3 ms·
The people who are gaming are probably not. However, the people who are not trying to game the system might decide to do it if there is an objective goal. But
by js8 8y ago
The people who are gaming are probably not. However, the people who are not trying to game the system might decide to do it if there is an objective goal.
But perhaps you're right. In capitalism, the most common purpose why companies exist is to game the system (i.e. make profit). I don't see why in that case, employees shouldn't try to game the people who game them (i.e. capitalists).
However, in companies that are collectively owned, this becomes less clear.
- SkyBelow 8y ago>However, in companies that are collectively owned, this becomes less clear. Unless it has no management there is still a management class with disproportionate decision making power and thus the antagonistic relationship necessary for there ti be a clear case for gaming continues to exist. Humans are really bad at removing hierarchies, to the extent that I would assume any place without hierarchies has them in a harder to notice format.