View Single Post
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-05-2004, 00:05
Marc P. Marc P. is offline
I fix stuff.
AKA: βetamarc
no team
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Watertown, CT
Posts: 997
Marc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Marc P.
Re: FIRST - Reason for existance

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrawls
Shift it from, oh I don't know, capitalism? Maybe I misunderstand you, but currently "what it means to operate a busness in this country" is all based on capitalism ... try to provide the best product as cheaply as possible so as to maximize profits. It sounds awfully greedy, sure, but are you saying it is a bad thing? Those increased profit margins that "motivate" people are what keeps innovation going (granted when people stop playing by the rules this isn't necessarily the case).
Yet at the same time, it's the drive for increased profit margins of this Capitolist society which as at the heart of all this "outsourcing" debate.

Quote:
you'll find a lack of competition and real motivation creates complacency, which is A Bad Thing. Increased profit margins, however "evil," create an incentive to do better. I'll refrain myself for now ... I think maybe I don't understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that capitalism is somehow bad? You say "when they can prove that they're motivated by something other than incresed profit margins" ... but why should the by motivated by anything else, as a business? Success and history are hard to argue with; those organizations motivated around utopian goals have largely failed, or done worse than those motivated by profit.
Historically, the bohemoths of companies that have succeeded have done so through less than scrupulous means. Standard Oil was busted up for having a trust in the oil industry, and inflating prices. Bell was broken up for having a monopoly on the phone system (and are now slowly merging back together), and charging unfair prices. Microsoft gets money for virtually every computer built in the world, and has essentially been declared a monopoly by virtually every major world government, and slapped with countless fines and lawsuits, yet they continue to be "successful." I'd argue those organizations motivated around utopian goals have largely failed by being pushed around or bought out by the Big Guys through underhanded means. I know many small independant shops with utopian goals struggling to compete with the Walmarts of the day. Not because their products are inferior, but because Walmart has the buying power to undercut them in virtually everything they sell. Same with computer shops like the one I work in. We can't compete price wise with Dell or Compaq. The only reason we're in business is we provide one thing the big companies can't- personlized service. Capitolism is great in theory, but so was the Republic in Rome- which eventually fell for a number of reasons. Once any given market is dominated by companies large enough to control virtually every aspect of that market, choice slowly degrades as independant shops are wiped out as consumers choose lower prices over local business. Once all the competition is wiped out, the king of the hill is awarded the satisfaction of a high investor payout, while the owners of the independant shops file for chapter 11.

I think FIRST is a step in the right direction in this sense- if enough students are touched by the conept of gracious professionalism, those students will take those ideas and fundamentals with them into the business world. I hope the lessons learned about teamwork at the competitions play a role in the relationships the future leaders of this and other countries will create. I'd like to see world business and politics function as our own robotics competitions operate- teams willing to help each other out whenever possible- because in the end, everyone can win in some way. Teams learn new designs and techniques from one another, and grow and prosper with one another, even if in direct competition with each other. Idealistic- yes, but not unfeasable. The only thing preventing it from working is the current infrastructure of cut-throat competition of megacorporations. I'm hoping enough FIRSTers rise the ranks of these companies to steer them back in the direction of true capitolism- with visions for the long term, not just the quick payoffs of the present.

Quote:
How can you measure how much someone deserves a job? Or who is more worthy? Who gives you the moral superiority to say without a doubt that "those people deserve" the job "far more" than the greedy American who wants to "wear Nike shoes" and own a "Ford Excursion"? So far as I see it, if a person does honest and hard work, he deserves just compensation.
No one has the moral intellect to decide what's best for everyone. But as you yourself stated, the drive of a company is to cut costs to inrease profit, even if it means expending hard working employees in favor of cheaper labor. The facts show that outsourced labor is a fraction of the cost of local labor, and of very comperable quality. As everything in our capitolist society, the contract typically goes to the lowest bidder.


Note- I apologize if I offend anyone in my posts... it's certainly not my intention. I like to look at the world from a global perspective... and I can't help but wonder what we, as a common species, humanity, are capable of if we all were to work together for the betterment of all, regardless of country, race, religion, or whatever.

Last edited by Marc P. : 18-05-2004 at 00:07.
Reply With Quote