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.
Oh dear!
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.
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 life’s 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 one’s own desires nor trampling on others. Likewise, Rand’s stance against altruism was not an assault on compassion so much as a critique of doctrines that subordinate the individual to a collective—state, church, community, or family.”
—Cathy Young, “What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand”
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 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.
This guy has never read Rand.
Two words: Galt’s engine.
QED.
I’m pretty sure that the author of this little “ditty” uses the same journalistic techniques as most of Rush Limbaugh’s critics... Don’t actually read Rand, just read the criticism of Rand, and go from there.
There are so many false assumptions that the author makes, it’s difficult to list them all, but 1 really stands out to me... “#3 Rand Creates Fanatics.” Someone may want to break it to the author, that Ayn Rand is no longer creating anything, as she’s gone to the “Great Galt’s Gulch in the Sky,” or more realistically for her, she simply no longer exists. The point is that if you have employees who read something and they become “fanatics,” maybe you’re hiring employees who have “issues” far before ever reading Rand.
Frankly, the posts on this thread, as well as the many pages of comments on the original article at the CNBC website pretty much says it all. That the author really has no understanding of what Rand wrote.
Mark
John Galt, go home. Take your homies with you.
I’ve been collecting reader’s opinions of Ayn Rand off the internet for a couple of months. There are hundreds like these:
Ayn Rand wrote Fiction and then as all mentally ill people do she started to believed her own fiction and fools believed right along with her adding fuel to her delusions. Odd how the right puts a closeted man hateing lesbian, athiest, anti semantic, anti social indiviualist on a pedistal???? Strange.
Gotta wonder if the folks writing this tripe are really as ignorant as they sound, just Wasserman-like liars, or (my bet) both.
Such workers respect leaders who know that others contributed to their success.....”You didn’t build that.”
What does CNBC stand for:
Communist Nonsense Bull Crap!
OH MAN! I have got to tell this story.
The company I worked for got a new general manager, after a month or so of him being in charge we, (The Employees), received a multi-page questionnaire about our jobs and what could the company do to improve work condition, morale, etc.
Well in my department we got together and talked it over. We ALL put down on our questionnaires that the number one thing the company could do to improve morale was to pay us more. The very last thing on mine anyway was “Improve communications from upper management to the lower level employees.”
Surprise, surprise! when the company posted the results of the questionaire “Improve Communications was #1. Pay increase were somewhere along the lines of #9 or #10. Needless to say morale did not improve and general disdain for the upper management did increase.
Wow, these jackals are terrified of Ayn Rand’s ideas. Good.