• webadict@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Exploding sugar mills are an example and literally not the crux of my argument. The same could be said about giving your workers coal lung or mesothelioma, but it’s easier to envision. You refuse to acknowledge that worker safety is not a concern unless it affects the amount of capital generated, and NONE of it is nepotism. Can you rebut that, or are you essentially ragequitting because you were wrong?

        • webadict@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You did.

          I tend to disagree with this, not that it’s entirely incorrect, but I think quality can’t be disregarded; can the product be made safely is another factor

          Meritocracy was shown to be related to the ability to generate capital because capital is economic power and allows you to concentrate more power. Quality didn’t factor in because consumers buy bad products. Safety didn’t factor in because consumers buy unsafe products. The best childcare workers aren’t paid more than an average software developer because it’s not meritocratic for workers.

          • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            can the product be made safely is another factor

            This is not a direct line to worker saftey or some sort of moral concern.

            The exact following line is:

            These aren’t smoke screens that some capitalist business man made up to trick you into thinking they are altruistic. These are things that might that effect bottom line.

            My next argument would be you would merit very little when it comes to business acumen.