Employers complain about rising costs of health care, employees who are not as productive as they think they should be, and losing good employees after investing time and money into training them. Employees complain about lack of benefits, no job security, low pay, and too little vacation. All of these points are valid, though some more than others; it’s the motivation behind these points that I believe is the root cause of the current tensions. These motivations are greed and selfishness, and they are rampant on both sides. If these motivations can change then I believe we could move to a more productive and stable work environment for everyone.
I think the first steps would probably have to be taken by the employers since policy changes are much more noticeable than the behavior of employees changing as an ideal spreads. What should the first step be? Basically look out for the interests of your employees and not yourself (as a manager or company) or the stock holders (Don’t run away yet, this would benefit them in the long run as well) when a tough situation presents itself. For example in a finically tight situation it seems to be normal practice to lay off employees; that alone isn’t the issue, sometimes layoffs are needed. What the issue is is that people who are the actual workers, making a sustenance income are laid off while the corporate execs and high level managers are still being paid outrageous salaries. There is absolutely no reason other than greed and selfishness that an exec should take home a multimillion dollar income while laying off thousands of people; it’s disgusting; instead why not look into trimming the salaries of those who make over $200,000 per year by a small percentile. This maybe extreme and I’m sure some will complain, but if they (or you as an exec) are not willing to take a 10% cut to save the jobs of thousands of people who rely on that income; then your priorities are messed up. Even those at the low end of that pay in the end they would still make $180,000 per year, and for CEO’s and as such it would be a like removing a drop from the bucket so to speak. In the end this would accomplish several positive benefits; it would let your employees know that you will stand behind them; you find worth in them and are not going to let them go at the drop of a hat while you rake in money. Secondly, by not letting those people go you just avoided losing a 10 fold number of customers. Think about it; when you lay off say 18,000 people you can pretty much guarantee that they will never do not do business with you again, nor will their immediate family and some friends. That can easily equal out to 10 people per person laid off so you would have just lost the business of 180,000 people and have to deal with the bad PR that they generate as well. I’m not saying that managers/execs should make the same as the workers or that they shouldn’t be paid well, but when considering letting someone who depends on their salary or paying a man that makes a high salary less, compassion should prevail. At least offer a opt out package so those who are close to retirement (There is a whole other level of scum it takes to fire a man just before he retires just so they save money; loyalty to the company deserves respect and reward, not getting backstabbed by a money hungry millionaire) or feel they can move on, have the option to leave of their own accord with no misgivings. What it really boils down to is reassuring your employees that they have good job security and they are not going to be let go while the management and stock holders bring home millions.
Moving on to pay rate, vacation, and benefits; employers need to take a much more proactive approach in this area. You can’t complain about losing good workers when you “put the screws to them” hiring them in the first place. If you want an employee to consider your company for their long term career, make that clear to them and perhaps ask the “dangerous” question of what they would want to see for salary, vacation, and benefits that will keep them there for the long haul. Sure you’re going to get some greedy people who say significantly more money, vacation, and benefits, than they should get and honestly those are the ones that you want to pay less and “put the screws too” since they will probably never be content and always looking for the next better deal. I would suggest having career and life goal discussions with your potential employees during their second interview (or whenever they are close to being offered a job), ask how much they need to live on and how much they would like, ask about plans for their family and hobbies. If you find out someone is married, has a child on the way, and they plan on a few kids and are looking for stability; you can probably bet that a reasonable salary (enough to live off of it with a bit to have fun and save), great job security, good benefits, and a little more vacation will get you a happy employee who isn’t searching for someplace else and feels like he owes you a good days work. If you find out someone is single, they are looking for upward mobility and their top priority is to get the finer things in life; offer them a larger salary with less vacation and middle of the road benefits. Really, it all comes down to the fact that if you can find out your employees priorities in life, you can make custom offers to employees (though I can understand not having multiple benefit options) that will attract them to you and make them want to stay for a long time.
Where this is really heading is that you the employer need to think of your employees first; be willing to take a little less profit to keep good people, strive to be the place where people want to work, and foster a good work environment that encourages your employees to work together as a team to watch out for your best interest.
Switching gears, employees need to make some drastic motive changes as well. All too often people take their employment situation for granted and become jaded toward their employer leading them to think that they deserve more or shouldn’t have to work or a million other excuses to do a million other things that they believe they deserve because of the way they have been treated. That kind of thinking has got to stop; look at yourself from their point of view and consider what you would want from yourself as an employee. There are most defiantly situations where people are justified in looking for new employment or feeling that they are being “used”; but I think there are a lot more people out there who have an exaggerated image of what they are worth to the company. Consider your skills, what you are paid, how much you actually work (as in how much time do you waste a work,; though that can be hard to count against some professions where you are paid to be available, but in those cases that extra time should be spent furthering your skills), and how you live. Are you an unskilled worker? If so then take that into account when you consider your pay. I’m not saying an unskilled worker shouldn’t make enough to live, but if you find your pay comparable to a skilled worker; shut up, be thankful, and work hard. If you don’t like your job, ask at work about training or try to work in some classes if you can afford it so you can move up and onto better positions. Skilled workers; before complaining about your pay look at how you live (or are trying to live) and consider if you perhaps want too much too fast. I think that this is the bane of the middle class; everyone seems to think that they should get out of college and be paid enough to have a new car, big house, and lots of toys. That is just plain greedy and selfish; think realistically about what your pay should be and try to remember that tough your parents have a big house it’s probably because they have worked for the past 20 years. When you go job hunting be honest and realistic about where you are in your career and know what your priorities are. If your priority is money, then be prepared to take less vacation and understand that unless you make it abundantly clear that you are looking for a place to work for the rest of your life, they employer will probably assume that you plan and taking something else; if you want to stay a while give them a realistic number that will keep you happy. If your priority is family and job security; let them know that you would like more vacation and want to work there till you retire, and you’re willing to work at a lower, but comfortable pay to get that. I would take a $2000 reduction in pay if I knew that I had a more secure job and another 10 days of vacation; but that reflects my priorities of family time and security.
I think all employees need to really look at how they spend their workday before they complain about pay rate or job security. If you slack off a lot don’t be shocked that you are not high on your employers list of people for promotion, raises, or job security. If you find yourself in that position, instead of complain and using it as an excuse to slack off more at work; try working harder, show that you want a raise and deserve one. Work hard and make yourself valuable to the company. Also, look at your loyalty; if you’re constantly bad mouthing the company or publically searching for a different job; don’t be shocked to learn that the company isn’t standing behind you.
All of what I’ve written can be summed up with “Put one another before yourself”. When the employer puts its employees before itself and employees put their employer before themselves; it leads to a productive environment where people are willing to work hard, employees care about the condition and bottom line of company, and the company cares about the well being and livelihood of the employees. I know what I’m saying is much more emotion than logic, and that it is an ideal state which cannot be perfectly achieved (someone is always take advantage of the other); but if strived for I believe that the model can work to the benefit of all involved.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Thursday, September 6, 2007
I'll be back
I haven't posted in a while; life has been way too crazy the past few months. As soon as things settle down I'll start to post again.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Problems with scientism
I believe a major problem facing those who follow scientism is that there is no way to truly follow it correctly all the time. This problem arises from the fact that though all scientists (or scientismists) get their data from the same pile of observed phenomena and measurements; they can and do come to drastically different conclusions to describe that data. From a pure scientific stand point this isn’t bad because each theory will compete and adapt to new data till to it fails or is found to be correct, but when other things like personal beliefs, ideologies, greed, pride, security, envy, hate, and ultimate goals are introduced; theories that should have been abandoned survive and the main stream ideas become exalted to the point where others are despised and dismissed with out due consideration. The influence of those outside forces can even lead to having data that is contrary to deeply held theories, swept under the rug. The fact is that everyone has some sort of preconception, belief, goal, etc that is going affect their outlook on the data and which theories they agree with that interpret that data. I guess what I’m driving at is that there can be no pure scientism in any area that touches on a preconception, etc, and since scientism (even weak) is founded on giving precedence to empirical evidence and reason above feelings and views; it fails when it runs into real people.
Aside from the problem of outside influence; scientism also seems to suffer from problem with a prejudice toward the super natural and reliance upon brute force. Scientism has a focus on a turning away from the super natural, but that implies that the “super natural” isn’t ever “natural” and anything that is classified as “natural” is not “super natural”. An example of this is quantum mechanics; it is considered to be “natural” since it is a well established scientific theory, but in practice quantum mechanics defies all sense of the “natural” world we hold. The creepy action over distance is in essence very “super natural”. Also anything that possibly exists outside our universe is super natural in the aspect that it does not have to obey the physical laws of our universe, yet it is “natural” in the aspect that it exists. Basically, the definition of the word “natural” in scientism seems to automatically expand to that which is “understood” (can be measured and repeated even if the underlying principal is not known) while dismissing as “super natural” any theory that contains a explanation for underlying principals using a God or action that isn’t “understood”. This seems to lead to a brute force outlook on anything that science has yet to answer. If we don’t know why we’ll try to measure it; and if that fails, it just is and it’s natural with no further explanation needed.
Aside from the problem of outside influence; scientism also seems to suffer from problem with a prejudice toward the super natural and reliance upon brute force. Scientism has a focus on a turning away from the super natural, but that implies that the “super natural” isn’t ever “natural” and anything that is classified as “natural” is not “super natural”. An example of this is quantum mechanics; it is considered to be “natural” since it is a well established scientific theory, but in practice quantum mechanics defies all sense of the “natural” world we hold. The creepy action over distance is in essence very “super natural”. Also anything that possibly exists outside our universe is super natural in the aspect that it does not have to obey the physical laws of our universe, yet it is “natural” in the aspect that it exists. Basically, the definition of the word “natural” in scientism seems to automatically expand to that which is “understood” (can be measured and repeated even if the underlying principal is not known) while dismissing as “super natural” any theory that contains a explanation for underlying principals using a God or action that isn’t “understood”. This seems to lead to a brute force outlook on anything that science has yet to answer. If we don’t know why we’ll try to measure it; and if that fails, it just is and it’s natural with no further explanation needed.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Omniscience and Free Will
Many people see omniscience and free will as being opposed to each other. The basic premise of this conflict being; that if God already knows what you are going to do; then you have no choice but to do it and thus no free will. But I believe it is possible to show that omniscience and free will are compatible with each other; which is my intention in this post.
The first proof that omniscience and free will do not conflict is based on the multidimensional aspect of God’s existence. God (at least in the Judeo-Christian belief) is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. In order for these to be true God would have to be above our dimensional existence, so as to be outside space-time and able to freely move within them in anyway. There are even biblical references to Gods existence in this way (Genesis 1:1, 2 Chronicles 2:6, Job 9:8, Job 28:24, 2 Kings 22:20, Psalm 139, Matthew 24:2, for a few examples). So given that God is hyper-dimensional; he sees space-time from all sides and times at once. The best example I can think of is to imagine a two dimensional creature; we can see the entirety of the creature from all it’s sides at once because we can see it’s border (all it’s skin) and insides when we look down at it. Now imagine that as time passes the creature is tracing an outline along the 3rd dimension; looking into this we can see the creature’s progression through time all at once. Since God can see every thing that everyone will do or has done; he can see what choices are made, yet not force those choices. Kind of like if I were looking at a movie reel and in a certain scene the camera shows both the inside and outside of a room with the door down the center of the screen; as I look from frame to frame I see a monster ready to attack in the room and a man about to open the door. This scene continues to progress to the man eventually opening the door and getting attacked. Now I can see all of this at once because I can see all of the frames in the reel for this scene, but my knowledge that the man will open the door and of what will happen to him when he opens it does not mean that I forced the choice to open the door upon him. No, just like us he is free to choose to open or not open the door and the fact that I know what he happens to choose because I’m “outside time” does not invalidate his choice.
The second proof is based on God’s knowledge of “us”, as in our personality, motivations, etc. God (Judeo-Christian belief) knows who we are better than we know ourselves (1 Chronicles 28:9, Psalm 139:2, Matthew 9:4, for a few examples); he understands our minds perfectly. Because of this knowledge; God knows the choices we will make when we are faced with a decision. A good example of how this would work is to imagine you receive an invitation from a friend to meet as a building latter that night. You accept and that evening you travel to the address; when you arrive you find the lobby empty and a door that has a sign that reads “For those who will enter.” Curious you open the door only to find a place card with you name on it on the table, and your friend sitting on the other side. When you ask your friend how he knew you would open the door he responds “I know you.” Now of course that example requires that “you” are curious, but it does the job of showing how someone’s intimate knowledge of you can allow them to know the choices you will make when faced with a decision. The fact that they know what you will choose doesn’t mean that you don’t have the choice. It just means that they know you intimately, understand your thoughts, and from that; know what you will choose.
One other interesting thing I’ve noticed is that both of these arguments, though entirely different in nature and process, are valid and do not impede each other. Normally it seems that one or the other would be true in a proof, but not both. But, this case because of the nature of omniscience, both proofs work simultaneously; instead of one precluding the other.
The first proof that omniscience and free will do not conflict is based on the multidimensional aspect of God’s existence. God (at least in the Judeo-Christian belief) is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. In order for these to be true God would have to be above our dimensional existence, so as to be outside space-time and able to freely move within them in anyway. There are even biblical references to Gods existence in this way (Genesis 1:1, 2 Chronicles 2:6, Job 9:8, Job 28:24, 2 Kings 22:20, Psalm 139, Matthew 24:2, for a few examples). So given that God is hyper-dimensional; he sees space-time from all sides and times at once. The best example I can think of is to imagine a two dimensional creature; we can see the entirety of the creature from all it’s sides at once because we can see it’s border (all it’s skin) and insides when we look down at it. Now imagine that as time passes the creature is tracing an outline along the 3rd dimension; looking into this we can see the creature’s progression through time all at once. Since God can see every thing that everyone will do or has done; he can see what choices are made, yet not force those choices. Kind of like if I were looking at a movie reel and in a certain scene the camera shows both the inside and outside of a room with the door down the center of the screen; as I look from frame to frame I see a monster ready to attack in the room and a man about to open the door. This scene continues to progress to the man eventually opening the door and getting attacked. Now I can see all of this at once because I can see all of the frames in the reel for this scene, but my knowledge that the man will open the door and of what will happen to him when he opens it does not mean that I forced the choice to open the door upon him. No, just like us he is free to choose to open or not open the door and the fact that I know what he happens to choose because I’m “outside time” does not invalidate his choice.
The second proof is based on God’s knowledge of “us”, as in our personality, motivations, etc. God (Judeo-Christian belief) knows who we are better than we know ourselves (1 Chronicles 28:9, Psalm 139:2, Matthew 9:4, for a few examples); he understands our minds perfectly. Because of this knowledge; God knows the choices we will make when we are faced with a decision. A good example of how this would work is to imagine you receive an invitation from a friend to meet as a building latter that night. You accept and that evening you travel to the address; when you arrive you find the lobby empty and a door that has a sign that reads “For those who will enter.” Curious you open the door only to find a place card with you name on it on the table, and your friend sitting on the other side. When you ask your friend how he knew you would open the door he responds “I know you.” Now of course that example requires that “you” are curious, but it does the job of showing how someone’s intimate knowledge of you can allow them to know the choices you will make when faced with a decision. The fact that they know what you will choose doesn’t mean that you don’t have the choice. It just means that they know you intimately, understand your thoughts, and from that; know what you will choose.
One other interesting thing I’ve noticed is that both of these arguments, though entirely different in nature and process, are valid and do not impede each other. Normally it seems that one or the other would be true in a proof, but not both. But, this case because of the nature of omniscience, both proofs work simultaneously; instead of one precluding the other.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Words, words everywhere and not an ear that listens.
Recently I’ve noticed I engage in debate a lot on internet forums and blogs; and I’m finding the more I do it the less I seem to really enjoy it.
Now before I move on I feel I should define what I mean when I say debate. I am speaking of a discussion between people where opposing view points are considered and thought through by the other parties, logically analyzed, weighed in the light of their experiences, and then replied to in a respectful manner. I feel that though my definition of debate is correct; it may be considered a special case. Debate does not technically require respect for the opposition, nor consideration of their point; just a argument against it.
It is the lack of my two stipulations on debate that make internet debate so much less enjoyable. I cannot express how annoying and disappointing it is to see a valid argument posted by myself or someone else dismissed with an obviously non thought out response or worse yet an insult. I guess I just don’t understand the point of debate unless you’re to try to persuade the other person you are correct; and disrespect is not the way to do it. Honestly, can anyone really expect to be listened to if they do not listen themselves? Can someone expect other people to respect them when they show only distain and disregard for those people they want respect from?
I can only conclude that those who choose to debate in such a disrespectful and illogical way are gleaning joy from the annoyance that they cause others. If that is the case then it is a sad sign that many people seem to have a sadistic nature.
Now before I move on I feel I should define what I mean when I say debate. I am speaking of a discussion between people where opposing view points are considered and thought through by the other parties, logically analyzed, weighed in the light of their experiences, and then replied to in a respectful manner. I feel that though my definition of debate is correct; it may be considered a special case. Debate does not technically require respect for the opposition, nor consideration of their point; just a argument against it.
It is the lack of my two stipulations on debate that make internet debate so much less enjoyable. I cannot express how annoying and disappointing it is to see a valid argument posted by myself or someone else dismissed with an obviously non thought out response or worse yet an insult. I guess I just don’t understand the point of debate unless you’re to try to persuade the other person you are correct; and disrespect is not the way to do it. Honestly, can anyone really expect to be listened to if they do not listen themselves? Can someone expect other people to respect them when they show only distain and disregard for those people they want respect from?
I can only conclude that those who choose to debate in such a disrespectful and illogical way are gleaning joy from the annoyance that they cause others. If that is the case then it is a sad sign that many people seem to have a sadistic nature.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Greed, Globalization, and the Stock Market
I’d like to start this by stating that I am not an economist. The following is my uneducated opinion on current trends I've been seeing and then logically extrapolating out the results of those trends.
It’s seems to me that companies nowadays are mostly concerned with their quarterly profits and investors more than their customers and employees. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be looking for profits and dividends for their investors; but that the results of only paying attention to them is disastrous. It’s no surprise that CEO’s would want to target the companies stock price more than its long term health; after all for most of them a large part of their pay is stock options. Also the board who hired the CEO is also made up of share holders, so if they want to keep their job then they must acquiesce to their demands. It’s this mindset of seeking mainly after returns for investors that is leading more and more companies to cut their own legs off in return for short term gain. What I’m talking about is best described by and example, so I’ll use one.
Say ACME is a large car company and they currently have 3 factories in
Every time a company sacrifices large amounts of jobs in its primary market for short turn gains it’s setting itself up for long term hurt. Even worse is when a large number of companies follow this same tactic, the result is a gradual erosion of the consumer base for all companies. Basically, people with no jobs cannot buy non essential goods. Unions who leverage ridicules salaries, insane health care coverage, and unbelievable retirement packages can are also a big contributing factor in this equation. Perhaps if ACME didn’t have to pay a guy who stacks door’s $30 per hour the proposition of moving the company elsewhere wouldn’t look so good. It all seems to boil down to each side needing to not look for the quick profit and instead focus on the long term. That coupled with each looking out for the best interest of the other would lead to caring employers and loyal workers.
That said; it’s not just the fault of greedy CEO’s, the board, or unions. A large part of the fault rests on the investors. The introduction of day trading has brought millions of small investors with itchy buy\sell fingers into the market. In the past market fluctuations were much more tolerated; large firms would wait out a good investment. Today people around the world drop stocks as soon as there is enough profit for them to justify jumping to the next stock that is rising faster. It’s not that it’s a bad strategy for making money; it’s the fact that it results in a market that is more focused on that short term gain in price or super high dividend for a small time. In this way the average person can be their own worse enemy. While they celebrate the announcement that a company is moving some division overseas and invest in it to ride the wave of price increase when the profits are higher; their own employer is preparing to sell off their division for the same reason. I wonder how many people have had their jobs outsourced only to see the stocks they owned in the company rise a few months later when the quarterly profits are posted.
I understand that outsourcing is not always used to boost profits; some companies may not have a choice if they want to stay alive. Still, if that is the case I would like to see the upper management give up a fraction of their outlandish salaries to keep the company alive as well.
In this new time of globalization I believe companies need to think out the impact of their decisions much further than they are. Perhaps a strategy of manufacturing in a market the number of product sold there. Expansion into new markets can be supplemented by selling excess from the cheapest producing market in the new one at the estimated price of what it will cost to produce and sell there, thus razing extra capitol for building there as well. I don’t know, but at the current rate it seems big corporations will continue to leap frog their production to the cheapest market; all while they drain the current consumer market until they have to move to another. Leaving the last consumer market to die in debit until the standard of living is so bad there that they can come back to it looking for workers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)