5 ms·

Capitalism. Need for money and results. I don't think that anybody wants to burnout anybody, it's just the pressure of the whole system I guess. Money pushes to

Capitalism. Need for money and results. I don't think that anybody wants to burnout anybody, it's just the pressure of the whole system I guess. Money pushes to do things fast. Shareholders and clients to keep happy.

watwut 8y ago
Burning out people at large rate is not effective and persistent crunch is contraproductie. It is less of capitalism and more of wishfull thinking combined with wish to be seen as tough manager.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  I'd say it's the pace in which modern capitalism operates at, particularly in tech. When the rate of production goes higher and higher due to automation and a global outsource-able workforce, the shareholders chase after higher and higher profits.
  - T2_t2 8y ago
    Nothing has changed, and ironically, this whole part of the question - is it better to burn people out and rehire - is a capitalist question, and answered with capitalist goals.
  - watwut 8y ago
    Tesla can't outsource globaly and does not have profits yet. Effectivity is about whether burnout brings higher profits, not whether people unable to gain them burnout themselves or those under them due to wishful thinking.
gsnedders 8y ago
The question of course is whether the high turnover actually is the most efficient way—you're spending far more employee time training them (both learning the company's approaches at a high level, the problem space, and their way around the code base) than you would if you had higher retention. While you might need to pay more and improve working conditions, would you be more efficient given the individual staff would spend more time being productive?
ASalazarMX 8y ago
> Shareholders [..] to keep happy. In my opinion, this is the biggest flaw of the system. For many investors, a company is less about what it makes and more like a process to grow their money. Even when a company becomes profitable, there's always pressure to make it even more profitable quarter after quarter.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > Even when a company becomes profitable, there's always pressure to make it even more profitable quarter after quarter. Would you keep your retirement funds in a company that doesn't grow?
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    Sure, as long as it pays good dividends. Not everything needs to grow into the sky.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      You do get the fact that a company with no growth but paying dividends will be worth (including the dividends you extracted) exactly what you paid for? It would be worse than buying a bond: you'll get the risk of equity with the returns of a bond.
      - reitanqild 8y ago
        Not an economist, but I have tried to keep informed and what you say doesn't seem like it should follow. (Then again English is not my first language.)
s73v3r_ 8y ago
I really don't care if they "don't really want to", they're still actively choosing paths that lead to that, and don't really care.

watwut 8y ago

Burning out people at large rate is not effective and persistent crunch is contraproductie. It is less of capitalism and more of wishfull thinking combined with wish to be seen as tough manager.

Apocryphon 8y ago
I'd say it's the pace in which modern capitalism operates at, particularly in tech. When the rate of production goes higher and higher due to automation and a global outsource-able workforce, the shareholders chase after higher and higher profits.
- T2_t2 8y ago
  Nothing has changed, and ironically, this whole part of the question - is it better to burn people out and rehire - is a capitalist question, and answered with capitalist goals.
- watwut 8y ago
  Tesla can't outsource globaly and does not have profits yet. Effectivity is about whether burnout brings higher profits, not whether people unable to gain them burnout themselves or those under them due to wishful thinking.

gsnedders 8y ago

The question of course is whether the high turnover actually is the most efficient way—you're spending far more employee time training them (both learning the company's approaches at a high level, the problem space, and their way around the code base) than you would if you had higher retention. While you might need to pay more and improve working conditions, would you be more efficient given the individual staff would spend more time being productive?

ASalazarMX 8y ago

> Shareholders [..] to keep happy. In my opinion, this is the biggest flaw of the system. For many investors, a company is less about what it makes and more like a process to grow their money. Even when a company becomes profitable, there's always pressure to make it even more profitable quarter after quarter.

ucaetano 8y ago
> Even when a company becomes profitable, there's always pressure to make it even more profitable quarter after quarter. Would you keep your retirement funds in a company that doesn't grow?
- reitanqild 8y ago
  Sure, as long as it pays good dividends. Not everything needs to grow into the sky.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    You do get the fact that a company with no growth but paying dividends will be worth (including the dividends you extracted) exactly what you paid for? It would be worse than buying a bond: you'll get the risk of equity with the returns of a bond.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      Not an economist, but I have tried to keep informed and what you say doesn't seem like it should follow. (Then again English is not my first language.)

s73v3r_ 8y ago

I really don't care if they "don't really want to", they're still actively choosing paths that lead to that, and don't really care.