if you have no ability to inflict damage on a business then it will not respect you. this seems to be a human behavior ideology expressed through business(more soo semi-corpratised) culture. being able to provide income to a business is not enough unless you have the ability to also inflict cost/damage. it appears that most management structures(the actual people in them by what they do in actions) directly perceive the lack of ability to inflict cost as a weakness and devaluation of the person. it is a funny aspect as it also is managed by egos(the actual [people]management who do this) who will attempt to inflict damage with lies and all sorts of other things to service their own guilt & victim shaming etc...for acting in a way to disregard the value of the employee. The aspect that i am curious about is the human behavior culture that is created and maintained by these people and how that plays out in the psyche as a basic model of human normalized thought for other humans. sociopath psychopath genocide murder rape torture domestic abuse child abuse etc etc... it appears the concept of a caring business culture for employees is very new age hippie yahoo/google-silicon-valley-California-start-up style millennial type culture models are still a very small minority admittedly they have only the value of the employees mind which holds all the computer coding creativity so the dice is loaded din that direction anyway. but a change is as good as a push in the right direction even if underneath it is pure greed and selfishness. Rosa Parks could still use a seat on a buss in 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks Mary Jackson could still do with employment laws in 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jackson_(engineer) one of the ironic curiosities is that people seem to expect government and businesses to act in a morally superior way to how they treat other people. your thoughts ?
Business are not alive. They don't respect you in the same way a supraglacial moraine doesn't respect you.
to be fair Dave, i have you on ignore, the reason i have you on ignore is because you have made several comments to attack the person instead of debate the idea or subject. it means your obsessed with your own ego and will undermine the scientific subject at hand just to try and feel superior to someone. that is of no help what so ever to scientific discusion. "to be fair" i wanted to see if should respond to anyone on my ignore list posting on this subject.. and as you can see your comment is just posturing for a sense of self validation. you offer no aspect for considered discussion. be that as it may... some readers may find the science of studying busines & society interesting and worth their input in-spite of trolls and people like you trying to shut down the thread. predominantly, the vast majority of businesses are declared by their owners to be somewhat of a living entity. my catchy title may lend to US debates around personal freedoms of citizens awarded to corporate entity's to give them ability to engage litigiously as a process of loss adjustment, ideally (but more so as a process of profit making). my leaning of nuance is toward a symbiotic ideological interface between the big sharp destroying machines of business and the soft squishy people. many businesses are promoted to exist in a symbiotic state to its customers and community. my point is somewhat complex yet crudely put to derive a mathematical construct into the reality of the equation. i shall word it differently into a more non affronting manner "if an employee may walk away from a business without the business incurring loss from the person leaving, the person has little to no real value to the business" more so... the greater the loss created to the business the greater the value defined to be the employee. this correlates mostly along salary packages. there is a disconnect when you get to front line production and product sales in high turnover small value products though that doesn't seem to conflict with my theoretical model. lets say a CEO of a large company walks out of the job... does it cost the business any money ? this is a topic for modern "Business communication degree" students to discuss as a metaphor of modern incorpratisation of business & community integration in a developing technological market. note BBC news today Microsoft ... At least 50 Microsoft employees have demanded the company back out of a deal with the US military to provide augmented reality technology. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47339774
Businesses are run by people that are alive. They respect you in whatever way benefits them. Are you a crank that just hates business? They will likely not care a bit. Are you an investor who could invest in them? They will likely care a lot. Do you represent a large group of potential customers? They will listen very carefully to what you have to say. Are you an expert in something that matters to them? Again, they will listen carefully, and will be inclined to pay you handsomely to advise them.
And yet you reply to him. Fascinating. Almost seems like you are using the "ignore" feature to attack people - but not to ignore them.
Businesses may indeed be alive. They are constituted of workers, who are living beings, and may therefore be nodes of a larger living organism.
OK. I am willing to be shown the error of my ways. Can you direct me to it so that I may, if possible, rectify it? This is doubly-unusual. 1] You've just spent a dozen lines or so attacking my person - the very thing you accuse me of. So, you're not above such behavior, and have lost any moral ground you might have gained. So, an eye-for-an-eye makes us even I guess. 2] What's really strange is that you then dismiss take my direct address of one of your premises. Are you interested in discussion about the actual topic of thread, or not? To the point at-hand: You claimed "businesses will not respect people". That is a faulty analogy. Businesses are not people., and no argument assuming they are can be made based on that. Calling doubt upon the premise is certainly germane to the discussion. (And I suspect that's why you have me on Ignore.) Will you defend your assertion against a valid response?
you think re-defining the subject and changing the topic then attempting to get me to debate something different that you choose so you can assert an emotional leverage point as a form of thread trolling to service your ego is normal discussion ? that is topic trolling and direct distraction from the topic. no thanks fyi most of the reason i have you on ignore is because i do not wish to be drawn into a race to the bottom process of negativity which comes from seeking to belittle people(which you have done to me in a few posts some months back), it is probably soo common place to you it goes past you without notice. i put you on ignore out of respect for the fact i like you a little. unlike those i have no feeling for and those whom i dislike you were none the wiser until now such is the madness of universe in all its crazy glory
How has putting you on ignore lost them the moral high ground?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are obsessed with ego. Methinks you protest too much. How about you debate the topic you started, instead of wandering off on a rant? How do you expect a discussion to proceed from a flawed premise? Look, it may well become a valid discussion, but first it needs some correcting. You've framed it in a way that nobody will be able to address without immediately running afoul of a flawed analogy (witness billvon). So: Businesses are made of people. People have motives and plans. Restate it as such, and this thread may get some traction. Because it seems I'm pretty much your only audience.
Read what I actually said: "You've just spent a dozen lines or so [most of post 3, in fact] attacking my person - the very thing you accuse me of. So, you're not above such behavior..." One either claims moral high ground or one fights fire with fire. One can't do both. Now, I keep requesting we return to the topic - I seem to be the only one here who is actually talking about the topic.
im not laughing at you Dave thats not in my nature left or right is more soo an American ideological culture thing. im not wanting to point out the egocentric fallacy at play via cultural differences of the psyche of those seeking to try and play one-up-minship rather than discus the science. the nature of those who wish to stick it in one last time then claim moral superiority from a position of defined non parity by incurring loss to assert a need for explaining the lack of ability to be equal... such mental issues about self value competing with others to assert a sense of self worth via that has never been my interest. regardless that i am quite aware of the trigger effect the word "ego" has on many which intellectually cripples 'some' to stay on subject and be scientific, is not my fault of the intellectual debate. There is a point when rendering something soo far it becomes something else by the ability of those to know what they are seeking to discus and the intended desire to engage on subject and at relative subjective levels etc... how i perceive people and their personalities is my perspective, i don't expect others to have the same ability or leaning. thus i am aware that the word ego and how it pertains to you, and how it pertains to others as a self acknowledgement of "what it is and how it works" is my own perception and more so in a clinical psychological aspect. i will take your lead and head back to the topic. witness vs dissect/interpret ... ? did i fail to comply with someones rules of what and how i should talk about something ? coercion?dogma? ... ? please elaborate i shall stick to the subject, may i assume you have studied business, marketing, management & communication & economics, business strategy, planning & risk analysis or at-least up to speed with general points on those concepts ? ... and by foul you mean by asserting a false narrative of being a economic anarchist rather than a debater ? a CEO walks out of a company(no transition, just quits by walking out the door one day and that event going straight to the news on all main TV news channels...) is the value of the CEO to the company equal to the loss it will incur on them walking out ? or is their value something else ? if there is no loss by the CEO walking out, would that reflect in the CEO salary and over all total value to the company ?
Corporations fear the loss of profits. Read that Buffet may be blaming DJT for his companies bad year.
DJT wiped out something like 2 trillion dollars off the stock market by a single tweet. the market eventually mostly recovered after about 2 weeks the stock market is legal regulated gambling. so when you lose its your own fault for gambling. thats the reality. people with corrupted morals tend to try and cry crocodile tears while looking for selfish gains by declaring it should have laws protecting them from their own desire to gamble and make winnings/profit. lots of people want the system, want all the advantages, but don't want to pay for it, then try and make up fake morality and fake politics to try and support their own form of exploitative inequality of market stability and regulation. that's always been the case. de-regulating things has never been a net gain to the citizens 90% of the time.
Was this generated by a bot? It has nothing to do with the topic at-hand, and it is not coherent - like it was run it back and forth through Google translate a couple of times. It's an example is why I so rarely interact with you. I don't have you on ignore; I read virtually everything you post, waiting for something that is cogent enough to engage with. I'm certain it in there somewhere, once you drop this charade.
you cant help yourself can you. you have to try and stick the knife in. thats why i put you on ignore. that desperate need to inflict damage as a parting point of contact. your ego needing to inflict damage to feel self worth. clinically thats what some might refer to as borderline narcissist displaying from a lack of self worth. are you a woman & child basher ? thread killer troll trying to turn the topic into all about you by attacking the person instead of the topic. no thanks your on permanent ignore and put in the "malicious" category
Answering people to tell them you put them on ignore sorta proves you're lying about putting them on ignore, you know? Putting them on ignore means they get, you know, ignored, and you don't see their posts to reply to.
