501–510 of 560 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They use them because they aren’t paid enough to live on. Therefore, the government and thereby our taxes subsidize the company.
Why don't they quit and find other better paying job?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn’t Amazon shareholders expect the company to look for low tax jurisdictions to operate from? Is there a morality issue that I’m not seeing?
Yes, there is. Societies — as we know how to make them — break down if everyone figures out how to avoid paying their way. If a hacker gets root, they’re just using the rules of the system, finding a loophole they can exploit… taxes and laws are systems that can be exploited, but even in the cases where I find them bad (and I have plenty of broad examples of things I don’t like), I think it’s worse to let people get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I have this right, the moral of your story is that small businesses will die and amazon-sized corporations are for the global good.
But with Amazon you don't have to build your own storefront, or online site at all. Just make a listing, and ship to FBA. I imagine that alone creates more businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Attributing moral blame to self-interested parties is exactly the point of moral blame. Moral blame is specifically about accusing people of going for their self-interest and little else...
You're talking past each other. Moral blame isn't wrong, just not very useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Homelessness is a problem. Camping is a (weak) solution.
Its an unsafe solution. There have been a number of fires in homeless camps in the East Bay and as larger camps continue to be built there will be more. Recreational camping tents are not safe for semi-permanent use. They are fire hazards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But with Amazon you don't have to build your own storefront, or online site at all. Just make a listing, and ship to FBA. I imagine that alone creates more businesses.
Businesses originally existed and had a profit margin. Then Amazon came along and competed directly against that profit margin so businesses lost business. Then Amazon said you can sell on our site, but in order to compete there businesses had to compete at the new lower profit margin, but then ontop of that give a slice of that to Amazon, so now they are losing profit margin, but losing more giving amazon a slice of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is controversial by definition, because you just disagreed.
It's not controversial to say the sky is blue because you can turn up a couple people who say it is green. You've really never heard of people turning to drink or drugs because of, day, the death of a family member? You can't see why someone who sleeps rough might seek escape through psychoactive drugs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely a few people in the French aristocracy knew they were sitting on a time bomb. But nobody had the will, the skill, and the charisma to defuse the damned thing.
Mind you that the french aristocracy was dealing with a revolution which upheaveled the entire meaning of being a royal/noble, it's principles and the "entity" that they derived their "rights" from. Prior to the french revolution, many royalty's (including the french) got their righteousness to rule from 'god'. The french revolution was the first which actually abolished this ancient idea and tried to hold the nobles…
They just weren’t very effective at defusing the time bomb.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your question reminds me of the Australian moral philosopher (and one of the founders of the "Effective Altruism" movement) Peter Singer. I have an inkling that you know him. He talks about (and makes people squirm) "how much should one give?": " [...] In particular, he expands upon some of the arguments made in his 1972 essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", in which he posits that citizens of rich nations are mor…
An "anonymous" author sharpens this argument in a Current Affairs essay called It's Basically Just Immoral To Be Rich . The logic works better applied to super-rich people than trying to get to the assertion that everyone should give up expensive things they have or want and live in some minimal way. Also check out This Little Rock And All Who Sail On It on the same website.
Thanks for the other recommendations.
Bezos can keep his donations, I just want Amazon to pay tax like any other business would in the UK, pay employees NI like any other business in the UK, and pay minimum wage like any other business in the UK. It shouldn't be up to the billionaires to choose where to spend money that should be in the hands of national governments and workers. This article for instance shows homeless Amazon warehouse workers living in…
This socialistic rhetoric is all fun and games till jobs are lost & companies close down - case in point - etsy [1]
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/business/etsy-josh-silver...