Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!

This week’s Weekly discussion thread will be focused on Capitalism / Economic Systems. Here is the definition we will be using so everyone can use the same terminology. If your argument does not use that definition, we ask that you reframe so that it does so that everyone can work within the same framework.

Here are some questions that should help kickstart things:

  • Is capitalism effective? Is it good, or as evil as some Lemmy instances will have you believe?
  • Are there better alternatives, and why are they better?
  • How could we realistically move toward those alternatives?
  • Is there anything you do not understand or would like to discuss about Capitalism / Economic Systems?
  • Ace T'KenOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    That or take risks. That’s actually one of the reasons I feel that the reward system needs to be in place, personally.

    It doesn’t need to be as massive or horrible as it is now (I still don’t feel we need billionaires to exist), but see here for how I carry out my company while still keeping rewards intact.

    • therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      That sounds like a good work environment, but how well would that work for a large company such as Microsoft?

      • Ace T'KenOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I can scale without issue most times and have done so multiple times during acquisitions.

        Once we hit a certain number of people, I’d make the Matrix org system a little more fleshed-out. Right now our projects are from 1-10 people, but it wouldn’t be hard to add an org-wide Scheduler role that can wrangle interested groups for projects. It’s all about putting a plan into place before you make a decision, not deciding and then trying to FORCE things to fit. With Microsoft, I imagine they’d have to implement larger teams of relevant staff on each project and divide them into overall pods with the Scheduler able to change who is needed in each pod. It’s doable, but without having been anywhere near that large, I’d have to see what was implemented along the way.

        Also of interest, we don’t have an issue with The Peter Principle as you’re never forced to move out of a position of competence or interest. You’re not salary limited simply because you don’t want to be a manager; in fact, there are no managers.