I wrote this thread earlier this year and I believe it to be even more true now w/ Amazon's announcement of HQ2: Big tech companies have a moral obligation to hire in a way that does not exacerbate homelessnesshttps://twitter.com/politicalmath/status/983782763441545216 …
-
Show this thread
-
For the most part, "corporate responsibility" is basically a proxy for "supporting bourgeois liberal values". Stuff like climate change, LGBQT issues, or pot legalization. It should, instead, be more focused on supporting small and local communities in tangible ways.
3 replies 14 retweets 92 likesShow this thread -
I should note that something happened this year that shook me to the power of big businesses. Seattle City Council is crazy leftist & unanimously passed a "head tax" that would have cost big companies (Amazon) millions, claiming they will use that $$$ fight homelessness. /1
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
I thought the tax was stupid and I was against it, but whatever, the city council is duly elected by the crazy leftists who live in Seattle, so they can do what they want. One month later, the council voted to kill the tax. 7 members changed their votes. I was stunned. /2
2 replies 0 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
And I started asking myself: Is it actually possible to make policies that penalize big businesses? Or will they basically just... get what they want when they want it. /3
4 replies 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
If Seattle City Council folds like a bad hand the minute Jeff Bezos looks at them mean, the people don't run the city. Amazon does. That's bad. /4
5 replies 4 retweets 40 likesShow this thread -
Seattle City Council is crazy leftist, but the were elected to BE crazy leftists. And as long as they aren't trampling on constitutional rights, they should be able to do as many stupid things as they want until they get voted out. It's creepy that big businesses trump voters /5
4 replies 2 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @politicalmath
I'd have to research the specific incident further. What would it be that would cause them to change their votes? How could Amazon *force* them to? If problem is that business would flee the city, well yeah. That's the market. But if Amazon somehow held power over them, then bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Alex_Z_01 @politicalmath
A number of large Seattle employers told the city that personnel decisions going forward would be a function of whether the tax was passed
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eigenrobot @politicalmath
Makes sense. If you're going to be punished for doing business somewhere, and you can do business somewhere else, you're likely to do that. It's a harsh world, but they're not in it for charity to government coffers.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
This is one reason Amazon is doing multiple HQs. I see it as defensive rather than offensive. Seattle City Council tried to exploit geographic inflexibility of firms, natural response is to build in greater jurisdictional flexibility
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot @politicalmath
Yeah, I guess my take differs from math's. Sounds like council realized the tax would hurt their voters and the calculation changed. They're still acting in the interests of their constituents, not Amazon.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
And if voters were still insistent, they could replace said council with ppl willing to kamikaze their economy to hurt big business.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.