Google hit with record EU fine over Shopping service

[SpriteNo5]

I can't believe people think this is a bad thing. These multinationals take advantage of legal loopholes in almost every country they operate in. They do this to promote poor working conditions, anti competition stances and shoddy environmental practices. They will bend and break the law as much as they can, in the name of profit, until someone stands up to them.

 

Google broke EU law while trading in the EU, suck it up. The main protagonists behind this investigation (apart from the EU) were other US multinationals who were angry with the practice (Microsoft being one of the loudest).

 

The US and UK governments are never going to police these companies effectively as they are beholden to their neoliberal string pullers. When they should be protecting their citizens first and foremost. Good for the EU for continually standing up to these companies. None of these companies want to be outside the EU as it is the single most progressive, advanced and wealthy market on the planet. So the EU has real power over these corporations and has a moral obligation to police them accordingly. 

 

For those in doubt - The EU is the largest economy in the world. Although growth is projected to be slow, the EU remains the largest economy in the world with a GDP per head of €25 000 for its 500 million consumers. The EU is the world's largest trading block. The EU is the world's largest trader of manufactured goods and services.

 

 

lastly, on a strictly personal note. Thanks to all those utter idiots who voted for brexit who are now going to rob my country of this level of moral protection. * slow hand clap for the braindead.

[NinerL]

3 hours ago, Eniqmatic said:

I'm sure this is a repost from something a few weeks ago

 

Edit: repost of this?

 

 

No, as you can see they clearly got hit with a 2 BILLION fine, my thread says 1. 

edit: not a repost, and damn 2 billion!

[Ryujin2003]

1 hour ago, Coaxialgamer said:

 

It doesn't matter if there are alternatives. 

At ~80% market share, google legally has a monopoly, both in the eu and us. Monopoly power doesn't require 100% market share. The uk, for example, sets the monopoly market share threshold at 25% for a single firm. 

How the hell is it a monopoly? They aren't purchasing outher search engines and burning those to the ground.

 

Why is Google so popular? Because they invested so much time, money, and effort into producing a better product. They shouldn't be punished because Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, and anyone else has shit algorithms.

 

I remember back in the good old days, when Yahoo, and DogPile were great search engines. I used to have a Yahoo email address. (This is dialup days). I switched to Google email eventually because they had better protection against spam than their competitors. I eventually switched to Google search engine because what I was looking for was almost always on the first page.

 

They have a large "market share" because their engine doesn't suck. That's like fining Toyota because the Prius is too efficient. American hybrids cannot keep up. Unfair advantage.....

 

If you make a shit product, don't expect people to keep using it if there are better free services out there.

[Mihle]

32 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

How the hell is it a monopoly? They aren't purchasing outher search engines and burning those to the ground.

 

Why is Google so popular? Because they invested so much time, money, and effort into producing a better product. They shouldn't be punished because Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, and anyone else has shit algorithms.

 

I remember back in the good old days, when Yahoo, and DogPile were great search engines. I used to have a Yahoo email address. (This is dialup days). I switched to Google email eventually because they had better protection against spam than their competitors. I eventually switched to Google search engine because what I was looking for was almost always on the first page.

 

They have a large "market share" because their engine doesn't suck. That's like fining Toyota because the Prius is too efficient. American hybrids cannot keep up. Unfair advantage.....

 

If you make a shit product, don't expect people to keep using it if there are better free services out there.

The way a company have used to get to the monopoly status doesn't matter. You dont need to have 100% of the marked to be a monopoly. And beeing a monopoly isnt in itself a bad thing, its what a company do WHEN they are a monopoly that matters.

[Coaxialgamer]

37 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

How the hell is it a monopoly? They aren't purchasing outher search engines and burning those to the ground.

 

Why is Google so popular? Because they invested so much time, money, and effort into producing a better product. They shouldn't be punished because Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, and anyone else has shit algorithms.

 

I remember back in the good old days, when Yahoo, and DogPile were great search engines. I used to have a Yahoo email address. (This is dialup days). I switched to Google email eventually because they had better protection against spam than their competitors. I eventually switched to Google search engine because what I was looking for was almost always on the first page.

 

They have a large "market share" because their engine doesn't suck. That's like fining Toyota because the Prius is too efficient. American hybrids cannot keep up. Unfair advantage.....

 

If you make a shit product, don't expect people to keep using it if there are better free services out there.

the debate isn't about google's market share.

there is a difference between having a better product and using your existing advantage to keep your competitors from ever catching up to you .

by advertising their own services on their platform ( with an SE used by 80% of people ) , you're effectively keeping them away from alternatives , in turn diminishing the chance competitors have to ever catch up , regardless of it's quality .

(in an effective monopoly , only the first product released would matter , as the ensuing power would prevent competitors from gaining market share regardless of the quality of products , thus creating an anti-competitive market   ).

have you used bing , yahoo , duckduckgo etc recently ? they've gotten considerably better over the years .

 

Google were the first to make a good algorithm in the early days of the web , but today they aren't the only ones anymore.

 

 

[Doobeedoo]

Usually from Americans I see mentality "it's their company/search site, they can do whatever they want" though. Imagine MS banned Google from IE in 90s huh.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Doobeedoo said:

Usually from Americans I see mentality "it's their company/search site, they can do whatever they want" though. Imagine MS banned Google from IE in 90s huh.

So you have an issue with companies managing a non essential, non binding services in a way that promotes there own business.    And more so you think that because others don't have a problem with that it somehow validates a law that only exists in the EU.   

 

Fact of the matter is google search engine barely fits the criteria for a monopoly and much less the criteria for antitrust.  They are not leveraging an avoidable product market position to manipulate sales away from other companies.    People have choices, people are not bound to google search, people are not forced through unavoidable product level manipulation into a position where competition is not accessible.   If MS changed the code in windows to hide competing services then that would be antitrust. Because that is using an unavoidable product (windows being the OS monopoly) to manipulate what consumers can access (antitrust).  Here google are not manipulating what consumers see becasue googles search is neither unavoidable and non contractual (you can close it down and use another search engine without losing access to the internet).

 

 

 

[SpriteNo5]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So you have an issue with companies managing a non essential, non binding services in a way that promotes there own business.    And more so you think that because others don't have a problem with that it somehow validates a law that only exists in the EU.   

 

Fact of the matter is google search engine barely fits the criteria for a monopoly and much less the criteria for antitrust.  They are not leveraging an avoidable product market position to manipulate sales away from other companies.    People have choices, people are not bound to google search, people are not forced through unavoidable product level manipulation into a position where competition is not accessible.   If MS changed the code in windows to hide competing services then that would be antitrust. Because that is using an unavoidable product (windows being the OS monopoly) to manipulate what consumers can access (antitrust).  Here google are not manipulating what consumers see becasue googles search is neither unavoidable and non contractual (you can close it down and use another search engine without losing access to the internet).

 

 

 

A lot of what you say I agree with. Google isn't forcing people to use their sponsored links, and other options are available, nothing is being gated behind a wall or fenced off.

 

However the law exists to protect all in society not just the technically minded but also those with browsers and no sense. Google knows it has a vast market share and it knows by listing its searches, in the way it does, it will move the less able, knowledgable into a position advantageous to Google. 

 

Some might say tough poo, that's just life, it's their own fault for not knowing better. But there are many laws across many different sectors protecting people from themselves to stop exactly this type of practice. 

 

In this example Google aren't commiting some horrendous crime, they are taking advantage of their market position and people's gullability. It's not so much the act but the principle that is being upheld here. It's the principle of the law that is important, and all examples must be dealt with. Google know this, that's why they are paying the fine.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, SpriteNo5 said:

A lot of what you say I agree with. Google isn't forcing people to use their sponsored links, and other options are available, nothing is being gated behind a wall or fenced off.

 

However the law exists to protect all in society not just the technically minded but also those with browsers and no sense. Google knows it has a vast market share and it knows by listing its searches, in the way it does, it will move the less able, knowledgable into a position advantageous to Google. 

 

Some might say tough poo, that's just life, it's their own fault for not knowing better. But there are many laws across many different sectors protecting people from themselves to stop exactly this type of practice. 

 

In this example Google aren't commiting some horrendous crime, they are taking advantage of their market position and people's gullability. It's not so much the act but the principle that is being upheld here. It's the principle of the law that is important, and all examples must be dealt with. Google know this, that's why they are paying the fine.

 

So instead of fining them $2B on "principals", why not do what real governments do and educate the people.  Hell, they could even create their own search engine and advertise it world wide as the unbiased alternative that cannot be bought. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

13 hours ago, revsilverspine said:

Google is a private company that provides a free service.

Google is a private company that provides paid advertisement and other paid services.

13 hours ago, revsilverspine said:

It should be in their rights to promote themselves or their services.

It is in their right to promote themselves and their services.

Also, it is not in their right to abuse a dominant market position to hinder competition, since there are laws aimed at protecting competition (free markets are only granted to be goodgood when they are free competitive markets).

11 hours ago, KuJoe said:

Does it really matter how big Google is?

Yes, it matters for the definition of dominant market position.

11 hours ago, KuJoe said:

How much traffic they get shouldn't matter how they run their company as long as it's not against any laws in the country they are based in.

How much traffic they get shouldn't matter how they run their company as long as it's not against any laws in the countries they operate. You can't just abide to the laws of one country and make business everywhere. And this whole case is about whether what Google does in Europe is against its laws or not.

As a private company, Google is free to decide in which markets to operate, based among other things on whether the like the laws in those markets or not. No company has the right to do business everywhere by selectively ignoring the laws they don't like.

 

11 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Most of that market share is instead held by Google. Overall, Google has a stranglehold on the search market in Europe.

 

It's not a monopoly in the strict 100% market share sense, but it easily qualifies as a monopoly in legal terms - it has oodles of monopoly power (monopoly power can come into play even with market shares under 50%, let alone the >90% market share Google search has in Europe).

In fact, that's why laws usually express it in terms of "dominant market position" rather than "monopoly": what matters for these cases is not whether they have a 100% share of the market, but whether they are in a position to restrict competition in the same or other markets through their particular position in one market, since that would prevent a free, competitive market from functioning.

 

10 hours ago, KuJoe said:

Not true, the US can ban the company from selling products/services but fining then instead of outright banning them or pulling their products is just wrong.

I'm sorry but that's pretty silly. It is like saying "you can kill me or expel me from the country, but giving me a fine each time I speed to much while driving is just wrong". 

10 hours ago, KuJoe said:

Forcing an online company to adhere to every law in every country is just sick in so many ways.

How is that sick? Is there even an alternative to enforcing the laws you have? Why would you even write them then? You are really not making any sense there.

 

10 hours ago, KuJoe said:

But who cares about small businesses right? Today Google is the target, tomorrow it could be LMG because their forums or videos violate some obscure law in some city 5000 miles away with a population of 100.

Strawmaning much, are we?

[SpriteNo5]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

So instead of fining them $2B on "principals", why not do what real governments do and educate the people.  Hell, they could even create their own search engine and advertise it world wide as the unbiased alternative that cannot be bought. 

A government educating its people wholly and entirely just isn't a feasible option. There's too many that can't be or won't be educated. That's the same across all society and always has been. The only realistic way to deal with it is to deal with the companies who take advantage.

 

In a perfect world you are right, I'm fairly conservative in some of my views, and one of those is personal responsibility. But some in society, for whatever reason, don't have the skills to avoid manipulation like this, that's why the law legislates.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

13 hours ago, I_Need_a_PC said:

While this is a good step to creating a fairer internet for businesses, the fine is of course very small for the monster of alphabet, which has $172bn of assets. 

It still isn't small, but the most important part of the sentence is not the current fine, but the fact that it forces Google to change its behavior to comply with EU law (to the extent that Google doesn't win an appeal, etc). Simply paying this fine and ignoring the sentence's mandate will not do, as then they will expose themselves to fines of up to 5% their global business volume - for as long as they don't comply.

 

It's like the Microsoft case: no one remembers how much MS had to pay, but we all know that it had to adapt Windows in regards to browser choice to comply with the sentence.

[KuJoe]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

How is that sick? Is there even an alternative to enforcing the laws you have? Why would you even write them then? You are really not making any sense there.

As a citizen and a company you should only be required to know and follow the laws where you reside. Expecting everybody to know every law is just a horrible expectation and would kill innovation and only impact small businesses who cannot hire a lawyer in every part of the world. If other countries can tell giant US companies like Google and Apple how to run their companies, then I'm really screwed.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, SpriteNo5 said:

A government educating its people wholly and entirely just isn't a feasible option. There's too many that can't be or won't be educated. That's the same across all society and always has been. The only realistic way to deal with it is to deal with the companies who take advantage.

 

In a perfect world you are right, I'm fairly conservative in some of my views, and one of those is personal responsibility. But some in society, for whatever reason, don't have the skills to avoid manipulation like this, that's why the law legislates.

Just because some people can't be educated doesn't mean it isn't the better option.   Imagine if the governments didn't bother running other public education campaigns like speeding, alcohol, domestic abuse and tobacco  because "some people won't learn".   

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, KuJoe said:

As a citizen and a company you should only be required to know and follow the laws where you reside.

Multinational companies "reside" everywhere they operate. I think you are really missing the point here.

 

Just now, KuJoe said:

Expecting everybody to know every law is just a horrible expectation and would kill innovation and only impact small businesses who cannot hire a lawyer in every part of the world.

You are missing out again: Google didn't break the law (if it did) out of ignorance of it.

Just now, KuJoe said:

If other countries can tell giant US companies like Google and Apple how to run their companies, then I'm really screwed.

What is so hard to understand about countries telling companies that operate inside those countries that they simply have to follow the rules, not telling them how to run them?

I mean, really, you are saying that poor Volkswagen should be allowed to sell their cars with cheating contamination measures in the US, instead of getting fined for it, because it is a German firm after all.

 

Really, try to think what it means when you say that it is wrong to enforce laws inside the countries where those laws were made...

I don't know, maybe you are confused and think that Google is being fined for what it does in the US or throughout the world. Google is only being fined in the EU for its behavior inside the EU, and nowhere else.

[KuJoe]

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Multinational companies "reside" everywhere they operate. I think you are really missing the point here.

Sorry, I guess you missed one of my older posts. I addressed this already and completely agree.

[SpriteNo5]

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Just because some people can't be educated doesn't mean it isn't the better option.   Imagine if the governments didn't bother running other public education campaigns like speeding, alcohol, domestic abuse and tobacco  because "some people won't learn".   

 

 

Alcohol and tobacco address addictions that can kill you, the severity of the outcome dictates government involvement.

 

Speeding and domestic violence are acts of criminality perpetrated by an individual. This again isn't comparable in this situation.

 

i think you are right to a degree and maybe this is a case where the technology has moved faster than government action. There will likely be much more education aimed specifically towards this area in the future.

 

However I would argue that's it's not a case that people just won't learn. The problem here is that those who fall victim to this aren't aware they need to learn anything, they are assuming they are receiving unbiased search results. They simply don't know any better (and in some cases aren't capable of knowing better).  Google is aware of this and they are aware that they will make a lot of money from this. That's not only illegal under EU law but I'd also say immoral. 

 

Google would still make more than enough money and would still be the largest in its field and hugely successful if it did not employ these tactics. It's pure greed that drives this behaviour.

[Doobeedoo]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

So you have an issue with companies managing a non essential, non binding services in a way that promotes there own business.    And more so you think that because others don't have a problem with that it somehow validates a law that only exists in the EU.   

 

Fact of the matter is google search engine barely fits the criteria for a monopoly and much less the criteria for antitrust.  They are not leveraging an avoidable product market position to manipulate sales away from other companies.    People have choices, people are not bound to google search, people are not forced through unavoidable product level manipulation into a position where competition is not accessible.   If MS changed the code in windows to hide competing services then that would be antitrust. Because that is using an unavoidable product (windows being the OS monopoly) to manipulate what consumers can access (antitrust).  Here google are not manipulating what consumers see becasue googles search is neither unavoidable and non contractual (you can close it down and use another search engine without losing access to the internet).

 

 

 

Meh you missed the point. Though I never said certain things, just stated how some defend such practice. Everyone is being manipulative in their own way. Be it if it's hidden in sense of law or not. You could say such for anything, be it Windows you're not forced to use it, or anything. You still have options to use other OS anyway. It's not unusable.

How MS with with IE was mentioned, they had to offer other web browsers on first launch. Which is kinda ridiculous in a way, hence their OS and it's not like you can't install other easily. But whatever.

[mr moose]

19 minutes ago, SpriteNo5 said:

 

 

Alcohol and tobacco address addictions that can kill you, the severity of the outcome dictates government involvement.

 

Speeding and domestic violence are acts of criminality perpetrated by an individual. This again isn't comparable in this situation.

 

i think you are right to a degree and maybe this is a case where the technology has moved faster than government action. There will likely be much more education aimed specifically towards this area in the future.

 

However I would argue that's it's not a case that people just won't learn. The problem here is that those who fall victim to this aren't aware they need to learn anything, they are assuming they are receiving unbiased search results. They simply don't know any better (and in some cases aren't capable of knowing better).  Google is aware of this and they are aware that they will make a lot of money from this. That's not only illegal under EU law but I'd also say immoral. 

 

Google would still make more than enough money and would still be the largest in its field and hugely successful if it did not employ these tactics. It's pure greed that drives this behaviour.

Only comparable in that education is education, it doesn't matter how serious the issue is. 

18 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Meh you missed the point. Though I never said certain things, just stated how some defend such practice. Everyone is being manipulative in their own way. Be it if it's hidden in sense of law or not. You could say such for anything, be it Windows you're not forced to use it, or anything. You still have options to use other OS anyway. It's not unusable.

How MS with with IE was mentioned, they had to offer other web browsers on first launch. Which is kinda ridiculous in a way, hence their OS and it's not like you can't install other easily. But whatever.

Companies being dicks and doing something illegal are two very different things.  And to be honest, dickish behaviour is subjective.  

[Jito463]

17 hours ago, LUUD18 said:

They are still by far the biggest search engine.

Majority =/= monopoly.

16 hours ago, Coaxialgamer said:

It doesn't matter if there are alternatives. 

At ~80% market share, google legally has a monopoly, both in the eu and us. Monopoly power doesn't require 100% market share. The uk, for example, sets the monopoly market share threshold at 25% for a single firm. 

14 hours ago, Mihle said:

The way a company have used to get to the monopoly status doesn't matter. You dont need to have 100% of the marked to be a monopoly. And beeing a monopoly isnt in itself a bad thing, its what a company do WHEN they are a monopoly that matters.

How is it that people don't understand the definition of the word 'monopoly'?  Let's see what Dictionary.com has to say on the matter:

• exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

 

Since they don't have exclusive control, that definition can't apply.  And I see nothing of them manipulating prices (nor that they're even capable of that), just that they promote themselves over other services.  So far, not seeing the problem.

• an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service,granted by a government.

Nope, no government has granted them exclusive rights to be the sole search engine.

• the exclusive possession or control of something.

Ditto.

• something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
• a company or group that has such control.
• the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

Nope, not seeing how Google fits any of those definitions, either.  So, can someone explain to me how they think Google is a "monopoly"?

 

_{*For the record, I left off the definition of the famous board game.} 

 

And please don't bring up some unsubstantiated statistic about 65/80/95% use in EU or some such (I've heard multiple numbers, all without any corresponding evidence).  If people are too stupid to realize there are other search engines out there, that's not Google's fault.

 

I'm no fan of Google, don't get me wrong.  I use them when necessary to find what I need (there's no denying the accuracy of their SEO), but I've switched my primary search engine to DDG, just so I could avoid using them as much as possible.  Even still, I just don't see what all the fuss is about, unless there's some aspect of the story that's not being repeated/reported.  Otherwise, it just sounds like the EU suits wanting to make a quick buck off an easy target.

[SpriteNo5]

4 hours ago, Nicholatian said:

The lack of empathy in this narrative is astounding… just wow. So you would totally have the same righteous stance in their shoes, right? You going to stand up as CEO and say Google needs to bring an end to the err of its ways, and be more competitive, and give workers more for less, and be environmentally friendly… because why? You’d run Google into the ground with that moralistic crap, man. Businesses aren’t charity fronts, nor are they sociopolitical organisations meant to cater to popular interests. You’d be thinking of your government.

Lol, you happily watch multinationals exploit people and resources the world over and question my empathy. WTF. If companies cannot make their profits in a way that does not damage societies then they deserve to fail.

 

just because it's the norm for them to behave in  this way, doesn't make it right. 

 

In most cases they wouldn't be giving workers more for less, they'd be giving them just about what they are worth. What a horrendous picture you have of how our society should work. You are so in thrall to these multinational consumerist churches that you'd blindly follow them no matter what, you're behaving like a 12th century European serf, tipping your cap to the local landowner and thanking him for the right to grovel around in the mud to survive.

 

And I would have the same stance even if I was in Google's shoes, I qualified with a good degree, from a good university in a subject that can be well rewarded. The friends I qualified with now earn double what I do. I chose to work for a charity knowing the money would be less but the effect would be greater. We're not all driven by greed.

[SpriteNo5]

39 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

You presume much to think I care about morality in this. I don’t hold a stake in that nonsense… because everyone has a different definition of what it means, and those definitions seem to be everchanging as time goes on. There’s no reality in it, but I can understand how you’d like living in a fantastical world like that. Reality sucks sometimes.

Reality check: the world doesn’t run on charity. You have to eat, you have to sleep somewhere. You probably want shelter. Either you’re paying for that through your own labour, or someone else is through theirs. Come back down from your ethereal plane for a second and recall that the world doesn’t run on morals… it runs on give-and-take relationships. Humans have a selfish inclination like all animals do, so naturally we’re out to get something decent for ourselves, some way, some how… inverting that relationship doesn’t make you magically more evolved or superior so you can go ahead and drop that notion too while you’re at it.

Never said I was superior (just pointed out that we have choice, you don't have to let your base desires rule you. Many people live like this).

 

 Never said I wanted to live in some sort of socialist utopia, never said the world runs on charity. These are all strawmen.

 

Companies can act in a more just and moral manner and still be successful. This is not fantasy, this is not anti capitalism, it's just a wish to get to a better place than we currently are. Organisations have to recognise that they need a symbiotic relationship with the societies and environments in which they operate, that's just common sense. No system can succeed when you take out more than you put back, especially in a world with finite resources.

 

Couple of examples, companies regularly avoid paying as much tax as they can but continue to use the infrastructure (schools, road, rail, people, hospitals etc etc) that those taxes pay for. More tax is collected from the individuals in society to plug this gap, individuals wealth is reduced, meaning they can afford services and goods less. Sometimes they withhold the tax legally, sometimes not. But even when legal the means are often immoral as they are not working to a countries tax legislation but around it. The infrastructure eventually becomes degraded, again this hurts the companies ability to do business.

 

Secondly, the use of zero hours contracts and degradation of other workers rights (healthcare, pension, maternity leave etc etc). You keep your employees less wealthy and more unstable in their lives due to a lack of a decent contract. Again this reduces their participation in society and consumerism, hurting the companies. A little less profit at the top would go a long way to redressing issues such as these and increasing profit margins. 

 

Humans do tend to be naturally selfish and can be destructive and act in immoral ways to further their own interests. That's true, I'm not inverting anything. We have the police and judiciary to manage this, that's exactly what happened to Google, they got caught and dealt with. This is how you manage these selfish tendencies, or should we do away with the police and courts?

 

America's golden years in the 50's came about because people had job security, they had strong unions and workers rights. They had booming industry that was not exploiting its workers as it does now. People had employment, good pensions, education and healthcare. And America truly led the world at this time, by example. The world has changed, but those ideals can still work today.

 

[SpriteNo5]

24 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

Lol, funny story actually… my paternal grandfather worked as a coal miner in West Virginia under that brief spell of prosperity. At first glance everyone thinks, “being a coal miner is dangerous work! This must be a special case,” or whatever they blather about because they never lived there and have a windowpane perspective of it all. My family is 100% rooted in West By God Virginia – we know what happened there, and it’s part of why there are next to no jobs to be had in WV to this very day.

 

Back in the 60s, Elmer and all of his coworkers would congregate with the Union and decide at various times that they were going to get paid more, because… well, they thought they weren’t getting paid enough, damnit! The only justification they had was that their job was dangerous… it required no brains, all brawn. At the height of his coal mining career, my grandfather brought in over $100K annually in 2017 USD… that’s nearly double what I’d make as a Computer Scientist in this day and age, and you know it was absurd. On top of that he got gold star health insurance for him and his whole family, they had pretty much the whole nine yards when it came to employment benefits… dental, eye care, all of that fun premium stuff that you seem to think we all just deserve…

 

Elmer had no incentive to work hard for any of that. A lot of the time they sat around on their fucking asses, jokin’ and smokin’ weed because what are you gonna do? Their employers were practically being tied up and fleeced because of Union power these stupid monkeys had. They didn’t know when enough was enough, and they didn’t care. That story ended with the coal industry pretty much capsizing, and laying off all of their miners little by little as they switched to an absolutely disgusting alternative… flattening the Appalachians with pure machinery.

 

The point of this story is to illustrate the universal selfishness of what we’re dealing with in people. There is no safe assumption that everyone has an obligation to do “the right thing”, and as I’ve demonstrated, doing so would be disastrous for whatever scenario. Sorry man, but it hasn’t worked in the past, and it won’t suddenly start working in the future. People are simple, and they’re selfish. It’s best to mediate and control that instead of ignoring it or pretending it isn’t the case.

Agree with most of the above, it happened in my country in the 60's and 70's the unions almost destroyed the economy, Thatcher dealt with them. I'm not arguing for a leftfield socialist society, I believe in capitalism it has dragged more people out of poverty than any other system we have tried. But as with unions and multinationals alike, there has to be a happy middle ground.

 

in the 60s/70s UK things had moved too far to the left, people took advantage of their union power. Now it has moved too far to the right and companies exploit people and societies far too much, balance needs to be restored.

 

the one part I disagree with above is the part about health care. Everyone does deserve healthcare, society should provide this, this has to be a base level that we agree to look after each other in this basic way. And if you are working you definitely deserve it. As I said a little bit can be skimmed off the top to pay for this. Once you have a secure and healthy workforce you have higher productivity.

 

The proof of this is already out there, the most successful countries (measured by population happiness, levels of healthcare, educational attainment, GDP per person) are countries who have strong, but well regulated industry and unions who work side by side. The taxes in these countries, for individuals are high, but the benefit to all of society is obvious. These are Northern European countries, specifically Scandinavia and Germany. They aren't perfect but at the moment, in these regards, they are quite a way ahead of the UK and US.

 

I'd add that both our examples are overly simplified. Both these changes took place (both coal mining examples in UK and US) because there was a need to modernise our economies. Living standards and wages had risen to the point that it was no longer economical for heavy industry to exist at the same size it had previously. Globalisation and cheap imports killed it. We were also in the process of trying to grow the middle classes so they could consume more. A process China is starting to move through now.

[Mihle]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

*Snip*

BTW, EU doesnt mention Monopoly at all in this case.

[suicidalfranco]

10 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Usually from Americans I see mentality "it's their company/search site, they can do whatever they want" though. Imagine MS banned Google from IE in 90s huh.

what do you expect when things likes this are almost a non issue, "they're companies, they're supposed to do all they can to make money", lel

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/lawsuit-comcast-sabotaged-small-isps-network-then-took-its-customers/