Welcome to Gaia! ::

It is a good place for manpower to go. Tell you what- Take our professional soldiers in the hundred or so countries we occupy and put them to the task of making us renewble, clean energy which does not rely on an outside country.
Wind could work too. Or water from wave-power. or nuclear. The desert idea, though possible, is not the only way we can generate such energy.

Was that a joke or a serious statement? Either way, people will still need to work, and thus they will have jobs there. Glamourous or not, it is a task that needs to be done, and the workers need work to survive, in any system. Plus, if we get rid of middle management and all the managers go to work in production, the job would get done much faster. 20 hour weeks could be possible, while still accomplishing the task that needs to be done. (And I feel that's what work is supposed to be about- Doing things society needs done). Many hands make light work.

No, I really do think of this on my own. I've never read the Communist Manifesto, though I understand the idea of giving the workers the power they deserve. I prefer concepts to hard and fast rules.

Self management is possible- Have everyone manage oneself and all others.

The very idea of an entire workforce who gets paid MORE money to tell the actual producers how to make the management YET MORE MONEY... it's just so circular and disgusting. It's work that could be used MAKING things, producing food, building power sources, instead of pushing papers and sitting in front of a desk.

Doesn't that idea piss you off? That someone is getting paid more than you to tell you how to make them more money?

Wrong, to an extent. One man cannot properly rule an entire working class. So, he hires people below him to do his work for him, who in turn hire more below them for less until finally we get to the minimum wage worker. It's a pyramid scheme of paying people less and less to do the actual task at hand. Say for example a company that makes staples. The owner cant overlook the whole thing, so he hires 5 managers paid a million a year. They don't want to watch over the entire factories themselves, so they hire 10 managers each for seperate wings at 90k a year. Those managers hire 20 workers each to do the actual task at minimum wage. What we have here is people handing down the actual thing that needs to be done- the production of staples- through millions of dollars. The continual handing down of tasks ends up leaving the working class with the minimum, and the guys who tell them how to make themselves and those above them more money with...the most money.

And your last paragraph goes completely against what I am for. You have the wrong idea of communism. What is work for? In capitalism, it is hard to tell if work is to gain money or to produce something needed for society. They are nearly one in the same now.

I believe work should be to produce things needed by society. This is not to say that people would work on good will and happy thoughts of society- Working would be required to gain food, shelter, entertainment, just as it is. However, there would be no "making up" of jobs or menial tasks. Once the quotas were met, the funcion of work would have been fulfilled. This means that should it only take 20 hours a week to get everything done, you've done what you needed to do and are done with work for that week.

For example- Say the quota for staples at the company is 10,000 boxes a week. Since the management was broken down and given to the workers, and all those in management positions are now working to produce staples, they can finish their quota if everyone takes only a 30 hour shift, instead of the full 40. Fine. Quota met. The stores are full of the staples they need, the job is done, they get a long weekend. They can still take as they want from the stores as they have done the task they have to do.

It's not about "ruling" anyone, it's about running a business efficiently. In a capitalist society, there is competition which means that businesses MUST be efficient to get ahead. They actually hire consultants to come in and suggest ways to make things more efficient so they produce more. If middle management was truly unnecessary, it wouldn't be there because it's not cost-effective. You're of the opinion that companies will try to screw their workers over, so why would they give some people unnecessary jobs with higher pay, especially if it involves slowing down production to do so?

Also, you're of the opinion that manual workers deserve more because they're doing the manual work, but the people at the top are running the business. They're the ones with the experience, knowledge, and skills to make it successful, and the ones who make sure things get done. Anyone can flip a burger. Anyone can stock a shelf. Anyone can stand in an assembly line putting things together. Not just anyone can run a business well, and that expertise of running the business is a big benefit to society because without it there would be no business.

When you have a society of millions of people, there will always be a demand for things, and there is nothing in our marketplace that doesn't benefit someone in society (otherwise no one would buy it). The work being done by the management is the work of managing; of making sure a project runs efficiently, making sure workers are afforded their rights, making sure the schedules work for people, ordering the right supplies in the right amount, making sure workers are on task, etc. They don't just sit there on their butts going, "Let's see what's on the telly." Probably because they're not British for the most part. The same goes with the people at the top. They are doing work, and it is essential work, it's just not obvious work. You can look at an assembly line worker and then look at a CEO on the phone with someone and it seems that the assembly worker is doing more work, but that's not necessarily the case. Also I want to know where the management one up from the bottom rung of the pyramid is making 90k a year because I want to work for that company.

Middle management? Get in the right company, middle middle row, and you're looking at around 3 million. Even mcdonalds, the lowest rung of floor managers are paid 21 dollars an hour to stand in the corner and tell the burger-flippers how to flip burgers faster.

A company which is run by democratic process cannot be efficient? I disagree, and the success of the experiments done by Taco Bell and whatever brazilian steel company it was are evidence. Unnamed because I don't want to type in the search for it.

And again- It is always about dropping down tasks to the next person. Pushing papers, hiring other workers and making things? Too much for the owner. Hiring other workers and actually producing things? Too much work for the CEO. Actually putting making things? Too much work for the manager. Until we get down to the worker. And notice, the other areas of excess work all exist because of themselves. Hiring workers could be democratic. Paperwork could be done just as easily by the workers. And why not have the ones who work in the factories collectively own them? And remember, if ALL of the workers were trained to do EVERYTHING and all worked collectively at once, everything would get finished equally if not faster, due to concentrated workforces.

Give me a company where the manager one up from the bottom rung is making 90k a year. You're talking as if it's a common thing. I've known many managers at many places, and they make much less than 90k.

My point is this: If CEOs are so concerned with getting money, why would they bring in management that is not necessary? They wouldn't. It's the same point Andy's making.

There are multiple reasons why a democratic process would not be as efficient; for one thing, unless everyone is extremely cooperative, scheduling conflicts, bitterness over successful employees, widespread bias against certain people (consider a community that is largely racist; they still exist.), unscrupulous yet charismatic employees stealing but being so likable no one suspects them, etc, etc...there is someone with authority for a reason, and companies aren't paying them more for no reason. It doesn't make sense.

It's not about dropping down tasks to the next level, it's about delegating tasks efficiently based on the abilities of the employees. Have you ever actually worked with a bunch of people? A job should not be a popularity contest, rather, you should be hired based on your abilities, not how many people like you. Which sounds more efficient, one person deciding something should be done, or a group of individuals who meet, argue, debate, vote, recount the votes, re-vote until everyone is satisfied that there isn't a problem, and then something gets decided? Either way there's room for the decision to be the wrong one, but at least in one case it takes less time and if it's wrong, someone is liable for it and can be disciplined, trained, or whatever is necessary for them to make a better decision the next time.

Also, you seem to be working under the impression that things aren't done fast enough as it is. If that's the case, where is the news report about staple shortages? The lack of books on the stores of bookshelves? Is there a severe depletion of cheap tacky thing 98410? Are iPods in demand because they can't be made fast enough? Perhaps birth control isn't used not because people are lazy or unable to drive to go get it, but because it just isn't being made fast enough. But no. No, this is not the case. This system you're so opposed to is working.

Pushing papers is necessary. There are things that are more efficiently accomplished using these papers, having someone in charge, having someone who can be held accountable for making things run smoothly. Managing oneself and all others...I'm sorry, but that sounds like too hostile a work environment, for me, if I have to make sure I don't offend anyone, look at someone the wrong way, or express myself in my off time for fear of someone hating me, starting rumors about me, and being collectively voted off the island (lose my job).

It's sort of like how shampoo and conditioner separately tend to work better than shampoo with conditioner. Shampoo concentrated and conditioner concentrated are better than a 2 in 1 product. What you are talking about is not a super-concentrated workforce; that's what we have now. What you are talking about is a 2 in 1 product...it addresses multiple needs but does it do it as well? No. Are the results as good? No. Most people do better at a task when they are fully concentrated on that task, not when they need to focus on multiple tasks at once. It's just common sense.

Again, this is my main question for you...WHY would money-hungry CEOs create needless jobs that require paying more money when it is cheaper to train everyone in those tasks and pay them less money? There is absolutely no reason to if it can be done just as well in the way which costs less money.