The modern business model doesn't give a shit about you.
polycounter lvl 18
hey folks!
I've been looking into the encorporating side of things lately, and I found something out that i thought would be *neet* to share... it's something that most of us probably know on an intuitive level, but might not know from a business perspective.
the intent of a corporate business venture is to provide lots and lots of money for the shareholders of the company. this is usually the board of directors, or any executives, like the treasurer, the CEO, what ever. anyway, when a business venture happens, it's looked at in terms of a financial investment -- a 'business plan" that basically amounts to (money in) - (money out)
here's the joke:
employees are understood as an expense of the business. of course this is intellegent from a financial perspective, as paying people IS an expense, but the point is that on a business plan, you are considered in the same way a stapler is considered.
people might want to preserve their staplers, but nobody really gives a fuck about them. they're not part of the business plan, they don't get dividents on shares, they dont get shit. from the perspective of the executive team, they're not even really part of the business... just a nessisary expense. even if you get a boss who really likes you and wants to make sure that you're happy, you'll never be the same as him, because the modern business model simply doesn't work that way, unless he's paying you with stock of a high enough class to get dividents from the company profit.
this is why the CEO of GM can get what ever fucking bonus... because the business model doesn't OWE SHIT to the employees -- they're simply an expense for the real goal-- to provide LOTS AND LOTS OF FUCKING MONEY for the dudes who run the company. that's it! once it's their money, they can do what ever the hell they want with it! nobody ever cared about paying employees. EVER.
that's where the term "human resources" comes from. language always gives you away...
I've been looking into the encorporating side of things lately, and I found something out that i thought would be *neet* to share... it's something that most of us probably know on an intuitive level, but might not know from a business perspective.
the intent of a corporate business venture is to provide lots and lots of money for the shareholders of the company. this is usually the board of directors, or any executives, like the treasurer, the CEO, what ever. anyway, when a business venture happens, it's looked at in terms of a financial investment -- a 'business plan" that basically amounts to (money in) - (money out)
here's the joke:
employees are understood as an expense of the business. of course this is intellegent from a financial perspective, as paying people IS an expense, but the point is that on a business plan, you are considered in the same way a stapler is considered.
people might want to preserve their staplers, but nobody really gives a fuck about them. they're not part of the business plan, they don't get dividents on shares, they dont get shit. from the perspective of the executive team, they're not even really part of the business... just a nessisary expense. even if you get a boss who really likes you and wants to make sure that you're happy, you'll never be the same as him, because the modern business model simply doesn't work that way, unless he's paying you with stock of a high enough class to get dividents from the company profit.
this is why the CEO of GM can get what ever fucking bonus... because the business model doesn't OWE SHIT to the employees -- they're simply an expense for the real goal-- to provide LOTS AND LOTS OF FUCKING MONEY for the dudes who run the company. that's it! once it's their money, they can do what ever the hell they want with it! nobody ever cared about paying employees. EVER.
that's where the term "human resources" comes from. language always gives you away...
Replies
That's how everything works. You keep the cash and power moving up.
A religion is a business.
A country is a business.
etc..
etc...
good ones value the staff and want to keep them.
I nave found the larger the company the more impersonal it becomes and the more they are
likely to screw you over.
But everyones expoerience will be different.
The moral of the story is 'always be mission essential'.
Yeah lowest bid but could still be worth in the millions. U.S. air force Raptor cost something like $137 million per jet. The worst weapons I think are the ones that are costly to make, overstuffed with tech but still easily vulnerable to small arms fire like the Cobras and whatever APCs deployed on the roads right now (versus i.e.d.s).
MagicSugar, this is a bit of a sidetrack, but our new overpriced APC actually exceeded everyone's expectations and does NOT break all the time. We've only had a handful disabled, and had quite a bit thrown at them.
I appreciate the post but the content is not entirely accurate. While employees certainly are a cost, they are also critical to a business in many cases. Certain places utilize "key man" insurance because certain employees are indispensable. Additionally , many employees , typically the management team (down to the leads) , are listed in a business plan for start-up ventures.
Further, there are many types of businesses; corporations are not the only kind. And they're not even the most prevalent. The calculations you mentioned are required because a business is a financial transaction; it's not the "cult of GM", or the "cult of Safeway, where emotions and flowery speech are used as currency.
All of this is really dependent on who is running the ship, as is the case in many other aspects of life.
Lastly, "your weapons are made by the lowest bidder" is an incorrect generalization. There is something known as a "single source justification", which allows the Government or major firms like Northrop and General Dynamics to choose whoever they want ( I know because my company has been the single source provider before, and we bid well over the other companies). Not to mention that the Air-force has many trials between two competing craft , and usually choose the one that fits their needs.
Either way its easy for a few people to sink the whole ship. I think the important thing to remember is that when you are being interviewed, you are also interviewing them. Never assume that any work place is perfect or the dream job. By being skeptically optimistic (if that even makes sense) you can help make sure you are getting as little of the shaft as possible.
I was thinking more literally than that. Along the lines of "who gets to take their mask off first to check if the nerve gas concentration is really non fatal or if the detector is just broken again".
Equipment is a whole other ball game, but the craziest stuff tends to stems from their obsession with fielding platform for 30-50 years. If youve never had to work with a computer network composed of parts ranging from 1 to 30 years old and incorporating backward compatibility for machines based on vacuum tubes consider yourself lucky.
Secondly thats how companies have been for ages its nothing new.. and its not as simple as you say you take GM which is part of GE the largest company in the world, it doesnt work like that in all companies and to say so is misleading. In the UK manufacturing has gone down the tubes and a large part of the GDP is service sector industry, and the people that work in these service sectors be it recruitment to trading to all sorts are paid on a basic salary plus a commission bonus based on performance.
not everything can be equal for everyone thats not how capitalism works you want fairness to all people then go live in a communist country with your ideals, and you wil complain that everyone is corrupt and that communism doesnt work either..
So how would you have it then ? some dirty hippy, tree hugging idealistic model that is not grounded in reality where everyone works for free and everyone has everything they want.. ?
But yeah, I have that shitty promise to myself that if i ever make my own company i´ll treat mah peeps right. I´ll probably end up being a greedy bastard though and sell every employees first born to the devil.
Because people are not staplers. Because the reason companies get away with treating employees like entries on a spreadsheet is because otherwise smart people (such as yourself, and others who have stated similar opinions) defend this practice. Because the practice, and your opinion, is ignorant, short-sighted, and dangerous.
It is ignorant because the most successful business people are often the exact opposite of what you are describing. If you look at the origins of any of the large corporations today- from Ford to KFC- odds are you'll find a business person who cared very much for his employees. Good business people have understood for a long time that employees are the most important asset of any company. And to compare them to a piece of equipment, or treat them as just an entry on a spreadsheet, is a terrible and terribly unsuccessful practice from a purely business point of view.
It is short-sighted because you are pretending as if all business has always been 'profit at whatever the cost.' It has often not been this way, and while the goal of business is and forever must be to make a profit, it does not have to do it in a morally bankrupt, or even morally agnostic, way. In fact, again you'll find almost any successful business understands this. The companies that don't- well, just look at what happened to the US financial industry, the US auto industry, etc. Hopefully this economic disaster will remind us that profit at whatever the cost ultimately destroys companies.
And finally, it is dangerous because it is you who must both bear the burden of these practices, and it is you who are responsible for them by letting them happen. When people wake up to the fact that there's more to an economy than economics, you will start getting treated differently. A very few companies control the vast majority of jobs and markets, and not all of them are bad. Some of them are good. We shouldn't excuse the bad ones for some absurd and misinformed philosophical reason, because it isn't healthy for them and it certainly isn't healthy for us.
to much truth in here
First things first -- I know that we all pretty much know this already. What`s interesting to me here is finally seeing it from a business perspective -- it`s one thing to be able to understand that, yes, the corporate system in generally very psychopathic, and another thing entirely to actually see the business model explicitly spelled out.
Also -- the point here isn`t that everyone`s evil and out to screw you. I`m sure that you can find lots of examples of bosses who care about their workers, but there needs to be a simple understanding here:
a business is there to make money, and you, as an employee, are not part of that picture. you might get paid a better wage if the company does better; after all, if a company has a REALLY good stapler it`ll probably take care of that stapler, but you aren`t part of the goal of the company. you`re just a resource.
rolfness- please do check your assumptions before you start flinging shit around. I figured somebody would call me a communist. Why is it, when you attack a system that`s CLEARLY failing in more ways than one, that you get accused of being a commie? common dude.
here`s how i personally see the world.. The world is full of pussies who all want to be successful and live happy lives, but they`re too closed down and fearful to do anything about it. I personally dont want to work with anyone who wants a goddamn paycheck and a secure job, but that`s just me. I figure, i`d like to get people who are willing to make scarifies. if we get investor money, we divy it up. when we benefit, everyone owns a piece of the company. I dont really want to work with someone who just wants to show up and have a day job. I dont want to be around that type of energy. if you`ve got kids and you want a secure job, then go for it.
I want to own what i`m building... and i want people around me who also own a piece. I don`t personally believe that people invest their all into something that`s not going to give them anything back. that`s not communism, that`s capitalism... it`s just not psychopathic.
Unless you are an exec, in which case you can utterly suck or just flat out fail to do your job and still rake in a top dollar salary as well as huge bonuses.
It IS a bad thing. As was pointed out, people are not staplers. Where's the fucking humanity in modern capitalist society? My brothers keeper, and all that shit, yada-yada
Im not calling you a commie, Im suggesting you try the commie method. Im reacting as such simply because you are taking a very negative view on the whole way things are set up. And its easy to see why when times are bad. But when times were good and they have been for while now, no one complained how things worked.. why? Because everyone was employed, everyone was making good money. recessions have always been great finger pointing times, and its alway pointed at the system oh the system is broken oh the system is corrupt. These voices werent heard in 2007. No one talks about the the individual business owners who borrowed too much, spent money too inefficiently, making product that was over priced and poorly finished. Banks didn't asses risks correctly yes. but at the same time they didn't lend cash to lampposts. People took what they could and took risks far greater than they could afford.
One thing that you are forgetting is that when you start up a company, and you pay people to do a job is that the company owns what the employees create, simple fact. you are paid to add to the companies intellectual property. the only way an employee can make something and own it is if he works as a freelancer and licenses the rights to his IP to a company that then puts it together. It wont work.. why? because firstly each employee would have to have their own infrastructure to make such assets. Can you image a car company in this way? Secondly its too costly and if you cant be competitive in a commercial market you will die. cold hard fact, thats why china is a powerhouse.. everything is done cheaply. Yes at the expense of workers rights, environment and etc. Long term china cant hold out either its population will get richer and better educated.. shitty jobs just aren't good enough, like how it is in the west currently, everyone has a pretty good idea of the standard of living that they would like and will do what they can to maintain it. And so what happens? manufacturing will move again. Maybe africa next time or south america. This wont happen for a long time as the maturation cycle for something like this is generations.
Secondly in order to invest this money on projects involves risk. Such risk is not borne by the employees it is born by the shareholders who invest in the company. They provide cash in either loans to the company or by injecting cash straight into the companies equity. If everything goes well and sales are good the shareholders get paid loads of money. Thats a fact of the mass market model. But when the product sucks and sales are bad who loses all the invested capital? the shareholders. Thats why theres marketing to make the risk as calculated as possible thats why so much crap is samey these days because the companies are pursuing models and formulas that work. Product evolution is a very darwinian in that sense.. lose money on a particular iteration of a product and it wont be used again or it will be reworked. The shareholders benefit from sucessful products and lose out on the turkeys. And all this time the employees on all the different levels get paid.
Finally no one likes to be a stapler and not everyone can be the boss, and as to what Rob said is very true, small startups care about people, and its good to care for your workforce, but as companies grow from SME to MLE, there needs to be standardization of procedures be they relating the work being done or workers rights. Why? to manage cost and maintain order. Theres no point of having rules if they are bent to suit individuals, especially in a large company. it would be mayhem and you would have to lay down the law. It all comes down to competitiveness...If you aren't willing to do it someone else will.
Im sorry if this makes me out to be an asshole Im just saying things from how I see them.. as they are, Im not being malicious .
In the middle of crunch? Project really needs me? Bullshit. If they really needed me they would pay me for my time.
Anyway, I prefer contract work. You get paid for the hours you put in then, but then I started my own company...
What is really strange about a corporation is that it is an imaginary friend that has the very real power to be legally responsible for things. If that seems absurd to you, it is because it is. If you made the people who owned the company (ie ALL the stock holders) legally responsible for their company, things would be a whole lot different. GM can't pay it's debts? They would take it from the shareholder's bank accounts. Company breaks some laws, and earns some prison time? split it up and send the shareholders there to serve their time.
That's a gross misinterpretation of the truth. Caring for good employees is wildly different than patting everyone on the back (at your own expense) based purely on morality and common good. If a company isn't giving you the respect you deserve, sure, get a new job. But whining that nobody is taking extra care of you just because you're human too is ridiculous. No company should set out to better their dead weight. And if you aren't dead weight, you shouldnt be so beholden to a bad company that you can't just switch jobs if you're being mistreated.
As you state in the second part of this paragraph, they valued their employees very much. This is different from actually caring about them. They looked at the future benefit minus cost equation and realized that over the long term that benefit category was very large.
I am interested in getting into this whole business thing. I dont want to be an employee. I think it's a loser's game, and this thing that i'm sharing is just soemthign that illustrates that perspective. I'm not tryign to change the world, i'm just saying "hey guys! this really sucks. don't you think it sucks? man, we shouldn't be playing this stupif fucking game, it's for losers."
please note-- this is NOT me bitching about how it sucks to be an employee, in the sense that someone should "treat me better".. My personal attitude is, if i see soemthing that sucks, i just.. don't do it. I'm sharing that because I'm hoping that other people see things the way i do.
If mr. Ebagg here, and some of the rest of you, think that this employees-outside-the-circle thing is obvious, then why the fuck do you all work jobs? why don't you get off your asses and do something to support yourself financially, instead of working to get someone else rich? it must be because you haven't quite learned yet that it's a loser's game you're playing. it's.... not obvious enough yet.
obviously.
now, rolfness -- about the whole finger pointing thing.. I personally think that our ecconomic system is a joke, and it's reaching the breaking point. when you've got a system where massive companies are creating artificial wants in the consumer base, what you have is capitolism turned on it's head. to be honest, i haven't noticed the ecconomic down turn yet. this ranting of mine has nothing to do with working conditions.. this has to do with realizing that no matter how good your working conditions are, the game is stacked against you. the system is fucked if you're an employee. it doesn't matter how much you're getting paid, or how many tvs you have.
also-- I agree with you on the sacrifice thing. It's worth repeating that i'm not really keen on working with anyone who isn't interested in makign a sacrifice quite frankly. I'm not saying that employees should get rewarded more for the shit they do, i'm saying that there shouldn't be goddamn employees -- at least not in the way we use them now.
but that's just for me. certainly, huge businesses function a certain way. I have no dilusions that there should or will come a day when the world won't be like this.. it just comes back to something simple:
the system where people are seen as an expense, rather than investors, is fucked. I want no part of it... and I don't think that I need to support that system.. at least not right now.
oh, and one more thing --if you work with a team of people who own equal shares in the company, the company can own the artwork, and each person owns and equal part of the company. that's actually why a corporation exists, to solve the problem you bring up.
(oh, and i dont think you're an asshole. i get it now. sorry about that throwing shit comment)
of a company thing.
Some people like to be in a secure environment, take home a pay cheque and have a life.
That is not really a losers game I think for some people.
Not everyone out there is getting fucked over.
Wages for artists are pretty good these days on the whole and it beats working in a factory
Some people are geared towards running their own business/taking decisions, some people
shun that kind of responsibility which is not a bad thing or at least I would n't blame them for
it.
If it was me a running game company I would n't change whole lot apart from cutting out
tiers of management that were not required and would pay overtime.
I would also have a certain amount of respect for my workers which seems to lacking in
games.
How do you start something like this up? Say its a game company and you need 20 people.
So you require 20 peoples worth of equipment and software licenses, you need offices, office equipment, these are the fixed costs. Then theres variable costs of actual day to day running of the firm. Lets say for example that the turn around time from start to finish on a dev cycle is 6 months thats 6 months wages, overheads(utility bills etc) and etc. and all this money will be spent on the hope that there is a worthwhile project at the end of the cycle that recoups all these costs. Its not like equipment when bought add to the Nett Asset value of the company. For 20 people, that would already be a large amount of cash. How would you get that money ? If equity is split equally amongst all staff then they would have to cough up the cash. How many would want to do that ? you could get a loan and lend the cash to the company (and will probably put your house or what ever you own against the loan as guarantee to the bank), then you are taking the sole risk, if the company goes into involuntary liquidation, you can kiss the money you put in good bye and all the stuff that was written in into the loan as a guarantee is also gone.. Or get the company to borrow the money itself from the bank. But what does a start up company have in terms of collaterial to provide to the bank as a guarantee?
Secondly is also when it comes down to dividing the shares between staff, some are more valuable than others, lead designers are not the same as asset modellers. Would the lead designer be happy with that ?
I aint trying to poke holes in your dreams either you may be sick of working for people and be willing to go it on your own, for this I salute you, but do it with eyes open and dont put idealism before financial practicality.
must go I got a plane to catch.. setting up my own company in hong kong !!! lol
Because some of us are lucky to have a job we enjoy that also pays the bills. I could start a business, but the business could easily fail...or simply never turn a huge profit. And that's just the way the world works...parts of it. There are many people in the world seeking their place in it, and everyone wants a job. It is really about choice. I'm just a helper bee. An assembly line worker. Expendable. But, employed. When things get bad, just move on to the next place. Make those you're helping appreciate your efforts. Hopefully they'll keep your around, and promote you to a less expendable position...and hope the company doesn't fail...etc.
When it comes to large game companies, you're just a factory worker churning out high priced products from the designer to the consumer. That's why it's an industry.
And still many suffering illusions of grandeur. Beats flipping burgers. I just bought a small island.
I respect your passion and desire to make something better for yourself. My advice would be to find some like minded folk if you can, get your heads down and start working out the practicality of what you're thinking about, solidifying ideas and all that.
I know a few people in similar situations, unsatisfied with corporate work, forming teams to develop personal projects in their own time. Using a typical corporate studio 9-5 job to also network, keep in daily contact with other people who share similar ideas for independant development and also remain in constant contact with the larger corporate industry. Could be something worth considering...
I don't know a whole lot about developing indie projects, but all I keep hearing these days is that with the portable console market, downloadable content on consoles/ iphones and such, it's a golden time for that sort of thing right now. Local governments can also sometimes offer grants to fledgling studios/projects...
Hope some of that was useful to you, best of luck in anything you may attempt.
No, neither of you seem to get it. You are looking at things in the same way as before, precisely the way unsuccessful business people who look at employees (or don't, as the case may be) as numbers on a spreadsheet look at things. Good businesses know, if you treat your employees decently, if you pay them well and respect them, are honest with them, they give more for you, they work harder and work better. This is something that, unfortunately for you, isn't well conveyed on a spreadsheet.
jrs, you are arguing semantics for what is really the same thing. I am no expert on Henry Ford, or Colonel Sanders, but I can tell you for sure they did care about their employees. They saw them as more than staplers, they cared for more reasons than positive gain in a 'future benefit minus cost equation.' Because if that is why you are going to treat people well, you are not going to treat people well. People then you get into the despicable mentality proposed above: "Caring for good employees is wildly different than patting everyone on the back..."
Good entrepreneurs and businessmen (especially the former) know this- they actually do care about employees, just for being human beings, who have made the decision to place their livelihood in the hands of that employer. These people understood the obligation being made, the relationship being entered into. They did what was right, because it was right, and because it was right it yielded those blatantly obvious benefits, like getting people to work harder for the company, or even make sacrifices if the company isn't doing well, because the company has treated them with trust and humanity. It isn't the other way around, it isn't that the companies treated staff well because it was valuable- because as soon as someone decided it wasn't valuable, they stop getting treated well. And somewhere along the line, that is exactly what happened. It comes down to values, and some companies have them, and commit to them, and some don't. It is the companies with strong values (especially when it comes to treating well and respecting, and caring for, employees), who stick to them, that are successful. The best cost-benefit analyst in the world has never been able to do that, and will never be able to do that, if he doesn't understand the human component.
If I can't make you understand this, it is because you have a mentality shaped entirely by our corrupt zeitgeist and not by the reality and history of more successful times passed. And if you don't want to believe this, well, I feel sorry for you. The human mind and spirit is a powerful thing, it can be easy to ascribe all motivation to external and identifiable factors such as economics, especially in our economically infatuated culture where we believe money is a valid excuse for any behaviour. There are many companies that exist that have values, that care for employees because they are employees, and these are the companies that you don't hear about often, because they soldier on and can weather problems. The giant companies that treat employees like shit, are often the ones that fail especially because of corrupt management, those are the ones you seem to have modeled your conception of the modern business model on. And to some extent, it is the modern business model- but it is unsuccessful, it hasn't been that way, it shouldn't be that way, and the only reason it is that way is because people like you excuse it.
There is a difference between caring for someone and caring about them. While individuals (including owners and managers) are fully capable of caring about people, businesses are not. Businesses are capable of caring for people, but they dont really care about anybody or anything beyond long term profitability for the stake holders.
Let me flip this on its head: If your company goes under, when you drink that bottle of scotch and cry yourself to sleep (not trying to say that your an alcoholic or insult your masculinity, its just a figure of speech); are you sad because your poor company is out of business or because your out of a job (maybe even a really good job that will be particularly hard to replace)? If you are for some reason sad about the company is it because of your own personal relationships with other people involved or because you are concerned that the investors may have lost money? If that employer offered to keep the doors open so long as you worked without pay would you do it? If for some reason you would, would it be because of a personal obsession with the project/other people working with you on the project or because you truly care about the company and its interests? If you find an unexpected way to make/save the company a lot of money do you take the oportunity because you benifit from your employer staying in business and maybe even hope that your actions may be noticed and eventually rewarded, or because you want the investors to see an extra percent return this year?
Now putting this back into the original perspective: if your employer spends time and money maintaining the building they are officed in, does that mean that they really care about the building or that they expect a well cared for building to be more profitable for them in the long run? If for some reason the person in charge really did personally care about the building and used their professional position to put more time and money into maintaining it than could possibly be recouped, would that not be recklessly negligent of them?
A quality stapler that is carefully maintained may be much more efficient and profitable for the company than a cheap stapler that is abused and thrown away weekly but it is still a stapler.
I really hate line by line breakdown posts, but I did just want to pull this one piece out as well:
They did what was "right" (and right is a highly subjective term, especially here) because they forsaw the benifits it would yield in the long run. These traits that you are seeing in sucessful business acting in a rightcious way and being rewarded by the heavens sounds more to me like businesses taking a long term view of their success and carefully managing their image.
Im not particularly familiar with most of the cases you sited, but as far as Ford goes he saved quite a bit of money by forseeing the unionization of factories and heading it off by making smaller consessions before workers even thought to ask.
Edit: and not to Godwin the thread or anything, but Ford was a full on Nazi. If anyone was undeserving of karmatic rewards it was that man.
If you want to make games get ready to deal with the business side of things. Also know that starting your own business forces you to make some tough decisions that effect other peoples lives.
no matter how intelligently or well thought out you make your posts, tacking something like this on the end just makes you look like an ass. Seriously? If you don't agree with me it's because you're brainwashed, if you agree with me then you are obviously thinking clearly.
As for the discussion at hand, I have no problem making my bosses richer. They do work I don't want to and have more responsibility than I do. They aught to get more money if that's what they want. I've never been one to shout 'that's not fair' and demand that everyone get equal shares - if I was satisfied with my salary yesterday, learning the boss makes 26 times as much isn't going to make me less satisfied. That's not what I base my happiness or sense of self-worth on.
Generally, I've been fine with the way things are set up - and yes, I've worked in warehouses and as road clean-up crews where no one gave a shit about me. You know what? Sometimes that's what I want.
But I've probably been indoctrinated since birth to not care about money in order to make me the perfect slave. I just want to make art.
I've had meetings about this with my former project Manager. I asked him to quantify "Quality" for me (he couldn't). Then I asked him to quantify Morale for me (he couldn't), but also defended that morale is "completely irrelevant" in a business model.
I explained to him morale is the difference between employers giving 5% or 110% effort. Morale holds a direct correlation to quality. And quality has a direct correlation to sales.
Unfortunately North American virtues are completely embedded in capitalism. We live in a culture where it's perceived normal to sue each other for money we don't have. Heck the entire recession is directly related to the competitive nature of capitalism.
Is it morally and ethically WRONG to stab a fellow human in the back for a buck? Of course it is! But it's so deeply rooted within our culture, and the entire business structure of America always has been and always will be founded on stepping all over the backs of others to get to the top.
It doesn't HAVE to be like this, if everyone can be completely trusted. But unfortunately more entrepreneurial individuals will find ways to exploit the others, thus repeating the cycle.
That's fine by me in the way you state it but it isn't that simple. Lower-downs tend to bear both the risk and the burden. You are the one that gets laid off, not the management, when it is management that screws up. And when employees do well and profits are up, your boss does end up 26 times more than you. No, you don't need to be less satisfied if your boss makes 26 times more than you, the issue comes down to fairness and responsibility. There are some execs who are worth it, who make great changes and run great business. However in the vast majority of cases, the black and white case doesn't happen- bosses get rich and the workers don't, and when the axe falls, the workers get it and the bosses stay rich. That is what I have a problem with, because I consider that making money irresponsibly.
Alright I seem to be incapable of expressing something fundamental. Successful businesses are run by people that care about their employees. Business that care only for long term profitability in and of itself end up unsuccessful. I've explained and supported this a number of times and it is borne out in history and in present facts. Businesses are not people, they are inanimate, like staplers- they cannot care about anything. The people running businesses, as you've said, are fully capable of caring about people. The disconnect is that you see business as some faceless venture only beholden to investors and shareholders. That is exactly what got us into this fiscal mess. A business is run by people who are fully capable and imbued with morals and choices. Do not give them a free ride because they sit at the head of a business, as if this is the way things are supposed to be. Businesses are nothing, they are inconsequential- it is about the people who run them.
Can I be sad for all of those things? Or must everything come down to one singular driving force behind all human emotions, feelings, and actions? This is the essence of my argument- that you cannot just assign a single motivation to behaviour, that it is a combination of a variety of things. And when you realize this, it has serious ramifications in what is and isn't acceptable in the business world.
I just want to point out that every area of academia has some fundamental thought that their area of academia is the primary force responsible for 'human nature.' This is true of economics, theology, linguistics, biological anthropology, physics, chemistry, a plethora of philosophies, etc. Economics is just an easy one to understand because you don't need to know anything about economics to understand it. But when you take any of these in the absolute or singular, you're doomed to misunderstand and see what always amounts to a very small piece of the picture.
This building analogy reminds me of the 'coke can' analogy I heard a creationist use to explain intelligent design, that the coke can obviously could not have evolved, and we are more complex than a coke can, in that vein. What he has missed is that life, and in our discussion human beings in particular, are not objects. We are not buildings, we are not staplers. When you try to subject people to cost-benefit analysis, it won't work. It is why companies have values whereby they commit to treating employees well, to honesty, integrity, etc. And this is in response to your point about doing the 'right' thing, as well. Yes, perhaps if companies with values failed and it was much better to see people as staplers, strong companies would see people as staplers and the failed companies would have compassion and care. But that simply is not the case, it is entirely the reverse, and again if the cases I've pointed out, intuition, current events, and common sense, aren't enough, do some more research (I hate to put the onus on you but the facts are out there). Companies don't just care about people because of a cost-benefit analysis, they care about people because the company sticks to its values. It believes in the values and that it will make a successful business. Because as I said in my first post, and is obvious: "the goal of business is and forever must be to make a profit." Strong companies realize, and any company that is now big has at one time realized, that having values about how you treat employees, and sticking to those values through thick and thin, make strong companies. That is why they are values, because we don't throw them away when things get tough. We know they are the right thing to do and stick with them, and the people who have values in accordance with caring for and about employees are successful.
This is an absurd point. He treated his employees well enough so they wouldn't need to unionize. Exactly what I'm talking about. Except it wasn't some diabolical calculation by shareholders and board of directors- it was completely in-line with the company's values that were established from the first years of the company. This is exactly what I get frustrated with, assigning some stone-cold economic calculation to all decisions, seeing all business as having to be some sort of faceless calculating entity. He set down company values and followed them, and was successful, even when criticized and even when companies told him it wasn't working, Ford survived the depression, and went on to become the most successful auto company in the world for a while. This wasn't done through ruthless calculation, but a strict adherence to core principles that they believed were 'right.'
Again, i disagree fundamentally. I actually agree with the general gist of what you're saying -- showing respect to your employees and realizing they aren't just numbers is vital. Being hones with an employee is vital. But honestly, a large percentage of your work for is not, honestly, worth keeping around if you have someone average or better to replace them. Hard workers deserve to be noticed, rewarded, promoted. Average or below average workers, though? You aren't running a social club. Don't be a dick to them, but be honest and clear -- if you aren't pulling your weight to the business, you do not have value to the business.
Jack Welch, an enormously successful businessman (someone brought up GE before, seems pertinent) actually suggested an even fiercer version of that approach. Business is a partnership between you and your employees, and treating them with respect is vital. But honest evaluation of their worth to you is too, or else you're running a sinking ship. There is absolutely no room for friendship or sentiment, you are not running a social club.
To clarify just a little bit:
I agree with your that employees should be treated with respect, honesty, and when possible complete disclosure. However tacking any emotional or sentimental responsibility to your employees is absolutely ludicrous and has no place in business whatsoever. It's the kind of idea a toddler would come up with. YES, THE NUMBERS WILL LINE UP IF EVERYONE FEELS GOOD ABOUT IT!
Even if you are your boss's best and only friend, he needs to see that to the *business* (an abstract concept based around financial numbers) you are only as valuable as you are productive. You are not the business's friend. You are either an asset or a liability, and you need to be approached as such. Rewarded and retained, cut loose, or repurposed. The team that fields the best players wins. Obviously it's necessary to reward, train, and motivate that team. But that team is not made out of everyone you'd met and felt bad for, or who has been your friend, or who has really needed the job. It's the people who work well with your business, with eachother, who care about it. It's definitely more human than a stapler. But it's still not grounded in sentimentality. In the perfect world, all of your employees are treated great, and business is booming, because they all deserve it. In order to get there, you may have to trim the fat sometimes.
Every country outside of the USA firmly believes in Universal Health Care. It's a paradigm we all share that EVERYONE deserves health care, regardless of economic class. It's a value we hold as a compassionate human beings.
M.D.s down in the states while completely capable and able to help someone dying on their table, are often not permitted out of fear punishment, from either the hospital, or Insurance companies.
Because the US Health Care System is a business, the patient is viewed merely as a financial burden on a spreadsheet. There is a direct correlation between the patients life, and a dollar value.
Business ethics are all rooted firmly in the belief that there is a dollar value attached to a person. It's irrelevant whether that person is happy, struggling, a parent, a spouse, is old or young.
But like the health care system, it doesn't have to be like that.
However, this is more a point of fact so it is a bit quicker to respond to.
Henry Ford's treatment of his workers was specifically designed to reduce turnover and to prevent unionization. Ford himself wrote that his labor policies were a business decision and that they were quite profitable.
Other fun facts: He used hired thugs to violently combat unionization when profit sharing proved insufficient and advanced his religious objectives by hiring investigators to monitor his employees moral activities outside of work.
making the best and most enjoyable games.
as soon as you start losing focus on that, your company loses focus, and you start churning out shitty games, and you might as well file for bankruptcy, and do other work.
I want to quote-respond everyone, but i won't. I'm with Rob, for the most part, but I think that everyone's values here are fairly similar. anyway.
i figured out what pisses me off about this whole thing... and before i say this, i want to re-itterate that yes, i agree 100% with the fact that some people just want to be employees, and those people should be respected and fairly well paid.. to a certain extent of course. if you're scared of change and growth and you want to be an employee, fine. if you're so scared of growth that you don't want to strive to be a GOOD employee -- what then? where does the pay scale come in?
one again -- this is personal for me. I dont want to work with someone who isn't interested in being my partner. I want to see the people I'm with thrive, because I want to love them, and i want to see them bloom.
ANYWAY.
An employee is not an empowered situation, and weather you treat your employees with kindness or NOT.. THE MODERN BUSINESS MODEL is inherently sociopathic on a certain level -- if everyone who worked at the company got paid more, the CEO couldn't take a 1.2 billion dolalr bonus. it wouldn't fucking happen.
for me, it feels like this:
there's a race, to get to a big pile of gold at the end of a large racetrack. the gun goes off, and a few of the greedy people charge. most of us stay back. I feel concerend -- there isn't enough gold for everyone over there. I look over at a few others like me and discuss this point, but eventually get fed up and take a step. i look back -- there are still 99% of the people just sitting there. i say
"hey guys! common! maybe we can divy this up a little bit better here.. i dont need to have everything.. i want to see everyone be happy"
but there they sit. so i take another step, and another step, and then I start bitching at them, and they tell me that they're staying where they are because it's safe, and they've god kids, etc... so... fine.
there but for the grace of god go I.
so what do i do? I dont want to employ these people.... I want them to COME with me and take a larger cut. i want them to take MY MONEY -- because it's not mine in the first place.
To me, this isn't about how well we treat employees -- this is about the fact that the very notion of an employee is fucked up... and anyone who REALLY cares for people would EMPOWER THEM to thrive.. to grow, and radiate themselves, to become influencial, to fuck who they want to fuck and be free.
I dont know a single person who's doing anything of benifit to the world who hasn't taken care of his lower needs very well on some level. it's a goddamn moral obligation to be wealthy on some level. how the hell can you do anything positive in this world if you're working for some dick making shitty shovel ware video games for the rest of your life?
it's a waste.
More text means more people will NOT stop to read it. Way to go, nice job drowning your points in oceans of text.
Milton Friedman? Many people don't realize he had a part in there talking about how people with more money should have an obligation to share it with the community to some degree to raise the standards of all.
Given, it was a very small part of his theory. A theory I might add that this recent wallstreet fiasco has somewhat disproven as per even Greenspan, a Objectivist has stated he overestimated the markets ability to control itself.
Anyhow.. (I read the book which I understand is better)
[ame]
Or if you want to see it all.
[ame]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-684415688278839051&hl=en[/ame]
[ame]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7052046910074531527&hl=en[/ame]
Well I wish you good luck in your adventure, and a safe landing in the world of "Everyone is special and deserves what they haven't earned."
Keep smokin'.
carpet bomb empowerment on that day.
pick a date. ( I'm in )