new business model ideas

[bickelz]

* I was thinking 300 was a number that allowed sufficient room for growth before the business becomes completely faceless but i'm not stuck on the number 300. I dont think people are all out for themselves. Some people are. The rest of them want to live a good, safe life and feed their families. I think if people had their basic needs met they wouldnt need to be that selfish. Currently our culture rewards people for being self serving but I dont think thats an innate thing. Fundamentaly humans are social beings that need to live in communities to survive, and thus the community's interest should be their interest also.

Humans are social beings and we should do some things that are in the interest of the community, but not at the expense of the individual. That's where the individual gets lost in the "community" much like you see a person getting lost in a firm with 300+ employees.

Also, people act on their own self interest always, or at least 99.999999% of the time. If something doesn't serve you in some way (in one shape or another), you're not going to do it. This applies to everybody from the greediest person in the world to Jesus and the most altruistic people. The "good, safe" life you exemplified is still lived in the self interest of those modest people. It doesn't make them greedy because acting on self interest =/= greed.

* People do have a right to be compensated fairly for their work- its a human right. And yes the compensation will depend on what you produce, how much you produce and the quality of your production. The harder you work, the more innovative you are, the more you get paid.

When it comes to a "right" for pay, this argument just boils down to preferences in political and market theories. I think there are major flaws in the "right to pay" but that's just me and everybody with a PhD in economics. But I guess they know nothing about how capitalism works.

In the bolded section you contradict yourself. Compensation is related to productivity, as I said earlier. It has nothing do do with "hard work" or even "innovation". You have to do something that society values. If you innovate the rubber band, don't be expecting millions. Should a farmer who does things by hand get paid more than a farmer who uses machines when the machine-using farmer produces 100 times more of the same crop? The hand farmer worked harder but got a lot less done.

* Yes the CEO is not as easily replacable as the janitor. And a good CEO is very valuable. The harder the CEO works the more he gets paid as he has a representative share in the business' profit. If his janitors are getting compensated fairly they too will do a better job. Yes there are some people that are self-serving and purely motivated by money and having a cap may mean that they work less hard. I think the cap is reasonable though, I would even go as far as considering a cap of maximum 15 times more than the lowest paid worker. If the CEO wants to get paid more he needs to ensure that the lowest paid workers can be paid more and he can do this if he does his job properly.

As I said above, wages and salary are based on you're productivity as well as what you do. The janitor doesn't have a specific skill set that is specialized enough to be as valuable as the people working there. Depending on the type of work place, your measures to have the lowest paid workers get paid more would end up in them being fired. If I have to pay a janitor 75k a year by law, I'd pry just fire him because it'd be cheaper for the other employees to take turns cleaning the restrooms and vacuuming. It sounds silly, but government cutting CEO pay and raising janitor pay is sillier.

 

[bickelz]

It sounds as if you are advocating slavery here. Which is fine, I just wanted some clairity.

No, I was not advocating slavery. I seriously don't know how that was misinterpreted. You don't have a right to a job and thus don't have a right to compensation since compensation is based off of how much you produce and what you produce.

CEOs arent gods. The only reason many CEOs are in their positions is because they are born into a class of people with enough money for the right schools, and the right "culture" to get along with other CEOs ,politicians, etc to be able to "move and shake". Most people can run a business especially when they are surrounded by people trying to create success for the company.

I realize they are not gods but they're accountable for everything that goes on in the company. And saying they all come from "elites" is a gross over-generalization.

I think a lot of people are suggesting a drastic change in culture when they are suggesting these employment changes. Which is good. But it will take time and is more something up an INFJs alley than a ISTJ like me.

That's great people want to change the system; I want that too. But when people fundamentally miss what's actually going on and run in the opposite direction without listening to people who actually do know what's happening, they're usually wrong about the situation. More regulation telling companies what to do hampers growth and you can't create jobs as well as you can without unnecessary costs and restrictions. Not only that, but it's just plain wrong for government to tell people what they can and can't do in private situations.

 

[Quiet]

Humans are social beings and we should do some things that are in the interest of the community, but not at the expense of the individual. That's where the individual gets lost in the "community" much like you see a person getting lost in a firm with 300+ employees.

Also, people act on their own self interest always, or at least 99.999999% of the time. If something doesn't serve you in some way (in one shape or another), you're not going to do it. This applies to everybody from the greediest person in the world to Jesus and the most altruistic people. The "good, safe" life you exemplified is still lived in the self interest of those modest people. It doesn't make them greedy because acting on self interest =/= greed.


When it comes to a "right" for pay, this argument just boils down to preferences in political and market theories. I think there are major flaws in the "right to pay" but that's just me and everybody with a PhD in economics. But I guess they know nothing about how capitalism works.

In the bolded section you contradict yourself. Compensation is related to productivity, as I said earlier. It has nothing do do with "hard work" or even "innovation". You have to do something that society values. If you innovate the rubber band, don't be expecting millions. Should a farmer who does things by hand get paid more than a farmer who uses machines when the machine-using farmer produces 100 times more of the same crop? The hand farmer worked harder but got a lot less done.


As I said above, wages and salary are based on you're productivity as well as what you do. The janitor doesn't have a specific skill set that is specialized enough to be as valuable as the people working there. Depending on the type of work place, your measures to have the lowest paid workers get paid more would end up in them being fired. If I have to pay a janitor 75k a year by law, I'd pry just fire him because it'd be cheaper for the other employees to take turns cleaning the restrooms and vacuuming. It sounds silly, but government cutting CEO pay and raising janitor pay is sillier.

Thank you
I sincerley dont believe that 99.9% of people always act on self interest. I dont and I know a lot of people that dont. I also know people that do and I think this has lots to do with culture and evironment. On bad days I become tired and pessmestic and I think 'what a bunch of ingnorant, self absorbed sheep' (g rated) but I dont really believe it. Even some of the dodgiest people that I know- (I associated with some bad and criminal circles when I was younger) were not necessaraliy self serving and they too had a commitment to their 'group'. You are only as safe as your environement. If the people around you are happy your life will be better or vice versa. We need each other, depend on each other. We have a shared reality. Because I love myself and my daughter, I'm happy to pay taxes so that the governenment can give poor people social security, so that they too can survive and there's less chance of me being robbed.

Its not about a 'right to pay', or the right to have a job. No one has a right to a job, you earn it. Its a right to be compensated fairly. Our current econmoic system is incompatible with 'human rights' and needs to be adapted. Its not exactly a roaring success at the moment. I am happy to listen to someone with a PHD in economics, they obviously have a far more advanced understanding of these issues than me. However, these issues are greater than the field of economics alone.

If I innovated the rubber band I would expect millions- one of the most useful innovations ever! Everyone uses them and buys tonns of them.
Isnt productivity related to innovation and hardwork? How can you be productive without these?
In your example about the farmers, the 2nd farmer has been more innovative and efficient, that why he has more crops, and thats why he gets paid more.

If you want to fire your janitor and get other staff to chip in than thats great. Maybe it would be more efficient that way. Or maybe your other stuff might do a crap job and have their current skills wasted. Or you could hire a janitor from a janitor business that specailises in cleaning.

Why is it silly to raise janitor's pay and reduce CEO's pay? Do you honestly think that CEO's dont get paid too much?

 

[bickelz]

Thank you
I sincerley dont believe that 99.9% of people always act on self interest. I dont and I know a lot of people that dont. I also know people that do and I think this has lots to do with culture and evironment. On bad days I become tired and pessmestic and I think 'what a bunch of ingnorant, self absorbed sheep' (g rated) but I dont really believe it. Even some of the dodgiest people that I know- (I associated with some bad and criminal circles when I was younger) were not necessaraliy self serving and they too had a commitment to their 'group'. You are only as safe as your environement. If the people around you are happy your life will be better or vice versa. We need each other, depend on each other. We have a shared reality. Because I love myself and my daughter, I'm happy to pay taxes so that the governenment can give poor people social security, so that they too can survive and there's less chance of me being robbed.

Okay, you may believe that what I said isn't true yet you don't even offer anecdotal evidence for your side of the argument. Name one thing that you has been done that qualifies as not acting in one's self-interest.

Its not about a 'right to pay', or the right to have a job. No one has a right to a job, you earn it. Its a right to be compensated fairly. Our current econmoic system is incompatible with 'human rights' and needs to be adapted. Its not exactly a roaring success at the moment. I am happy to listen to someone with a PHD in economics, they obviously have a far more advanced understanding of these issues than me. However, these issues are greater than the field of economics alone.

It's true that our problems extend beyond the bounds of the economy but while we're on the subject of wages, this is nothing more than a deflection. "Fair" is entirely subjective but the way it's defined in economics is the agreed price and quantity of a good/service. Technically, if you enter into a job agreeing to a wage, it's "fair".

Our current economic system has holes in it but capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is government's effect that it has when it intervenes. For example, giving bailout money to banks when they're on the verge of collapsing only incentivizes riskier behavior. If you know you can't lose no matter how much risk you take on, you're going to take on a whole lot of risk because it yields the greatest returns. That's a simplified way of it, but far from a lie.

If I innovated the rubber band I would expect millions- one of the most useful innovations ever! Everyone uses them and buys tonns of them.
Isnt productivity related to innovation and hardwork? How can you be productive without these?
In your example about the farmers, the 2nd farmer has been more innovative and efficient, that why he has more crops, and thats why he gets paid more.

Innovative just means making something better. Innovation in the right places makes you more productive but not all innovation is productive. Hardwork is the same way.

The second farmer gets paid more because he produces more. Yes, he is more efficient through technology, which is just as important as hard work, if not more. Him using a tractor doesn't make him innovative though. If he used the tractor is a new and creative way that made him more productive than the people with the same tractor, he'd be innovative.

If you want to fire your janitor and get other staff to chip in than thats great. Maybe it would be more efficient that way. Or maybe your other stuff might do a crap job and have their current skills wasted. Or you could hire a janitor from a janitor business that specailises in cleaning.

What I'm trying to highlight is that policies have unintended consequences. It's like throwing a band-aid on a snake bite without sucking out the venom and then wondering why you die.

Why is it silly to raise janitor's pay and reduce CEO's pay? Do you honestly think that CEO's dont get paid too much?

I guess I should rephrase, it's silly to enact a law that restricts the pay of a CEO and forces them to raise the janitor's pay. It doesn't matter how I feel about somebody getting paid a million a year. The company that employ's that person values their service at a million per year.

I really don't think they get paid too much. Regardless of what you think about how much they should get paid, you should only have a say in that if you are employing the CEO. Again, it's wrong to have government telling what a private firm can and can't do (to a certain extent).

 

[Quiet]

Okay, you may believe that what I said isn't true yet you don't even offer anecdotal evidence for your side of the argument. Name one thing that you has been done that qualifies as not acting in one's self-interest.



It's true that our problems extend beyond the bounds of the economy but while we're on the subject of wages, this is nothing more than a deflection. "Fair" is entirely subjective but the way it's defined in economics is the agreed price and quantity of a good/service. Technically, if you enter into a job agreeing to a wage, it's "fair".

Our current economic system has holes in it but capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is government's effect that it has when it intervenes. For example, giving bailout money to banks when they're on the verge of collapsing only incentivizes riskier behavior. If you know you can't lose no matter how much risk you take on, you're going to take on a whole lot of risk because it yields the greatest returns. That's a simplified way of it, but far from a lie.



Innovative just means making something better. Innovation in the right places makes you more productive but not all innovation is productive. Hardwork is the same way.

The second farmer gets paid more because he produces more. Yes, he is more efficient through technology, which is just as important as hard work, if not more. Him using a tractor doesn't make him innovative though. If he used the tractor is a new and creative way that made him more productive than the people with the same tractor, he'd be innovative.



What I'm trying to highlight is that policies have unintended consequences. It's like throwing a band-aid on a snake bite without sucking out the venom and then wondering why you die.



I guess I should rephrase, it's silly to enact a law that restricts the pay of a CEO and forces them to raise the janitor's pay. It doesn't matter how I feel about somebody getting paid a million a year. The company that employ's that person values their service at a million per year.

I really don't think they get paid too much. Regardless of what you think about how much they should get paid, you should only have a say in that if you are employing the CEO. Again, it's wrong to have government telling what a private firm can and can't do (to a certain extent).

I feel a bit embarrassed giving examples but I will for the sake of discussion. I do not see myself as a matyr.
I have stopped 2 violent fights by intervening in them. I knew that there was a good chance that I could get hurt and I was scared but I did it because I thought that other people could get seriously hurt. In one situation it was my friend versus 2 strangers, the other was just a bunch of strangers maybe 7 or 8.
I have intervened in numerous situations where someone is getting bullied- at school and in the workforce. I knew that I would be ridiculed and my life made a lot harder but it seemed like the right thing to do. As reward for one of these situations I got pushed down some stairs- but I was fine. There was one instance of bullying that I didnt step in and I still feel sick thinking about it.
I gave a friend my entire christmas budget that I had saved up for so that he could fly interstate and see his family and buy them all presents. This made me sad because my other friends and family missed out but it was worth it. I made people IOU's as presents in the end. This is also the first time I have mentioned this to anyone.
I let others have the last slice if they want it- even if its cheesecake.
I looked after my grandmother for two years and payed all her bills even though she is abrasive and mean so that my dad and his wife could travel. These years were miserable but it had to be done so that dad could keep his sanity and it would have destroyed my grandmother is had to go to a nursing home.
I took the blame for someone else punching a hole in a wall as I thought that they were going to get in far worse trouble for it.
I took the blame at work for an incident so that my friend wouldnt be fired.
I have volunteered in community organisations because I thought that they had value to the community
Im currently working on a project for breast cancer that Im pouring my own resources into. I want nothing from it but the satisfaction of being closer to a cure.
Ive contributed stories annonomously to a web site that are good enough to be published (by public opinion on the site) that I want no credit for and just like having my work enjoyed and appreciated.

Anyway, I feel embarassed to continue. Its hard for me to clearly define what self serving is because I feel that I have benefited greatly from the acts, so they have served my 'self'. I grew up in a beautiful christian enviroment where we were taught to love our neighbour as ourself. I think that if you can love your neighbour and their children as youself than its pretty easy to be less self serving. Volunteer organisations are filled with people like this.

I agree with your definition of 'fair' as agreed value. I agree that the bailouts were harmful to the spirit of capitalism and did a lot of harm in general. It was almost capitalism redeeming its injustices and then the bailouts interved and set it all back again.

Yes you're right about innovation. I was using the term incorrectly.

About the CEO's getting paid too much- these companies are owned by shareholders right? Do they get to decide how much CEO's get paid?

 

[bickelz]

I feel a bit embarrassed giving examples but I will for the sake of discussion. I do not see myself as a matyr.
I have stopped 2 violent fights by intervening in them. I knew that there was a good chance that I could get hurt and I was scared but I did it because I thought that other people could get seriously hurt. In one situation it was my friend versus 2 strangers, the other was just a bunch of strangers maybe 7 or 8.
I have intervened in numerous situations where someone is getting bullied- at school and in the workforce. I knew that I would be ridiculed and my life made a lot harder but it seemed like the right thing to do. As reward for one of these situations I got pushed down some stairs- but I was fine. There was one instance of bullying that I didnt step in and I still feel sick thinking about it.
I gave a friend my entire christmas budget that I had saved up for so that he could fly interstate and see his family and buy them all presents. This made me sad because my other friends and family missed out but it was worth it. I made people IOU's as presents in the end. This is also the first time I have mentioned this to anyone.
I let others have the last slice if they want it- even if its cheesecake.
I looked after my grandmother for two years and payed all her bills even though she is abrasive and mean so that my dad and his wife could travel. These years were miserable but it had to be done so that dad could keep his sanity and it would have destroyed my grandmother is had to go to a nursing home.
I took the blame for someone else punching a hole in a wall as I thought that they were going to get in far worse trouble for it.
I took the blame at work for an incident so that my friend wouldnt be fired.
I have volunteered in community organisations because I thought that they had value to the community
Im currently working on a project for breast cancer that Im pouring my own resources into. I want nothing from it but the satisfaction of being closer to a cure.
Ive contributed stories annonomously to a web site that are good enough to be published (by public opinion on the site) that I want no credit for and just like having my work enjoyed and appreciated.

Well, you're a very generous person but I was hoping for examples exactly like these. The reason I bolded the part that I did was because it highlights the different ways in which you can pursue your own self interest. The bold section entails that you did those things to avoid guilt, along with trying to keep the peace. You acted on these principles, which do serve your self interest since no one wants to feel guilty and if you want to keep the peace, you're going to act on it. These weren't selfish decisions, in fact they were the opposite.

The Christmas gift was a touching story and an extreme example but you gave that money away presumably because it brought you joy to see that person go home and be able to see their family. Did you get no satisfaction out of it? Looking back on it, would you have gotten more satisfaction if you have bought presents instead? My guess is no, otherwise you wouldn't have done that.

Suppose the people in relationships that ignore themselves and try to make the other person happy no matter what the torment. They go to the end of the earth and sacrifice everything in order to please their significant other. An altruist, in this situation, places a higher value on serving the other than they do taking care of themselves. therefore it is in their self-interest to serve their significant other at the expense of themselves. They actually get more satisfaction out of that than if they were to live autonomously.

It really isn't about money even though there is definitely a cost-benefit analysis. You're not going to do something at a high cost with no benefit, no matter what form the benefit comes in (ex love, money, seeing other people happy, gratification...).

As Adam Smith famously put it in the Wealth of Nations...

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

 

[muir]

Noam Chomsky on Adam Smith:

[video=youtube;mFEfmYH-PPE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFEfmYH-PPE[/video]

Chomsky on free markets:

[video=youtube;ohwYrK5sYKw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohwYrK5sYKw&feature=related[/video]

 

[Quiet]

This guy:

http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/08/decide_to_do_so.html

Is a genius when it comes to organizational psychology and enterpreneurship. He wrote that article about enterpreneurship and risk.
And yes, his ideas would probably also apply to new organizational structures.

thanks
Great blog- he has great ideas, pretty common sense

 

[Quiet]

And on Adam Smith, Chomsky does have a very different interpretation of his work compared to how its intepreted by the church of economy. very interesting.

 

[BoringNotBornIng]

I was making audit for a company that is doing catering equipment for restaurants, and it is having about 350 people, each man that is working there is making strictly his work, I saw few clients came and thanked the owner of the company ianboer.com.au saying that he is very satisfied with the quality of the equipment. The company is not having very many people, but all of them that are working over there know what they have to do and the way everything works, they don't need guidance. I asked the owner if he is thinking of hiring more people to get more customers, he answered: "Not now, because the people that are working now, they don't have time to teach new comers". He is a good man, and all of his workers said he is a good man. About the payment, it is quite impressive, the salary is good for the area they are working. A 350 employees business is good, and it is more than enough from what I saw.