How about April 15th, its "Tea Day" well technically its "Tax-day Tea-Party" (someone shot right past the obvious name and went for long and convoluted).
Apparently someone else is trying its hand at "trendy" grass roots movements. Look its got sub-culture revolution written all over it! They gots the iPHONE wallpaperz! HOW HIP IS THAT!? Even though they say they aren't part of the GOP I still think its a lame attempt to stir up trouble.
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.
I think that you are having trouble expressing this fundamental concept because it is more of a spiritual belief than anything rooted in actual cause and effect. So long as an action both fits within your moral code and is in the long term interests of a company it can be said that either motivation is in play. Are their any cases where your moral priorities contradict the long term interests of the company? In these cases do you believe that the company will eventually be rewarded for following the moral path? If so, by what mechanism? (ie karma, divine intervention, etc) Keep in mind that an answer like "increased employee loyalty and productivity" simply goes back to the first question and puts the action into the category of being in the interests of the company if the costs are smaller than the benefits.
Im not clear on what your specific moral code is, but I will attempt to give an example: The company has recently hired an artist that is not up to standard. This artist is severely lacking in both technical and artistic ability in addition to being such a slow learner that it would be extraordinarily time consuming and expensive to train him up to standards. However, he is highly motivated and loyal to the company, working late every day and putting in unpaid overtime on the weekends in an attempt to learn the required skills and be productive for the company. Sadly, these efforts are not working and despite his extra work and all attempts at inhouse training it is clear that he simply lacks the mental faculties to do the work or to be taught how to do the work. Should this incompetent employee be fired even tho he has been loyal and hard working towards the company?
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.
Have you ever seen a business plan written from a linguistic or physics perspective? Even linguists and physicists dont try to do such things when opening a company. This strikes me as a lot of hand waving to defend what is essentially a mystical outlook.
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.
Coke cans did not evolve and could not have evolved for a number of reasons, chief among them being the fact that they do not reproduce and are incapable of passing their traits onto future generations. Complexity has nothing to do with this.
If you could define what your moral code is and the mechanism that it uses to dispatch rewards that can not be foreseen through rational self interest this would be much easier to discuss.
In hong kong fkin crazy place so damned crowded haha
anyway I kind of feel theres alot of idealistic thinking going on, not to say that its a bad thing, people starting business ventures have to engage in the corporate world, banks, taxes, and all that fluffy stuff that companies have to comply with. So be ready.. they are out there to kick your ass and I mean it..
Here is my philosophy-- the moment a I have a day where I think I got paid less than the work I put in is worth to me, I start looking for a new job. Every time you have a day like that you are being fucked. No amount of at-a-boys and pats on the back are going to make up for it.
Flip it around and you're saying me as a business owner should consider firing you the moment I feel I'm not getting my money's worth of work out of you?
For shit's & giggles go to rescuetime.com and try it for a few days. See how many of your 8 hours a day you're actually working. I'm not suggesting you're a slacker, it just puts things in perspective for people who complain about working too hard or whatever. Obviously there are exceptions and ridiculous abuse out there..
Flip it around and you're saying me as a business owner should consider firing you the moment I feel I'm not getting my money's worth of work out of you?
For shit's & giggles go to rescuetime.com and try it for a few days. See how many of your 8 hours a day you're actually working. I'm not suggesting you're a slacker, it just puts things in perspective for people who complain about working too hard or whatever. Obviously there are exceptions and ridiculous abuse out there..
Now about the 8 hours/day thing. It is not my fault if a company wants me to come in even on days I don't feel like working-- that is how they set their priorities, but I am used to working contract jobs where over and over I add value to projects and hit deadlines. If I didn't provide exceptional value for my work I wouldn't have any work.
Why does it sound like many people assume companies randomly hire people, and as such you could just "end up" with a bunch of lazy untalented idiots?
Hello, you hired them. The best way to avoid having to "hold everyone's hand" is to not hire anyone who requires hand holding. You CAN treat everyone equally and give everyone high pay if you only hire good employees...
So when speaking in idealized generalizations (all equal, etc) why is it unrealistic to think of the workforce as equally idealized? If you're smart enough for one you're probably smart enough for the other.
Replies
Apparently someone else is trying its hand at "trendy" grass roots movements. Look its got sub-culture revolution written all over it! They gots the iPHONE wallpaperz! HOW HIP IS THAT!? Even though they say they aren't part of the GOP I still think its a lame attempt to stir up trouble.
I think that you are having trouble expressing this fundamental concept because it is more of a spiritual belief than anything rooted in actual cause and effect. So long as an action both fits within your moral code and is in the long term interests of a company it can be said that either motivation is in play. Are their any cases where your moral priorities contradict the long term interests of the company? In these cases do you believe that the company will eventually be rewarded for following the moral path? If so, by what mechanism? (ie karma, divine intervention, etc) Keep in mind that an answer like "increased employee loyalty and productivity" simply goes back to the first question and puts the action into the category of being in the interests of the company if the costs are smaller than the benefits.
Im not clear on what your specific moral code is, but I will attempt to give an example: The company has recently hired an artist that is not up to standard. This artist is severely lacking in both technical and artistic ability in addition to being such a slow learner that it would be extraordinarily time consuming and expensive to train him up to standards. However, he is highly motivated and loyal to the company, working late every day and putting in unpaid overtime on the weekends in an attempt to learn the required skills and be productive for the company. Sadly, these efforts are not working and despite his extra work and all attempts at inhouse training it is clear that he simply lacks the mental faculties to do the work or to be taught how to do the work. Should this incompetent employee be fired even tho he has been loyal and hard working towards the company?
Have you ever seen a business plan written from a linguistic or physics perspective? Even linguists and physicists dont try to do such things when opening a company. This strikes me as a lot of hand waving to defend what is essentially a mystical outlook.
Coke cans did not evolve and could not have evolved for a number of reasons, chief among them being the fact that they do not reproduce and are incapable of passing their traits onto future generations. Complexity has nothing to do with this.
If you could define what your moral code is and the mechanism that it uses to dispatch rewards that can not be foreseen through rational self interest this would be much easier to discuss.
anyway I kind of feel theres alot of idealistic thinking going on, not to say that its a bad thing, people starting business ventures have to engage in the corporate world, banks, taxes, and all that fluffy stuff that companies have to comply with. So be ready.. they are out there to kick your ass and I mean it..
Flip it around and you're saying me as a business owner should consider firing you the moment I feel I'm not getting my money's worth of work out of you?
For shit's & giggles go to rescuetime.com and try it for a few days. See how many of your 8 hours a day you're actually working. I'm not suggesting you're a slacker, it just puts things in perspective for people who complain about working too hard or whatever. Obviously there are exceptions and ridiculous abuse out there..
Absolutely I think that.
Now about the 8 hours/day thing. It is not my fault if a company wants me to come in even on days I don't feel like working-- that is how they set their priorities, but I am used to working contract jobs where over and over I add value to projects and hit deadlines. If I didn't provide exceptional value for my work I wouldn't have any work.
Hello, you hired them. The best way to avoid having to "hold everyone's hand" is to not hire anyone who requires hand holding. You CAN treat everyone equally and give everyone high pay if you only hire good employees...
So when speaking in idealized generalizations (all equal, etc) why is it unrealistic to think of the workforce as equally idealized? If you're smart enough for one you're probably smart enough for the other.