Skip to comments.Five Reasons Ayn Rand Is Bad for Business
Posted on 08/24/2012 7:24:47 PM PDT by dynachrome
1. Rand focuses employees on money.
Rand practically worshipped the almighty dollar, seeing the acquisition of wealth as a goal worthy in and of itself.
Unfortunately, when that attitude spreads throughout an organization, a higher salary becomes the only motivation that really works. That means top workers will, of course, leave the moment they get a better offer elsewhere.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
ping. So much wrong here, hard to know where to start.
Remember, these folks believe in “climate change” too.
That says it all.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that either. Talent moves, influences other organizations to become better, then moves on again and the cycle repeats itself.
I for one willingly whore myself out to the Company that pays me the highest dollar. It's in MY and MY FAMILY's best interest, and those are the only two interests I serve.
Company "loyalty" hasn't been rewarded for a long, long, time. I learned that lesson the hard way when I literally gave my life for a Company that I loved, only to be released after nearly 10 years of service because I had a severe back injury which required surgery and 4 months to recover from.
Learned my lesson after that. Highest bidder for my services wins.
Offer me $10 dollars more an hour, but I have to move to Deeeeetroit, I say FU.
>>Company “loyalty” hasn’t been rewarded for a long, long, time.
Exactly. Employers try to convince you that your loyalty is important to them, right up until they decide they don’t need you anymore or they can find your labor cheaper. It only makes sense to return that level of loyalty to them. As long as they offer the most bucks, I’ll give them the best work I can.
Cause after all, why should you have to pay top dollar just to get top talent? (And they think conservatives are the robber barons!) [facepalm]
Wow, is the author brain damaged, totally ignorant of economics, or being an obastard whoreshipper?
I’d bet on all three...
I think someone pointing out why it is good, if the business wants the person they will be willing to pay for them.
If they want a cheap employee, then they can get a cheap employee.
Sure, I am just saying that salary is not everything.
Is that you, Jim Taggart? This is some of the funniest stuff I've read in ages, and thanks for posting it. Good heavens, workers considering themselves individuals and working for money? How dare they?
The author is either the most clueless individual on teh Interwebz at the moment or the most excellent parodist. Yes, Rand is bad for business because she encourages individual achievement and an insistence that reward be commensurate with it. Lord knows you can't run a business on the basis of individual achievement and reward. That would be (shudder) capitalism.
“One major misconception is that Rand worshipped the rich and saw moneymaking as lifes highest goal. In fact, most wealthy characters in her novels are pathetic, repulsive, or both: businessmen fattened on shady deals or government perks, society people who fill their empty lives with luxury. (There are also sympathetic poor and working-class characters.) . . . .To Rand, being selfish meant being true to oneself, neither sacrificing ones own desires nor trampling on others. Likewise, Rands stance against altruism was not an assault on compassion so much as a critique of doctrines that subordinate the individual to a collectivestate, church, community, or family.
—Cathy Young, “What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand”
+1 times infinity.
While we all know that the proper perspective is that one should sacrifice all for the good of the
collective group. This concept is so key to economic success that the government should play the role of umpire to decide who sacrifices and who benefits.
I wonder if the writer realizes just how ridiculous he appears to those who recognize and revile those whom Rand identified as the "moochers" and the "takers".
I'm an employer and loyalty is *EXTREMELY* important to me. In fact, I consider it to be a big revenue generator.
I expect that this author's next article will be an enumeration of all those companies that embraced Rand's teachings and have ended up in bankruptcy court. Is it possible that Solyndra was such a company? How about General Motors? Or the United States Postal Service?
Why, the bankruptcy courts must be crowded with the many companies that insisted on giving value-for-value to their customers and who refused to even consider government bailouts or other interference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.