2 ms·

This feels like pretty typical capitalist rhetoric on the surface at least. Ignoring income - Do you go to work to make the company you work for more wealthy?

This feels like pretty typical capitalist rhetoric on the surface at least. Ignoring income - Do you go to work to make the company you work for more wealthy? Or do you go to work to enjoy what you do and make friends? Or do you go to work to learn new skills and better yourself? - In which order do you place the statements? (Yes, it's a false trichotomy.) Unless you're the company founder or a major shareholder I would really hope making the company more wealthy is not your top priority. I always say to my co-workers health > family > work. If they're not healthy, they're not happy and they're not able to look after family (or close friends), for family (or close friends) I'm not happy or healthy they're less likely to be a viable support network. You can be passionate, expressive, and absorbed in your work - but doing what is best for the company above all else is not what is best for humanity most of the time.

jmk123 4y ago
> health > family > work 100% agree. I would've flipped the thesis of the post in reverse order: yourself, your team, your company.
- snug 4y ago
  That's not a controversial heading though. I probably wouldn't have read the article, because no shit, that would be obvious
- wccrawford 4y ago
  I agree, but it's more complex than both of those. If something matters to you, but matters a lot more to the company, it's probably a good idea to do what's good for the company. And if it matters a lot to you and not much to the company, it's probably right to do what you want. When things meet in the middle it means you have to take lot of other things into account, too, to make the decision. These hollow 1-way maps don't ever give good advice.