How have you been foregoing profit for your work during this calamitous time? Have you been laid off like many people or are you simply returning the cheques that your employer sends you?
Personally I've been continuing to show up for work despite my employer not having sufficient funds to pay me but I understand that every situation is different.
Profit != wages. A company profiting off a test is not the same as a worker being paid for their labor. Something being made at cost would price in the cost of labor, while profit is in excess of that (and all other expenses).
Personally, I would do (and have done) certain kinds of work without monetary compensation because I want to see it done, or because I think there's some other upside.
However, I probably wouldn't ask that of LabCorp in this circumstance, because what I want from institutions providing testing is scaling up while providing an effective product/service. Not getting revenue makes that considerably harder.
Public subsidies might make a lot of sense, though, especially to the extent that everyone wins the broader/deeper test coverage is, but not everyone has a disposable $100.
Such a tough conversation. I want to think that these firms should do this research out of the goodness of their hearts, but i know that their employees want to go on vacation and send their kids to college. I believe in the invisible hand, and honestly don’t know the solution to these healthcare problems. Maybe just raising taxes and paying for all research by the government, but then I worry about the inefficiencies therein.
Personally I'd love to see someone explore the idea of incentives that heavily favor benefit corporations and/or employee-owned coops for commercial activity in direct support of human rights (assuming we're approaching the problem from a place where people agree access to healthcare, medicines, etc is a human right).
People who do the incredibly valuable work of developing drugs shouldn't be forced to live a life of squalor, and can be compensated generously for the value and complexity of their work, but I think most people's objections to pharma companies as they typically exist today are centered around companies reporting substantial profits and conflated ideas about obligations to shareholders.
Its a lot easier to feel good about a company reporting a profit if you're confident the company's governance structure ensures that profit is mostly lockboxed for future R&D instead of a shareholder dividend to people who may not even know their investment is funding medicine.
I think a reasonable calibration would be charity=good, usual behavior=usual, and active malice=bad. Having a return around the cost of capital is usual behavior, so I think complaining about a company profiting off a disaster by selling the product that they usually make is kind of like complaining about a person not giving to a food bank.
Because of the way our system works, you and I will pay that 10% in the form of taxes and insurance premiums. I for one, am glad to reward companies who are contributing to the solution for this crisis. Profit is the reward we give to companies for good behavior, and wouldn't you agree that companies who are making tests are behaving well?
No, I do not agree that profit is the reward for good behavior, nor that companies attempting to profit off making the tests are behaving well. In fact, profit is often the reward for some very, very harmful behavior. I would say it is at least borderline sociopathic to conflate the profit motive with the desire to do good. Your premise is, again, flawed.
I would be glad to pay for the tests through my taxes if it means people can get them now, for free.
The problem isn't the profit, it's the kinds of behaviours to which profit is allocated.
If profit really was a reward for good behaviour, no one would have a problem with it. (Except bad actors.)
In this situation, the goal is to get as many high quality tests out as possible.
If this is truly a reliable and useful test and results are available quickly, then the ideal level of profit is one that maximises that result - i.e. a small profit on each kit to encourage volume sales.
If the tests aren't reliable enough to be clinically useful and they're being sold to the public without a context (i.e. no information about what the result means in terms of changed behaviour or risk) then the kits should be banned for wasting everyone's time and money.
If you want to split hairs, I don’t have a problem with LabCorp profiting per se from the test. I have a problem with the cost being a barrier to people getting it. If the government were to pay them cost + a small profit to offer it free at the point of delivery, I would have no issue.
I have a philosophical problem with profit being the only motivation for producing the test, but that takes a backseat to practicality here.
Well that’s just it, isn’t it? We are talking about corporations, not people. A corporation is motivated by profit and is, in some loose sense, a “psychopath.” Sure, corporations are composed of people, but your moral argument is a lot more complicated in relation to an aggregate of people instead of just an individual.
Anyway, more tests are available than would be had LabCorp not existed, so seems like a win-win to me.
On the other hand, businesses in other industries that are not so beneficial to society will happily charge gob loads of money for their services. IMO giving these companies some profit is a good thing, so long as the money is made available so that everyone can afford the product, and so long as it doesn't stop or slow it's distribution.
How do you stay in business long enough to be able to save future lives if you don't any money to do so in the first place.
Should only billionaires and elite have their drugs?
What your proposing isn't actually how the world works. Why don't you go out of your way to go get the same degree as them and make sure you make the bare minimum. Want to spend money on that new machine? Can't, you're only able to charge the cost it took to make the drug, and that new machine wasn't used so it's not in the price...
Profits are about growing and expanding the business, generally a good thing.
