{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/24/2013 2:56:30 AM
6
Hmm, their ideals remind me of the more archaic aspects of "scientific management", which was breaking production down into manageable tasks, and treating everything, including workers, as an input to be manipulated. It worked but had a limit. Push too hard and job satisfaction would plummet, along with productivity.
The technocrat's view of everything as a technical problem with a technical solution is along the same thought path. That might work in a country of robots, but people have radically different needs, wants, and opinions on how things should be done. And government is about people more than anything.
Not that I'm opposed to having engineers and whatnot in the government, they're educated people with a valuable set of skills. I just don't like the end ideal of technocracy.
English
-
Mathematics ans technology could be used to calculate the best possible conditions for people with available resources.
-
Edited by CND AAA Beef: 5/24/2013 3:12:06 AMThat's exactly what scientific management tried to accomplish, determine the maximum productivity possible with resources available. You know what happened? Workers went on strike because they were being forced to work at 100% all the time.
-
Then it's obvious that whoever decided to make workers work 100% of the time did not factor in ideal work and break hours for maximum efficiency.
-
Okay, try factoring in ideal work and break hours for 500 people with families and other obligations besides their job to achieve maximum efficiency. You can't. That's why businesses have HR departments and policies to work around issues that are beyond the businesses' control. Sick days, mat leave, employees getting into car accidents on the way to work, etc. You can't get maximum efficiency out of an equation when a huge chunk of your variables are unknowable, at most you can guess. You can't solve Real Life(tm) with just equations.
-
I can understand these arguments (and the others you've made), but you can just as easily say that they were simply bad applications of the given principals. The wants of most people (to satisfy them enough that they won't revolt) are understandable enough, and I think this can be accounted for. Not accounting for worker satisfaction is an error made by the one designing the model, not something inherently wrong with the approach. The argument you make is also somewhat predicated on the assumption that such things (strikes, low job satisfaction, long hours) don't exist in our current model, when in fact they are becoming ever more common.
-
With enough research, a sufficient number of variables (or at least their averages) can be found. A good equation for efficiency should be flexible enough to work occasional with deviations from the average. Everything (non-metaphysical) can be put into math; it's the language the universe is written in.
