Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey
I'm not asking about just healthcare. I am talking about companies in general publicly supporting dem ideas and almost never hearing about them supporting repub ideas.
The only exception to the repub rule I can think of is when a bunch of CEOs came out and told people the negative effects of raising MW. They were of course very quickly shouted down and most of them immediately gave a public apology for explaining how businesses run and how the economy works by saying something along the lines of: What the hell do I know I just run a fortune 500 company? I am sure the general public is right and the things I predicted won't happen - I apologize for suggesting something different.
Well a couple of things. When talking about this particular bill I do think that the reason why all these NGOs and various interest groups are coming out against the bill is exactly what I said. That the GOP hasn't put together some larger framework that they could take to the various organizations and tell them, this bill is bad for you but the upcoming bills, printed right here for you, are good, so vote tell your members to vote for this and you'll be ok. They don't have that, they just have some vague platitudes that worry these groups. Which is what happens when you just rush a bill and don't take time.
As to the larger point. Companies are largely apolitical or rather they just political enough to not stir the waters too much. Google takes down sires deemed blasphemous in Pakistan even though they say they're committed to freedom of speech. Why? To make money. At the start of Jim Crow railroad companies resisted segregating their cars. Why? Because it was annoying to have to stop at the border and refit their railway cars to be segregated. But by the 1920's and 30's railways were selling discounted tickets and travel bundles to go to lynchings. Why? Because of increased competition from cars. I posted an article in the Death of the Democratic Party thread about supposed heavy hitters in the Democratic fold who espouse "feminism" but who make concerted efforts to stop unionization of hotel maids, a group almost entirely of women. Why? Because unionization would cut into their company's profits. So what kind of feminism of these Democratic big wigs talking about? The kind that sounds nice, but doesn't rock the economic boat too much. "Lean in" and "Be Bossy" might help women in the board room but it's not going to effect a company's bottom line.
To get to the why Democrats and not Republicans, I'd say that the playing field has largely shifted to cultural concerns rather than economic. LGBT/vs Christian, bathroom bills, immigrants vs non immigrants. On these things the Democratic side is much easier for businesses. It's best for businesses to allow everyone in as to give businesses the largest labor pool possible and most of the Republican concerns aren't employment related (They aren't demanding that LGBT people be disemployed), but rather about cultural standing. Same with immigration. The Republican cultural issues are annoying for businesses, but that doesn't mean that if say hardline nationalism actually did become a cultural zeitgeist in America, Facebook wouldn't be touting themselves as employing (only) Americans. They would, because that would make them money.
Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 03-09-2017 at 02:12 PM.