[komali2]

I disagree there, because all throughout history are examples of genuine heroes who stood to benefit not at all from their actions. Vince Coleman[0] comes to mind.

Humans can be motivated by many things, profit and looking good included. I'm vaguely aware of a philosophical branch that postulates that all actions are selfish, but that ain't science and so I disagree. People will sacrifice their pyramid of needs towards s greater good, I've never heard of a company utterly scuttling profits over the greater good though.

On that note, in this case Amazon obviously is shedding profit for a greater good here, especially if they actually lobby, so in this case I believe they (particularly the people that made this decision) deserve praise.

(0)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Coleman_%28train_dispatc...?

[darawk]

It doesn't matter whether they're doing it for a 'greater good' or not. You should praise them anyway. They took steps to create the world that you want. It doesn't matter why they did it.

[wstuartcl]

I would praise them if they simply made the change before being shown to know about large % of their staff being forced to take subsidies to be able to live in national press. I don't tend to praise minimum standards of ethical and moral behavior.

[darawk]

You think paying people $15/hour is a minimum standard of ethical and moral behavior?

[wstuartcl]

Yes. I think being one of the largest/most profitable companies in the US while paying people the minimum wage required by law -- which also happens to ensure most of those employees can't survive without government subsidies in their locals is well below the minimum standard for ethical and moral behavior.

Reverse, Do you think that a company such as amazon should be paying their fulltime and part time employee a wage that requires government subsidies (that you and I pay for) to survive while enjoying the amount of revenue and profit they are receiving?

[darawk]

> Reverse, Do you think that a company such as amazon should be paying their fulltime and part time employee a wage that requires government subsidies (that you and I pay for) to survive while enjoying the amount of revenue and profit they are receiving?

Yes, I do. I think most people misunderstand government subsidies when they make this argument. The idea that the company you work for is responsible for maintaining your standard of living is a weird one, that doesn't really come from any obvious moral principle. We, as a society, have decided that we don't want people to have a standard of living below a certain level. Therefore we, as a society, should provide the resources to ensure that that happens. If Amazon wants to come to those people and say "we'll give you $X/hour to do this task for us", and those people say "Yes", then I don't see any good reason for that to change the moral calculus of society at large, or for Amazon to suddenly become responsible for that person's general welfare.

[andrepd]

It does matter. In my view: if they were "forced" by bad publicity to do a net positive thing it hardly matters at all (except for the employees in question), because the systems and structures and incentives to keep acting selfishly and greedily are still there intact. No real change was effected.

[darawk]

I disagree completely. They didn't have to capitulate to those forces. They chose to. If you reward them for doing so, they'll capitulate more readily in the future than if you do not. This is really simple: carrot and stick. Everyone knows this approach to literally everything works. People seem to want to discard it here because they don't want to let go of their negative emotions, because they've come to identify with a sense of moral outrage completely divorced from any objective social goals.

[shawnz]

Likewise for the system which caused them to act in the greater good - the demands of their customers. How is that any different than when a human is "forced" to act by their sense of empathy or duty?

[notafraudster]

The three possible target audiences for saying something are yourself (i.e. getting catharsis by articulating one's beliefs), others (i.e. that there is a network effect to him convincing you and you convincing others and shifting a social consensus), or the subject of the speech (i.e. Amazon will read Hacker News and make decisions based on the extent to which the comments flatter them).

On that basis, is the implication here that hearing anonymous and vague internet praise actually tips the utility calculus of the company in some way?

Because if not it's hard to know why anyone should praise them -- as opposed to acknowledging the decision, or silently mentally updating one's assessment, or not engaging with the news at all, or criticizing them for not doing more.

[darawk]

> On that basis, is the implication here that hearing anonymous and vague internet praise actually tips the utility calculus of the company in some way?

In aggregate, yes. You seem to be trying to reduce this to "who cares about silly comments on the internet", but of course, that isn't the point. The point is about where our moral sentiments ought lie, collectively. And yes, the rollup of all the individuals making throwaway comments on the internet actually do synthesize much of our collective worldview. So yes, I do think that anonymous and vague internet praise actually tips the utility calculus of all companies. If you don't, then you haven't been paying much attention for the last decade.

[eropple]

"Ends not means" is a nigh-universally dangerous philosophy.

Motives matter.

[komali2]

How does motive relate to means here? I think an "ends vs means" argument would be around whether it was ok to cull half their workforce to pay for this wage increase.

[darawk]

My comment was about 'motivation'. Which is neither ends, nor means.

[marnett]

Congress was looking to tax companies whose employees redeem federal benefits due to low wages. Walmart and Amazon we're the poster companies discussed in the legislation. This permanently removes that pressure and prepares Amazon for the inevitable. Get your head out of the sand, if you think this isn't a strategic play from one of the most valuable and business-savy corporate institutions on the planet you are being willfully ignorant.

[crdoconnor]

>On that note, in this case Amazon obviously is shedding profit for a greater good here

They're obviously caving into pressure - from unions, social activists and Bernie Sanders.

>especially if they actually lobby

Which they'll do especially because they don't want to be put at a competitive disadvantage by companies who pay minimum wage.