(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. 

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

(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.

(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."

(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.

(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."

(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.  

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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. )

(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.

(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.

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

(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.

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

(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.

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

(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.