|
|
|
|
|
|
by pie_flavor
1051 days ago
|
|
|
> 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? |
|
|
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.