by charliebrownout » Mon 12 May 2008, 18:53:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
')
Even in cooperative models, Mos, the most qualified person to do a job, should be doing it. Some competition is necessary, and is a GOOD thing.
The American corporatocracy, has become increasingly dependent on the obsequiousness of proles (team players) working in a "star" system, that rewards "outstanding individual performance".
The ones who end up dominating are a bunch of loose cannons, who end up destroying the long term viability of their companies, for short term gains. The subprime banking fiasco is a perfect example of this. The same mentality has gripped the entire corporate structure. Read Barbara Ehrenreich's "Bait and Switch" as a primer.
You end up endorsing it, by seeing it in the wrong light. What is going on in the boardrooms of the Fortune 500, is much more a kind of retarded inbred aristocratic rule, represented by interlocking boards of directors, with a "visionary" greedy CEO presiding over dullards. The best of the best often aren't the first ones fired, because human resources excludes them from the get go, in favour of compliant team players.
I think Bush is the poster-boy for what you've mentioned. Being rich doesn't make you smarter, it just makes it easier to survive without being smart.
Also, I'm in full agreement that companies want obedient workers more than they want to develop some sort of brain trust.
BTW, could someone explain to me WHY a CEO deserves million-dollar severance after driving a company into a wall? I don't get it.