Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder if this is a function of a customer base that has become more and more demanding, less forgiving of mistakes, and on top of everything wants rock-bottom pricing in return for 5-star royalty treatment?
When a company's business consist of this type of low-quality clientele, should we be surprised when employees/bosses operate with the same sort of dysfunction?
That maybe this whole "customer is always right, at all costs" mentality is a big driver for today's cutthroatedness in most businesses?
What are your thoughts on this?
That's an interesting point. Personally, I have always thought that the "customer is always right" mentality is a load of bull. REALITY is that the customer is NOT always right. NOBODY is always right. I think that it's spawned an attitude of entitlement among the customer base, which in turn forces companies to jump through hoops to keep their clientele happy. But companies shouldn't be promising things in the first place that they can't realistically back up. It's ludicrous.
Focusing on reality, the way things REALLY are, and dealing with people and situations on a case-by-case basis is the solution. Yes, there are things that must be dealt with in a certain way, but not all of life or business is black-and-white. Of course, it takes mature, evolved, empathic people have the depth and breadth of knowledge to understand how to deal with people effectively, and those qualities aren't things that can be manifested with a snap of the fingers. Business is, the majority of the time, not about truth at all. It's about who can get the most, the quickest.
I think that anything that is greed-based is doomed to failure. People think that all they need to do is attain a certain position, have a certain status, make a certain salary and that means they've "made it". Nothing could be further from the truth. You take an empty, greedy person and put them in a position of power, and watch how rapidly they destroy not only their own life, but the lives of everyone around them.
There have been studies that have shown that outside of prisons, the next most common place to find sociopaths is in management positions. It's not surprising, really - the current corporate culture rewards backstabbing and throwing people under the bus in the name of greater profits. Oh, sure - it may kill the company in the long run (or even the nation), but who cares so long as profits this quarter are up and everyone at the top gets their big bonus!
Sadly, snakes are everywhere these days. You just can't trust anyone at work anymore. Too many people, too few jobs, and a culture that rewards "results" - which really means "making money even if you basically killed a guy to do it." It's sick...
This nation's warped obsession with granting more power to those who have it while stripping power from those who lack it is a huge part of the problem. It blows my mind to watch poverty-stricken people vote in favor of candidates who have made it quite clear that they support the ruling elite only and would gladly throw 99% of the nation to the wolves if they could get the chance. While neither party is worth much, you have to wonder why people would flat-out vote against their own best interests just in the hope that those in charge will "stick it" to the people a bit further down the socioeconomic scale. In short, it's okay to vote for some clown who destroys jobs provided he doesn't destroy *your* job... just the jobs of those "lazy / uneducated / whatever" people who make slightly less than you do. That's the system today, and it is unreal!
Rambler,
Have you ever considered running for political office? For what it's worth, I would vote for you in a heartbeat! .
Not the REAL Christians. I'm a far-right Christian and I believe that socialism is the best way to run a society and an economy.
Let that sink in. I have always voted Republican. I hate almost everything Obama stands for. I may never vote Republican again because even they aren't conservative enough for me anymore.
But I WOULD PREFER SOCIALISM.
Here's the kicker. The only type of socialism that has any chance of working for any society is an Amish-style socialism wherein every member of the society believes in the socialist movement and supports it with his/her efforts. It would fall apart as soon as one person dissents. The socialist society can only function if nobody ever tries to milk the system to get unnecessary benefits, and if nobody ever tries to play the system to get any concentration of wealth beyond what's necessary to live a comfortable life. The socialist mantra is truly the most human of all - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Essentially, it's the golden rule.
America could never be socialist because there are too many greedy people and too many leeches. I have no problem with someone amassing an amount of wealth necessary to secure a comfortable life. I DO have a problem with people amassing millions of dollars and just hoarding it for themselves (or, even worse, buying ostentatious luxury products like Rolls-Royces when a Honda will transport them just fine). That is never necessary. I don't care where you live - it is never necessary. I have no problem with a sick or disabled person receiving free money or free healthcare as long as he/she did not unduly exacerbate his/her condition by doing unquestionably stupid things like smoking, binge drinking, daredevil stunts, etc. I DO have a problem with people lying, cheating, and manipulating just to stay on the dole and not have to work for their money.
Interesting post, RomaniGypsy; enjoyed reading your viewpoints. I agree with some of what you say, though I'm of a different political persuasion, to say the least.
Though off-topic, I have to address a couple of your points:
First, one could argue that CAPITALISM only works when all members of the system support it. That it will (and does) begin to fall apart when so-called champions of the system - particularly those who have been its greatest beneficiaries - "dissent," or, more precisely, bastardize the system when it suits them. The banking and auto industries are perfect examples. Bailouts? Of taxpayer's money? Because you're in financial free-fall due to your own corrupt/foolish/myopic/shortsighted business decisions? So, what suddenly happened to the capitalist ideology that the market should decide?
Second, I understand your point about people receiving "free healthcare" when they routinely make poor choices that have the potential to affect their own health. However, one can easily interpret the workings of private health insurance in the same way. Health insurance companies are in the business of health care; that is, their main objective is not the health and well-being of US citizens nor of the public health of the US. No, their main interest is profit. Big, big, and ever-bigger profits.
The same principles that apply to auto insurance apply to health insurance: no matter how responsible are our own choices, we ALL end up paying for the imprudence and recklessness of the few. So, in order to continually increase their profits, health insurance continue to raise the premiums, deductibles and co-pays of EVERYONE. The thought of helping to pay for universal healthcare that will cover the healthcare costs of irresponsible people ticks YOU off? Well, paying ever-increasing costs for private health insurance because other people choose to eat poorly, drink and smoke excessively, exercise little, and willingly partake in life-threatening pursuits, annoys the heck out of me.
The percentage of snakes in management and not in management is about the same. Those in management do have more power so their ability to inflict pain is greater. Part of the problems is that union contracts, the civil law system and government regulation hinder managers from addressing each case on it's own. So a employee that is 5 minutes late one time a year gets treated the same as an employee that is 5 minutes late once a month. The sad fact is that if you set a rule forgiving being late once a month many employees will believe it is their right to be late once a month and try for two.
I agree. Government/Union involvement in the free market and the cronyism and corruption that often follows creates incentives for businesses to become cut throat and get away with it. In a free society only companies that treats their clients and employees well will succeed and the ones that treat them poorly fail. More competition among employers for good workers also raises the bar. However, when big government steps in and basically cherry picks which companies fail and succeed based on who's congressman's wife worked on the company's board of directors or which company does the most lobbying in Washington...we get threads like this.
Interesting post, RomaniGypsy; enjoyed reading your viewpoints. I agree with some of what you say, though I'm of a different political persuasion, to say the least.
Though off-topic, I have to address a couple of your points:
First, one could argue that CAPITALISM only works when all members of the system support it. That it will (and does) begin to fall apart when so-called champions of the system - particularly those who have been its greatest beneficiaries - "dissent," or, more precisely, bastardize the system when it suits them. The banking and auto industries are perfect examples. Bailouts? Of taxpayer's money? Because you're in financial free-fall due to your own corrupt/foolish/myopic/shortsighted business decisions? So, what suddenly happened to the capitalist ideology that the market should decide?
Second, I understand your point about people receiving "free healthcare" when they routinely make poor choices that have the potential to affect their own health. However, one can easily interpret the workings of private health insurance in the same way. Health insurance companies are in the business of health care; that is, their main objective is not the health and well-being of US citizens nor of the public health of the US. No, their main interest is profit. Big, big, and ever-bigger profits.
The same principles that apply to auto insurance apply to health insurance: no matter how responsible are our own choices, we ALL end up paying for the imprudence and recklessness of the few. So, in order to continually increase their profits, health insurance continue to raise the premiums, deductibles and co-pays of EVERYONE. The thought of helping to pay for universal healthcare that will cover the healthcare costs of irresponsible people ticks YOU off? Well, paying ever-increasing costs for private health insurance because other people choose to eat poorly, drink and smoke excessively, exercise little, and willingly partake in life-threatening pursuits, annoys the heck out of me.
Socialism while well-intended has many unintended consequences. For one, it wastes resources by forcing everyone to pay for the mistakes and reckless of behavior of others. The profit-motive of capitalism, despite it's evil reputation..keeps waste and inefficiency in check. The insurance business is actually a good example in demonstrating the fallacies of socialist policies.
The insurance industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in this country. Left wing-socialist insurance industry mandates such as "No-fault" car insurance and laws against barring coverage for "pre-exisiting conditions" have caused costs to skyrocket and force the young, healthy, and cautious to pay the bulk of the difference.
Governments have no problem with these mandates because they have nothing to lose and all the election votes to gain. In the private sector, if an insurer doesn't set premiums solely based on the risks of that person filing an expensive claim or isn't otherwise cautious of who they insure, they can go out of business. Government on the other hand never goes out of business.
Capitalism works just fine if kept within our own borders. It fails when Hyper-capitalism (yes, that's my term so don't touch it), is applied. Hyper-capitalism where continued double-digit quarter growth is expected, outsourcing everything but a handful of positions is "normal", lean inventory is implemented, leaning on taxpayers for "bailouts", unfair corporate bankruptcy laws, the driving down of wages with immigrant workers, making bad long term decisions for short term gain, etc., is the real problem.
No company can deliver growth every quarter. It's not possible. I don't care what they make or what service they provide. However, idiots with money expect this every quarter.
As we head into the future, companies will start having to make choices as to whether it's more important to squeeze an extra 5% growth from moving to Mexico and risking an armed revolution, or keeping those jobs at home and pocketing a little bit less.
Capitalism works just fine if kept within our own borders. It fails when Hyper-capitalism (yes, that's my term so don't touch it), is applied. Hyper-capitalism where continued double-digit quarter growth is expected, outsourcing everything but a handful of positions is "normal", lean inventory is implemented, leaning on taxpayers for "bailouts", unfair corporate bankruptcy laws, the driving down of wages with immigrant workers, making bad long term decisions for short term gain, etc., is the real problem.
"Hyper-capitalism." It's got a good ring to it. And it well describes the concept.
"Hyper-capitalism." It's got a good ring to it. And it well describes the concept.
Don't worry! I WON'T touch it, but I like it.
I've also heard the term "end-stage capitalism" applied to this concept, though that's also not an official term. Either way, the concept is the same - gut the nation to keep profits rising, and who cares who suffers or dies so long as those who already have more than they could ever need get a little bit more.
Socialism while well-intended has many unintended consequences. For one, it wastes resources by forcing everyone to pay for the mistakes and reckless of behavior of others. The profit-motive of capitalism, despite it's evil reputation..keeps waste and inefficiency in check.
I think one can plausibly argue that massive concentrations of wealth are at least as inefficient and detrimental to society as any of the pie-in-the-sky leftist economic policies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
