From: Leland Jory (ljory@mts.net)
Date: Wed Mar 03 2004 - 17:56:09 GMT
Platt Holden wrote:
>>> Every business is there to make profit. Not just to provide a product.
>>
>>But That is where the difference lies. Some companies only exist to make
>>profit, no matter what quality the product is that they're producing. And
>>some others, make better quality products, and are satisfied with lower
>>profit ratios. How fast is H.H.Brown growing? Well, it isn't, really.
>>It's been in the same spot for a long time, and the owners seem to be
>>content with that. Then you have other large companies, which actively
>>seek to destroy their competition by any means possible. They only seek
>>profits. More money in the pockets of fewer people. Do you think that if
>>Nike is doing really well, they're employees see lots of wage / benefits
>>increases? no..... Then where does that money go? To the CEO 's nice
>>lofty XX million dollar bonus. What do people need with that much money?
>>They have it, and someone else needs it.
>>
>>
>
>Need is not a legitimate claim. There's not a mouthful of food not needed
>by someone somewhere.
>
>
A good parallel would be the Apple Computer/Microsoft division. I'm a
Mac user because Apple invariably makes "better" products (i.e. more
Quality). There is an attention to detail that strikes a balance between
power and elegance. I avoid Microsoft products because they seem to
operate by tossing low-quality product out the door at an exorbitant
price, merely to boost profits. Are both companies in it for the
profits? Of course. Apple has one of the highest profit margins on its
products of any manufacturer. Does that mean they sacrifice Quality for
$$? Of course not.
Remember, this is just an analogy. I don't want to start a flame war here.
>>This is why when money is the determining factor of Quality or Value
>>Judgement, things go awry. You lose focus on what matters , and focus on
>>'making a good living'.
>>
>>
>
>If focusing on making a good living makes one happy, what's the problem?
>
>
"We want to make good time, but for us now this is measured with
emphasis on "good" rather than "time" and when you make that shift in
emphasis the whole approach changes." - ZMM, Chapter 1
Substitute 'living' for 'time'. Similar idea. There's nothing inherently
negative about 'time', but when you focus on time, you lose sight of
quality. Same goes for a 'living' (as measured by material wealth).
>>Instead of money being the value determiner, how about Quality? Doens't
>>matter whether its the quality of what you make, what you buy, eat,
>>drink.... Quality of life is what matters. If you do what you like to do,
>>what makes you happy, than you will do it better, and with more care than
>>something which bores you, or you hate , or are disinterested in.
>>
>>
>
>What I hear you saying is success is measured by one's happiness.
>
>
True, but money never bought happiness. The closest it comes is buying
"things which are conducive to happiness", but that is not the same
thing. I can't remember the exact passage, but the Tao Te Ching talks
about the greater your material wealth, the less you can enjoy it
(because of the fear of losing it).
>>I see it everyday at work. People, who are grumpy all of the time.....I've
>>been in situations, where people have told me...."You know.....I wish I
>>could have done things different......you know? I knew I shouldn't have
>>gone into this career. I should have gone into business or something like
>>that." The specific result of this unhappiness, is reduction/ lack of
>>effort , which results in the degredation of Quality.
>>
>>
>
>Donald Trump looks mighty happy.
>
Actually, I don't see that. He looks very wealthy, but there's something
in his eyes... a driven look, maybe. I wouldn't assume he's happy.
>>Poot: Are you satisfied with crap? I think what we have here, is crap...
>>It may be my view, and the view of many, but its not just view. Can you
>>distinguish between what is crap, and what is good ----for society? Yes.
>>
>>
>
>Yes. What is good for society is individual freedom and responsibility,
>not government handouts.
>
>
Actually, individual freedom can be very BAD for society. That's not to
say that freedom is bad. I'd conjecture that, if individual freedom
conflicts with a society then the flaw is with that society's static
value patterns. What's needed is some Dynamic Quality to make the
society evolve to such a point that the value of individual freedom fits
harmoniously.
--
Leland Jory :^{)>
Cafeteria Spiritualist and Philosopher
"It is a puzzling thing. The truth knocks on the door and you say, 'Go
away, I'm looking for the truth.' and so it goes away. Puzzling." -
Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 03 2004 - 17:59:45 GMT