|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, I was being snide there, and I probably should restrain myself.
I'm tired of people holding us to standards they aren't willing to hold to Paizo. These are not issues that are going to see a court of law, nor should they.
This is the COURT of PUBLIC OPINION. And it is a real nasty facet of capitalism, which is something free speech people seem to like. We do not need to hold arguments to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' because the consequences don't involve us hauling someone to prison if we don't like them. Even though you keep making it seem like that's what we're doing.
Do you want to know what I was looking for initially in Jeff's first statement? Something to the line of "This isn't acceptable, and we know it and everyone else knows it. Paizo as a company made mistakes and hurt people, and we are sorry." If he'd followed that up with a list of changes they've already made and started leading education on these issues, I would have been over the moon.
We got upset because we saw real problems and no effort to solve them. This isn't the first time this stuff has been aired, and calling any of these accusations baseless is absolutely in bad faith, as it ignores entirely the fact that members of Paizo's current management have acknowledged most of them as having happened.
I'm trying to be better. We want Paizo to be better. Can you see that we want things to be better, and go from that paradigm before you try to engage with us?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is absolutely ludicrous to ascribe a customer choosing not to continue business with someone based on a change in values or image. Image is important: Paizo's image as a LGBTQ+ friendly company is the reason I feel safe on the boards (although the transphobic trolling that's occurred recently has not helped that!).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that "if you want more money, find a better paying job" means implicitly accepting that whoever does that job should experience poverty.
If work is worth doing, the person doing it should receive enough money to live on. If a company is physically unable to pay its workers a living wage, it needs to restructure because clearly it is a failing business.
You know that Wal-Mart used to lobby for minimum wage increases. It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts, it was because they wanted to kill the competition, Ma&Pa Stores.
Now you could argue that a larger company like Paizo should be able to absorb the cost, and you would probably be right. But again, Paizo is not responsible that their employees make a livable wage, Paizo's responsability is to follow the law and honor their contracts. If no employee was willing to work for a given salary then Paizo would increase the offered salary. The fact that Paizo provided a job and somebody accepted it means that somebody's living situation was improved by that job.
Humbly,
Yawar
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know that Wal-Mart used to lobby for minimum wage increases. It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts, it was because they wanted to kill the competition, Ma&Pa Stores.Saying that "if you want more money, find a better paying job" means implicitly accepting that whoever does that job should experience poverty.
If work is worth doing, the person doing it should receive enough money to live on. If a company is physically unable to pay its workers a living wage, it needs to restructure because clearly it is a failing business.
Isn't this what capitalists want? Walmart slayed all of their competitors, and showed it was the toughest. Is that not the capitalistic ideal?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now you could argue that a larger company like Paizo should be able to absorb the cost, and you would probably be right. But again, Paizo is not responsible that their employees make a livable wage, Paizo's responsability is to follow the law and honor their contracts. If no employee was willing to work for a given salary then Paizo would increase the offered salary. The fact that Paizo provided a job and somebody accepted it means that somebody's living situation was improved by that job.Humbly,
Yawar
You keep using that phrase “Paizo’s responsibility is to follow the law and honor their contracts.” Which contracts are you referring to specifically?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't this what capitalists want? Walmart slayed all of their competitors, and showed it was the toughest. Is that not the capitalistic ideal?You know that Wal-Mart used to lobby for minimum wage increases. It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts, it was because they wanted to kill the competition, Ma&Pa Stores.Saying that "if you want more money, find a better paying job" means implicitly accepting that whoever does that job should experience poverty.
If work is worth doing, the person doing it should receive enough money to live on. If a company is physically unable to pay its workers a living wage, it needs to restructure because clearly it is a failing business.
Not if it is through a market distortion rather than making a service or product that is just that better. Imagine if Amazon would lobby for law that forces any shipping company, like Paizo, to install a $500k UV sterilization device to sanitize each delivery. Amazon would take a loss, but would recoup it via the increase in market share due to the all now bankrupt competitors or competitors that now ship through Amazon. That would be cronyism.
And, believe it or not, my political compass constantly marks me as medium libertarian left.Humbly,
Yawar