Replies

"I feel that business left totally unchecked will resort to whatever makes the most profit and especially what makes them competitive."

Businesses are NEVER "left totally unchecked." Businesses are ALWAYS checked by whether customers want to purchase their products. If you had the choice between a shirt made by children chained to textile machines, versus a more expensive shirt made by adults not chained to machines, would you choose the first?

Nike (and others) has already learned that customers demand products made in such a manner that the customers can feel good about having them. (Look at the fur industry: 50 years ago, there was virtually no social stigma attached to wearing a fur. Now, even though women are significantly more wealthy, and could therefore afford MORE furs, the social stigma has actually reduced fur usage.)

"If a company is out performing another, the lagging company HAS to adopt the same policies of the better company or cease to exist."

Yes. Now go look at the Fortune list of the "Ten Best Companies to Work for in America." I can virtually guarantee you that those companies that are perenially among the "Best Companies to Work For" are also perenially among the most *profitable* in their industry (e.g., Southwest Airlines).

The idea that "laissez-faire" (meaning only that the GOVERNMENT "leaves alone") capitalism produces a "race to the bottom" (for worker safety, for product quality, or for the environment) isn't supported by history. The race is actually to the top.

"A dissenting worker is not going to get a job anywhere in this "laissez faire" environment because the companies will have evolved into a few giant conglomerates with shared data bases about such "disruptive" people."

I heard a story on NPR about a stock analyst at...I forget the company. The analyst downrated Enron, when everyone else was bullish. The company eventually fired the stock analyst, because his (realistic) evaluations were killing their consulting business for Enron (by lowering Enron's stock price). Do you really think that stock analyst will never be able to find a job again? SOME firm SOMEWHERE will stick only to the stock analyst side of the business, and those people will want the TRUTH. Likewise, the guy could also go to a company that's a large institutional investor.

Honesty pays. Not every single time, and not always immediately. But in the long run, and averaged out over many instances, it pays.

I agree that employees whose ONLY contribution is disruption will have a hard time getting a job. But that's because they're bad employees.

"To think that businesses in a free for all environment will NOT resort to whatever makes them the most profit ( which means ANYTHING they can get away with)..."

I'm not suggesting that companies be allowed to get away with force, fraud, or violation of contracts. (So, in fact, I would certainly oppose children chained to machines. Or even children below a certain age having to work.)

I'm only saying that laws like minimum wage laws are not necessary.

I'm not suggesting that companies be allowed to get away with force, fraud, or violation of contracts. (So, in fact, I would certainly oppose children chained to machines. Or even children below a certain age having to work.)

Then we have common ground. You in affect agree that certain "restraints" need be placed on businesses to maintain a free market place ... as I do. I do find your contention that customer pressure will prevent companies from engaging in practices that are repugnant naive at best. If customer pressure were that effective Target and Wal-Mart would NOT exist. BUT the more important point is that if most or all companies engage in the same repugnant practice it will be real difficult to purchase ones goods from a company that does not engage in the same. Reference my last post about forming new companies in a free for all market place. New business CAN NOT get a foothold in a monopolistic environment and the notion that business unchecked will not evolve into a monopolistic enterprise IS the height of naivety.

The gist of my argument is that the right of any business to swing it's collective arm ends at the point of societies nose. I happen to find drug testing and private information searches like driving records and credit checks by employers which are not germane to an employees job the tip of that nose. I for one do NOT wish to live under ANYONES tyranny whether it be from the government or big business. Your contention that history shows that big business did NOT resort to the things I described in my previous post is BS. The only reason that business has NOT done whatever they could get away with IS because there ARE restraints in place ... so nice try. You mentioned Enron ... guess what ... they tried to get away with stuff AND GOT CAUGHT and so did many other companies recently ... what else would these and/or other companies have tried if restraints had not been in place ????