Let’s talk about ethics. Like it or not, business ethics are not  absolute, they change from age to age. For example, 300 years ago  children worked in factories in conditions we now consider deplorable.  It was ethical to employ children then, given the extreme hardship and  poverty of the times. Today, children do not have to work to survive. It  would be unethical to hire them to work as they did 300 years ago. That  said, I am certainly not contending that, within the context of the  times, every action of the so-called Robber Barons was ethical.
Were the actions of Bain Capital unethical? All I can say with  certainty is that cutting wages and dismissing employees in and of  itself is not evidence of unethical conduct.
With regard to the “human factor” in business, any successful  businessman knows there is a human factor in employee relations, especially within the context of a free labor  market. The days of running a ship like Captain Bligh are long gone. A  business which respects and listens to its employees is at a tremendous  competitive advantage in the marketplace. In such an environment it’s easy to acquire and retain high  quality employees.
The respect must be mutual, however. There is a limit to what any  business can provide to employees in the way of salary, working  conditions and benefits. There is a point where an investment in capital  equipment is more profitable than an investment in employees. This is  not heartless or inhuman, it is merely reality and simple economics. I  invite all my employees to do what is in their best interests. If an employee of mine  finds a better job, I encourage him to take it. My employees have no compunctions  about “firing” me. Their first loyalty is to themselves and their  families. Mine is to me, my family and my business. My employees treat  me as a means to their ends; I do the same with respect to them.
The primary responsibility of successful business owners is to make a  profit. There is simply no other rational way to operate. This is not  to say that making the highest possible profit is most ethical. It is simply to acknowledge that without profits, the company is no good to  anyone. Everyone concerned with the business is better off when the  company is profitable, and everyone in the company should know this. As  it happens, in my business I tend to hire people when profits are  greatest and dismiss people when it is unavoidable and when losses so  dictate. My employees understand why this must be so.
Any business owner who doesn’t realize that his employees are his  most valuable asset is a fool and, probably, a failure. This is why it  is foolish to believe that businesses become extremely profitable by  disabusing their most valuable asset. Still, any business owner will  tell you that managing that asset is the trickiest part of staying  profitable.
Just as some business owners are fools and disabuse their employees,  so some employees are fools and disabuse their employers. They may be  the proverbial bad apple or a group of employees who band together to  demand more than the employer can profitably provide. 
The bottom line is the free market is just that: free. Both employers  and employees are free to voluntarily strike deals with each other that are mutually  advantageous. However, this is not so true in our not-so-free market of  today. Oftentimes well-meant government laws and regulations tie the  hands of employers and eliminate choices available to employees. 
The market today is a complex mix of many, many different  individuals, both employers and employees alike, all motivated by  different goals and ethical standards, all controlled by a plethora of  government rules and regs. Particular situations are not black and  white. It’s impossible to generalize that all employers or employees in a  particular industry are of a particular ethical persuasion.
Did Bain Capital act unethically? Did Romney? Who can say? Can you?  On the basis of what facts and information? If you know salient  particulars of that unique situation, I’ll be listen and consider.
Government intervention in the marketplace creates a huge dilemma for American business. If  the government offers a farmer a subsidy for growing corn, is it  unethical for the farmer to grow corn?
Is it unethical for a taxpayer to accept a deduction for raising a dependent?
Many libertarians believe laws which protect Intellectual Property are immoral, yet they copyright their written work.
If you are an American businessman, how do you combat government intervention and coercion without becoming a self-sacrificial lamb?
"Side by side with the word 'property' in the program of liberalism one may quite appropriately place the words 'freedom' and 'peace.'" Ludwig von Mises, "Liberalism, In The Classical Tradition"
About This Blog
Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) was the greatest economist of my time. His greatest works can be accessed here at no charge.
Mises believed that property, freedom and peace are and should be the hallmarks of a satisfying and prosperous society. I agree. Mises proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prospect for general and individual prosperity is maximized, indeed, is only possible, if the principle of private property reigns supreme. What's yours is yours. What's mine is mine. When the line between yours and mine is smudged, the door to conflict opens. Without freedom (individual liberty of action) the principle of private property is neutered and the free market, which is the child of property and freedom and the mother of prosperity and satisfaction, cannot exist. Peace is the goal of a prosperous and satisfying society of free individuals, not peace which is purchased by submission to the enemies of property and freedom, but peace which results from the unyielding defense of these principles against all who challenge them.
In this blog I measure American society against the metrics of property, freedom and peace.
Mises believed that property, freedom and peace are and should be the hallmarks of a satisfying and prosperous society. I agree. Mises proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prospect for general and individual prosperity is maximized, indeed, is only possible, if the principle of private property reigns supreme. What's yours is yours. What's mine is mine. When the line between yours and mine is smudged, the door to conflict opens. Without freedom (individual liberty of action) the principle of private property is neutered and the free market, which is the child of property and freedom and the mother of prosperity and satisfaction, cannot exist. Peace is the goal of a prosperous and satisfying society of free individuals, not peace which is purchased by submission to the enemies of property and freedom, but peace which results from the unyielding defense of these principles against all who challenge them.
In this blog I measure American society against the metrics of property, freedom and peace.
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment