[consulting] American Labour Laws & Future of Labour
Sami Khan
sami at etopian.net
Sun Aug 22 14:31:02 UTC 2010
Jeff Greenberg <jeff at ayendesigns.com> wrote:
> Production and innovation are two different things, but I'd argue that
> both are required for a successful business. Ford would be nothing with
> great production and no innovation.
> Ford would be nothing with great
> innovation and no production. Slavery won't feed innovation. Nor will it
> result in great production, if you consider quality as part of long-term
> cost. China -seemed- to be a model of efficiency, with people looking
> the other way as to the condition of workers there, but look at the
> constant discovery of products that are hazardous, short-lived, or
> otherwise crap.
It depends on who you consider innovates. My education is in
entrepreneurship, my university offered a program through the management
degree for it. One of the professors I was taught by studies the subject
academically and has done so probably for a good 20 years at this point.
His findings were that companies in general are very bad at innovation.
Usually it is individual entrepreneurs or (small) startup teams that
innovate, often discontinuously; Microsoft or Apple at their founding are
examples of this.
Often innovation comes from ordinary people or professionals trying to
solve problems that they have and coming up with an innovative solution.
That solution is then commercialized either by the startup or an existing
company. In the case of Microsoft or Apple, it is motivated individuals
looking to get ahead... but individuals nonetheless. In the case of
Microsoft, success meant copycatting everyone else's ideas at a large scale
systematically. But I digress a bit.
The point being that innovation is done by a person or a small team who
has a big idea, the idea is then to be commercialized and people are
employed to commercialize it. The people who commercialize the idea are
employees. Slavery means in business fixed cost of labour, that's pretty
much it. A slave needs food and shelter and so is the cheapest to employ;
in China currently there are employees that live in company dorms and work
12 hour days: that's slavery! So sure slaves can play a big part in
commercializing innovation.
If you have a free class, i.e. a capitalist class, it can utilize slavery
to innovate and Apple, it may be hypothesized (though much research may be
needed to make such a claim as to the working conditions of Chinese
factories like Foxconn where employees have committed suicide 12+ times)
through its Chinese manufacturers is doing just that.
> My father once told me (hardly his words, but new to me at the time)
> that too much of anything is no good, and I'd argue that goes for too
> much socialism and capitalism as well.
Agreed.
Sami
>
> On 08/21/2010 04:48 PM, Sami Khan wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:57:47 -0400, Jeff
Greenberg<jeff at ayendesigns.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, one informal measure can be derived from the invention
provenance
>>> of everything you use in the next hour... your pen, your computer,
>>> phone, electricity, toilet, bluejeans, PVC pipes, etc., and what % of
>>> that was invented in the U.S. under its system.
>>>
>> A comprehensive study would need to be done. Though I think I would
agree
>> than more than a fair share can be attributed to the United States.
>> However, that does not prove anything. As how much great work was done
>> for
>> America under slavery. Tons. Without the slaves much of the US
>> agriculture
>> industry, which was all that the US was known for back then, would not
be
>> possible.
>>
>>
>>> If the U.S. is not a leader anymore, then perhaps constantly slamming
>>> its system is of little importance. After all, in numbers of
population,
>>>
>>
>>> there are many other countries much more ripe for the slamming.
>>>
>> Slamming. Hardly. Speaking for workers rights and benefits, however,
>> definitely.
>>
>>
>>> I would suggest that private businesses are created by private
>>> individuals, and that they should be able to make their own business
>>> decisions, and people can work for them or not, and buy from them or
>>> not, as they see fit.
>>>
>> The only way I would morally agree to this is if we banished marketing
>> and
>> taught students for at least 4 years or so the virtues of rational,
>> business minded thinking. Barring that, people are not free to decide
and
>> may be gamed. The people who have more money can game them better than
>> people with less money, etc.
>>
>>
>>> If morality is dictated by the control of others
>>> than those whose business it is, let that be a competitor: privately
>>> run, union run, and government run, and let the employees decide where
>>> they want to work, and the public decide who they want to buy from.
>>>
>> Slavery is by far the most efficient method of production, why don't we
>> adopt that?
>>
>>
>> Sami
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 08/21/2010 04:00 PM, Sami Khan wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I don't think the thoughts represent anything new here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I identified the morality of my position. You dismissed it by talking
>>>> about efficiency. So one fundamental question about this discourse is
>>>> whether it even has a morality or that the morality is that the end
>>>> justifies the means. And that ends is measured in terms of the number
>>>>
>> of
>>
>>>> profitable businesses that exist? It ignores issues about quality of
>>>>
>> life
>>
>>>> of the worker, their rights as employees, and their welfare... in
>>>>
>> favour
>>
>>>> of
>>>> innovation which is defined by profit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This country might seem to be one of corporations, but it's
primarily
>>>>>
>> of
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> small businesses. Every mandate costs them money. Every mandate is
>>>>>
>> paid
>>
>>>>> for by taxing them, which causes some to close or raise prices,
which
>>>>> costs everyone else more.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Small businesses may have as bad employment policies as other
>>>>
>> businesses.
>>
>>>> This is also to discount that quality of life questions outside of
how
>>>> much
>>>> money is paid out. 40 hours worked does not tell us under what
>>>>
>> conditions
>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that successful companies can be measured by
>>>>>
>> innovation,
>>
>>>>> discovery, and ongoing success.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I want to take a detour and talk a bit about innovation. This is some
>>>> brain storming, so don't hold me to it forever, my ideas are bound to
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> I don't particularly know what easy piece of research would allow us
to
>>>> compare whether the US is innovative. For instance there are many
>>>> companies
>>>> that are very profitable, but only innovative in terms of marketing
or
>>>> gaming its customers. Starbucks or Zynga the markers of Farmville
come
>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>> mind. Many food franchises also come to mind, they mostly produce
>>>> well-branded junk food. There have been many billion dollar miracles
>>>> recently in gaming, where the game was simply predatory on the
>>>>
>> psychology
>>
>>>> of the consumer. There have been suggestions that Google will be
doing
>>>> this
>>>> next.
>>>>
>>>> As time goes on, I think this is the only sort of "innovation" left;
if
>>>> that is not the type of innovation left, I don't see why guarding it
is
>>>> so
>>>> important, I could care less whether or not Starbucks exists and
rather
>>>> trade the job created for a welfare subsidy to the counter clerk.
>>>>
>> Nothing
>>
>>>> is produced any more, only imaginary experiences created. So really
the
>>>> question about innovation is whether we want more imaginary
experiences
>>>> and
>>>> for that we are willing to subject a significant percent of the
>>>> population
>>>> to misery in their day-to-day lives. That's what innovation these
days
>>>> seems like.
>>>>
>>>> Or take the Apple iPod, it's planned obsolescence is 18 months. Now
>>>> imagine the externality created from dumping that many units, and how
>>>> that
>>>> number would compound over time as the company stays "innovative". So
>>>> innovation as defined by profit is difficult to define as a social
good
>>>> as
>>>> you may win big in the market, and not have contributed anything
other
>>>> than
>>>> the illusion of value or it might cause environmental problems or
>>>> psychological or physical problems which are bigger than the little
>>>> innovative experience it imparted the user with. If that all
innovation
>>>> is
>>>> about, than using that as the primary decision criteria as to whether
>>>>
>> or
>>
>>>> not the citizens be made to suffer so the market is efficient, to me
is
>>>> not
>>>> justifiable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To achieve that, they have to attract
>>>>> the best and brightest talent, and have a market.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, what percentage of the population does this make? Let's say<
>>>>
>> 10%,
>>
>>>> so what about the rest of the population and the 90% of companies
that
>>>> are
>>>> not innovative?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To do that they have
>>>>> to invest in their people and research and development. To do that,
>>>>>
>> they
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> need profit, rather than have it redirected by the government.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Or they can get a loan or they can get investors. If they are so
>>>> innovative, I don't see why more people would not put money back into
>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>> company to keep it going? In the end it's a question of how the
>>>>
>> equation
>>
>>>> is
>>>> balanced and who ends up holding how much money. If it's too little
>>>>
>> it's
>>
>>>> a
>>>> problem if it's too much it's a problem. It to me is a question of
>>>> balance,
>>>> and balance on which ends: government, market, corporation. Further
>>>> corporations want to pay as little as possible, over time with
>>>>
>> increasing
>>
>>>> competition this drives the wage down. The way to prevent this and
look
>>>> out
>>>> for their own interests is a union which makes the game inefficient
for
>>>> the
>>>> corporations and works as long as all companies in the industry are
>>>> unionised by law... It fails when this is no longer the case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> How many of these other societies that burden businesses so heavily
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> lead the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> world in technological and scientific discovery? I don't recall
Canada
>>>>> being at the top of the list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well Open Source and Drupal are not examples of this "innovative"
>>>> behaviour. Without this innovative behaviour Google would not have
been
>>>> possible. Canada has produced Flickr and Stumbleupon on the web
stage.
>>>>
>> We
>>
>>>> also produce Blackberries. We also produce tons of known game titles
>>>> through a number of game studios like EA Canada.
>>>>
>>>> I further don't know of studies which confirm your hypothesis or to
>>>> compare the innovativeness of the US to other countries. It may well
be
>>>>
>> a
>>
>>>> misnomer left over from post-WWII.
>>>>
>>>> Sami
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/21/2010 02:53 PM, Sami Khan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure as to why this is much of a surprise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because many other people in other countries (like mine) get a
better
>>>>>> deal... and their societies work just fine. Society is a massive
game
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> we control all the rules. It is better if the rules are utilitarian
>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>> the greatest good for the greatest number of people rather than
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> favouring
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> the few at the cost of the many so that they may make even more
>>>>>>
>> wealth.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> I
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> would find it acceptable to take every penny they have say over a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> million
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> dollars and redistribute it to entrepreneurs with viable business
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> ideas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are certain
>>>>>>> protections, and the rest is a consumer market like anything else.
>>>>>>>
>> In
>>
>>>>>>> other words, if you don't like the wage, if you don't like the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> benefits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> package, if you don't like the job title or the wallpaper ...
don't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> take
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the job.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question then is not whether or not protection should exist,
but
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> rules should exist so that they create the greatest amount of good
>>>>>>
>> for
>>
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> who are involved... Not just the shareholders but the stakeholders
>>>>>>
>> too.
>>
>>>>>> That does not mean management goes away, or that disparity is
>>>>>> eliminated...
>>>>>> but that it is reduced to the greatest level possible while keeping
>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>>> system function. Thereby limiting the leisure class significantly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> rather
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> than magnifying its power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, there are protections here that are NOT
afforded
>>>>>>> elsewhere. If you are asked in an interview about your marital
>>>>>>>
>> status,
>>
>>>>>>> location of residence, past times, religious participation, etc.,
>>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> do
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not receive the job, you can sue (which is why companies in the
know
>>>>>>> train their staff not to ask such questions). I know people in
other
>>>>>>> countries (especially in Asia) who have been asked in an interview
>>>>>>>
>> why
>>
>>>>>>> they are not married, what their parents do for a living, when
they
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> met
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> their boyfriend and how, and if they had sex outside of marriage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am sure there are countries like this, India being a prime
example
>>>>>>
>> of
>>
>>>>>> where some of these questions might be asked. I consider such
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> environment
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> failures and I think only because of overpopulation they can get
away
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> this sort of shit; too much competition. I don't think we want to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> emulate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> failure, I think we want to emulate success.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't particularly care about shareholders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If every citizen thought like a business, which is the purview of
>>>>>> economists, then I think every citizen should be strategic in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> maximizing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> their personal utility... They should all be taught to behave
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> rationally
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> and treat their lives like a business. That means attempting to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> maximize
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> personal profit at the cost of everyone and looking out only for
>>>>>>
>> their
>>
>>>>>> shareholders: i.e. themselves... Which would then in turn lead most
>>>>>> businesses to fail and society to fall into pieces because of the
>>>>>>
>> zero
>>
>>>>>> sum
>>>>>> game which would be created. It is good for corporations and
>>>>>>
>> societies
>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> employees for the most part don't behave this way. It would
therefore
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> be
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> good for employees and society if corporations did not behave this
>>>>>>
>> way
>>
>>>>>> either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> consulting mailing list
>>>>>>> consulting at drupal.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> consulting mailing list
>>>>>> consulting at drupal.org
>>>>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> consulting mailing list
>>>>> consulting at drupal.org
>>>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> consulting mailing list
>>>> consulting at drupal.org
>>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> consulting mailing list
>>> consulting at drupal.org
>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> consulting mailing list
>> consulting at drupal.org
>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>
> _______________________________________________
> consulting mailing list
> consulting at drupal.org
> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
More information about the consulting
mailing list