| |||||||||||||
American management practices vs kernel developmentAmerican management practices vs kernel developmentPosted May 9, 2008 17:15 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: Quotes of the week by drag Parent article: Quotes of the week
Now I am a big pro-capitalist guy ... Industry works because the workers are so good at what they do. Looks like a pretty abrupt switch from Smith to Marx. A capitalist would say industry works because the people with the money spend it so wisely. In particular, my impression of the internal competition concept isn't that it encourages people who would otherwise do poor work to do good work (which I agree is silly) so much as that it separates the naturally good workers from the naturally poor and eliminates the latter (from this work). I wonder how you address the fact that the free market apparently selects these horrible American management practices -- i.e. companies that use them apparently give people more of what they want than their competitors who don't, resulting in the former having the money to continue and the latter going out of business. (I assume the management practices you mean to refer to are those that are the norm in the largest corporations)
(Log in to post comments)
American management practices vs kernel development Posted May 9, 2008 20:22 UTC (Fri) by joern (subscriber, #22392) [Link] > In particular, my impression of the internal competition concept isn't that it encourages people who would otherwise do poor work to do good work (which I agree is silly) so much as that it separates the naturally good workers from the naturally poor and eliminates the latter (from this work). That is bull****. A better way to look at a market economy is a question that came up in the 1990's changes in eastern europe and the former soviet union: "Who decides how much steel to produce?" After you laughed for a bit, you might realize the deeper meaning. The main point of a market economy is to 1. distribute the decision process and 2. award those who make the best decisions. Nothing is needed to achieve 2, it always follows naturally once you have 1. If it was about good workers and poor workers, how can you explain the dramatic economic improvements in countries going from command economies to market economies. Massive layoffs only work in companies within larger countries, because the created externalities are paid for by others. China couldn't get away with such a strategy.
American management practices vs kernel development Posted May 10, 2008 2:29 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] The main point of a market economy is to 1. distribute the decision process and 2. award those who make the best decisions. Nothing is needed to achieve 2, it always follows naturally once you have 1. I can't tell what you disagree with, though you called something bull****. The points above are entirely consistent with the concept I described of internal competition generating benefits by separating good workers from poor workers. The decisions that are being distributed, and rewarded, are primarily the decisions on whose work product to buy.
If it was about good workers and poor workers, how can you explain the dramatic\ economic improvements in countries going from command economies to market economies. Poor workers are removed from the work they're (comparatively) poor at and selected for work they're good at. Command economies aren't very good at that, and it makes a big difference. But I didn't actually say separating good workers from poor is what makes capitalism right for China. I said it's an argument for internal competition in businesses. In particular, I said it's more common than the argument that internal competition makes poor workers good.
|
|||||||||||||