In reality she would have sacked half of them without even being in the room and had them escorted out by the same security that protects her. Ain't nobody getting anywhere near her with a guillotine.
this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
325 points (96.6% liked)
Work Reform
9875 readers
663 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
She would mumble something about needing to streamline the company's processes to remain competitive. Not to the workers, of course-- To a board of directors who are barely paying attention, other than making sure number goes up.
The workers would just be informed that half of them are no longer employed there.
I've never met a person who was both into Ayn Rand and also rational.
even Ayn Rand didn't particularly like Ayn Rand,
not to say she was rational of course.
That sounds pretty rational of her.
I was into Ayn Rand in high school and in retrospect I guess I'd say that, given the things I thought were important, I was rational. But certainly my values weren't quite...I dunno...human?
I've read all the main books and think they're fucking hilarious. Does that count?
See, this is why egoism makes way more sense than objectivism as a selfishness-based philosophy.
Just one caveat - if you double production, you're not doubling your income or profit.
That's why the realistic outcome to this scenario is that she fires half her workforce there by maintaining the same level of production while also slashing labour costs.
I mean you might be, depending upon what % of the total market you operate and what the exact inputs of the new method are.
No, you never will without increasing prices to cover the additional overhead of increased production.
Remember, only the machine is doubling efficiency, but operations has to increase to handle the new output and resources required.
Not if most of you cost is labor, you'll be approaching marginal increase in costs but still certainly of double income.
The labor costs aren't going away, just shifting. You have to increase employment in other areas to handle a 100% increase in product output.
Besides the fact that labor costs are rarely a large enough portion of a manufacturer's budget to make that big of a difference.
But some operational costs (I.e. Ground Rent, Marketing, Legal Fees, IP Costs etc...) do not scale with increased output.
Nor does demand for your product.
Again this is a case of "it depends". If you are not a market driver then yes it does. ('mom & pop motor vehicles' isn't going to make a dent in the global car market. )
I think the comic is supposed to be a lampooning of Ayn Rand's philosophy... Not an accurate model of business considerations within a production based industry.
For the longest time I used to shelve Rand next to Marx on my bookshelf. I've read both at various points (might as well learn the source material if you're going to argue about politics...), but it tickled me as a centrist to annoy their ghosts equally.