Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[SirRumpole]

Yep, but just like people, some companies look down one day and relies they let themselves go, and need to get back into shape or they have a heart attack and realise they aren't going to survive on their current diet.

So they take out their own incompetence on their employees ?

Since this is/was a discussion about morals do you think sacking employees is the objective moral response to managerial incompetence, or should it be the managers that leave ?

 

[luutzu]

I didn't make my way to financial independence by being gullible, But you have to see the positives that are clearly there, don't fool yourself, know the difference between being skeptical and being cynical.

Skepticism is a great tool, to much cynicism is lead in the saddle bags.


yes listen to critics, not cynics. The sky is always falling to a cynic.


Plenty of them out there if you can see the wood for the trees.

I'm actually very optimistic given my chosen field and knowing what I know.

Capitalism as currently practised and encouraged - with bigger is better, "free trades" etc. - these has done more harm than good. Both to democratic principles of governance, as well as destruction of the planet and its people.

That's why Buffett gave all his money away to do good for humanity. He sees that capitalism and its drive for profit ain't doing any dam good for the world. Yes yes, he talks of higher standard of living nowadays compare to the Rockefella... If he actually believe that Corporations will bring well being to the world, he wouldn't be giving it away so that it'd do good.

 

[luutzu]

So they take out their own incompetence on their employees ?

Since this is/was a discussion about morals do you think sacking employees is the objective moral response to managerial incompetence, or should it be the managers that leave ?

Good point.

Also, I don't know that many corporations inner workings, but it's not always the "fat" that gets cut. It's who's your daddy and if he's high up enough to do the sacking or being sack himself.


Have a family friend who did pretty well for himself working as a programme/coding manager at some firm. Bought a nice house, raising a nice family... and a few years later he was working as a bus driver because Microsoft and C# is now the standard language, his company got shut and bills have to be paid so any job will have to do before the bankers get really mad.

 

[Value Collector]

So they take out their own incompetence on their employees ?

Since this is/was a discussion about morals do you think sacking employees is the objective moral response to managerial incompetence, or should it be the managers that leave ?

I don't think there is anything morally wrong with sacking staff if its done in the right way for the right reasons, we aren't feeding them to the wolves.

In certain situations it is morally correct to kill someone to achieve a positive outcome to the wellbeing of others, in some situations its morally correct to fire someone.

 

[Value Collector]

and a few years later he was working as a bus driver .

Good for him.

The world changes, you have to be adaptable, no one owes you are life time job, he might find himself out of work again if driverless buses became a reality, no I don't think we should ban driverless buses to maintain employment of bus drivers.

 

[Value Collector]

.

That's why Buffett gave all his money away to do good for humanity. He sees that capitalism and its drive for profit ain't doing any dam good for the world. Yes yes, he talks of higher standard of living nowadays compare to the Rockefella... If he actually believe that Corporations will bring well being to the world, he wouldn't be giving it away so that it'd do good.

No, he is giving his money away to help fight the big problems that are hard to fight in any other way.

I have never said all we need is business, we need charity and social systems also.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't think there is anything morally wrong with sacking staff if its done in the right way for the right reasons, we aren't feeding them to the wolves.

What is the "right" way ?

 

[Value Collector]

What is the "right" way ?

I have said this heaps of times.

Make sure staff have plenty of notice about the changes that are happening, do your best to reallocate people from the obsolete jobs into other areas, where you have to actually cut numbers offer severance packages to people who don't mind retiring or leaving or offer reduced hours etc,

I said when a company hires staff, I don't think they are taking on a commitment to look after the person for life, and I don't think in generally people expect to work at the same company for life.

except those cushy "Union" jobs, where no one wants to leave because they having be raping the company for years and are all fat(Economically) and lazy, in that case I have no sympathy if a union buster gets in and you are replaced by a machine.

 

[luutzu]

Good for him.

The world changes, you have to be adaptable, no one owes you are life time job, he might find himself out of work again if driverless buses became a reality, no I don't think we should ban driverless buses to maintain employment of bus drivers.

And nobody owes corporations and business owners their "intellectual" properties and assets either. Or we must all respect their rights but they owe us nothing?

No one is arguing that companies must never fire or sack people; and we're certainly not arguing that there shouldn't be any innovation and machineries to replace human labour. We're all for that.

But just as we all want and encourage companies and entreprenuers to innovate and change the world, we should, or they should themselves, be encouraged to understand and appreciate that it's not a one way street.

Roads, bridges, training academies for future employees and innovative workers; the power grids, the plumbing and clean water; security, trade policies politicians conduct on behalf of businesses but paid for by all tax payers... all these mean there is an expectation of those who benefits the most from it - corporations and billionaires... an expectation that they return the favour.

Yes, there are nice capitalists and generous business titans; there are companies and corporation that take their glossy stakeholders statement seriously. But for each one of them, there are thousands who feel no obligation to anyone or anything but themselves.

So taken as a whole, Capitalism, because it put the profit motive above all other obligations, will end up gutting the very host that provide it its nourishment.

This is not to say that corporations are evil... just saying that when, for some reason, you set up a system where the obligation of its officers are to make the most profit and assume that everything else will make it right... well that's a big assumption that hasn't bear any evidence.

Like we touched on before... value and profit are higher and more permanent if corporations and business people think long term, create real value, treat everyone fairly etc. etc.

That or they just cut corners, buy politicians, rigged the system and its tax and environmental codes etc. etc.

Doing what you can to bring the most profit from the least of resources you need to spend... that's a moral duty. Just it is often the case that such objective could be met by other means other than fair play and innovative value creation.

This is why you see corporations, through a wink and a nudge, through their business councils and lobbyists... see why they push politicians for free trade deals that take care of their own interests at the expense of workers rights; why there's a deliberate attempt, one that's been incredibly successful, at causing greater worker insecurity.

Anyway, there must be a balance... and for the past few decades, at least, the balance has tilt towards Captains of Industry and their monopolies at the expense of both government, the governed, the environment and survival of the planet.

As an example, take the arms industry.

We could all appreciate the need for national security and self defence.

But look at what happen when the gov't permit these private interests to freely go after profit.

They sell the latest weapons system to third world dictators, come back and tell their gov't of the need for greater investment in more advanced systems because dictators are pretty advanced now; Or the push and influence of foreign policies into new "markets" to sell arms to.

Or take the energy sector... slow as heck having alternative sources of energy. Why? The technology is there; but the entrench interests doesn't want it. Too much risk to the bottom line - so the world will have to take what they want to sell and suffer or not accordingly.

 

[Value Collector]

And nobody owes corporations and business owners their "intellectual" properties and assets either. Or we must all respect their rights but they owe us nothing?[/
.

I can't see the link there.

You say you are all for innovation and investment, but it appears you don't want companies to have their innovations and investments in intellectual property protected.

So taken as a whole, Capitalism, because it put the profit motive above all other obligations, will end up gutting the very host that provide it its nourishment

I don't accept the premise of that statement.

 

[luutzu]

I can't see the link there.

You say you are all for innovation and investment, but it appears you don't want companies to have their innovations and investments in intellectual property protected.



I don't accept the premise of that statement.

No, I said that their rights and intellectual and real assets should be protected. I was asking what about the rights of their workers and the corporation's responsibilities to the gov't that fund and protect all these rights?

---

Well, accept it or not, that's what is happening. And if it weren't happening, try and walk the logic of that set up to its conclusion and see if it will happen or not.

If a person or an organisation is only out for profit, and they have so much market power and so much cash that there aren't many rich enough to oppose them... Being only interested in money and profit, what do you think that entity would do?

Work hard and invest all their money to make the best product ever? Close down their less efficient and toxic operations to let the new leaner cleaner upstart have a go? Pay workers fair wages instead of lobbying for lower legal wage?

 

[SirRumpole]

except those cushy "Union" jobs, where no one wants to leave because they having be raping the company for years and are all fat(Economically) and lazy, in that case I have no sympathy if a union buster gets in and you are replaced by a machine.

There are a lot of "cushy" jobs in middle-upper management that never seem to get the sack unless accompanied by large golden handshakes.

 

[Value Collector]

I was asking what about the rights of their workers?

Which rights?

 

[Value Collector]

There are a lot of "cushy" jobs in middle-upper management that never seem to get the sack unless accompanied by large golden handshakes.

If the fat is located in Middle and upper management, I am happy to cut that also, I don't mind where the fat is cut from.

Keep in mind, Management up to and including the CEO are employees also, when I am saying its ok to sack employees, I am not talking just about at lower levels.

 

[luutzu]

Which rights?

The rights to a living wage for one. I don't think Seven-Eleven workers are the only group being underpaid.

We talk of efficiency... well a big part of being efficient is to have workers doing the same thing over and over, and does it in front of a conveyor belt.

When people are merely trained to do that, then some new innovation comes along and they are no longer needed... was it really all their fault that they were trained and paid to do one narrow thing and now need to retrain again or get some other job else don't eat?

Look around and practically all jobs nowadays are mere production line type of work - from the high flying professional on down - it's all about "specialisation".

Specialisation is fine when the industry see no need to upgrade; and industry won't see the need to upgrade if the workers keep their heads down and don't ask for too much. But even then, when change happen, it happens and it's all the lazy employees fault.

Come on mate.

A recent example of society's drive to please big business' aim of efficiency and subject matter expertise are at the universities. Sydney Uni cuts a bunch of their degrees... why? To focus on education that works and pays. More efficient to teach less subjects too... and more graduates going out into the work force knowing not much else besides their narrow field of expertise.

Anyway, the good and noble kind of "capitalism" are not really capitalism as we're used to. It's the kind of entrepreneurship we all see through the ages.

While certain things are more efficient and better managed if it's standardized and operate on a big scale... most of that need are stables and utilities and infrastructure - they are not known for, and does not need, innovation much.

 

[SirRumpole]

If the fat is located in Middle and upper management, I am happy to cut that also, I don't mind where the fat is cut from.

Keep in mind, Management up to and including the CEO are employees also, when I am saying its ok to sack employees, I am not talking just about at lower levels.

When it comes to deciding where the fat is, who makes those decisions ?

Middle-upper management. And surprise, surprise, they never get cut.

 

[Value Collector]

was it really all their fault that they were trained and paid to do one narrow thing and now need to retrain again or get some other job else don't eat?

.

I don't think its any ones "Fault", I think its just how things are in some industries.

But again what's wrong with learning to do a new job?

some other job else don't eat

Really, you think people are starving in this country.

We have plenty of people who live their entire lives on Centrelink payments, if some one losses their job they are hardly going to starve.

 

[Value Collector]

When it comes to deciding where the fat is, who makes those decisions ?

Middle-upper management. And surprise, surprise, they never get cut.

If a company gets fat and inefficient, management can be thrown out, and it makes it open to a company like 3G capital to come along and cut out the fat including management fat.

3G capital did it at Heinz and are doing it now at Kraft,

If the fat is in Upper Management its up to investors and the board to put pressure on the company to cut the fat.

 

[luutzu]

I don't think its any ones "Fault", I think its just how things are in some industries.

But again what's wrong with learning to do a new job?




Really, you think people are starving in this country.

We have plenty of people who live their entire lives on Centrelink payments, if some one losses their job they are hardly going to starve.

I didn't say Australians are starving, I said a living wage.

We're not as bad as the US, yet. But look at the policies and the rhetorics... we're heading that way in a real hurry.

 

[bellenuit]

To be honest I think your use of the word religion is a stretch, and not how most people would use it in common usage.

this is the definition most would like of.

When it comes to deciding where the fat is, who makes those decisions ?

Middle-upper management. And surprise, surprise, they never get cut.

My experience with large companies that I worked for or with companies we dealt with is that middle management is usually who is cut first and cut most. Just search Google on "cuts to middle management" and you will see what I mean.