🚀 go-pugleaf

nob...@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) wrote:

>In article <5i6rrs$m...@boursy.news.erols.com>, j...@tardis.spinlab.com
>(jim wiegand) wrote:

>> It is very simple to turn a morsel of work into a mountain of
>> work.  All that you need do is to hand the work over to a
>> manager.
>> 
>> Managers are notorious for working hard, but they do not work
>> smart.
>> 
>> Managers are scatterbrained, chaotic thinkers unable to organized
>> an efficient attack on the work.
>> 
>> Managers are comfortable with pigsty working environments
>> characterized primarily by substandard or broken-down tools,
>> messiness everywhere, and atrocious ergonomics.
>> 
>> Managers will discuss trivialities to death thereby wasting precious
>> time.
>> 
>> Managers will revise and revise and revise finished work to death.
>> This in and of itself turns a morsel work into a mountain.
>> 
>> Managers will bring progress on work to a halt if every tiny bit
>> of information is not yet known.  They generally will not work
>> around such omissions.
>> 
>> Managers need productivity tools and meetings and seminars ad
>> infinitum, BUT what comes out of all of this is LOWER productivity
>> NOT higher productivity.
>> 
>> Managers will go on a tear eliminating the best workers.  Managers
>> have the authority to fire capable subordinates while
>> management workers have their ways to drive out their capable peers.
>> This is really one of the worst productivity destroying activities,
>> but the highest priority of the very paranoid managers is to
>> eliminate threatening elements.  Managers are not above prostitution
>> to get their way in this regard.
>> 
>> Managers lie and lie some more.  In the three+ decades of equal
>> rights for managers, no other group has contributed more to the
>> decline of the standards of verisimilitude and ethics than the
>> managers.  The result has been, of course, lower morale and lower
>> productivity overall, thus increasing the magnitude of work from
>> mere morsels to mountains.  (Case in point:  the very trivial
>> end-of-century computer problem.)
>> 
>> Males do not discuss sex much when left to themselves, but put
>> one single manager into the mix, even at the outer fringes of the
>> mix, and the social dynamics of the male group change such that
>> many energies get diverted to raunchiness and away from productivity.
>> 
>> All of the above is contributing to the loss of competitiveness
>> on the part of the United States.  This in turn is causing consumer
>> preferences to shift to foreign goods.  Since consumers will always
>> go with their first choice, even if their second choice is a close
>> second, the lion's share of economic rewards will flow to foreign
>> countries.  This is exactly what is being reflected in the shameful
>> trade deficit of the United States.



The organising skills of managers are necessary, as long as they
function liberally and democratically. A group of workers left to
themselves will have insufficint managerial skills to maintain any
kind of acceptable efficiency. This, in fact is what happened to many
collectivised factories during the Spanish civil war. You do have a
point, however, and the current capitalist heirarchal system cripples
creativity, spontaneity, and productivity.

>The above modes of operation and conditions DID NOT prevail prior
>to equal employment opportunity; they are female traits; the
>females introduced them like pollution into the business world;
>and they spread like contagion throughout the economy.

These rash judgements and criticisms are exactly the ugly traits of
managers and bosses that have disabled the productive and creative
capacity of the modern economic world. You, who are so quck to
critisize, forget that women are chosen by employers too contribute to
the work force for their positive contributions, and if they had none,
there would be no problem in either keeping the female proportion of
workers to a minimum or chosing quiet, shy, women, who don't get in
the way anyway. This is not the case in most modern industry or
commerce,  so maybe you're missing something important somewhere...

>On a related front: the Treatise on the Downward Wage Equalizing
>Effects of Equal Employment Opportunity is available at:
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3982/

>"Government enforced wage equalization will work only
>in the downward direction" - despite any initial
>appearance to the contrary!  And the most shocking
>thing of all is that the least preferred worker does
>not even have to be awarded a job for many phenomena
>to occur.

You're forgetting many important factors that affect the real standard
of living of an average person. Government spending is one which plays
close to no role in the upper classes due to private services, but for
the lower income bracket the government level of expenditure
practically completely determines the standard of living. More
importantly though, the difference in standard of living from the most
wealthy. If, for example, brother Dick works 3 hours a day, and makes
3 000 000 $ every hour, drives a Porsche, and has a house in every
country of the world. Whilst brother Joe has a mud brick house and
nothing more. I think you can reckon that Joe is gonna be pretty
bloody unhappy. On the other hand if every one, including Dick lived
in a mud-brick house we'd all be satisfied; our needs are met and we
all have as good a standard of living as everyone else. Admittedly,
this is an extreme example, but some degree of equalisation IS
required, in the name of overall happiness, justice and equality.


                       Maurice Pigaht           pig...@hotmail.com

Maurice Pigaht; pig...@hotmail.com