Good? Enron gave out lots of it's stock. And I think WorldCom did, too. Was that so good, TS? What happened? Or did you convienently forget the bad, and see only what you think is the good?
Baron Max
Are People Just Resources?
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
Good? Enron gave out lots of it's stock. And I think WorldCom did, too. Was that so good, TS? What happened? Or did you convienently forget the bad, and see only what you think is the good?
Baron Max
The problem with those companies is not that they gave out stocks. They artificially inflated the value of their stocks with little accounting tricks. That was the problem. Giving stocks to employees is not a problem.
Ahh, but see, if those same employees had had the money INSTEAD of the stocks, they'd have been just fine when the shit hit the fan.
Baron Max
Yup! that's the otherside of that coin. I would personally prefer it that way though. For strong healthy companies, this also makes the stock stronger(real value).
I advocate having both, not only stocks. Are you actually READING my posts, Baron?
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
No one believes that they are merely a resource. No one. Even suicides are trying to end their own pain. Or it's a poor way to express there anger at others.
Even (or actually ESPECIALLY) Baron Max about to be killed by some crazed guy with a gun is not (just) concerned about all the useful things he will not be able to do. He would be concerned about himself in a way that is not at all concerned with his usefullness.
Even (or actually ESPECIALLY) Baron Max about to be killed by some crazed guy with a gun is not (just) concerned about all the useful things he will not be able to do. He would be concerned about himself in a way that is not at all concerned with his usefullness.
And so "belief" is now something factual in the world???
Just because people don't like to think of themselves as resources for the company for whom they work, doesn't change the fact that they ARE resources.
A false human ego is at fault with your ideals. Humans are simply another animal on the Earth for a little while, and soon they'll all die off to be replaced by some other animal(s). I'm sure that the dinosaurs felt that they were important, and surely none of them wanted to die. So what?
Humans are egotistical bastards, so naturally they think they're really special. But why can't y'all face it, there's billions of humans on Earth now, and the loss of several million ain't gonna' make one single bit of difference. And yet, your ego just can't accept the facts. Ain't that sad?
I have no idea what that means?? Or how it relates to the topic at hand.
Baron Max
What do you all mean by "just" a resource anyway? We've already agreed that people are a type of resource, but just a resource?
Resource is a very vague word. It encompasses anything that can be used for a purpose, which I think covers everything. Its one characteristic of anything that it could be used for "a purpose". But most things have many other characteristics.
It's blatantly obvious that characterizing anything as "just" a this or that is bound to be wrong, simply because there are a variety of categories that cover any one "thing" (person).
Resource is a very vague word. It encompasses anything that can be used for a purpose, which I think covers everything. Its one characteristic of anything that it could be used for "a purpose". But most things have many other characteristics.
It's blatantly obvious that characterizing anything as "just" a this or that is bound to be wrong, simply because there are a variety of categories that cover any one "thing" (person).
In intellectual terms, I think you are right. But. Humans are emotive animals.
So? The problem with Enron and WorldCom lied on the pensions, not the stocks. I'm not advocating for pensions here. If you give people stock for free and the stock becomes worthless, so what? They didn't spen any money in it and they don't have any liability. They don't gain, but they don't lose either.
And being emotional animals, we should all bow down and praise that? Or we should all hold them above and beyond what they really are? Or that we should continue to lie about humans, and place them up on some high pedestal ....where they don't fuckin' belong?
Baron Max
I used the word "resource" as it is widely used in economics.
Some people (like Baron) think that people are JUST resources. If you don't agree, go talk with him.
Why not give them everything free? Hell, why make them even come to work at all, they just collect their freebies in the mail each week.
Yep, TS, people should never have to do anything, yet they should be given everything that they want or need. In fact, we should send special equipment that will chew their food for 'em so they don't have to work their jaw muscles so much!
Baron Max
I think it is important to do something that protects our species. That's what emotions are for. Like fear, for instance, for protection against predators (altough it's outdated). But love as well, for procriation and socialization.
Considering people just resources take away that protection. We can't use each other as resources. If that was the case, we might as well not have any laws.
We get the point Baron Max. You can name a few highly publicized examples where stockholders were defrauded. That's great. I can read the paper too. So what?
For every Enron, there are hundreds of publicly traded companies that haven't had a spectacular flame-out like Enron, and in a lot of those companies, the employer is offering stock ownership to employees as a motivator, and a way to build savings for the employee, and equity for the ownership. If it's not your thing, that's great, but don't denigrate the idea just because you don't believe in it. On principle, it works. That's not really up for debate. Can it be shenanigans? Obviously, but that's why you diversify.
I also want to make a different point about this topic. With today's me-first, self-aggrandizing culture, companies are somewhat on the defensive because that loyalty thing works both ways. Sometimes a company invests a lot of money in somebody, makes a commitment and investment in giving them the resources to shine, only to see that individual bolt out the door for a few bucks more, down the road at the competition. If you were running the show, wouldn't you want to protect yourself from that type of thing, by keeping your associates at arms length? I try to look at it from management/ownership perspective, because I am a manager, and one day will have ownership.
Why? Just because you say so? Give me a good logical, unemotional reason for what you said.
We've been using people as resources much, much longer than not, TS, and the world and civilization is rockin' along just fine.
C'mon, just admit it ...humans are too fuckin' ego-centric and selfish and greedy to see themselves as they actually are!
Baron Max
I tried it both ways, neither of them work with any degree of success or predicted accuracy. Being the nicest manager in all of history, I lost many valuable employees ...most of whom didn't really want to leave, but HAD to leave for various other reasons ...none of which you can predict.
I tried being the hard, mean task-master ...treating employees as resources to be used to get the job done. And they left in about the same rate as the others ...and honestly, it was usually for reasons having nothing to do with how I treated them. They were; having a baby; moving to be closer to family; buying a new home and the commute was too far; offered more money which I couldn't/wouldn't match; ...on and on. But it didn't seem to have a damned thing to do with how I managed them or the company.
Baron Max
I'm going to stop telling asshole bosses in the future that:
I'm moving closer to family, getting a shorter commute, offered more money, having a baby(lol).
I'm going to start telling them the truth, well I don't care if my bridges are burned anymore what can I say...thanks Baron.
It doesn't matter, really it doesn't. Employers know that everyone lies like a fuckin' rug anyway, so mostly they don't even bother checking references. So ...lie all you want, you would anyway, so what's the difference?
Baron Max