What about like

Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
edited August 2010 in Spurious Generalities
A system where the overall exertion of industry is more important than the individual effort put into commerce and business. It kind of sounds like communism at first but hear this dude out, this dude being Me.

If the managerial component of business/ corporate operations were divided, among a huge team of specialists, wouldn't there be less of a margin for error in the decisions made by that committee? What if, instead of paying all your workers varying wages and attaching meaningless concepts of differing 'worth' among the company, everybody in the establishment was simply paid from an equal share of the salary fund procured by the company. It wouldn't be like "ah, working for the country and my comrades is grand", it's more like, say you could ask your buddy how much he was looking at going into any field, and different companies would be able to post exactly what an employee is paid. I think that the division of managerial responsibility, especially, would be an important step to cutting down on corporate crime. I also think that commerce would be positively affected since the success of the company would be less weighted on any individual, thus initiating more sense of drive in the workers of that company. Also, I think this would create a lot more jobs, and that's the main reason for my theory's creation.

Thoughts?

Comments

  • JFLC BGJFLC BG Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    Kill yourself.
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    ... not exactly what I was looking for, JFLC BG:facepalm:

    However if you wanted to engage in some type of death race-- ah no you're not interested in that.
  • JFLC BGJFLC BG Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    Shake yo Azz!
    Watch Yaself!
    Shake yo Azz!
    Show me watcha workin Wit!
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    You're pretty gay.
  • GallowsGallows Regular
    edited July 2010
    If the managerial component of business/ corporate operations were divided, among a huge team of specialists, wouldn't there be less of a margin for error in the decisions made by that committee?
    How is this any different from the way it currently is?
    What if, instead of paying all your workers varying wages and attaching meaningless concepts of differing 'worth' among the company, everybody in the establishment was simply paid from an equal share of the salary fund procured by the company.
    Attaching meaningless concepts? Do you mean titles or are you referring to something else? If you're referring to titles, how are they meaningless?

    And if you were to do this, you'd be removing the incentive for increasing performance.
  • edited July 2010
    I...smell......COMMUNISM!!!!!
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    Gallows wrote: »
    How is this any different from the way it currently is?
    I'm talking about like a committee filling in the position of CEO, as well as other restructuring tactics.
    Attaching meaningless concepts? Do you mean titles or are you referring to something else? If you're referring to titles, how are they meaningless?

    And if you were to do this, you'd be removing the incentive for increasing performance.

    Well what's the difference between the outcome of an engineer's job, and the outcome of a statistician's? If they're both vital to the company, why not pay em the same and add to their drive to make the company succeed, rather than just fueling their personal desire to ascend in the ranks of the corporate world. That sentiment could even spill over into other factors of life, eventually. Considering that the tendency right now is for people to live mostly self-sufficient lives with not much regard shown to strangers or other people not close to the individual, which I see as reflective of the capitalist system, it's not unreasonable to say as much.
  • GallowsGallows Regular
    edited July 2010
    Well what's the difference between the outcome of an engineer's job, and the outcome of a statistician's? If they're both vital to the company, why not pay em the same and add to their drive to make the company succeed, rather than just fueling their personal desire to ascend in the ranks of the corporate world.
    The educational requirements for the jobs are different, as are the demands of the jobs themselves. I honestly don't think anyone but the janitors would be satisfied under your system.
    That sentiment could even spill over into other factors of life, eventually.
    I don't believe that a few new changes at the workplace are going to override millions of years of evolution.
    Considering that the tendency right now is for people to live mostly self-sufficient lives with not much regard shown to strangers or other people not close to the individual, which I see as reflective of the capitalist system, it's not unreasonable to say as much.
    A reflection of capitalism or a reflection of human nature?

    You should start up a small business and implement this plan though. I'd be interested in seeing how it turns out.
  • ArgonPlasma2000ArgonPlasma2000 Semo-Regulars
    edited July 2010
    A system where the overall exertion of industry is more important than the individual effort put into commerce and business. It kind of sounds like communism at first but hear this dude out, this dude being Me.

    If the managerial component of business/ corporate operations were divided, among a huge team of specialists, wouldn't there be less of a margin for error in the decisions made by that committee? What if, instead of paying all your workers varying wages and attaching meaningless concepts of differing 'worth' among the company, everybody in the establishment was simply paid from an equal share of the salary fund procured by the company. It wouldn't be like "ah, working for the country and my comrades is grand", it's more like, say you could ask your buddy how much he was looking at going into any field, and different companies would be able to post exactly what an employee is paid. I think that the division of managerial responsibility, especially, would be an important step to cutting down on corporate crime. I also think that commerce would be positively affected since the success of the company would be less weighted on any individual, thus initiating more sense of drive in the workers of that company. Also, I think this would create a lot more jobs, and that's the main reason for my theory's creation.

    Thoughts?

    You are describing a system of employee ownership.
    Gallows wrote: »
    I don't believe that a few new changes at the workplace are going to override millions of years of evolution.

    Evolution is for insentient beings.

    And is not capitalism an abstraction of man's basest human nature? Excess of either can only lead to destruction.
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    You are describing employee ownership.

    Well can we use it still :o plus I don't care who owns the company, the point is that it's run thru collective effort, not the decisions of a small group of wealthy men. Who are probably white. White devil. :mad:.

    I don't know that anything would ever get done if you just look at it for surface value. The point is to actually change the way people do business, to provoke a positive shift in business ethics, and to create jobs.
  • ArgonPlasma2000ArgonPlasma2000 Semo-Regulars
    edited July 2010
    Well can we use it still :o plus I don't care who owns the company, the point is that it's run thru collective effort, not the decisions of a small group of wealthy men. Who are probably white. White devil. :mad:.

    I don't know that anything would ever get done if you just look at it for surface value. The point is to actually change the way people do business, to provoke a positive shift in business ethics, and to create jobs.

    And I'd agree.

    You might also be interested in syndicalism.
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited August 2010
    Gallows wrote: »
    The educational requirements for the jobs are different, as are the demands of the jobs themselves. I honestly don't think anyone but the janitors would be satisfied under your system.
    Why not? It would literally even the playing field and these "janitors" you're talking about usually work for another company anyway (a janitorial company :o). I think the only people who would be really unhappy about this change would be the CEO's. Soooo stfu
    I don't believe that a few new changes at the workplace are going to override millions of years of evolution.
    Pff evolution. Yea you do type a bit like a monkey now that you've mentioned it.
    A reflection of capitalism or a reflection of human nature?

    You should start up a small business and implement this plan though. I'd be interested in seeing how it turns out.
    Indeed!
  • ashenbloodashenblood Acolyte
    edited August 2010
    How is it fair to pay janitors the same as CEOs???
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited August 2010
    There are no CEO's.
  • ashenbloodashenblood Acolyte
    edited August 2010
    Oh, I see what you mean. I still don't think it would work though, because some jobs are inherently more difficult, and some people inherently smarter. Most people know their own value, in a business sense, and want to be rewarded for their talents and hard work.
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited August 2010
    Not really, you can say that the jobs are harder or more important but why not just evenly disperse the work (more engineers vs. less) so that they actually do less overall work than under this system, but are contributing and benefitting from a set amount of the company's profit, instead of working on fixed salary. That way the odds for business competitors are better for those who have better working conditions, obviously because the happier workers would work better. Also, every decision would be hypothetically be based on higher ethics, that is to say the ethics of the group. In addition to that first point you made, you could also try to say that a group of people will make more harmful decisions than the individual does who makes that same decision under this system, but that's not proven, nor is it proven that you would end up with similar results. All that's really known at this point is that you can't trust some motherfuckers with industry, and we pay for it when we don't realize this.
Sign In or Register to comment.