angst, I really don’t see the evil. You could always accuse us of driving the healthcare issues in the USA (practice of medicine, hospital stay lengths, etc.), but we’d pass blame to the trial attorneys anyway.
On the face of it, the whole argument is absurd, framing capitalism in terms of “good” and “evil”.
And the hippies…please. If it makes sense to stand in your bully pulpit and trumpet the societal woes caused by Big Business, then so be it. When the companies go away, be prepared to pay more for food, walk on disintegrating sidewalks, walk to wherever your organic garden may be, and pay a LOT more for your healthcare.
-Cem
Sorry: strawman. “Hippy” was first used in a self-deprecating remark by Scott Plaid and later fallaciously assigned to a multitude of unidentified persons by msmith537 and has only been used in a jocular fashion, otherwise. No one in this thread has seriously argued the “hippy” position, (given that Scott is not capable of serious argument).
So that’s why Coke is so much better than Pepsi. And here I thought it was because Coke tastes great while Pepsi tastes like insipid sugar water with bubbles.
Sorry to join this late, but one thing to remember with layoffs is that the people at the bottom are just the easiest to let go when things go bad and the easiest to replace when things pick up. It makes sense to get rid of them first.
There are almost always going to be more entry level people than those with experience (unless you’re in an industry that is totally falling apart). You won’t have invested as much training in them (hence no need to spend as much training replacements should the market pick up), and, in all honestly, you won’t like them as much (it’s much easier to let a new hire go than someone you’ve worked with for a number of years).
And, yeah, they have the cheapest severance packages.
Don’t you mean the opposite, i.e., “more negative than positive”?
What is this about “always evil”? In my second post here, I said " I think that the end result is often more positive then negative."
Besides, the above post sounds an awful lot like
It changed the focus from the business owner to the owner, to some person in a position of authority, but still, it sounds quite similar.
What it sounds like is quite incoherent. Many of the posts in this thread have been efforts on the part of other posters to figure out exactly what you’re trying to say.