Offices are often filled with inner struggles between workers competing for promotions, social status, and kudos from their employers (in the form of bonuses, gift cards, gold stars, etc). Generally, these conflicts create a slight distraction from the work at hand, but can improve production overall by reinforcing quality work habits. However, other conflicts are counter-productive, and, worse of all, can be implemented by the employer.
Let's use the state worker system for an example. Especially when starting at the bottom, workers are pushed forward in time-determinative promotions regardless of actual competency or performance (excluding, of course, workers with egregiously poor work ethics). That is understandable, since state workers generally start pretty low on the pay scale when they have no prior experience. However, it means that if a worker excels at producing quality work, then her only benefit is having more work tossed her way without any real fiscal incentive to be realized, often for as long as 7 years, until she is eligible to apply for a higher position with limited spots. How successful can this system be at promoting a strong work ethic when a worker must wait 7 years before any hard work pays off financially? Failing to produce arduously may earn stern talks, lack of trust, non-preferential assignments, and possible involuntary transfer. However, no pay cut and generally if the unmotivated worker produces the bare minimum requirements of the position she will still get the annual promotions. Meanwhile, the harder worker is rewarded with more stress, expectations, longer hours, responsibilities, and no financial distinction.
The reason for this breakdown in the promotion scheme appears to be a fear of discrimination. The state cannot discriminate against workers on account of ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. This still allows the state to discriminate against workers based on production, but that poor production better be well documented with warnings issued and follow the proper chain of command. The monetary risk of being sued for discrimination, coupled with the expense of fully documenting all workers' production mishaps and then following the steps to lead to disciplinary action, leaves the state with no fiscally sound choice but to blindly promote workers on a set schedule unless they are horrendously atrocious at their job.
The conflict here is the state's interest in promoting work ethic against the state's interest in protecting itself from a discrimination suit. Loss prevention wins out, and motivation is left to the wind. Fear of discriminating kills promoting hard work, and results in a system that almost promotes anti-motivation in the workforce.
Jan 20, 2010
Oct 22, 2008
ePolitical
Following from the conjectures of Lawrence Lessig in Code 2.0 and the current fervor of the political race, a curious question presents itself. How important will the internet be to future elections, not as a tool for advertising, but as a topic of interest?
This election saw a candidate advertise in top tier video games while another candidate felt the deathgrip that the DMCA (which he supported) has on the concept of fair use as his ads were pulled from YouTube. As the law discovers its place in cyberspace, it will have to decide how much control it must exert, how much freedom it must allow, and how far its reach extends. These decisions will affect everyone. A candidate's position on how the government regulates the internet can be vital point of contention. Should the internet be taxed, how far do state and federal laws extend, and can the ideals and principles put forth by the constitution's framers (fair use, free speech, eminent domain, etc) survive in cyberspace against the near limitless control of corporations without the help of the courts.
This election saw a candidate advertise in top tier video games while another candidate felt the deathgrip that the DMCA (which he supported) has on the concept of fair use as his ads were pulled from YouTube. As the law discovers its place in cyberspace, it will have to decide how much control it must exert, how much freedom it must allow, and how far its reach extends. These decisions will affect everyone. A candidate's position on how the government regulates the internet can be vital point of contention. Should the internet be taxed, how far do state and federal laws extend, and can the ideals and principles put forth by the constitution's framers (fair use, free speech, eminent domain, etc) survive in cyberspace against the near limitless control of corporations without the help of the courts.
Apr 12, 2008
Jukebox in the Sky
Columbia wanted to have a subscription service for $20/mo that would allow you access to all music on all your devices (computer, cell phone, car, portable player) as long as you kept paying the monthly fee. One must assume that this would allow you to categorize the music into genres, likes/dislikes or other ratings, playlists, etc. I think the service would be nice. Instead of burning a cd or creating a playlist and copying it to your ipod and then hooking your ipod up to your car you can just do it online and then it will be on all devices.
The two big questions are, of course, will a vast majority of consumers agree that this is a good deal, and will the label companies agree that this is what they want to do. One source says that the US spends $24 a year per capita on music. Is this deal that much better than what we have now that America would spend ten times what they are spending now on music? I think that figure does not take into account a large majority of people, like myself, who listen to a lot of music but spend close to nothing on music. In my case, I might go for the deal because, like many other people, I put up with a lot of annoyances and go through a hassle to ensure that I spend no money on music (put up with listening to the radio, download music, go through hoops to get free albums, etc).
For the record companies, this deal may be very sour. For starters, it nullifies any deals they are currently getting from Sirius/XM. Why pay a monthly fee to get more radio when you can pay a little more to listen only to what you want and without commercials? These customers already show that they are willing to pay for music, and I would think most would make the jump to the new service. Also, when removing all those people that don’t spend any money on music, and assuming that most of them would still not pay anything for music and won’t go for this deal, would this service actually take in less money? Of those who spend money on music, do they spend more than $20/mo? If so, then the deal is bad for the record labels. In addition, how much profit do the companies make from this $20/mo versus how much do they take in from cd sales and online downloads? The per capita spending may go up, and smaller labels may see a gain (if they get a good cut on the profits), but bigger labels may see a drop in profits from this scheme. However, that argument seems dubious since Columbia records is promoting the idea.
Aside from pure profit considerations, there is also the issue of control. Labels want to control what you listen to through distribution and radio. They want to promote certain artists, who may not be as good as other artists, but for some reason will bring in more money if they become popular. For instance, Gwen Stefani will bring in more money through concerts and other merchandise than Kimya Dawson will (even though she did the soundtrack for Juno, she wouldn’t be a big concert artist or merchandise junkie). Therefore, assuming the label companies get something from peripheral products, they will want to promote the cash cow and not the talented indie artist.
More importantly, however, is the issue of privacy (which is the stimulant behind this scheme). Will this system erode piracy? If you can have access to all music for a relatively low price, would you spend hours a day downloading music illegally? Will this system increase piracy? How long before someone cracks the security and figures out how to make illegal copies of the unlimited supply of music provided by this system and then sends them out to the world? Finally, is piracy a bad thing for the music industry? This question is long in debate and needs its own post, but there are good arguments on both sides. Without fail, piracy will hurt some artists/companies and will benefit others. Jack Johnson’s first album was released free and other artists have said that the leaking of their music was how they got famous and it gave them a chance to make money on subsequent albums. Of course, Metallica and others disagree, stating that the people who would normally buy their album are now getting it for free and thus creating an obvious loss in sales and profit.
What do you think of this Jukebox in the sky idea?
The two big questions are, of course, will a vast majority of consumers agree that this is a good deal, and will the label companies agree that this is what they want to do. One source says that the US spends $24 a year per capita on music. Is this deal that much better than what we have now that America would spend ten times what they are spending now on music? I think that figure does not take into account a large majority of people, like myself, who listen to a lot of music but spend close to nothing on music. In my case, I might go for the deal because, like many other people, I put up with a lot of annoyances and go through a hassle to ensure that I spend no money on music (put up with listening to the radio, download music, go through hoops to get free albums, etc).
For the record companies, this deal may be very sour. For starters, it nullifies any deals they are currently getting from Sirius/XM. Why pay a monthly fee to get more radio when you can pay a little more to listen only to what you want and without commercials? These customers already show that they are willing to pay for music, and I would think most would make the jump to the new service. Also, when removing all those people that don’t spend any money on music, and assuming that most of them would still not pay anything for music and won’t go for this deal, would this service actually take in less money? Of those who spend money on music, do they spend more than $20/mo? If so, then the deal is bad for the record labels. In addition, how much profit do the companies make from this $20/mo versus how much do they take in from cd sales and online downloads? The per capita spending may go up, and smaller labels may see a gain (if they get a good cut on the profits), but bigger labels may see a drop in profits from this scheme. However, that argument seems dubious since Columbia records is promoting the idea.
Aside from pure profit considerations, there is also the issue of control. Labels want to control what you listen to through distribution and radio. They want to promote certain artists, who may not be as good as other artists, but for some reason will bring in more money if they become popular. For instance, Gwen Stefani will bring in more money through concerts and other merchandise than Kimya Dawson will (even though she did the soundtrack for Juno, she wouldn’t be a big concert artist or merchandise junkie). Therefore, assuming the label companies get something from peripheral products, they will want to promote the cash cow and not the talented indie artist.
More importantly, however, is the issue of privacy (which is the stimulant behind this scheme). Will this system erode piracy? If you can have access to all music for a relatively low price, would you spend hours a day downloading music illegally? Will this system increase piracy? How long before someone cracks the security and figures out how to make illegal copies of the unlimited supply of music provided by this system and then sends them out to the world? Finally, is piracy a bad thing for the music industry? This question is long in debate and needs its own post, but there are good arguments on both sides. Without fail, piracy will hurt some artists/companies and will benefit others. Jack Johnson’s first album was released free and other artists have said that the leaking of their music was how they got famous and it gave them a chance to make money on subsequent albums. Of course, Metallica and others disagree, stating that the people who would normally buy their album are now getting it for free and thus creating an obvious loss in sales and profit.
What do you think of this Jukebox in the sky idea?
Feb 2, 2008
Code 2.0
Lawrence Lessig has updated his 1999 work entitled Code. The topic is law in the age of the internet, and how they affect each other. Mr. Lessig is a forerunner in the groves of academe regarding law and information technology. The recently updated version, Code 2.0, is available for purchase from its site, or for free download:
http://codev2.cc/
Also check out the Wiki page for more information.
I have paced my way through the text and found it both easy to read and informative. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the internet - which should be everyone, even if they are 'off the grid'
http://codev2.cc/
Also check out the Wiki page for more information.
I have paced my way through the text and found it both easy to read and informative. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the internet - which should be everyone, even if they are 'off the grid'
Inception
If one unit of resource brings you one unit of pleasure, one unit of resource brings the utility monster 100 units of pleasure.
If the utility monster can get so much pleasure from each unit of resources, It follows from utilitarianism, that the distribution of resources should acknowledge this. If the utility monster existed, it would justify the mistreatment and perhaps annihilation of everyone else.
If the utility monster can get so much pleasure from each unit of resources, It follows from utilitarianism, that the distribution of resources should acknowledge this. If the utility monster existed, it would justify the mistreatment and perhaps annihilation of everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)