Reference no: EM132270862

Reply to this discussion post:

Redistribution of wealth is a topic many avoid at any cost. I lead off with the comment on wealth because it is not the government nor the laws which allow for poor working conditions, it is the investor. According to the video, Are Westerner Consumers Willing to Pay More For Apparel? It is the risk of losing investors which cause both employers and governments hesitancy in enacting safer working conditions and better benefits.

I have a suggestion. Perhaps we, as a society leading the rest of the world, should reconsider what it means to be an investor and re-examine what liabilities should exist with the investor. A local business would be held accountable if drinks are served to someone who then engages in unlawful behavior. Perhaps the investors of that establishment should also be held accountable.

The basic relationship would be one where if you provide the means you become responsible for the actions. Oddly enough, this only applies to certain segments of the law.

Currently an investor is only liable for an amount up to the amount of the investment. But under the current laws, if it can be established the element of “knowing” or “prior knowledge” of an event, then the law can hold “an investor” accountable. Why it is not done is a good question. Probably the answer is tied up with the concept of “foreseeable outcome” where an investor would have to know a particular individual was going to be hurt, not that someone will be hurt, but in the cases of drunk driving incidents, the likelihood of an accident occurring could be the final factor.