Not quite. This behavior leads to firing of middle-class workers. John Deere just laid off 300 workers, moved the factory to Mexico, engaged in buyback, and gave the CEO a huge pay.
So, yeah, it helps your 401k, but in the mean time you don't have a job. And if you do have a job, your salary is not increasing in line with inflation...
I wouldn't say that Taylorism is why those workers succeeded.
I'd say that those workers were successful in spite of Taylorism. Don't fall into the trap in thinking that just because a methodology was applied, that it contributed to success.
The best evidence I can give in support of this is Deming:
The problem lies in business schools and degrees like the MBA.
Check out the faculty list at Harvard Business school [link below]. I randomly looked at profiles of 14 of them and not a single one had real world business experience. If there are any who do have real world experience, it's often superficial.
To carry on this article's analogy, business schools are the Catholic church of 1500: incestuous, detached, and self-serving.
The topic before was "Should YC disassociate from Thiel from YC?"
The argument from YC was (more or less) "businesses shouldn't let political differences stop people from working together."
Here's my question to the YC community: At what point does the activities of an employee / partner bring potentially unwanted attention to a business?
Yes, I wouldn't fire an employee for having different political opinions from me. BUT I would fire an employee for going around publicly campaigning and publicly donating vast sums of money to a political agenda.
Again, it's about bringing potentially divisive attention to the business - not about political differences.
>Socialism does not say anything about the political system. Socialism is about economics and welfare.
Definition of Socialism: "A political and economic theory of social organization..." (via Google)
When a government enacts socialist policies, it is considered Socialist. Why? Politics is the mechanism by which economic and social policies are implemented and enforced.
Hitler was a Fascist / Authoritarian, not a Socialist.
This confusion about Socialist vs Fascism is common because - as you point out - they enact similar policies, e.g. high taxes.
There are numerous differences between the two. The biggest has to do with the relationship between the state and the individual:
In a Fascist / Authoritarian regime, the individual is subordinated to the state. E.g. "The state knows what's best for me. I'll do whatever they tell me to do." That's why Nazi = "National Socialism..."
In a Socialist government, the state is subordinated to the individual. This is also sometimes referred to as "active state liberalism". E.g. "The state exists to ensure we all live a happy life that enables us to pursue our own interests." France is a good example of this.
These are in contrast to what is called "classic" or "minimal state" liberalism. A liberal will say "The state exists to make sure that no one oppresses me, but it's not the state's responsibility to take care of me". This is the original version that comes from Locke, Mills, F. A. Hayek...
I remember when Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla because he donated $1000 to a campaign to block gay marriage.
Paul Graham has called Peter "eccentric, but earnest." but now he is actively supporting Trump with a great deal of money - many times more than what Brendan Eich gave.
Empathy = mental simulating of how an action will affect another.
Compassion = a desire to help another.
Responsiveness = the ability to recognize changes in someone's emotional state, and then develop and engage in a course of action based upon that change.
So, yeah, it helps your 401k, but in the mean time you don't have a job. And if you do have a job, your salary is not increasing in line with inflation...