[drieddust]

Amazon is setting a wrong precedence which others are following[1]. When Bezos says "Your Margin is my opportunity.", he fails to mention who will be the loser. They have started a race to bottom which means employees/workers will be squeezed until their bones are dry.

I think this can be fixed simply by measuring companies on employment they generate and median tax payed per employee apart from the corporate tax. If they fall behind on these metrics, their products should be taxed heavily. If companies don't agree, they lose access to the market which will allow for local responsible companies to emerge and compete.

I am just wondering if my thinking is simplistic or this is a problem our leadership does not want to solve this issue?

[1] http://www.livemint.com/Sundayapp/bAgZIMlCQu8weSTF7j750L/Sig...

edit: grammer

[haser_au]

To some extent, this happens today. In countries like Australia and the UK, companies that pay their fair share of tax and employ a lot of people are viewed upon favourably by government. For instance, the entire automotive industry in Australia.

The problem becomes when globalisation occurs, and those companies are no longer competitive against foreign car companies. The Australian government tried to bail out the automotive industry, twice, and it still collapsed. There are no longer any cars manufactured in Australia with Holden (GM), Ford and Toyota all leaving in recent years.

Yes, you can introduce metrics of number of employees (direct and indirect), tax paid per employee, etc etc. But consumers won't pay double just because the car created a job in their country.

[drieddust]

That's a good point and I don't really have an answer to it.

If a global company is only selling imported product produced elsewhere shouldn't they be paying higher taxes which will make the play ground even. I don not think they would like to lose access to a market just because taxes are higher. After all they too need consumer to sell products too.

In current state globalization is able to produce cheap services by exploiting worker from both sides of globe developed and developing. You can see that in Amazon(developed) and Flipcart(India). In the trend continues purchasing power of masses will erode to a point of no return.

Secondly true costs are hidden so if a company is selling cheaper cars by not using proper waste and environment management. They are essentially discounting the future to provide cheap services today.

And you are right this is not possible without having a global governance with a long term view.

[rwmurrayVT]

>They are essentially discounting the future to provide cheap services today.

This statement describes a problem I have with a lot of the Republican/Libertarian outlook. A lot of deregulation is just risking the future on today. If the EPA goes away all will be fine and dandy until we're all underwater. Consumers will choose the cheap option with no regard for the future.

[bgirard]

It's an interesting idea. In practice I bet it would push business for more automation and to for splitting into a highly profitable R&D entity with highly payed workers and 'independent' contracting firms that are barely profitable under which low wage employees would work under.

[drieddust]

I really want to put more thoughts into this so your input is appreciated.

Not to nitpick but what you described is happening today. If companies are measured on all of the metric then I how do they escape. If they move their work to contracting firms, won't they also be evaluated on the same metrics.

[visarga]

Same as with cleaning services - used to be part of large corporations, but it now is subcontracted to a different company with the purpose of paying lower wages, ability to fire people at will / or the whole service company.

[deepnotderp]

Wouldn't the first outcome be a preferable scenario?