Are corporations people?

[geetee]

corporations can be considered People when texas executes one.

[hilariousandco]

i always hear this argument.. but no matter what you do, there will always be unskilled/uneducated people. sometimes you are so financially strapped that you don't even have the money or time invest in training for a new skill. the worst thing about it is that even if you did go to a vocational school, there are still less and less jobs available.

here's an example of how hard it is to even get a super low paying job http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2013/11/20/dc-residents-clamor-for-walmart-jobs/

more applicants get into harvard than a walmart..

This sounds like there are many unskilled people in America. Why are they unskilled? Is no one interested in learning how to do things that actually get good jobs and pay money?

like i said, "good jobs" are a dying breed. the middle class is dying. and yes, there are a lot of uneducated people in america.. and it's moreso the ethnic minorities that get the shaft. it's not easy being broke, going to school and racking up a big bill for a "possible" job that may or may not pay out. for example, medical assistants pay $20k for training, and once they finish, they often start with $11/hour jobs. their debt just piles up while they earn $20k a year to live off of.

This is why all education should be free. Universities are just a business selling you qualifications that can end up being worth little. And I don't believe in these class systems at all. How do you define classes? By how much money or qualifications people have? The class system is just another way for the elities to divide and discriminate against people and pay them a shit wage.

[beetcoin]

Hey Beetcoin,

I agree with you that the middle class is under assault but it's not from corporations.  If you think income inequality is a problem then reduce all the needless licensing and red tape that has to be followed for someone to start a business.  And how do you know Walmart underpays its employees?  Who are you who thinks they know better than the employee and and employer who arrived at an agreed rate of compensation that the rate they both agreed to was wrong.  If a Walmart employee wants to hire you to negotiate his salary for him that's fine otherwise mind your own business.

they underpay their employees because most of them work under 40 hours at near minimum wage, so that they'd qualify for government assistance. when the employees get to that point, they have a designated "specialist" to help employees sign up for government benefits.

they are literally gaming the system so that government can foot the bill. thinking that "businesses know what's better for everyone" is crazy to me. walmart makes billions of dollars, yet they pay their employees so little that they have a food charity drive for them, which they ask other employees to donate.

see here: http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/11/19/walmart-holding-canned-food-drive-for-its-own-employees/

what would make more sense is to up the minimum wage and to cut welfare benefits - reward the people who are willing to work, which is a pretty damn big number.. even if there are a lot of lazy people. the walmart that opened in washington DC had about 22,000 applicants and they accepted something like 2% of those people.

[Hideyoshi]

This is why all education should be free. Universities are just a business selling you qualifications that can end up being worth little.

There is much of education that is already free. For example Khan Academy and Wikipedia. Universities just sell a reputation that allows people to trust their backing of their students reputation. If people start to trust reputation of Khan Academy, and trust that it can put its backing behind people who take its courses, then universities may start losing their significance. Hopefully in near future people will rely on their built up online reputation more than on the reputation from single university or single employer.

[Hideyoshi]

they underpay their employees because most of them work under 40 hours at near minimum wage, so that they'd qualify for government assistance. when the employees get to that point, they have a designated "specialist" to help employees sign up for government benefits.

they are literally gaming the system so that government can foot the bill.

what would make more sense is to up the minimum wage and to cut welfare benefits - reward the people who are willing to work, which is a pretty damn big number.. even if there are a lot of lazy people.

Raising minimum wage would be bad idea. Price and profit is not just a single set figure. It is balance between profit from cheap price and high volume, and profit from low volume but high price. If taken to extreme, increasing minimum wage will result in much fewer WalMarts, selling at much higher prices, and earning millions on high prices instead of volume. It can also fire employees and invest more in automatic systems to sell with, like self-check out lanes. This will result with less people with job, and those who have jobs and money paying more to buy same products, and becoming poorer too. I know there are supposedly statistics that say that increasing minimum wage has no effect on employment, but those statistics seem completely wrong, considering the greatly increasing employment in India, China, and other developing countries, while stagnating or increasing unemployment rates here in US. The statistics were probably true only while there was no globalization, or the effects were just not being felt until economic crash could not support it any more.
I agree with cutting benefits. only reason corporations can game systems is because there are systems for them to game. If they had employees, and employees could not get health insurance, they would either have very desperate and bad employees, or no one would want to work for them until they started covering insurance. It is best to have well taken care of and productive employees. Right now, they are just making government do taking care of.

[beetcoin]

what you don't seem to understand is that bigger corporations are making record profits, while employee wages are hitting record lows. the gap is widening, and the economy is dying because of it. there is less demand, since the "middle class" is unable to afford the things that it used to. putting more money in their pockets would mean more goods and services demanded, and big corporations still make billions but maybe not as much.

the richer the rich get, the more power they get. the more power they get, the more rich they get. it's a vicious cycle, and a zero-sum gain. that's why it's called wealth distribution.

[kizzoboy]

"Raising" the minimum wage would only result in more unemployed persons.  If the minimum wage is higher than it is now, workers who's productivity does not justify the increased cost of their employment will be laid off.  Any entry level microeconomic textbook (Mankiw, Krugman, etc.) will cite this same idea.  Price floors (like the minimum wage) create surplus (in the case of min. wage - a surplus of unemployed persons) and price ceilings create shortages.  Again, basic economics that would be cover in the first week or so of any entry level college econ class.

Raising the minimum wage is a feel-good political objective, not grounded well in mainstream economics.  We'd be better off strengthening the earned-income tax credit instead, which would stimulate the aggregate demand that beetcoin is interested in.

[duke1839]

what you don't seem to understand is that bigger corporations are making record profits, while employee wages are hitting record lows. the gap is widening, and the economy is dying because of it. there is less demand, since the "middle class" is unable to afford the things that it used to. putting more money in their pockets would mean more goods and services demanded, and big corporations still make billions but maybe not as much.

the richer the rich get, the more power they get. the more power they get, the more rich they get. it's a vicious cycle, and a zero-sum gain. that's why it's called wealth distribution.

You sound like a reasonable guy beetcoin.  I am glad to have this discussion with you.  Regarding Walmart gaming the system you seem to have simultaneously made two of my points for me.  Large corporations love government power because more often than not they use that power to their own advantage whether it is subsidizing their employees or keeping out competition.  If you are arguing against the welfare state which has historically increased poverty when implemented you have my support on that.  

But then you turn around and talk about the minimum wage.  Once again I will ask you the same question.  If an employer and employee both agree to a rate of compensation, who are you to jump in the middle and say the number should be above some arbitrary minimum?  If I want to go work for Google for $5 an hour because I have a large savings account and can live on that small hourly rate comfortably for six months, and I value the education and experience I get working at Google more than money why should you care?  A lot of people don't mind working for a low wage as a way to get their foot in the door and prove themselves before an employer will pay a larger amount.  

[beetcoin]

"Raising" the minimum wage would only result in more unemployed persons.  If the minimum wage is higher than it is now, workers who's productivity does not justify the increased cost of their employment will be laid off.  Any entry level microeconomic textbook (Mankiw, Krugman, etc.) will cite this same idea.  Price floors (like the minimum wage) create surplus (in the case of min. wage - a surplus of unemployed persons) and price ceilings create shortages.  Again, basic economics that would be cover in the first week or so of any entry level college econ class.

Raising the minimum wage is a feel-good political objective, not grounded well in mainstream economics.  We'd be better off strengthening the earned-income tax credit instead, which would stimulate the aggregate demand that beetcoin is interested in.

don't know where you get your consensus, but refer to this link: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/what-economists-think-about-raising-the-minimum-wage/?_r=0

there is no consensus.

what you don't seem to understand is that bigger corporations are making record profits, while employee wages are hitting record lows. the gap is widening, and the economy is dying because of it. there is less demand, since the "middle class" is unable to afford the things that it used to. putting more money in their pockets would mean more goods and services demanded, and big corporations still make billions but maybe not as much.

the richer the rich get, the more power they get. the more power they get, the more rich they get. it's a vicious cycle, and a zero-sum gain. that's why it's called wealth distribution.

You sound like a reasonable guy beetcoin.  I am glad to have this discussion with you.  Regarding Walmart gaming the system you seem to have simultaneously made two of my points for me.  Large corporations love government power because more often than not they use that power to their own advantage whether it is subsidizing their employees or keeping out competition.  If you are arguing against the welfare state which has historically increased poverty when implemented you have my support on that.  

But then you turn around and talk about the minimum wage.  Once again I will ask you the same question.  If an employer and employee both agree to a rate of compensation, who are you to jump in the middle and say the number should be above some arbitrary minimum?  If I want to go work for Google for $5 an hour because I have a large savings account and can live on that small hourly rate comfortably for six months, and I value the education and experience I get working at Google more than money why should you care?  A lot of people don't mind working for a low wage as a way to get their foot in the door and prove themselves before an employer will pay a larger amount.  

well the problem is that if walmart agrees to pay an unskilled worker the minimum wage at 25 hours a work week, that spills on over to the rest of the tax payers.. because walmart will usher and guide those very people to ask for government handouts, all the while the 4 waltons are in the top 10 in wealth. the 4 combind are worth $100 billion dollars. they are gaming the government handout system while saying "we don't have enough money.. but yeah, we have 100 billion dollars in assets."

they can afford to pay their employees a living wage and make record profits at the same time, like costco does.. it's just that the wealthy people don't want to. if having $1 million more means you'd get to screw people out of $100 million, then no problem i guess.

[duke1839]

OK beetcoin, you are refusing to answer my question so I'm moving on from the minimum wage discussion.

As far as corporations being people, person-hood is granted by the state to corporations to help consumers settle disputes with businesses.  If I ride on a Disney theme park ride that crashes and I am injured who do I sue if I can't sue the virtual person that is the Disney Corporation?  Do I sue the ride operators who were working that day, their immediate bosses, the general manager of the park, those who were hired to design and build the ride?  How do I know who was specifically responsible for the ride crashing?  It would be a legal maze to try to unravel which specific person or persons who were responsible.  Luckily I can just sue the corporation because of legal person-hood.  On the flip side the state has granted corporations limited personal liability.  I do not know if this is a fair system but legal person-hood is as much a target as it is a benefit to corporations.

[hilariousandco]

This is why all education should be free. Universities are just a business selling you qualifications that can end up being worth little.

There is much of education that is already free. For example Khan Academy and Wikipedia. Universities just sell a reputation that allows people to trust their backing of their students reputation. If people start to trust reputation of Khan Academy, and trust that it can put its backing behind people who take its courses, then universities may start losing their significance. Hopefully in near future people will rely on their built up online reputation more than on the reputation from single university or single employer.

There's a difference between education and qualification. Wikipedia is free knowledge, but it's also free to edit and can contain much inaccuracies and misinformation. It would be currently ridiculous to claim that you studied or got your education from Wikipedia. Obviously you can use it to educate yourself, but without a qualification how can you prove to any one that you are fit for a specific role or job, other than actually taking a new test (which would then negate the point anyway). And when I say education I mean up until University level and to actually gain a qualification. Money should be taken out of the equation for education as it puts those who cannot afford to go at an unfair disadvantage. Also, people should not become brutally in debt for half their life just because they want to better themselves. While obviously qualifications are flawed and can be cheated, a online presence or reputation would probably be much worse.

The Khan Academy is good in principle, and is potentially great for people who don't have access or cannot afford to go to university, but as you say people need to trust the reputation of it before the qualification would become valuable, but at the moment it doesn't seem to be.

[JohnCoins]

I'm not going to say that corporations are necessarily people, but it would be unfair and unjust to not give them equal rights.

[kizzoboy]

"Raising" the minimum wage would only result in more unemployed persons.  If the minimum wage is higher than it is now, workers who's productivity does not justify the increased cost of their employment will be laid off.  Any entry level microeconomic textbook (Mankiw, Krugman, etc.) will cite this same idea.  Price floors (like the minimum wage) create surplus (in the case of min. wage - a surplus of unemployed persons) and price ceilings create shortages.  Again, basic economics that would be cover in the first week or so of any entry level college econ class.

Raising the minimum wage is a feel-good political objective, not grounded well in mainstream economics.  We'd be better off strengthening the earned-income tax credit instead, which would stimulate the aggregate demand that beetcoin is interested in.

don't know where you get your consensus, but refer to this link: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/what-economists-think-about-raising-the-minimum-wage/?_r=0

there is no consensus.

LMAO - so a blog article by the New York Times is your source?  38 economists, though some of them are certainly notable, do not decide what academic theory is through their opinions in some survey.  Some of the textbooks that the economists in this survey wrote/edited AFFIRM what I said.  Especially from Goolspee.  Also, the question asked was whether raising the wage would make it "noticeably" harder for people to find work.  Not an absolute question.  To be fair, I'd recommend the following textbooks that affirm what I said:

Mankiw - Principles of Microeconomics
Krugman - Microeconomics

Your taking the political viewpoint on labor markets - not the objective, economic viewpoint.

[xkeyscore89]

So what do you people think? Most here are libertarians, and I'm curious to see what the libertarian view on a corporation is.. i mean, on one hand you could be laissez faire and let the market forces take effect, but at the same time, you know that corporations and politicians are a big burden to society.

They're definitely benefiting from making decisions and policies that are normally reserved for individual, private citizens.  I do not think they should be extended these courtesies.  They should not have the same rights and protections as a person because they don't interact with society in the way a person does.  They exist solely to protect business interests and profit at any cost.  The fact that a cost may have an associated human toll makes little difference when cutting costs and maximizing profit.  Legal liability is the only factor taken into consideration.  No, a corporation should not be able to mandate that their insurance policies not pay for birth control for women on grounds of a religious objection.  The fact that these birth control drugs do more than any other low-cost, available drugs to single-handedly prevent a large portion of ovarian and cervical cancers among other pathological conditions in women does not even register as a counterpoint to the corporations concerned.  This is in spite of the fact that this religious policy will undoubtedly cause healthcare costs to rise long-term for the company.  Profit will be affected at some point.  

If treating a corporation like a person means allowing the implementation of policies that are counterproductive to not only the people working for the corporation but also the corporation itself, there emerges a serious problem.  Now, it is not only rival corporations that are the subject of deliberate sabotage and hampering from a rival corporation.  Employees of a company may absorb the cost of the same style of self-sacrificing tactic that is instead directed exclusively at them for religious reasons.   This may continue past the point of profit being affected as a result.  Everybody loses.

What
the
fuck?

[Hideyoshi]

what you don't seem to understand is that bigger corporations are making record profits, while employee wages are hitting record lows. the gap is widening, and the economy is dying because of it.

That is actually not true, and is a lie that tells only half of the story. If you look at your country, you will see that rich corporations are making more profits, and citizens of your country are getting lower wages. What you ignore is that corporations are global, and now so are employees. Corporations are making record profits because they are hiring more employees in other, typically poorer countries, and if you take all of corporation employees into account, and compare their wages to what they were before, you will see that employee wages around the world have gone up substantially. Sure, wages of employees of your rich country may have gone down or lost value from inflation, but wages of employees in poor countries like India went from less than $1 an hour to almost like low wages in Europe and USA in some places. Bit reason is not because of corporation greed, but because of rich country being greedy and isolated, but now economy spreading over rest of the world, and wages averaging out with much lower wages in places which used to be isolated. Their wages were so low that they are bringing global average down, but it is only temporary, and will likely improve in future. It definitely improved for those poor and isolated countries.

If I ride on a Disney theme park ride that crashes and I am injured who do I sue if I can't sue the virtual person that is the Disney Corporation?  Do I sue the ride operators who were working that day, their immediate bosses, the general manager of the park, those who were hired to design and build the ride?  How do I know who was specifically responsible for the ride crashing?  It would be a legal maze to try to unravel which specific person or persons who were responsible.

Not necessarily. Without corporations, Disney would still be business owned by person or group of people. And if these people are smart, they will have business insurance to take care of such problems. You would sue Disney business, prove to insurance you did get hurt, and they would pay out. Because Disney is known as high reputation company, it is good chance that as soon as you got hurt, they would grab you, quickly take you out of park in secret, and help fix you and pay you so you do not complain and ruin their reputation, because Disney is supposed to be happy, safe, fun, family place.

[FCTaiChi]

Corporations were intended to be limited projects for public good that were dissolved after their purpose was achieved.  They were only granted under extremely limited circumstances.

[hilariousandco]

Corporations were intended to be limited projects for public good that were dissolved after their purpose was achieved.  They were only granted under extremely limited circumstances.

And kleenexes were intended to be used to remove makeup.

Then we found a better use for each.

Haha, but I think Kleenex were intended for runny noses and puppies.