Thanks for linking to that article. While it is indeed thoughtful, I'm not swayed by "the lesser of two bad options" being an argument for supporting paying people less for "exposure" to opportunity. Incremental improvement can look beneficial, until it isn't. I don't consider being able to get an expensive taxi as better as having no taxi -- a poor person can't access the taxi in any case to begin with.
This sort of ethics is almost shame-oriented, with a subtle "You should be appreciative you got anything" undercurrent in its view of the world. Does that mean we should only put the bare minimum of human consideration into our business offerings? That's how we got such destructive capitalist practices.
If humans cannot do business that is equitable to all parties, it shouldn't be happening. If that means some rich people can't access a service because it's not scalable yet or a tech firm has to hire developers to get code written, so be it. I can't get whatever I want, or justify getting it by swindling others. Why should a company?
There seems to be this in-built value in modern society that it's okay to totally screw somebody if you fit into some business-accepted guard-rails. Please note that business ethics are an oxymoron.
> If humans cannot do business that is equitable to all parties, it shouldn't be happening.
Again, how is the state of it not happening better than the state of it happening inequitably?
> There seems to be this in-built value in modern society that it's okay to totally screw somebody if you fit into some business-accepted guard-rails.
Again, why would you call it 'screwing' someone to offer an opportunity they can decline, that is a net improvement but not the greatest thing you could possibly offer? Per the first section of that article, what kind of sense does it make to assign blame for someone's negative situation to the first person to try to help them?
Who are these judgments actually helping, and how?
> why would you call it 'screwing' someone to offer an opportunity they can decline, that is a net improvement but not the greatest thing you could possibly offer?
It drives down the value of the work. Short term it may be better for the person who needs the money but what would actually be better is if that person was compensated fairly.
This sort of ethics is almost shame-oriented, with a subtle "You should be appreciative you got anything" undercurrent in its view of the world. Does that mean we should only put the bare minimum of human consideration into our business offerings? That's how we got such destructive capitalist practices.
If humans cannot do business that is equitable to all parties, it shouldn't be happening. If that means some rich people can't access a service because it's not scalable yet or a tech firm has to hire developers to get code written, so be it. I can't get whatever I want, or justify getting it by swindling others. Why should a company?
There seems to be this in-built value in modern society that it's okay to totally screw somebody if you fit into some business-accepted guard-rails. Please note that business ethics are an oxymoron.