Call it a failed Socialist experiment

[*michaelsean*]

(08-04-2015, 12:28 AM)Benton Wrote: To the bold, eh, no. No one, including Price, is suggesting that. He's suggesting paying the lowest skilled employees more. That doesn't mean they're unskilled, just that they're the lowest pad.

To the rest, no. As Matt has already mentioned, giving employees some ownership proves to be a greater motivator. To draw an example from a real world application, I work a lot with graphic designers. It took advice from some guys smarter than me before I finally realized the best way to get the best results from them was to just give them a very loose idea of what I wanted. That way, they had some control over where their assignment went, some ownership of the project. 

If you want to get the best out of people, hire good people and let them be who you hired. If you hire people and think they're only worth the bare minimum, then you're hiring all wrong. 

I don't know many businesses that don't have different levels of skilled positions.  

[Benton]

(08-04-2015, 09:53 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know many businesses that don't have different levels of skilled positions.  

Agreed. Which doesn't change there being a difference between "unskilled" and "lowest skilled."

[Benton]

(08-04-2015, 12:36 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Pay matters.   And if your* better than the other people you work with then you better make more.  

That is the same for any generation.

*You're.

As far as what you were referencing with Matt, I don't think you were reading the post. His comment was that many Millennials and generations after them are starting to seek more out of a job than the most money. Which is relevant to Price's decision to make less individually so his employees could make more. Which doesn't have anything much to do with "gadgets and gizmos."

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-04-2015, 02:12 PM)Benton Wrote: *You're.

As far as what you were referencing with Matt, I don't think you were reading the post. His comment was that many Millennials and generations after them are starting to seek more out of a job than the most money. Which is relevant to Price's decision to make less individually so his employees could make more. Which doesn't have anything much to do with "gadgets and gizmos."

It is true that my generation continues to exist as living evidence that Lucie's Randian philosophy is nonsense predicated on false assumptions.

But, that is the beauty of faith in a philosophy. No amount of evidence will ever persuade him that any portion of the world is even slightly different than he assumes it is.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-04-2015, 03:54 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: It is true that my generation continues to exist as living evidence that Lucie's Randian philosophy is nonsense predicated on false assumptions.

But, that is the beauty of faith in a philosophy. No amount of evidence will ever persuade him that any portion of the world is even slightly different than he assumes it is.

Of course you don't believe in anything Rand. You guys think everything should free and lose your mind's when you have to pay for something in the digital world, and think it's OK to steal what isn't freely provided.  

[SunsetBengal]

(08-04-2015, 02:12 PM)Benton Wrote: *You're.

As far as what you were referencing with Matt, I don't think you were reading the post. His comment was that many Millennials and generations after them are starting to seek more out of a job than the most money. Which is relevant to Price's decision to make less individually so his employees could make more. Which doesn't have anything much to do with "gadgets and gizmos."

Benton, I'm not so sure that folks seeking reward from their job that is deeper than money, is such a new ideal.  I've known a great many individuals, in my lifetime that are my age (46) and older that chose career paths that made a difference, over a career with a higher payout.  I'm talking about teachers, nurses, social workers, law enforcement, fire fighters, etc.  Most of the folks that work those sort of jobs see it as a calling, what they were put here to do.  As for myself, I'm kind of in that same boat.  I used to get great personal satisfaction from working my hands-on trade.  It was very gratifying to see the smile on a homeowner's face, when they would see their finished kitchen or bath for the 1st time.  Just the same in my new profession, it will give me great honor to attach my seal to legal documents (surveys) pertaining to property that people so dearly love.  Sure, money is great, but client satisfaction is even greater.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-04-2015, 04:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course you don't believe in anything Rand. You guys think everything should free and lose your mind's when you have to pay for something in the digital world, and think it's OK to steal what isn't freely provided.  

Ehhh. Are you referring to Internet piracy?

The real reason we don't believe in anything Rand wrote is because we actually read it. And saw that in addition to being a very poor literary artist, she also espoused a brutal philosophy based on numerous fallacies. Thus the reason you won't find a single real philosopher on the planet who affirms her philosophy.

I realize that Rand is something a lot of people get into when they're 18 or 19 and want to brand themselves with something other than mom and pop's religion, but seriously... The Tea Party crowd needs to grow up and read real books.

[Belsnickel]

(08-04-2015, 06:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Benton, I'm not so sure that folks seeking reward from their job that is deeper than money, is such a new ideal.  I've known a great many individuals, in my lifetime that are my age (46) and older that chose career paths that made a difference, over a career with a higher payout.  I'm talking about teachers, nurses, social workers, law enforcement, fire fighters, etc.  Most of the folks that work those sort of jobs see it as a calling, what they were put here to do.  As for myself, I'm kind of in that same boat.  I used to get great personal satisfaction from working my hands-on trade.  It was very gratifying to see the smile on a homeowner's face, when they would see their finished kitchen or bath for the 1st time.  Just the same in my new profession, it will give me great honor to attach my seal to legal documents (surveys) pertaining to property that people so dearly love.  Sure, money is great, but client satisfaction is even greater.

This is because of the switching that occurs between generations. Each generation tends to, overall or in a general fashion, take on ideals more similar to their grandparents than their parents. They of course take on a different look because of the technology and things going on around them, but in general the ideals are similar. Now, some people may fall in a generation but have more in common with the generation before them. For instance, my parents are Boomers, even though I'm technically a Millennial. So I have some things in common with Gen X, but some in common with Millennials. It's a very interesting thing, this.

Anyway. you're right, it's not a new thing. But it is just one of those things that runs contrary to the way many people view not just Millennials, but human instinct as well. But the studies I referred to earlier go beyond even this. Even the Gen Xers, the ones that are more money driven, are better motivated by other means than monetary as well.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-04-2015, 06:32 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Ehhh. Are you referring to Internet piracy?

The real reason we don't believe in anything Rand wrote is because we actually read it. And saw that in addition to being a very poor literary artist, she also espoused a brutal philosophy based on numerous fallacies. Thus the reason you won't find a single real philosopher on the planet who affirms her philosophy.

I realize that Rand is something a lot of people get into when they're 18 or 19 and want to brand themselves with something other than mom and pop's religion, but seriously... The Tea Party crowd needs to grow up and read real books.

Nice that you get to decide what a real book is.  We should get them to read Upton Sinclair instead.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-05-2015, 10:38 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Nice that you get to decide what a real book is.  We should get them to read Upton Sinclair instead.

Well, if nothing else, Sinclair was certainly a more talented writer than Rand ever was.

(Psst... instead of getting mad at us for calling conservatives stupid, try getting smarter. )

[GodHatesBengals]

By the way... Nobody ever explained how this story has anything to do with "socialism".

[*michaelsean*]

(08-05-2015, 08:10 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Well, if nothing else, Sinclair was certainly a more talented writer than Rand ever was.

(Psst... instead of getting mad at us for calling conservatives stupid, try getting smarter. )

Certainly better at lying.  Mad at you calling us stupid?    Please tell me you are still in college.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-06-2015, 10:21 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Certainly better at lying.  Mad at you calling us stupid?    Please tell me you are still in college.

Well, Sinclair certainly did play fast and loose with the facts; I've never been a fan. It's a bad analogy though, because I don't think Sinclair ever tried to pass himself off as a philosopher like Rand did. Rand's entire philosophy is built on falsehood.

I graduated several years ago. Not that it's relevant.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2015, 12:34 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Well, Sinclair certainly did play fast and loose with the facts; I've never been a fan. It's a bad analogy though, because I don't think Sinclair ever tried to pass himself off as a philosopher like Rand did. Rand's entire philosophy is built on falsehood.

I graduated several years ago. Not that it's relevant.

He may have played loose with the facts in "The Jungle".  He lied in Boston.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-06-2015, 01:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He may have played loose with the facts in "The Jungle".  He lied in Boston.  

Alright?

Not sure how your distaste for Sinclair, someone I've never defended, rebuts anything I said about Rand, someone you have defended.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2015, 04:32 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Alright?

Not sure how your distaste for Sinclair, someone I've never defended, rebuts anything I said about Rand, someone you have defended.

I did?  

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-06-2015, 04:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I did?  

That was the impression I got when you implied young people are free-loaders and it's therefore no surprise that they don't like Rand.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about your opinion of Rand by condemning her ideas, though.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2015, 04:48 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: That was the impression I got when you implied young people are free-loaders and it's therefore no surprise that they don't like Rand.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about your opinion of Rand by condemning her ideas, though.

It is correct that freeloaders would not like Rand.  That is a statement not a defense.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-06-2015, 04:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It is correct that freeloaders would not like Rand.  That is a statement not a defense.

Not only is it an implicit defense, it is also factually incorrect. The biggest freeloaders in the country--corporations who receive government breaks, contracts, entitlements and bailouts--have been advertising Rand ever since they invented the Tea Party movement. Not to mention, Rand herself became something of a freeloader at the end, "begrudgingly" accepting Social Security.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2015, 04:56 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Not only is it an implicit defense, it is also factually incorrect. The biggest freeloaders in the country--corporations who receive government breaks, contracts, entitlements and bailouts--have been advertising Rand ever since they invented the Tea Party movement. Not to mention, Rand herself became something of a freeloader at the end, "begrudgingly" accepting Social Security.

No it's not an implicit defense.    If I can say of course entrepreneurs don't like Marx, they believe in making their own way, is that an implicit defense of Marx?

The Tea Party was against all of the bailouts.