331–340 of 431 posts
You are the boss of a company of one. Your company sells labor to the labor market, it makes investments in assets, it borrows funds, etc. It’s your job to decide how that company is run. It’s your job to decide what investments that company needs to make to get good returns. It’s also your job to interpret the contracts your company enters into and decide what is acceptable, and to appropriately risk-manage legal ha…
From a certain extreme perspective, there is some truth to what you're saying, but wow, this is so one-sided, extreme, partial and damaging. What decades of neo liberal brainwashing has done to people. This is so sad, really. We are NOT companies, we're not robots only driven by free will, we don't live in an economy. We are hardcore social animals with huge biological & affective needs, this is scientifically proven…
The kind of response is also very childish (, not in the sense I am insulting you as childish, but actually just some kind of reaction that would comes from a child. Eg emotion and incoherent thoughts.)
Eg
The “decades of brainwashing” comes out of nowhere and essentially projecting a political view to a logical argument. If you think the argument is wrong, argue with facts not branding it as something and attract that thing in general.
“We are NOT companies”. Again sounds like an argument made by a poor politician (I mean good politician wouldn’t fall into this kind of fallacy.) Clearly it was an analogy to illustrate a fact. I mean what’s this argument arguing against? What’s “are” means in this context? In Chinese there’s an idiom 白馬非馬 comes from a similar fallacy: is black horse a horse? Is white horse a black horse? Therefore white horse is not a horse.
“We don’t live in an economy”: what? What kind of brainwashing would results in that conclusion?
“We are … social animals” and then quote “scientifically proven”. What’s the point? “We are just a bunch of carbon and stuffs worth collectively not more than a few bucks.” This is scientifically proven too. We should all quote random facts to argues against some view we don’t like.
This is so sad, really. I hope any people would exercise more logic and stops politicize things and argue based on hatred, not on HN at least.
You are the boss of a company of one. Your company sells labor to the labor market, it makes investments in assets, it borrows funds, etc. It’s your job to decide how that company is run. It’s your job to decide what investments that company needs to make to get good returns. It’s also your job to interpret the contracts your company enters into and decide what is acceptable, and to appropriately risk-manage legal ha…
From a certain extreme perspective, there is some truth to what you're saying, but wow, this is so one-sided, extreme, partial and damaging. What decades of neo liberal brainwashing has done to people. This is so sad, really. We are NOT companies, we're not robots only driven by free will, we don't live in an economy. We are hardcore social animals with huge biological & affective needs, this is scientifically proven…
I think you're taking the OP's comments out of context. They did not say that we are not social animals, etc. they made an allegorical comparison likening a person and their value in the marketplace to a company. That does not mean a person does not have value as a human being, as a member of the community, as a friend, partner, parent etc.
I think the comparison is apt when weighing up our careers - which is what the actual article is about - that is of course my own humble opinion, but you're implying meaning which I don't see in the OP's comment.
You are the boss of a company of one. Your company sells labor to the labor market, it makes investments in assets, it borrows funds, etc. It’s your job to decide how that company is run. It’s your job to decide what investments that company needs to make to get good returns. It’s also your job to interpret the contracts your company enters into and decide what is acceptable, and to appropriately risk-manage legal ha…
From a certain extreme perspective, there is some truth to what you're saying, but wow, this is so one-sided, extreme, partial and damaging. What decades of neo liberal brainwashing has done to people. This is so sad, really. We are NOT companies, we're not robots only driven by free will, we don't live in an economy. We are hardcore social animals with huge biological & affective needs, this is scientifically proven…
But as the CEO of you, you can easily get yourself killed in a couple of minutes of bad calls.
The laws of physics are the only laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ffs. Humans have lived on the planet for 200000 years. This way of organizing people as a company interacting with the labor market with assets & investments & risk management...is at best a 100 years old. Its like a drop in the ocean of time. That said, when I was taking courses in Finance as a young 20 something, I came up with this same exact analogy & took it to its logical end - I conceived a stock exchange call…
What is your idea of how people were living for most of that history? You think being human stock ticker is worse than: living on average 25 years, starving most of your life, having high chance of being literal slave not figurative, being ostracized and killed for any silly reason by local community, being dumped into trash or simply killed if local community found you were not useful or weak So if you take it into…
This is all outdated colonial myth. You should turn on your educational updates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We are hardcore social animals with huge biological & affective needs, this is scientifically proven. Totally agree. > We are NOT companies Actually, we are humans. However, when it comes to our economic activity, we are also a company. Both things can be true at once. > this is so one-sided, extreme, partial and damaging. What decades of neo liberal brainwashing has done to people. Woah. Anything you specifically…
It’s the other way around.. a company act as a legal person. Companies are people. (natural person vs legal person in Dutch)
You are the boss of a company of one. Your company sells labor to the labor market, it makes investments in assets, it borrows funds, etc. It’s your job to decide how that company is run. It’s your job to decide what investments that company needs to make to get good returns. It’s also your job to interpret the contracts your company enters into and decide what is acceptable, and to appropriately risk-manage legal ha…
Nitpick, but companies have limited liability, natural persons do not. It's for that reason that I would probably never get hired if I actually was an employee of a "company of one" (formed me for example). Companies would obviously prefer to contract with me directly, not my company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear armaggedon is avoidable with some luck and enough safeguards. Catastrophic climate change is inevitable at our current trajectory.
Climate change can be mitigated by technological solutions. Sure, you also need political action, but it's a marathon, not a sprint: a chain of bad decisions will make matters worse, but you'll still have a chance to recover. During the cold war, a chain of bad decisions could have led to immediate, full-scale disaster. That you had to depend on "some luck" to prevent the collapse of civilization as we know is terrif…
Lots of people have to push lots of buttons they’ve never pushed before for nuclear war to occur.
Lots of people have to change their entire lives to prevent climate change.
Do you see the difference?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a complete avoidance. Rather, i'm just advocating that we don't build the idea of less work on the shoulders of people who work more. That seems to me to almost codify the need for some people working more, and that seems a slippery slope for _some_ people getting good work-life balances and others not. My argument is that we _all_ should qualify for a work-life balance. Not depend on some people not getting…
I agree that the original commenter's last paragraph was a bit unnecessary, but let's not kid ourselves either: if everyone put in a solid 2 hours a day doing good, essential work all good, essential work would be done in 6 months. Most of our time at work is spent doing things which are either pointless or downright damaging.
Not to disagree with your general direction though, but i don't honestly think i could boil what i do down into 2 hours. On paper? possibly. In practice i spend far more time thinking about problems, taking breaks from problems, etc - than i do actually writing the solutions. But i'm not claiming i'm any good heh, just that it often takes me hours and hours.
Your assertion is generally correct i think in efficiency sake. Ie when i put in 14h days, i'm exponentially paying a higher tax on my efficiency by putting in extra hours - i'm over worked and tired, i'm far from my best. But i still think i can more work done in those 14h than i do in 8, or especially 4/etc.