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.
his expiriment hasn't failed. the biggest "hard times" he's experiencing is other companies are mad at him for doing it.
EXACTLY. I thought this immediately as I read the original New York Times article, but I couldn't come up with such a pithy way to say it.
People are framing this as if the CEO decided to pay everyone at least $70,000 and that proved not to be a sustainable business model. And maybe it isn't, who knows, but nobody has suggested that it's not. Instead, he seems to be failing because he didn't take into account that some people are enormous jerks. I myself knew people were jerks but I have to admit that until this story came to light, I didn't quite grasp the magnitude of jerkiness that's out there.
See, I've always known that people like to succeed, and that they often define that success as making lots of money, but I didn't realize that so many people require that success to occur at the expense of other people. I wonder if that's a recent trend in our culture. It does mirror a development I've noticed in American conservatism during my lifetime.
When I was a kid just starting to follow politics, it seemed that the essential difference between liberals and conservatives was that liberals wanted to help everyone prosper, while conservatives thought that while it would be nice if everyone could prosper, that's an unrealistic ideal -- government can't really make it happen and it's dangerous to try. But at some point in the past 25 or so years, that philosophy has shifted. Now, more often, conservatives appear to espouse that it's undesirable for everyone to prosper, not because people's lives would be negatively affected -- by definition, they wouldn't -- but because it's morally wrong. To me, that's a pretty disturbing idea.
In this story, you seem to have a lot of people who have bought into this newly popular Randian philosophy cutting ties with the company because they're opposed to its morals, not because the business model doesn't work.
How many times does socialism have to fail before people realize it's a bad idea?
First, there was nothing socialist about it. Second, it had nothing to do with the success or failure of the company.
Third, if you define socialism as wealth redistribution, then it is something every developed country in the world does extensively. It's actually essential to the prosperity of any consumer-capitalist system. If anything the US does it poorly and not enough.
It would probably work better as a continuing annual bonus out of profits, something like what the Kingston Technology CEO did when his company was sold, except on an annual basis:
EXACTLY. I thought this immediately as I read the original New York Times article, but I couldn't come up with such a pithy way to say it.
See, I've always known that people like to succeed, and that they often define that success as making lots of money, but I didn't realize that so many people require that success to occur at the expense of other people. I wonder if that's a recent trend in our culture. It does mirror a development I've noticed in American conservatism during my lifetime.
When I was a kid just starting to follow politics, it seemed that the essential difference between liberals and conservatives was that liberals wanted to help everyone prosper, while conservatives thought that while it would be nice if everyone could prosper, that's an unrealistic ideal -- government can't really make it happen and it's dangerous to try. But at some point in the past 25 or so years, that philosophy has shifted. Now, more often, conservatives appear to espouse that it's undesirable for everyone to prosper, not because people's lives would be negatively affected -- by definition, they wouldn't -- but because it's morally wrong. To me, that's a pretty disturbing idea.
In this story, you seem to have a lot of people who have bought into this newly popular Randian philosophy cutting ties with the company because they're opposed to its morals, not because the business model doesn't work.
That is conservative thinking in a nutshell, they have theirs and nobody else gets a piece of the pie, just like they have their healthcare insurance and how dare Obama get others healthcare insurance. Conservatives uphold the military/fire/police but those are all socialist models where generals don't make that much more than privates and everyone from top to bottom gets healthcare, and the truth is the people at the lower end of the pay scale do the most difficult/dangerous work that requires smarts and dedication and courage. You apply conservative values to the military and generals will get $100 million a year and privates make less than minimum wage with no health care.
conservatives appear to espouse that it's undesirable for everyone to prosper, not because people's lives would be negatively affected -- by definition, they wouldn't -- but because it's morally wrong. To me, that's a pretty disturbing idea.
More disturbing is that so many liberals can't grasp the basic human drive based upon reward.
Let's say schools gave A's to everybody who showed up for class. Do you believe it would change study habits?\
Quote:
Originally Posted by fumbling
That is conservative thinking in a nutshell, they have theirs and nobody else gets a piece of the pie
Many liberals believe they are entitled to the pies made by other people.
They are the ones who show up empty handed to the party, eat and drink what everyone else brought, and then leave right after the food and beverages are gone without even offering to help clean up.
That is conservative thinking in a nutshell, they have theirs and nobody else gets a piece of the pie, just like they have their healthcare insurance and how dare Obama get others healthcare insurance. Conservatives uphold the military/fire/police but those are all socialist models where generals don't make that much more than privates and everyone from top to bottom gets healthcare, and the truth is the people at the lower end of the pay scale do the most difficult/dangerous work that requires smarts and dedication and courage. You apply conservative values to the military and generals will get $100 million a year and privates make less than minimum wage with no health care.
Seattle is hardly the hotbed of conservatives.
And with those workers being in their 20's, living in Seattle I'm going to risk saying they're probably very liberal minded and lean more to the left than the right.
Many liberals believe they are entitled to the pies made by other people.
They are the ones who show up empty handed to the party, eat and drink what everyone else brought, and then leave right after the food and beverages are gone without even offering to help clean up.
It's actually the opposite. We're the ones who bring extra pies in case there aren't enough for everyone.
It's actually the opposite. We're the ones who bring extra pies in case there aren't enough for everyone.
No, because you feel you are ENTITLED to it.
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.
As my wife used to say:
