This is the latest addition to Obama's transitional website. It's called "Open for Questions" and allows (will again later, it appears to be closed for this round) people to submit questions and vote them up or down depending on what people want answered. This is one of the most transparent/democratic ways for people to get in touch with the highest office in the land.
Some critics are pissy because questions about Ayers/Wright/Corruption/Birth Certificate/etc are being voted down. Critics are complaining about the democratic process. Unbelievable.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
On my last post...
Re-reading what I wrote in kind of a hurry, I realized how whiny that sounds. Geesh.
For clarification, my views on capitalism is that, borrowing from someone, it's great except for capitalists. The greed that has been rampant in the last few years is staggering. Capitalism would work if not for capitalists.
Here's my suggestion: Capitalism refocus itself into a wider spectrum. Individuals ought to recognize that the greater success of all usually means the greater success of few. What's the point if only a select few are doing well, while many, many others are not? While I recognize the need for classes, and I'm not rebelling against that, why the big gap between them?
Ugh. Still sounding whiny. Shit.
For clarification, my views on capitalism is that, borrowing from someone, it's great except for capitalists. The greed that has been rampant in the last few years is staggering. Capitalism would work if not for capitalists.
Here's my suggestion: Capitalism refocus itself into a wider spectrum. Individuals ought to recognize that the greater success of all usually means the greater success of few. What's the point if only a select few are doing well, while many, many others are not? While I recognize the need for classes, and I'm not rebelling against that, why the big gap between them?
Ugh. Still sounding whiny. Shit.
Dealing with the economy
A lot of companies have been announcing layoffs lately, and the numbers have been very staggering. But to me, those were just numbers. Not to sound heartless, but it was distant to me, perhaps due to naivete on my part (probably) or maybe to a sense of denial as a means of protecting myself from thinking about it. But, this morning, two people I work with were told they were being laid off.
I'll admit that I did breath a sigh of relief that it wasn't me, because if it had, I'd have been screwed financially. Not my proudest moment, but I need to be honest with myself here.
I started to think why a company would lay off people, and came up with a notion of a sort of bastardized Social Darwinism (which Darwin himself abhorred, by the way). The rationale might be that: in order for the company to survive and maintain, the weaker bits must be cast off in order that the strong will then flourish. Now, whatever your opinion of this is, I have deep problems with it because of the social agreement that we all live in: a civilization.
Civilizations arose by individuals binding together and working toward a common goal, which amplified individual success in some instances and lessening it in others, rather than individuals focusing solely on their own success (or that of their immediate kin). Is this drive towards a sort of altruism inherently encoded into our DNA? Maybe, as evidenced by primates showing signs of altruistic behavior. But the origin of the drive is not really pertinent to what I'm saying here, so I'll skip it. If you don't like it, too bad.
The way that I see it, civilization and society has performed a function to enable individuals to cooperate for the betterment of the whole. So, a company which lays off employees should be analogous to a society right? Not on your life.
The difference between the two is a hugely categorical difference. Where on one hand, civilizations arose seemingly because of natural conditions (drought for example, forcing people to share/cooperate) corporations arose from purposeful action by individuals. (DISCLAIMER: I am not against corporations. I do not think they're destroying America. Etc, etc) If an action is purposeful, then there must be an instigator. If there is an instigator, then there is one who is responsible for what happens next. So, in short, a corporation has individual(s) who is/are responsible for the well being of their employees. And I guess that's the crux of the matter: Responsibility.
So, a CEO or something similar would be responsible for the health of the company and ensuring that the company practices good business habits (which is strongly related to the health of a company, since investors look at business practices to decide whether or not to buy stock).
The question then becomes: "Is it good business practice to layoff workers?"
Some say no. Others, would say yes. Regardless of that answer, does a business that lays off workers take responsibility for that? I'm going to say no.
They blame the economy, the market forces, etc. But never once would they say, "Well, we didn't do a well enough job to combat this, so we have no choice but to let people go." "Let people go"...as if they're clawing at the chains that are holding them in their cubicles...
Slacktivist puts it well:
The dodging of responsibility is a result of our current culture epitomized in "I'm just a simple President." George W. Bush. And I myself don't take responsibility all the times that I ought to, but I'm trying. This is one of few areas that I agree with Ayn Rand...(I can't believe I just wrote that)
I'm sorry that people have to get fired. But, at the same time, I'm very relieved that it's not me. I'm grateful for my job, and think that I work hard at it. Shouldn't that be enough?
I'll admit that I did breath a sigh of relief that it wasn't me, because if it had, I'd have been screwed financially. Not my proudest moment, but I need to be honest with myself here.
I started to think why a company would lay off people, and came up with a notion of a sort of bastardized Social Darwinism (which Darwin himself abhorred, by the way). The rationale might be that: in order for the company to survive and maintain, the weaker bits must be cast off in order that the strong will then flourish. Now, whatever your opinion of this is, I have deep problems with it because of the social agreement that we all live in: a civilization.
Civilizations arose by individuals binding together and working toward a common goal, which amplified individual success in some instances and lessening it in others, rather than individuals focusing solely on their own success (or that of their immediate kin). Is this drive towards a sort of altruism inherently encoded into our DNA? Maybe, as evidenced by primates showing signs of altruistic behavior. But the origin of the drive is not really pertinent to what I'm saying here, so I'll skip it. If you don't like it, too bad.
The way that I see it, civilization and society has performed a function to enable individuals to cooperate for the betterment of the whole. So, a company which lays off employees should be analogous to a society right? Not on your life.
The difference between the two is a hugely categorical difference. Where on one hand, civilizations arose seemingly because of natural conditions (drought for example, forcing people to share/cooperate) corporations arose from purposeful action by individuals. (DISCLAIMER: I am not against corporations. I do not think they're destroying America. Etc, etc) If an action is purposeful, then there must be an instigator. If there is an instigator, then there is one who is responsible for what happens next. So, in short, a corporation has individual(s) who is/are responsible for the well being of their employees. And I guess that's the crux of the matter: Responsibility.
So, a CEO or something similar would be responsible for the health of the company and ensuring that the company practices good business habits (which is strongly related to the health of a company, since investors look at business practices to decide whether or not to buy stock).
The question then becomes: "Is it good business practice to layoff workers?"
Some say no. Others, would say yes. Regardless of that answer, does a business that lays off workers take responsibility for that? I'm going to say no.
They blame the economy, the market forces, etc. But never once would they say, "Well, we didn't do a well enough job to combat this, so we have no choice but to let people go." "Let people go"...as if they're clawing at the chains that are holding them in their cubicles...
Slacktivist puts it well:
[I]t's possible to imagine a scenario in which mass layoffs are an absolute last resort and thus not a grievous sin being committed by top management. But such scenarios are also rare in the real world...
You don't get to traumatize and place at risk 53,000 people and their families and then pretend it was just some kind of fluke natural occurence, like a hurricane or earthquake, and that you have no moral or ethical responsibility for the consequences of your decision.
The dodging of responsibility is a result of our current culture epitomized in "I'm just a simple President." George W. Bush. And I myself don't take responsibility all the times that I ought to, but I'm trying. This is one of few areas that I agree with Ayn Rand...(I can't believe I just wrote that)
I'm sorry that people have to get fired. But, at the same time, I'm very relieved that it's not me. I'm grateful for my job, and think that I work hard at it. Shouldn't that be enough?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)