4 ms·

Possibly the best analysis of this I have yet seen is the video Why our generals were most successful in World War II that in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan

Possibly the best analysis of this I have yet seen is the video Why our generals were most successful in World War II that in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxZWxxZ2JGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxZWxxZ2JGE Essentially, the answer is the hiring methodology. If someone seemed like a best fit for a job then they were hired. They then had two weeks to demonstrate basic functional capacity and six weeks to make significant progress. If at any point things did not work out then they were immediately dismissed and replaced with someone else. The high rate of this process meant that there were always open opportunities even for those who had been dismissed from other positions, so things worked out for both employers and employees.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
Great, if not for the healthcare and retirement savings being tied to employment. Having left a role after only 4 months my SO is not happy with so many changes.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  That's not really the employers problem. I'm surprised more companies don't do this, at least in America where there seems little legislation in the way.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Getting rid of healthcare and retirement savings being tied to employment is good for a variety of reasons - this is just one of them. In fact, I'm not sure why anyone would want to keep them tied to employment.
  - doktorhladnjak 5y ago
    Employers like it for retention
    - m0zg 5y ago
      I don't think even the employers like it. It costs a lot and it's a pain in the ass to even sign up for if you're a small company. To add an insult to an injury, costs go up every year like clockwork in a largely out-of-control fashion. I worked for several companies now which started from scratch. "Retention" was never a part of the conversation, but "pain in the ass" always was. I think employers provide health insurance simply because employees expect it, as well as to pay you less than they would have to pay you otherwise. It's tax advantaged on their end. If your accountant is any good, it can even be tax advantaged for single person LLCs. Most people don't know this, though. Why this is not tax deductible for "regular" people I have no idea. IMO it should either be tax deductible for everyone, or no one. To have this in-between situation is idiotic.
redis_mlc 5y ago
FYI: in WW2, unsuccessful US generals were not dismissed, they were usually just rotated out. Although US leadership in WW2 was amazing overall, the problems were: - Pearl Harbor (top 2 military commanders there were relieved) - Italian amphibious landing failures (slow to breakout) - B-29 campaigns against Japan slow to ramp up (Curtis LeMay replaced the previous leader, then lowered altitude from 15,000' to 5,000') - Patton slapped a couple of ill GIs and got disciplined. German intelligence thought it was some kind of disinformation campaign since they had generals shooting their own soldiers with impunity. In later wars, leaders were hampered with limited rules of engagement, or interference from the White House.
cafard 5y ago
In one of Rick Atkinson's trilogy on the US Army in WW II, some general is quoted as remarking that under WW II rules, Robert E. Lee and some other prominent general--Grant or Sherman would probably qualify for the example--would have been removed from command and sent off to training duties.

paulryanrogers 5y ago

Great, if not for the healthcare and retirement savings being tied to employment. Having left a role after only 4 months my SO is not happy with so many changes.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
That's not really the employers problem. I'm surprised more companies don't do this, at least in America where there seems little legislation in the way.
HWR_14 5y ago
Getting rid of healthcare and retirement savings being tied to employment is good for a variety of reasons - this is just one of them. In fact, I'm not sure why anyone would want to keep them tied to employment.
- doktorhladnjak 5y ago
  Employers like it for retention
  - m0zg 5y ago
    I don't think even the employers like it. It costs a lot and it's a pain in the ass to even sign up for if you're a small company. To add an insult to an injury, costs go up every year like clockwork in a largely out-of-control fashion. I worked for several companies now which started from scratch. "Retention" was never a part of the conversation, but "pain in the ass" always was. I think employers provide health insurance simply because employees expect it, as well as to pay you less than they would have to pay you otherwise. It's tax advantaged on their end. If your accountant is any good, it can even be tax advantaged for single person LLCs. Most people don't know this, though. Why this is not tax deductible for "regular" people I have no idea. IMO it should either be tax deductible for everyone, or no one. To have this in-between situation is idiotic.

redis_mlc 5y ago

FYI: in WW2, unsuccessful US generals were not dismissed, they were usually just rotated out. Although US leadership in WW2 was amazing overall, the problems were: - Pearl Harbor (top 2 military commanders there were relieved) - Italian amphibious landing failures (slow to breakout) - B-29 campaigns against Japan slow to ramp up (Curtis LeMay replaced the previous leader, then lowered altitude from 15,000' to 5,000') - Patton slapped a couple of ill GIs and got disciplined. German intelligence thought it was some kind of disinformation campaign since they had generals shooting their own soldiers with impunity. In later wars, leaders were hampered with limited rules of engagement, or interference from the White House.

cafard 5y ago

In one of Rick Atkinson's trilogy on the US Army in WW II, some general is quoted as remarking that under WW II rules, Robert E. Lee and some other prominent general--Grant or Sherman would probably qualify for the example--would have been removed from command and sent off to training duties.