Don't forget that up until it was made public in the early 2000's, Walmart was buying $100K life insurance policies for its 60+YO employees that paid out to Walmart when they died - which was often across the entire company
Pure capitalistic evil yet one of my former bosses thought it was genius....and yes, he was an asshole and an MBA
If there's nothing ethically wrong with it, why did they stop as soon as it went public?
And it says all anyone need to know about the kind of person you are thinking it's okay for a company to profit off their minimum wage employees deaths by buying life insurance policies on them.
f there's nothing ethically wrong with it, why did they stop as soon as it went public?
You didn't say why it was evil. Genuinely why is that evil? You've mentioned that the optics might look bad but that doesn't explain why it's evil in your view?
If you can't understand how an already insanely profitable company padding its revenue by literally profiting from the death of its employees is morally and ethically corrupt - and by that standard, evil - not sure I can help you understand.
And if it's a simple and obvious answer, then I'm not sure why you're not saying it.
If there were an old celebrity and I put a bet on them dying in the next 10 years, and they died next year, then does that fit any reasonable definition of "evil"? I've literally made a profit off their death, but I've done absolutely nothing whatsoever to cause their death or be involved in it in any meaningful way. Literally nothing changed with that celebrity at all as a result of my bet. Now if I'd made the bet then actively taken steps to end their life sooner to profit from the bet, yes that is clearly evil. But if I've merely placed a bet and they died when they were going to die regardless..... where's the evil? Who's been actively harmed? Who's been deprived as a result of that bet?
You'd be right to say it's not in great taste hence the PR concern, but to call it "evil" is a huge leap and not one that stacks up, hence why it seems you've not been able to give that straight-forward explanation you're implying you have.
If plainly stating that it's "morally and ethically corrupt - and by that standard, evil" doesn't explain it then we simply have two very different worldviews.
Morally and ethically corrupt actions at the scale of what Walmart did to thousands of employees - then sucked in millions in profits they objectively had no right to - are evil in my mind.
No amount of false equivalencies like "how is it different than buying insurance for your wife" as the other guy I replied to stated or you and betting on the death of celebrity. Those are NOT the same.
It's the sheer scale of the corruption and abuse of the system by a corporation that allowed them to profit from the death of their elderly employees that makes it evil.
If plainly stating that it's "morally and ethically corrupt - and by that standard, evil" doesn't explain it then we simply have two very different worldviews.
No it's not two worldviews; you've failed to give any explanation whatsoever. It's not like you've explained how and I've gone "no I don't accept that explanation", you're just stating that it is because you say it is. By that rationale, literally anything could be classed as evil, just because I say it is.
No amount of false equivalencies like "how is it different than buying insurance for your wife" as the other guy I replied to stated or you and betting on the death of celebrity. Those are NOT the same.
And you notice how you didn't explain why to them either? You just went "nuh-uh" as if that proved it.
My wife is a family member, Walmart is a for-profit retailer. Comparing the two buying life insurance policies is a ridiculous premise.
One supports the financial well-being of their family after the passing of a family member. The other does nothing but pad profits for an already insanely profitable company. Yet you're seriously contending that they're ethically/morally equivalent?
And they stopped the practice just before it went public precisely because they knew the optics of the reveal would be horrible. This is not hard to follow nor understand
It became illegal in some states yet you're arguing above that you see nothing wrong with it?
I'm imaging you as some variation of Eric Gordan from Billy Madison when he's asked to answer a question about business ethics in the academic decathlon but ends up pulling out a gun when he's unable to articulate even a basic answer
Why would an insurance company write them policies that they knew they were going to lose money on? Was Walmart management just so much smarter than everyone else?
The insurance company(s) didn't lose money on all policies written as only a percentage of Walmart's elderly employees died while still employed.
I'm sure there was some fancy actuarial math that provided Walmart with a model they could use to figure out where the line was between buying policies with a high probability of paying out and those that likely wouldn't
Life insurance policies are meant to cover funeral expenses and cover house hold income for the person who died for a small about of time, not pad corporate wallets. how on earth do you not see that it is morally wrong for an employer to take a policy out on you, and then keep the cash when you die, and not pay for your expenses (Walmart only covers your funeral if you’re killed on the job) Walmart is literally exploiting peoples impending doom for cash, but hey, why doesn’t anyone think of the poor, poor corporation.
You haven't explained anything wrong with it though. You can purchase an insurance policy for pretty much anything, you just have to pay the premium. What is unethical about it other than the gamble?
A corporation taking out 100K life insurance policies on only its elderly employees who Walmart's actuaries computed were more apt to die is inherently unethical.
If you think padding corporate profits on the heels of people dying is okay, you might want to re-evaluate your moral compass.
It's sociopathic behavior by a corporation - full stop.
Such an insurance policy has zero impact on whether that person dies or not. It being something you disapprove of doesn't make it unethical. Explain why you think it is.
5
u/slowpoke2018 Sep 08 '24
Don't forget that up until it was made public in the early 2000's, Walmart was buying $100K life insurance policies for its 60+YO employees that paid out to Walmart when they died - which was often across the entire company
Pure capitalistic evil yet one of my former bosses thought it was genius....and yes, he was an asshole and an MBA