Category: business ethics

Can Manufacturing Come Back?

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, Economic measurement, ethics, Government Failure6 Comments

Joseph Stiglitz, one of my favorite economists, believe that Asia is “decoupling” from the United States and Europe. You see, the United States is a 300 million population but if you sell to India and China alone of the nations in the region, you have 2.6 billion consumers. It’s a better market in the long term than the United States or Europe as well as providing necessary long term benefits to the nations themselves.

But there are other reasons, the great nations of Asia are likely to shift more to domestic production and investment. In the past, China, India, South Korea, Japan, etc. invested in the United States. They as well as many European nations bought into the housing bubble as well as many more reliable investments. They did this in the belief that the United States was reliable investment environment and that, more importantly, Wall Street had great skills in the banking and other investment industries. Of course, the “legendary” expertise of Wall Street was no more than successful propaganda protecting a rotting edifice that through financial “innovation” and simple greed severely damaged the world’s economy.

If you were a government official would you encourage investment in the United States or take the advice of any Wall Street investment firm? I’m sure there are some officials remaining who can hold that view but the long term does not bode well for U.S. investment or purchasing, you see, the development of the domestic market in these countries means a rise in the standard of living, an increase in wages and rise in prices. All of these factor mitigate against the corporate dream of an endless stream of off shored jobs pushing their profits.

But this is an opportunity. As these other nations develop higher standards of living and their purchasing power increases, we can sell them products. We can make things again. If we start now, and by now I mean by the end of this decade, for not only is there no political will, intelligence or leadership, the current business philosophy will not allow the government to encourage such investment. The United States government since the 1980’s has pursued a policy of the financial sector as a priority as opposed to the poor stepchild of manufacturing. The result of this policy are all around us. We can do better.

James Pilant

R. Edward Freeman and Business Ethics

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Uncategorized

Freeman is a philosopher not originally trained as a businessman. He brings an original point of view to the subject. He started teaching at Wharton some years ago and has taught regularly since then. This is a lecture of about an hour length. This is obviously not for all my readers. Only those devoted to further study in Business Ethics more likely students than regular readers. Nevertheless, hearing a lecture from a highly skilled and experienced teacher is a pleasure and I recommend it.

James Alan Pilant

No Vacation – Keep your job?

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Government Failure

ABC news reports that many Americans are declining to use their vacation time. Only 57 percent of Americans are taking their full vacation time. And what makes this story even more bizarre, Americans average only 13 days of vacation.

Want to see the numbers?
Italians 42 days
France 37
Canada 26
Japan 25
Korea 25

United States 13 days

How did we get here? Aren’t we supposed to be the richest country on earth? How did Americans wind up with an average of 13 days of vacation and far, far worse, almost half unwilling to use their full time apparently for fear of losing their jobs?

It takes a decoupling of morals from business. When a businessman, when an employer, looks at his workers and says to himself, “That one is using his vacation time. I can do without him,” we have arrived at a bad place.

And yet, where is the outrage (besides mine)? Foreigners in far less wealthy countries give their workers in many cases three times the vacation time of American workers and what’s more they take the time.

“Let’s get rid of the people who work here for fifty weeks a year and take a vacation.” How do you even think like that? What kind of thought process produces that kind of cruel immorality?

It is written: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

The King James Bible prescribes better treatment for an ox than that given American workers. The ox gets some share of its labor that could be denied. American workers have no benefits that cannot be denied if even the legal ones put you in danger of being fired.

And I don’t want to hear, “They have to do it to compete.” That’s a nasty age old excuse for any kind of immoral (and often incompetent) act. You could compete better with workers who have no where to go, who don’t get minimum wage or get pregnant or have bad days or get ill or don’t look like other people, etc. Where do you want to stop? You can’t. Talk about slippery slope. If any vile, virtually criminal, act can be justified by the need to compete, there is no bottom standard to stop at, no place of safety, no island of ethics.

You might ask me as a business ethics teacher, what it’s like to teach that subject in a country where taking your vacation days can cost you your job. No fun. It’s preaching against alcoholism in a saloon, safe sex in a Thai brothel, hypocrisy in mega church. In short, it’s hard and it’s not getting any easier. You always think that it’s just got to turn a corner that some limit has been reached and it hasn’t.

James Pilant

Boss Spends 19.7 Hours A Week Playing Farmville

On By southwerkIn business ethics2 Comments

It would appear that this was all a flim-flam but like most flim-flams, it was a lovely story.
Yes, that’s job time,  not at home, at least according to his secretary who quit by dry erase board.

In what may well become a historical act, “Jenny” quit her job via a company wide e-mail explaining that her boss was less than “ideal.”

If his job comes open, I want it. I don’t know how to play “Farmville,” but I’m willing to learn.

James Pilant

A Wrap Up Of Today’s Google-Verizon Deal News

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics

Google and Verizon issue net neutrality proposal.

That’s the news today. After denying there was going to be a deal, Google and Verizon made one. Goodness, you might think corporations could lie with a straight face.

How bad is the “proposal?”

Very bad. Very, very bad. Essentially, if you are a “carrier” and I mean a giant corporate one, you’re going to make a bundle of money. I mean you’re going to have to go to a hardware store and buy snow shovels just to get the small denominations out of the way. (Maybe you’ll burn them for heat?)

If on the other hand you are a consumer, you are going to have a different deal. Now probably at this very moment you are expecting some satirical jab at trying to encompass the amount of money you are going to have to spend, right? Wrong. You and I already know what’s going to happen. A tiered market like they want to establish is just like your cable service. That’s right, you know that cheap service you get in your house, the one that requires you to pay for extra hookups and offers you hundreds of channels most of which no sane human being could subject himself to without a frontal lobotomy, that one.  The cable service which finds new and more interesting ways to charge you for services that used to be free and raise the charges on the ones you get now. That’s the one!

I bet you feel good right now. You look at your monthly hook up for internet and see a bill of what is probably in the neighborhood of fifty dollars but in a few years you could be offered a cornucopia of services (that you used to get for free) running in the hundreds of dollars. But get a load of this, with cable you order stuff you want, with the internet you might have to pay to get sites unblocked. Won’t that be neat? I don’t know what it might be aside from political content, art, films, foreigners (especially news services like Al Jazeera), and a bunch of stuff.

But they’d never censor the internet, right? In 2002, Google censored sites critical of Scientology. Oceana, a non profit advertised against the big cruise lines dumping of sewage, so in February, 2003, Google pulled their ads. I could go on (and on and on). There are a lot of examples of internet censorship, stuff most people would be surprised anybody would want to take off but they do and they have.

Google was once in favor of net neutrality. Apparently, earlier this year they were in favor of neutrality. Guess a dollar sign punched them in the head.

Is Google’s upcoming new service challenge to Facebook part of what’s going on? I’m a little curious about this. If Google is challenging Facebook’s dominance, there is nothing like a little additional purchased web priority, is there?

Google’s public policy blog (where you can go to complain and I recommend you do!) has the details on the result of their secret negotiations with Verizon.

James Pilant

P.S.   A little pep talk.

Well, here we are looking at a mass of money, organization and greed. They intend to take and take and take. Well, you want to give them a fight or what? You want to crawl or beg? You want to hand them your money, one dime at a time until there is nothing left?

Don’t be afraid of these people. They have rationalized away human values for a philosophy of greed.  Human beings astonish and surprise them. We speak a language of morality and honor. They simply do not understand. If it isn’t money or you can’t swap it for money, they don’t believe it’s there. When we talk of duty, they laugh. When we speak of sacrifice, they say, “Yes, you must, ” and give up nothing themselves.

These pawns, these caricatures of living things are passing phenomenon like pharisees and know nothings, royalists and brownshirts. This is their time but it won’t always be there time. They will slink off to the Cayman Islands where they can polish their gold in peace, while we human beings put our country back together and build a place where duty, honor and brotherhood are not jokes.

(Now watch a little film and relax, have a laugh. You may enjoy this. It’s a comedic take on inspirational movies speeches.)

What Is Net Neutrality?

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Government Failure, Teaching

I found some videos explaining the subject.

A more comic book take on the same subject.

This is (adult content) The Daily Show’s take on net neutrality in 2006. (You have to click on the link because the videos won’t come in directly. Sorry!)

Here is The Daily Show’s take on the subject on October 26, 2009.

This is the best one. It’s a clear explanation. Watch this one.

I hope this helps. Sometimes video is just more effective than print.

James Pilant

And remember this.

Timeline – Google/Verizon Divide Internet

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, Government Failure2 Comments

Google's Customers
October 21st, 2009 Google and Verizon issue joint statement in which they say this – For starters we both think it’s essential that the Internet remains an unrestricted and open platform — where people can access any content (so long as it’s legal), as well as the services and applications of their choice.

January 14th, 2010 Google calls for open internet.

June 22nd, 2010       FCC begins back room negotiations with internet carriers.

August 4th, 2010 New York Times reports Google and Verizon near secret deal to undermine net neutrality.

August 5th, 2010 FCC abandons talks on net neutrality.

August 5th, 2010
Verizon issues following statement – The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect. Translation – we’re not making a deal.

August 5th, 2010 Google denies deal to end net neutrality.

August 9th, 2010 Verizon and Google announce a “proposal.” This is apparently strikingly different from a deal, because a deal would imply profits of billions of dollars. You see, a proposal only “implies” profits of billions of dollars. Got it?

What are the results of this deal? Let me quote Craig Aaron The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into “two pipes” — one of which would be reserved for “managed services,” a pay-for-pay platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

What do you think?

James Pilant

Top 5% Income / 37% Consumer Purchases

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, Economic measurement, ethics, Government Failure

To reiterate, the top five percent of income earners in the United States make thirty seven percent of the consumer purchases. This means that what these people buy is a key determinate of whether or not this economy recovers.

Probably, you are wondering how you fit into this picture. Now hold on to your hat, gentle reader. Those in the bottom eighty percent make thirty nine point five of all consumer purchases.

So, look on the bright side! The bottom 80% of Americans buys 39.5 % of consumer goods as opposed to 37% of the top five percent of the income earners in the U.S. That means we are 2% up.

I have to admit I feel a little left behind but 2% is 2% and I should take what solace I can from this. Right?

James Pilant

Ethics Blog Round Up – 8/7/2010

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism

Chis MacDonald has a new post about “wind turbine hush money.” Sounds like a catchy title to me. It seems that turbines are noisy and complaints could stifle the industry’s growth, so they are paying people what I consider a good amount of money to keep their complaints to themselves. You should read the post.

Lauren Bloom has the second in her series of avoiding workplace law suits. Today’s entry talks about health and safety rules. She discusses the recent mine disaster and mentions NPR’s coverage.

Tone at the top only counts when leaders use words that they believe in enough to live. So says, Gael O’Brien on her blog, This Week In Ethics. She discusses the resignation of Hewlett Packard’s CEO and his violations of HP’s Standards of Business Conduct.

Jonathan Tasini in his Blog, Working Life, has a scathing review of the recent “given pledge.” He’s almost as angry as I am. He discusses the monopolistic practices of these billionaires who made their money on the backs of the workers.

Facebook Discussion On “Internet Rip Off”

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Teaching

When I make a blog entry on this wordpress account, I have set it to immediately post on my Facebook account. The discussion there was lively and informative. So, I am going to repost it here for you to read!

(You will note that my presence in the discussion was tiny. I was playing Dungeons and Dragons from that afternoon until two in the morning. Yes, I am 54 years old and still play D&D – sue me.)

Bryan Aguiar How is the interent a public good? I run a server on the internet. It cost me money to buy it, me money to buy software that runs the computer, and me money to buy the router that connects it to the interent. How is freedom of speech even remotely affected by this? You can still stand on a street corner and shout out your message or pay to print it up on flyers, billboards, newspapers, etc. Where does it say anyone has a right to free interent access? Newspapers costs money, magazines cost money so why shouldn’t the internet?
Yesterday at 9:48am

Gary Bender The internet is considered a public good because it is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. By using the internet, one person does not deplete the internet so that others can’t use it. This isn’t perfectly true, for if enough people or consuming the resources of the internet, the extent with which everyone can use the internet is decreased. However, those resources are only limited by the efforts of monopolistic owners created by government in the grant of ownership to the ISPs.

Whether the internet is non-excludable is arguable. Educators and employers often argue that access to the internet is necessary for all in order to compete in the international economy. The internet is too important as a tool of economic growth to allow exclusion. There are certain special interests who see the internet as a personal cash cow and who would like to exclude some in order to drive demand by limiting supply. This is the reason that the ISPs have hired so many former members of Congress to lobby against net neutrality.

The issue isn’t whether the internet is free as in beer, but free as in speech. I believe that I should have as much right to the internet as Bill Gates without being gouged simply because I don’t generate as much profit for the ISPs as Bill does. I have the same right to drive I-520 to 1 Microsoft Way as Bill. Why should I not have the same right to use the Information Superhighway as Bill?
Yesterday at 10:30am

A.G. If you use other people/companies servers, then you will pay for the convenience. OR you could pay for your own server like Bryan does, and browse the internet as you see fit. The internet is a product just like any other.

How is this any different than posting a message on your local newspaper? If your local paper, being a private company, doesn’t like your message than they don’t have to post it. If they choose to post it, then you will pay more for a half page ad (if that’s what you want) than you will for a quarter page ad. If you don’t want to pay for your newspaper ad, then you should own the newspaper.
Yesterday at 10:46am

Bryan Aguiar The internet is very excludable just like cable TV; therefore, it is not a public good. “The internet is too important as a tool of economic growth to allow exclusion” is strictly an opinion. In the Dharavi slum of India, they export goods around the world worth 500 million per year. They have one toilet per 1,440 residents, barely have electricity, let alone internet.
“I believe that I should have as much right to the internet as Bill Gates ” You do, just pay for it like Bill Gates does. He doesn’t get it for free and neither should you. Before the internet were you saying you should get a free newspaper while Bill Gates should have to pay for it? Information is still available for free in public libraries. “Educators and employers often argue that access to the internet is necessary for all in order to compete in the international economy.” Yet we have very few computer labs and computer classrooms at NWACC. Yet thousands and thousands of workers work evryday day without using the internet. I went to taco bell for lunch yesterday and they made my lunch without having to use the interent. “The issue isn’t whether the internet is free as in beer, but free as in speech”. No, that is the issue. People are trying to make it a free speech issue so they can get something for nothing. The government provides public goods with tax money. Private goods and saome quasi-public goods (cable TV and the Internet) are paid for by the user.
Yesterday at 11:00am

Gary Bender Actually, the ISPs are trying to exclude people, not based on the fee, but on the ISPs choice. They want to decide who should use the internet. “Any entrepreneur with an idea has always been able to create a website and share their ideas globally – without paying extra tolls to have their content seen by other users.” Up until now, the users of the internet decide whose ventures succeed and whose ventures fail. The ISPs want to change this. They want to rig it so that their friends succeed and others fail. It’s political. Has nothing to do with somebody getting something for nothing. If the ISPs succeed, I won’t have the same access to the internet as Bill Gates, not because I won’t pay but because we are in different political camps. My internet provider, Cox Communications, already has tiered service. But anyone willing to pay the monthly fee can get any tier he or she desires. That is about to come to an end.
Yesterday

Bryan Aguiar ‎“The ISPs want to change this. They want to rig it so that their friends succeed and others fail. It’s political. Has nothing to do with somebody getting something for nothing. If the ISPs succeed, I won’t have the same access to the internet as Bill Gates, not because I won’t pay but because we are in different political camps.” I agree that is wrong, wrong, wrong, and they should be stopped from doing that.
Yesterday at 11:48am

Gary Bender James did have a good point about economics which I think deserves an addendum. You might remember when the ISPs laid the groundwork for the internet – the fiber that makes the internet possible. Certain companies were given the contracts in exchange for promises. Those promises have not been met. Moore’s law is in effect with the internet. Excess capacity and breakthroughs such as multiplexing are allowing for a doubling in throughput every 9 months. Hence, the cost to transmit a bit decreases by half every 9 months. Has your ISP cut your rates or doubled your speed? I saw only a tiny increase over the past three years. Moreover, the government, in its foolishness, allowed for virtual monopolies. Oh, Cox will tell you that there is competition. That’s like saying that cars have competition. You can walk. The pols, by allowing the ISPs to get away with what is actually a breach of contract, have created the illusion, Americans being good capitalists, that this is about economic philosophy. It’s not. We are being gouged. While this is not the same issue as net neutrality, it is related and helps to muddle the issue. I think that $45 plus/mo. is too much for the piddling bandwidth and intermittent service that I get, but if Americans are willing to get cheated, there is not much I can do about it. Anyway, these are important topics and I’m glad to see that people are paying attention.
Yesterday at 12:06pm

James Pilant Gary, will you give me permission to put your comments up as a blog post? jp
Yesterday at 3:46pm

Bryan Aguiar Millions of people around the world survive every day without cars and internet. If $45 per month is too much, don’t pay it. And when you and others stop paying it, the price will come down. Problem is too many people think it is worth it, accept the crappy service, and are willing to pay that price or more for it. But as you said Americans are willing to get cheated. By the way cox sucks which is why I am no longer their customer.
Yesterday at 4:31pm

Gary Bender It’s not that I can’t afford $45. Nor can’t I live without the internet. I did so for almost half a century. It’s the fact that if the government hadn’t created these pseudo-monopolies, competition would drive prices down. Cox doesn’t care if I or fifty people like me quit. They will still have their monopoly and a hundred thousand customers in NWA who are too busy working to make that money to think about why they need so much money. Compared to the price of their four kids, boat, and SUVs, internet service is nothing so long as the credit card still works.

I know someone with three kids, a new house, and a new SUV worth as much as I make each year. Yet she is getting government aid. Perhaps if she were to give up some of her unnecessary goods and get off the government dole, I would consider boycotting Cox.

I checked with AT&T. No go. Not that I will ever go back to those thieves, but I checked into it anyway. I don’t know what alternative I have. I won’t go back to dial-up. I really have no choice so long as I’m an educator. I need access to email. I could move to the Midwest and go back to farming, I suppose.

James, you have my permission.

Bryan Aguiar Agreed. Competition would drive the prices down and the government created the monopolies. Fifty people, no cox could care less. 500,000 maybe.
Yesterday at 6:19pm

James Pilant I want to post the whole exchange on my blog! Any objections? jp
11 hours ago

Bryan Aguiar Fine with me
11 hours ago

Gary Bender No objections.
about an hour ago

James Pilant Thanks! I put it up. jp
2 seconds ago