> My line of thinking is what makes companies profitable.
I don't disagree, however unfortunate that is.
> You can moralize all you want, but the incentives align for a company to maximize on profitability, not on "hey my customers like me".
Let's change that so that the incentives do work for being liked.
> You can't pay for dinner with goodwill, but you can pay for dinner with money.
Somewhere there's some middle ground which represents the failure of our government to incentivize; where companies may still be profitable (even obscenely so), and employees are able to pay for dinner, and customers are happy, and people aren't being manipulated.
> If I'm being so disrespectful, why is my engagement high? Do people love to be disrespected?
Love to be? No. Most have become desensitized to disrespect such that they expect to be abused by collusion between big corporations and big government.
> You're talking about what ought to be, as if it were how it is. It's not that way. It's how I describe. Maybe it should be some other way, but it's not.
I'm talking about what ought to be, indeed. I recognize it's not that way. Do you recognize that it doesn't have to be that way? Don't you agree that it should be some other way?
I don't disagree, however unfortunate that is.
> You can moralize all you want, but the incentives align for a company to maximize on profitability, not on "hey my customers like me".
Let's change that so that the incentives do work for being liked.
> You can't pay for dinner with goodwill, but you can pay for dinner with money.
Somewhere there's some middle ground which represents the failure of our government to incentivize; where companies may still be profitable (even obscenely so), and employees are able to pay for dinner, and customers are happy, and people aren't being manipulated.
> If I'm being so disrespectful, why is my engagement high? Do people love to be disrespected?
Love to be? No. Most have become desensitized to disrespect such that they expect to be abused by collusion between big corporations and big government.
> You're talking about what ought to be, as if it were how it is. It's not that way. It's how I describe. Maybe it should be some other way, but it's not.
I'm talking about what ought to be, indeed. I recognize it's not that way. Do you recognize that it doesn't have to be that way? Don't you agree that it should be some other way?