But if that's the goal, why does the piece end by asking the government to pass anti-discrimination laws? What does that have to do with positive PR for Cook and Apple? As someone else pointed out upthread, if Cook really believes what he's saying, the last thing he should want is for the government to force his competitors to do what's good for their business; he should be happy to let them go out of business, leaving more customers for him.
Just because something is good for business doesn't mean that not doing it will cause a company to go out of business. It surprises me how often this argument is trotted out as a matter of fact as opposed to a theoretical outcome of perfect competition.
Just because something is good for business doesn't mean that not doing it will cause a company to go out of business.
Maybe not (at least not immediately), but if something is "good for business", it must confer some competitive benefit. Otherwise what does "good for business" mean, exactly? And the competitive benefit is really enough to ground the question I was asking.
"Good for business" is a broad term and (in this case) a political one. It's going to be more true for bigger companies than smaller ones (because bigger companies will be hiring more often for a broader set of positions) and for long-lived companies than fresh startups (because over time, your chance of either making or missing at least one really good hire increases). But if it's generally beneficial to some companies and not detrimental to others, it's "good for business".
Business is a pillar of the civic religion of America, and Americans like the idea of things that are good for people also being Good for Business. Civic-minded businessmen have been touting the positive effects of social progress on Business for decades. Galbraith addresses the phenomenon at length in _The New Industrial State_.
Cook isn't trying to make a persuasive factual argument, he's making an endorsement, the power of which comes from his role at a major American firm. I have no doubt that he personally believes that workplace equality is beneficial to business. The argument against assumes that he's a bloodless psychopath who is willing to condone discrimination as long as it improves his bottom line.
In other words, Cook gives no reason for believing that the government should pass laws requiring workplace equality; he just "endorses" such laws. Why should I care?
If you're a white heterosexual male with no disabilities you don't care. carry on, business as usual. If you're not white, or not straight, or not male, or if you have some kind of disability, or etc etc you care because you don't want some fucking arsehole denying you a job purely because of that difference.
Perhaps you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking why I should care about workplace equality; I was asking why I should care that Tim Cook "endorses" having the government pass laws to enforce workplace equality, in view of the fact that he just got through arguing that it's in the best interest of businesses to uphold workplace equality anyway.
That said, I'm not sure I understand your position; are you saying you want the government to force the arsehole to give you a job? Do you really want to work for that kind of arsehole? Wouldn't you be better off getting a job from someone like Tim Cook, who doesn't need to government to force him to uphold workplace equality?
