Greed has proven to be a more effectively harmful force against humanity than hatred. We should have greed crimes in addition to hate crimes.
Hatred often makes you want to hurt people, but people hurt peope in the name of greed more often, and not only with less potential for guilt, but is often the cause of delusional accolades and reassurance both from within oneself and from others.
Hypothetical:
A CEO lays off 10,000 employees that helped that company succeed, solely to increase earnings and not because the company is hurting, not only seriously hurting 9,997 people, but causing 3 to commit suicide.
A bumpkin gets in a fight with someone he hates the melanin of because he's a moron and kills them.
Who did more damage to humanity that day? They're both, I want to say evil but evil is subjective, they're both highly antisocial, knowingly harmful behaviors, yet one correctly sends you to prison for a long time if not forever, while the other, far more premeditated and quite literally calculated act, is literally rewarded and partied about. Jim Kramer gives you a shout out on tv, good fucking times amirite!
Edit: and this felt relevant to post after someone tried to lecture me about equating layoffs to murder.
"Coca-Cola killed trade unionists in Latin America. General Motors built vehicles known to catch fire. Tobacco companies suppressed cancer research. And Boeing knew that its planes were dangerous. Corporations don't care if they kill people — as long as it's profitable."
Some historical perspective as it relates to greed:
During some of the United States’ most prosperous times, the marginal income tax rates were higher (topping out around 90%!) and executive compensation was no more than ~20x the average worker pay.
Now, marginal tax rates and capital gains rates are so low, the wealthy often pay the lowest effective rates (sometimes less than 10%). And executive pay is simply off the charts at 300x, 500x, even 700x median pay.
The problem is greed and its manifestation as tax and corporate policy. Basic tax reform and implementing new corporate regulations can and would fix many issues plaguing this country.
Those in poverty would be lifted out by higher wages and adequate social safety nets. The growth of a thriving middle class creates a premier labor force, allows people to innovate and start new businesses, and creates additional private support networks that reduces stress on government programs.
It even helps the elite by letting them live in a prosperous country where they don’t have to step over people dying in the streets to go to their entertainment spots. Theft and crimes of desperation decrease as stability increases. Labor is more educated and healthy. They don’t have to drive on roads with defunct bridges. On and on.
We are all in this together. It’s time to act like it. We’ve done it before and we can do it again.
not sure if related but a lot of ancient cultures have many rules to hold back envy for a more stable society. they can be very exterme leading to say the recent mask protest in iran but current culture might be the other extreme so to speak.
You're basically arguing that corporations should have some sort of social persona/existance. That means they will have some sort of a degree of responsibility towards people that are involved with the company additional than making profit and the minimum that is required by the law.
As of roughly 24 hours past, I'd say an over 500 more likes to dislikes ratio doesn't, to me at least, count as an unpopular opinion. Especially when it's only around 35 dislikes.
What if CEO doesn't fire people, company goes bankrupt, 20,000 ppl lose their jobs, thousands more lose a lot of money on stock market? There's no way to account for everything, not to mention enforcement of this would be biased, so big companies would probably ending up benefitting from that somehow...
In your hypothetical, things would have been different if the employees received equity compensation with voting shares (in exchange for reduced cash compensation). It's weird how complains about greed only cut one way.
Here’s what you don’t fully understand about what a hate crime is.
First, laying off employees is not often illegal. However, killing someone usually is.
For there to be a ‘hate’ crime, there first has to be a crime. ‘Hate’ crimes aren’t crimes unto themselves, they are just higher punishment for a crime you have already committed. It’s not it’s own crime.
A ‘greed’ crime, would be more like if you profit from a crime it would be ‘greed’ crime.
So if the racist in your analogy also stole the persons wallet after he killed him, you could call it a greed-hate crime.
But, no, you can’t just create a crime out of laying people off because it saves a company money.
So in your hypothetical, the best choice is for the CEO to continue paying 10,000 people for doing work that is apparently no longer necessary, basically as charity?
I'm going to ignore the insane part of your point where you equated layoffs with murder.
Greed, like hate, is subjective. It is therefore, like hate, a terrible prerequisite for the activation of the criminal justice system. The idea that motivations for crimes should change the definition and/or penalty of those crimes has fostered popular corruption of the justice system since its inception. Industrialization has accelerated the adoption of human fears into that justice system, to the point where we can no longer even count the number of infractions under the law.
Adding more subjective emotional consideration to a punitive system which is already weighed down beyond the ability to enact swift justice is the opposite of helpful.