[adolph]

> because the premise of your question would imply that trickle down economics work

I’m not certain how a person could read that from my text. The premise is:

  1. Employer does some harm to employees 
  2. State fines employer the value of employee harm
  3. State general fund receives money (minus lawyering costs)
  4. Employees receive no remuneration for harm
  5. General fund pays for general government activities 

Effectively the value from the harm the employee suffered is transferred to general government activities. The employees are not made whole from being mistreated but their mistreatment is a revenue source for the government. It would be interesting to see the actuals but my cynical guess is that the money will go toward lawyers and other people better off than warehouse workers, which is why I call it regressive.

[schneems]

I read your original comment as the company would make less money after being fined therefore take it out of their employees paychecks. Thanks for the clarification that's not what you were talking about.

Regarding the premise: The purpose of the fine is to provide a disincentive to it happening in the first place (in theory). I tend to like restorative justice though.

[adolph]

> The purpose of the fine is to provide a disincentive

Given the root comment's premise that the fine is "more or less than [Amazon] made from breaking said law," that the fine goes to the state rather than the harmed workforce members does not provide a disincentive nor does it right a wrong. For Amazon it is net neutral and the state gets what warehouse workers would have had. The state is the entity taking from people's paychecks in the name of "justice."

[schneems]

> Given the root comment's premise

This is my comment you're responding to at the root

> [Me:] Where’s our “100x FAFO laws”?

I wrote that comment. My point was that the fines should be larger to discourage bad behavior.

You're saying that you're wanting things I want (disincentives for companies to harm, restorative justice), but you're showing opposition to my attempt to deliver those things. Or at least you've not shown support.

If that's not the case maybe something like "I 100% agree we should raise the fines until they provide a disincentive. Yes, and [...]" or if you disagree "I like where you're headed, but I disagree on how to get there. I suggest we [...] which will [...]. This is in comparison to your suggestion which will [...]" would really help me clarify your position.

> The state is the entity taking from people's paychecks in the name of "justice."

This reads as someone who would want to get rid of the fines all together (a liberatrian anti-taxation anti-regulation take). Which is the same vibe I got from your first comment. Both seem at odds to your other stated goals (restorative justice). I feel either I'm being gaslit or there's more you're not saying.

I would like you to be more explicit. Could you take one of the templates I tried earlier and see which fits what you're trying to convey and respond with that? If neither template fits, state why.

[adolph]

  There is no need for templates.
  I will not color by numbers.
  Writing does not attempt to deliver anything.
  The purpose of a system is what it does. 
  Taking from a taker is not justice.

Your comments read like a totalitarian who wants a world by and for the government, not by and for the people. You are gaslighting yourself if you don't realize this. Listen to your first thought which was "more fine" not "more right."