Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




The key to working 40 hour weeks

if companies can hire cheap labout why can't we, a co-worker of mine offered me the services of some of his friends in india for 2.50/hr. If you are getting beaten down by mgmt. why not hire some developers in the foreign country of your choice!

regualar poster that saw the light
Friday, July 05, 2002

p.s.
you will also have the added benefit of running pricks like this (who markup their labour roughly 400%) out of business!


Anybody have some extra work that they would like outsourced to developers in India?

Hourly rates starting from $5/hr for HTML developers,
$10/hr for C++ developers
$30/hr for MIT trained Managers
$50/hr for London School of economics trained accounting auditors

Let me know and we can exchange contact information.

thanks S.H.K

Sanjay Kapoor

regualar poster that saw the light
Friday, July 05, 2002

p.s. p.s. post your contact info here and I will forward you some names!

regualar poster that saw the light
Friday, July 05, 2002

The best cure to anyone that doesn't like working more than 40 hour weeks is unemployment.  You'll be amazed at how they then consider 40 hours not enough.

Joe AA.
Friday, July 05, 2002

get paid for 40 hours = work forty hours

regualar poster that saw the light
Friday, July 05, 2002

If you are an hourly employee, then you are correct... work 40 hours get paid for 40 hours.

Salaried employees are not hourly employees - no guarantee of only 8 hours per day, no guarantee of 5 days a week. 

Salaried employee != hourly employee

Joe AA.
Friday, July 05, 2002

The key to working 40 hr. weeks (or 60 or 20 or whatever) is to properly negotiate the terms of your employment with your employer, ideally before you take the job :P.  Seems like most of what's happening out there is people writing their employers a blank check and then griping when the employer cashes it.  Be a little more diligent about it and you'll have far less reason to be gnashing your teeth.

This also acts as a good filtering mechanism to identify which potential employers are interested in working you to death and which are interested in you because you do excellent work during the time you commit to working.

Nuff Said
Friday, July 05, 2002


to Nuff Said, Jow AA 40 hours etc...
1) I think you are right  in terms of blank checks, the trouble is that many employees are finding their terms unilateraly renegotioted by their employers: "I know we told you you would'nt be here every night and weekend but... cost structre..." (I know i did)
and successfully fought it, by basically refusing to work overtime without extra (Proportionate) compensation, I guess greatness has its rewards

2. I think you are missing the point though, if you are an employee who has to work for two, why not give up 5-10% of your salary (tax deductable) to go back to having a life!!!

regualar poster that saw the light
Friday, July 05, 2002

Light Seer,

You are indeed wising up to the secrets of shorter weeks.
Here are some additional tricks from our bag:

1. Find well designed open-source code that does what you want.
2. Hire Offshore company A to create a great set of design documentation for the code. Indians, BTW, are fantastic at this and you can get it done absurdly cheaply. They are specially trained in making great documentation as part of their high valuation of formal methodologies.
3. Hire Offshore company B to use the design documents to to a clean room reimplementation. Add docs your team has drawn up to create a better user interface, install program, general usability improvements. It's unbelievably cheap and fast to get the code back this way. And guess what -- the code is now 100% proprietary closed-source. Hah! Check with an attorney if you doubt me.
4. Patent the hell out of everything in the program.
5. Sell the program for to corporate users for $20,000 or more per license. Target users disatisfied with the poor usability and uncertainty of your open-source competitor.
6. If problems arise, sue your open-source competitors. Badger them with your patents. Use your cash reserves to legally harass them with nuisance suits until they go under. Seize their homes and vehicles. Use your political connections to send in FBI agents to seize their computers and arrest them for having illegal porn on their hard drives.

Try it -- this method works great and is guaranteed to succeed.

Nick Machiavelli
Saturday, July 06, 2002

Yeah a really well thoughtout PLAN!!!
Just one question, what cave did you evolve from?


[Try it -- this method works great and is guaranteed to succeed.

Nick Machiavelli
]

Larry from Queens
Saturday, July 06, 2002

Hilarious. Unfortunately, some of this is probably reasonably consist with current corporate practice.

The whole overseas issue strikes me as a bizarre moral and economic conundrum. It seems there is very little reason to hire in country developers, if only because those developers require higher pay due to their living conditions/economic status. Meanwhile, you have off shore developers capable of making rather high quality solutions for lower cost due to the valuation of the dollar in comparison to their regional currency. On the one hand, corporations have a moral obligation to their shareholders to get the greatest value possible. On the other, they have an obligation to their country for providing them with an environment in which they can thrive...

This is disturbing to me on many levels, both as a C level executive for a small corporation and as an individual who has done technology consulting in the past.

Dustin Alexander
Sunday, July 07, 2002

Here is a moral quandry for you, if you as an executive have a "moral obligation" toward your investors, why don't you give your job to a foreigner, that way they company will save quite a bit more than by paying you!

regualar poster that saw the light
Sunday, July 07, 2002

This strikes me as a fairly good plan. I could get a robe, become a monk, forswear technology and grow corn. :)

Obviously most executives morality, including my own, leans towards the local employee base rather than that overseas. This does not prevent me from understanding the logic of those that seek employees in other countries. I think there is also a lot to be said for the ease of communication between local workers who have the same social mores and cultural upbringing. Intangible factors like moral are also effected by such employment choices.

My previous comment was in no way a defense of these hiring tactics. Sorry if it came off that way. I was more of a point of argument to measure an understanding of the people who make such choices.

Dustin Alexander
Sunday, July 07, 2002

Morality is not an "intangible".  It is not immoral for an employer to hire overseas employees and it is certainly not moral to hire only local ones.  It IS moral to provide a useful service to your customers and a fair rate of return for your stockholders... failing to do so would be immoral, regardless of the makeup of your employees.

Joe AA.
Sunday, July 07, 2002

JOE AA
As I said before the #1 cost (and as we recently saw the #1 liability) in every company is upper management, other countries have cheaper upper management it is therefore upper management's fiduciary responsibility to the stock holders to fire themselves, and replace themselves with either H1B's or Overseas workers (or even teams of workers).

regualar poster that saw the light
Sunday, July 07, 2002

Now there's a brillant suggestion, if I ever did hear one.

I understand both the Indians and Japanese have excellent management schools, currently churning out excess, and relatively cheap loyal Middle managers and executive level types, ready/willing to make an immediate impact.

[it is therefore upper management's fiduciary responsibility to the stock holders to fire themselves, and replace themselves with either H1B's or Overseas workers (or even teams of workers). ]

House of Tojo
Sunday, July 07, 2002

Yeah while we're at it, we should out source both the senate and congress to China.  The legislators there would be happy with $10-20K per annum!! Think of the cost savings!!

Cost Slasher
Sunday, July 07, 2002

Joe AA,

I wasn't implying that morality was intangible, although now that you mention it tI would have trouble putting a dollar figure on my values. (It would certainly be more than $40.00 US :) )

I believe that running a company within the boundaries of a society does create an obligation to that society beyond the typical tax obligation. I think taking jobs from an economy that provides the majority of your user base, especially when that economy is weakened due to external factors, is reprehensible. It also doesn't make good business sense to remove value from a closed market that provides the majority of your cash influx. Note that there is a line between some outsourcing work and outsourcing everything.

I believe that the board of a corporate entity have not only a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, but also a moral obligation to see that the values of the majority are reflected in corporate activites. I think in many ways that this second responsibility dwarfs the first. Its not all about money.

Dustin Alexander
Sunday, July 07, 2002

Dustin... you can believe your lofty statements all you want, but you are wrong.

It is all about money, as a first, as a primary.  Even if a business wanted to act as you deem appropriate, the money still has to come first... something has to be there to pay for it.  The belief... the delusion, that all businesses have this magical stack of money hidden in some back office vault available (e.g. their "deep pockets") and ready to be looted... is not real.

Any business operating in a closed market cannot "make money", it cannot create wealth.  That's an old spanish theory that no longer applies, even in our pseudo-capitalist economy.

A business has no obligation to the values of the majority.  The mere fact that a majority has a particular value does not mean nor imply that it is correct, nor that it is in the best interest of the business - either short or long term. 
Thinking by survey, engaging in business competition by survey, will all bring a business to a quick close. 

You are only preaching protectionism and deeming it a moral obligation.

Joe AA.
Monday, July 08, 2002

Joe AA. aka Bella
You're wrong! 

If it were indeed acceptable for BIG business to rum amuck, as you so often advocate,  then how do you explain regulations, and various laws designed to make them socially accountable?

Please share your insights, I'm sure everyone is looking forward to reading IT.

Corporations are LEGALLY and MORALLY obligated to behave in socially acceptable fashion!

Silent Majority
Monday, July 08, 2002

The key to working 40 is to work 40. At 39:45 get ready to go home and then GO!

Actually you see, I'm a morning person. I arrive at the office ~7AM (which is late for a morning person). Everyone else, about 8 people, start trickling in at 8:30. With just 1.5 to 2 hrs of flow time, I can outproduce everyone else.  My work for the day is done by 9AM. The rest of the day is a series of  interruptions, phone calls, meetings and various other non-productive activities. No chance for flow.

Everyone else starts with 8hrs of this disruptive activity and then they stay late to get their 1.5 to 2hrs of flow time and do their work for the day.

Just to be clear, my flow time is included in my 8hr day. Everyone elses is in addition to their 8hr day. 

"asset"
Monday, July 08, 2002

Hmm... someone else thought I was Bella.  I thank you for the association, but I'm afraid I have to decline.

A business that runs amok, will not be in business for long either.

Sure, there are socialistic laws and regulations.  Some businesses manage to survive in spite of them, most however end up on the bankrupt dump. 

You feel entitled to mooch off your betters and you want to be protected in your "right" to do so.  But you know what you are.

Joe AA.
Monday, July 08, 2002

Joe AA.,

The last thing I want is to agree with "Silent Majority."  But take a look at this link, which explains why corporations indeed have social obligations.  Corporations are an invention to aid society, but that they changed that role as they gained political influence in the US.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Corporations/Rise.asp

random java drone
Monday, July 08, 2002

"asset"... couldn't agree with you more.  I used to arrive at 5am... much more productive.  I usually left at 4pm.

I don't understand the fascination with restricting work to a number of hours... I love my work, and it is only through my work that I can "have a life".  However I understand that some people relate "having a life" to mean the "freedom to goof off".

Most of my late arriving peers needed to leave early to make up for it.

Joe AA.
Monday, July 08, 2002

This is what happens when a free for all is allowed.
For better of for worse, rules and enforcement of those rules are there to protect the weak from those with predatory predilections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36589-2002Jul7.html

"A business that runs amok, will not be in business for long either."

Silent Majority
Monday, July 08, 2002

If you believe such prattle, then you are indeed nieve.
It's akin to saying that a society with a code of civil conduct will ultimately not survive.

You see, a corporation is a legal living entity, that must itself exist within the context of a greater society. As such is subject to all laws of self conduct, ethical/moral or otherwise.

"Sure, there are socialistic laws and regulations. Some businesses manage to survive in spite of them, most however end up on the bankrupt dump"

Silent Majority
Monday, July 08, 2002

So Joe AA,
when you're safe at home at night, or when you're able to go about you business during the day without harassment,
do you feel you're "Mooching Off" your betters?

Clearly the reason you enjoy such freedoms has little to do with your direct contributions in as much as there are laws[enforced] to guarantee you these liberties.  Imagine a society without such codes of conduct.  Do you really think business would thrive in such lawlessness?

"You feel entitled to mooch off your betters and you want to be protected in your "right" to do so. But you know what you are.
"

Silent Majority
Monday, July 08, 2002

"It's akin to saying that a society with a code of civil conduct will ultimately not survive."

The Soviet Union had the strongest code of civil conduct in history.

Joe AA.
Monday, July 08, 2002

You're definitely Bella.
You show precisely the same lack of grasp of deep issues.

Troll

"
"It's akin to saying that a society with a code of civil conduct will ultimately not survive."

The Soviet Union had the strongest code of civil conduct in history.

Joe AA.
"

IUnknown
Monday, July 08, 2002

" You see, a corporation is a legal living entity, that must itself exist within the context of a greater society. As such is subject to all laws of self conduct, ethical/moral or otherwise."

You hit upon my point exactly.

Now, to refute your statements, Joe:

The majority of corporations balance monetary and moral concerns. This is why you see corporate charities, community building, and other socially beneficial activities. This is not just dumb PR, there are people on the board that wish to make a difference with the power and wealth that they have accumulated.

As far as morality killing a corporation, you are as wrong there as you can be. Having a common moral standing in many ways helps a company succeed. A company with moral direction is much harder to dilute into an unfocused entity and has a tendency to continue along a set and valuable path without straying. Companies without socially acceptable mores tend to burn out, sell out, or die out. They become the Enron and WorldComs of the world.

As far as my closed economy statement: The US is a fairly closed economy. This means that the way to improve it is to open the economy by shipping *products* overseas, not wealth. The only thing accomplished by feeding cheap labor overseas is a mass export of corporate wealth.

Dustin Alexander
Monday, July 08, 2002

A society with a poorly thought out "code of conduct" that is destructive to the society that it governs *won't* survive :)  All these rules and laws and regulations that some folks keep claiming are necessary to protect everyone from rampaging business, foreign competition, etc. are equivalent to poorly thought out codes and are just as destructive.  I'd be happy to elaborate, if necessary, but if you just pick your favorite and think it through to its logical conclusions, it's a much more productive exercise. 

Nuff Said
Monday, July 08, 2002

Please Note this Man.  He speaks with the voice of a Leader of MEN.  So eloquently stated.

I sense a Founder amongst us mere mortals


"As far as my closed economy statement: The US is a fairly closed economy. This means that the way to improve it is to open the economy by shipping *products* overseas, not wealth. The only thing accomplished by feeding cheap labor overseas is a mass export of corporate wealth.

Dustin Alexander"

Ollie Cromwell, XI
Monday, July 08, 2002

Nuff Said,
clearly no one is claiming regulations are enough in themselves.  In fact rules mean zero if the spirit of the law is not observed.  It's a good thing to put the spot light on bad behavor, v.s. rewarding such conduct.

"A society with a poorly thought out "code of conduct" that is destructive "

Silent Majority
Monday, July 08, 2002

This is a bit simplistic to make a point.

It seems too many businesses are geared towards short term gains with little regard for long term existence.

The common nonsense about "maximizing shareholder value" really means "maximizing the value for _wealthy_ shareholders".

A (large) _employer_ has many opportunities to "fix" employee problems by firing/laying off.

An _employee_ has very few opportunities (relative to the employer) to "fix" his/her career.  A job has a larger impact/risk/cost to the employee than to the employer (or shareholder).

Employers want the benefit of "loyalty" with out the cost (e.g. they want to be able to lay people off to bump the stock price higher for the quarter).

Since the US is a consumer economy, if the "good jobs" go overseas,  who is going to buy the crap that keeps the economy going?

njkayaker
Monday, July 08, 2002

You're really funny Dustin... more socially accepted practices, such as increasing the frequency that they gave money away, would have enabled Enron to survive?  What fantasy world are you living in.

As Nuff Said said... even you should be able to think this one through to it's logical conclusion.

All rules, regulations and laws that make it legal, and pretend for it to be "moral" to enslave one person in the "socially accepted service" of another... is called THEFT, nothing more, nothing less and it is enforced by the people carrying the guns. 

At least a real thief does it in the open.

Joe AA.
Monday, July 08, 2002

Why do I sense a giant awakening?
Clearly people have been giving this some thought.

But some among us might suggest that deep reflection is a dangerous thing!!  I wonder what the fore fathers would have said about this thing??

"Since the US is a consumer economy, if the "good jobs" go overseas, who is going to buy the crap that keeps the economy going? "

Ollie Cromwell, XI
Monday, July 08, 2002

Joe AA...
please go get some enlighted experience.
Your counter points seem to be missing something...
Oh that's right real world experience.
At least try to sound somewhat in the know!! 

Take it from me ... the sky is really blue and the Sun is the center of the solar system.  Morally/Ethically bankrupt Corporation will Kill a society


==>>At least a real thief does it in the open.

Joe AA.<<===

The Meaning
Monday, July 08, 2002

Insanity of the Times

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-941948.html

FlatLine
Monday, July 08, 2002

"The meaning".  I have not advocated an immoral corporation.  Morality is not to be found in slavery, socialism, or laws.

Milking corporations for the "benefit of society" will kill the milk cow.  Society will follow.

Sure, I consider what some of the people did at Enron to be immoral and unethical... but it is no different, no less immoral or unethical than the recommendations to prevent it.

If you want to support protectionism, then call it that.  If you want to support socialism, then call it that. 

At least be in the open about it... and don't hide behind some "grand and lofty" idealism that cannot support itself.

Joe AA.
Monday, July 08, 2002

Okay my clueless meter, just registed...
So Joe AA, why even bother typing such rubbish?

Unless everyone has suddenly taken the stupid pill, why would a corporation with honorable intentions not be concerned about the general well fair of it's primary consumers?  It's simple, lot of these company's are nothing more than MLMS, with the sole intent of defauding everyone!!!

"At least be in the open about it... and don't hide behind some "grand and lofty" idealism that cannot support itself.

Joe AA.

"

We're Watching
Monday, July 08, 2002

"If you want to support protectionism, then call it that. If you want to support socialism, then call it that. "

On this, we agree. I believe corporations should be policed more by their clientele than by the government that controls the domain in which they fall. Government mandates for morality should concern only factors that a corporation's client base and shareholders cannot remedy, such as anti-trust considerations.

As far as your comments on idealism, I think previous posts do a good job of explaining that the idea of corporate morality is more of a necessity than an ideal. Entities that act in the short term without regard for the effects of their actions will not be present to rectify those mistakes in the future.

Regarding my previous mention of Enron and charities in the same paragraph: I believe I was misread. I was not drawing a comparison between Enron's activites and philanthropy. The comparison was between goodwill and morality vs the results of immoral actions. Enron fell because of immoral actions. If it had been the type of company that was morally obligated towards involvment with charities, it may not have ended up the way it did. The reference was secondary and not primary to my point.

Speaking from a point closer to home: would you, as the member of a corporation, make your decisions without regard for an ethical code? Would those decisions be solely to increase shareholder value?

It has been a pleasure to share a cup of coffee with you fellows. I must get to work now. i look forward to reading your commentary this evening. Have a numinous day.

Dustin Alexander
Monday, July 08, 2002

The key is to own the work/IP that the American,Indian,Chinese etc.... programmers are working on.  Own the margin...don't produce it for someone else. Surf the delte.  It is also a great opportunity to display your superior ethics.

"asset"
Monday, July 08, 2002

Here's a interesting statement:

"It's simple, lot of these company's are nothing more than MLMS, with the sole intent of defauding everyone!!!"

In cases where this really is a true statement, having laws that attempt to force a business to be "moral" makes it easier for this fraud to occur.  Here's why.  When laws like this are passed this is a signal to consumers and investors that businesses are now being monitored for compliance by some agency or other.  In response, investors and consumers reduce (what amounts to) their risk assessment of the enterprise since they reason that the responsible agency is guaranteeing compliance and will alert them to any potential problems.  So, all these people that formerly might have demanded more openness on the part of a business, punishing those that balked by not buying from or investing in them, now forsake their due diligence.  Leaving aside anything that gets "accidentally" overlooked for political reasons, because we know that never happens, there are a lot of businesses - many more than could possibly be monitored by any agency.  This means that businesses set up to defraud people now have a much less skeptical batch of potential victims to exploit along with a single vector of discovery.  How might they respond?

Nuff Said
Monday, July 08, 2002

Agreed.  It would then be someone else's responsibilty to indentify unethical behavior.  "If what we were doing was so wrong, why didn't the gub'ment say anything?"

"asset"
Monday, July 08, 2002

Companies should only be obligated to maximize share holder value!!

Now lets make our own money:
filing by the company revealed that more than $14 billion, or 10 percent, of revenue reported since 1999 was never actually collected by the company

http://money.cnn.com/2002/07/08/news/companies/merck/index.htm

Five Elves
Monday, July 08, 2002

Philanthropy... when the gift is a voluntary choice of the giver is not in disute.  When the gift is regulated, mandated, demanded, or stolen it ceases to become philanthropy.  It is now theft, and there is no moral grounds for theft.  Even Robin Hood didn't hide behind the fact that he was stealing.  There is no moral obligation towards charities - charity is a voluntary gift. 

Yes Dustin, all corporate decisions *should* be made based on ethics and moral judgments... but not philanthropy.  Employers do not owe employees a job.

Maybe in the short term it is possible, but long term decisions should not be made primarily in the interest of the stockholders.  That is only because I believe the customers interest should come first, and the stockholder interest will follow.

But a customer... is not the same as "society".  Society is a nameless abstraction without the capacity of logical thought.  Society demands aspects such as philanthropy while the takers of the gift hide behind words such as moral and obligation and duty.  Society doesn't ask where the money is going to come from, it is just an empty demand.

As a customer of my electric utility, I expect electricity to be there when I turn on the switch.  For what I use, I pay the cost every month with my bill. 

Would I be a happier customer if the utility stole my electricity to present to another that could not afford it?  No.

Would I be a happier customer if the utility increased my bills with a surcharge to pay for the usage incurred by another?  No.

Would I be a happier customer if the utility increased my bills with additional costs to extend or provide some of their employees a job or raise because of some mandate or law demanded by the "values" of society?  No.

But if you would... more power to you (pun intended).  Just remember to explain where the money is coming from - in exact terms.  And when you get yours, remember there is someone else with a claim on it, expecting theirs also.

Joe AA.
Monday, July 08, 2002

----Beginning of Lesson----

Joe AA.,
you seem to have forgotten on detail.

People provide services not corporations.

Corporation without employees, isn't exactly viable.

In fact some might even say the most valuable service a company has to offer is the services of it's workers..

-----End of lesson-----

Service Provider
Monday, July 08, 2002

Joe AA. == Bella or
Joe AA. == InstanceOf(Bella) or
Joe AA. == genetic variant of Bella.

C.I. Kelly
Monday, July 08, 2002

<giggle>
Since Bella == Troll
Therefore Joe AA == Troll
<giggle/>

[Joe AA. == Bella or
Joe AA. == InstanceOf(Bella) or
Joe AA. == genetic variant of Bella.

C.I. Kelly]

Once in a while
Monday, July 08, 2002

Sorry to disappoint you.

Bella seems to have the courage to stand behind his/her posts.  You cowards do not.

State what you want... and it will go like this:  I am entitled to a job making more money than I can possibly earn based on my own ability.  It is unfair to expect me to be responsible for myself.  I want charity and mercy and it is either the government or society's place to provide it for me.  In return, I promise to pretend it's moral.

Go for it.  You deserve it.

Joe AA.
Monday, July 08, 2002

In cases where this really is a true statement, having laws that attempt to force a business to be "moral" makes it easier for this fraud to occur. Here's why. When laws like this are passed this is a signal to consumers and investors that businesses are now ...

could not be more true, but not for Nuff Said's reason the reason that regulatory laws are scoffed at will is that we treat white collar crime with kid gloves, think about it who deserves the death penalty more some guy who killed another guy in a drug deal, or a guy who ruined the lives, retirements, college funds of 10,000 people?

Daniel Shchyokin
Monday, July 08, 2002


Joe:

  Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged?  Ever consider where Ayn Rand fell short? ...

regards,

Matt H.
Tuesday, July 09, 2002

No Matt... I don't read fiction.  So I can't respond to whatever point you want to make.

Joe AA.
Tuesday, July 09, 2002

I've read a lot on this thread about morality, obligation, duty and such.  Isn't this more properly an issue of Religion?  We may just as well ask if there's a God.  After all if there really isn't a 'Higher Authority' then don't terms like morality, good/bad, right/wrong become meaningless?

Based on that then can anyone be wrong in their conclusions?  Heck, maybe everyone is correct!  <shrug>

Greg Kellerman
Tuesday, July 09, 2002

Gee... I wonder how this works?
So will employees in ASIA be allowed to contribute to PACs now


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41510-2002Jul8.html

Uh Okay
Tuesday, July 09, 2002

Why would morality be a religious issue and depend on a "higher authority"?

Most immoral of bastards are generally very religious - I think it's because they believe they will be forgiven.

Joe AA.
Wednesday, July 10, 2002

Joe AA "Why would morality be a religious issue and depend on a "higher authority"?"

Because my dictionary defines Religion as a set of personal beliefs.  If people have different beliefs then wouldn't it follow that their definintion of what is 'moral' would be different also.  Therefore I can posit that without a 'higher authority' the meaning or 'moral' becomes meaningless.  How can we have a discussion of things being moral when we all don't agree on the meaning thereof?

Greg Kellerman
Wednesday, July 10, 2002

moral

adj 1: relating to principles of right and wrong; i.e. to morals or ethics; "moral philosophy" 2: concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles; "moral sense"; "a moral scrutiny"; "a moral lesson"; "a moral quandary"; "moral convictions"; "a moral life" [ant: immoral, amoral] 3: adhering to ethical and moral principles; "it seems ethical and right"; "followed the only honorable course of action"; "had the moral courage to stand alone" [syn: ethical, honorable, honourable] 4: arising from the sense of right and wrong; "a moral obligation" 5: psychological rather than physical or tangible in effect; "a moral victory"; "moral support" 6: based on strong likelihood or firm conviction rather than actual evidence; "a moral certainty" [syn: moral(a)] n : the significance of a story or event; "the moral of the story is to love thy neighbor" [syn: lesson]

Gee... not one mention of the word religion in the definition of moral.  Not one mention that "moral" has to be based on the presence of a "higher authority".

If you don't believe a human being can be moral as an individual - without a ghost acting as a "higher authority", how can you ever hope to achieve it with a herd of 'em?

Joe AA.
Wednesday, July 10, 2002

Joe AA

moral
1: relating to principles of right and wrong;
2: concerned with principles of right and wrong
3: adhering to ethical and moral principles;

Did you happen to notice how often the word being defined was used in the definition?  Who's morals do we use?  Yours?  Mine?  Who are you to say or define what is moral for someone else?  Maybe I think something is immoral (Bill Clinton's actions comes to mind) but others don't.  I think the tax structure in the US is robbing me of the labor I've done and the fruits of it is being given away to people that haven't earned it so as to buy votes.  Is that immoral?  From what I can tell a boatload of my fellow citizens have no problem stealing from me.  I can only guess to them it's the right thing to do.

Greg Kellerman
Wednesday, July 10, 2002

The definition says principles and standards ... the "higher authority" could be your Mum.

Christopher Wells
Wednesday, July 10, 2002

Clinton is a religous man, a Baptist if I remember correctly.  He also had a job as a "higher authority".  Yet you do not consider he or his actions as moral?

Your definition of moral is the only thing that is important to you.  You are the only one that will suffer as a result of any immoral act you commit - even if you are merely practicing the opinion of your "higher authority".  You are free to think that what you believe to be immoral is actually moral only because you think it.  There are a lot of delusionary people in the world.

It is the people assuming their morals from a "higher authority" that are stealing from you... and me. 

Joe AA.
Wednesday, July 10, 2002

Earlier, regarding Atlas Shrugged, Joe said that he doesn't read fiction.

ok.  Have you ever read of Ayn Rand's non-fiction works?

Like "Why Businessmen need Philosophy" or "Capitalism: The unknown ideal"?

Some of Joe AA's posts sound a _LOT_ like Objectivism, and I wonder if he's condsidered where Objectivism falls short. ?

regards,

Matt H.
Wednesday, July 10, 2002

Matt... if you have a point to make, make it.  If you wish to expose my ignorance... feel free.

Let me help.  I thought she only wrote fiction.  I have been working since high school, no college whatsoever, so please point out how "unlearned" I am. 

I ain't got a clue as to what you are talking about.  If you believe this "Objectivism" falls short then you are probably correct, but I don't intend to research it and I have no reason to argue for or against it.

I have seen a few Ayn Rand quotes... and even posted one about art in one of the topics on this board.  I found it in an art magazine in the waiting room of a doctors office and thought it was great. 

But then I also think Dilbert quotes are great. 

Joe AA.
Wednesday, July 10, 2002


No flame-bait intended.  Seriously - your views have a LOT in common with Ayn Rand, and I didn't feel like writing a big long post.  If you knew of/read objectivism, it would allow me to save a few Kilobytes of typing. :-)

  Among other things, Ayn is into capitalism bigtime - the idea that greed works.  Tell me if this line of reasoning makes sense to you:

1) If you motivate people with money, they will work. 
2) If your provide health & welfare for free, why work?
3) This means the slogan "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" doesn't work in real life.  People are encouraged to exagerate needs and down-play abilities.

4)  The person that can build the best thing & make the most money is deserving of what he has earned.

5) If people envy and honor the rich (#4 above), they will be motivated to try to earn money.  If they resent the rich and/or are awarded hand-outs, they will be motivated to complain and work less.

6) Less work =  Less Productivity = Less Resources = More Poverty.  More work = More Resources = Higher Average Standard of Living.  People who succeed and build big busineses should be honored, not reviled.

At least, I hope that's close.    From there, Rand goes on to define objectivism - the idea that living for self is the only rational decision.  I think that is where she falls short, and maybe I'll post something about that sometime. 

As for me making a fool of you - not even close.  Did you really think that was my intent?  Have I ever operated that way on this forum?

regards,

Matt H.
Wednesday, July 10, 2002

Joe AA
'Your definition of moral is the only thing that is important to you. You are the only one that will suffer as a result of any immoral act you commit - even if you are merely practicing the opinion of your "higher authority". You are free to think that what you believe to be immoral is actually moral only because you think it. There are a lot of delusionary people in the world.'

You keep missing (or avoiding) the point but actually help me prove it.  From the above I have to conclude that your view of morality is the only correct one.  I merely said that morality is different for different people.  You know, all the delusional ones.  :-)

Personally I think it's a recipe for chaos.

Greg Kellerman
Wednesday, July 10, 2002

"If people envy and honor the rich (#4 above), they will be motivated to try to earn money"
Or, if they are French, chop their heads off.

Chop phooey
Thursday, July 11, 2002

Matt...

I've never considered capitalism to be based on greed.  I believe even Adam Smith will disagree with your definition of capitalism. 

http://iisd1.iisd.ca/pcdf/corprule/betrayal.htm

The above link makes this statement: "Corporate libertarians maintain that the market turns unrestrained greed into socially optimal outcomes. Smith would be outraged by those who attribute this idea to him. He was talking about small farmers and artisans trying to get the best price for their products to provide for themselves and their families. That is self-interest, not greed. Greed is a high-paid corporate executive firing 10,000 employees and then rewarding himself with a multimillion-dollar bonus for having saved the company so much money. Greed is what the economic system being constructed by the corporate libertarians encourages and rewards."

So, if your line of reasoning is based on an assumption of greed as the driver of a capitalist economic system, then it probably doesn't make sense.

Personally, I don't work because I am motivated by money, I work because I enjoy my work.  I do however expect to earn a living based on my work... and I expect that if money was my motivation as based on greed, I would probably be working in some other field that would better serve that motivation.

As to earning a living, I do believe I earn it based on producing a practical result for my employer.  I don't believe it has to be the "best thing", but it does have to be useful to the business for me to "deserve" my earnings.  If I was a whiner and seat-warmer for 8 hours a day I would not expect to earn much of anything and hopefully the employer would show me the front door.

I don't envy and honor the rich.  I don't believe envy is a productive emotion, and the result mentioned by "chop" might occur in situations of envy.  No one deserves honor simply because they are rich.  I don't believe money can buy either happiness or respect.

I do think I have to agree with your point #6.  It seems reasonable at first glance... then I noticed you left out "more productivity" in your equation so the sides don't balance.  I think I can see why... as I would dispute "more work == more productivity" as a definition problem if nothing else.  I do know some managers that would agree with that equality if it was presented to them.

I still don't understand how Rand falls short, as I don't understand your "teaser".  Give me an example.

Joe AA.
Thursday, July 11, 2002

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home