4 comments

[ 6.8 ms ] story [ 17.6 ms ] thread
A cogent analysis. One important point is that "woke" issues mostly do not cost any money to the owners. As a matter of fact most of them lower their costs by making labor helpless.

If, for example, weaker copyright was on the table, probably Disney would be a lot less "progressive".

P.S. dropped by your submissions because I caught the (withdrawn?) https://theamericansun.com/2021/04/22/almost-killed-me/ story. Read it, not a bad piece, although the "human interest" theme in the press is a bit wearisome and I generally avoid it.
I liked that one very much, tried posting it here but it seemed to have gotten no attention so I deleted it. Thought maybe such general essays are not a good fit for HN...
I agree that the politics of large corporations are self-interested and not based on any defined or unbreakable moral code.

I disagree that this broadly forces them to adopt social views that their constituents (employees and shareholders) disagree with.

For starters, don't have to support either party's platform as a whole. Most large companies donate to both GOP and Dems, and they selectively parcel out those donations depending on their pet issues.

Companies' pet issues, then, mostly reflect the views of their educated, wealthy owners and their customers, which means they support social freedom, lower taxes, less regulation, free trade, and immigration.