Did Ayn Rand's Not Having Children Affect Her Philosophy?

The basic part that makes capitalism successful is the thought "whats in it for me". When a person gets more if they work harder then there is the carrot that motivates a work force. When everyone gets the same, then the hard worker gets no more than the lazy one and we see the basic failure of communism as the motivation is gone for the individual. This is also the failing of the team concept in corporate America.

That's one reason I have always supported the concept of profit sharing to employees. The more the company makes, the more the employee makes. Waste would be cut, efficentcy goes up, simply because there is motivation for everyone at every level, and not just for managers.

But, that is the same as the team concept. The hard worker does not get rewarded individually and everybody gets the same profit increase be he/she lazy or busting ass. I think profit sharing does nothing to motivate people, especially since the people at the top can manipulate the price at will by selling more stock, etc.

And to think I always went with the dictionary definition of "intense and selfish desire".

And that's called "capitalism."

Is it a union shop?

I think having children changes one's philosophy, and not always for the better.

You certainly see more soccer moms than college kids chanting "for the children!" to justify laws designed to treat adults like children.

And I'm not convinced that choosing to go to your kid's boring recital over doing something more fun out of love for your own kid is being selfless. I think that's the sort of twisted logic that can only come from the muddled mind of a self-righteous parent with a bit of a martyr complex. You're still choosing to do it because ultimately it is the path that makes you feel better about yourself.

^^ That much is true for any selfless act.

I'm no expert on Ayn Rand, but I'm suspicious of this sort of accusation. I read a similar one of Naomi Klein lately, and thought it fairly disgraceful.

I beg to differ. Although he and I obviously differ very fundamentally on why, I think that corporatism and Lenin have quite a lot in common, and are both similarly destructive of individual freedom.

Please, keep the "Real Person Fanfiction" at LiveJournal.

Speculation does not equal fanfiction.

And if I can tolerate your bizarre theories on childrearing, you can just slide over my posts if they upset you.

Having children is voluntary. Taking care of infirm parents is voluntary. Don't confuse a moral obligation with a legal one.

Which is a possibility you accepted when you chose to have sex.

Someone has to pay for the child. Since it's yours, you're the logical choice.

I take it you do not or did not car for her garamet.

It's been my experience that the real contributors are noticed and rewarded. The last company I worked for gave bonuses at Christmastime, and it seemed like management had a pretty good handle on who deserved what. And this wasn't a management that was otherwise too on top of things.

I agree that if everyone gets the same reward, part of the individual's motivation for performing better is lost, but profit sharing is usually a benefit that isn't connected to individual performance. Yes, some undeserving people get rewarded that way, but if they aren't eventually pushed out of the company they will certainly see less benefits compared to the performing over time: advancement, raises, etc.

I work for a big corporation and all hourly employees in the same positions are payed the same to the penny whether a hard worker or a lazy ass. Everybody get the same gift certificate for christmas. The only way you get more money is work more hours. There is no promotion to salaried jobs so everyone is where they are going.

What can I say? Bad management.

Yes, but they think they are wonderful and to say otherwise risks termination. We finally all got a raise this year of 2.75%. Its the same for everyone. This is why I compare to communism.

Then your employment company is full of fail. I've seriously never known this all or nothing mentality at any other company I've heard of.

Its the way they do it. The money is not bad for the area so its hard to complain, but still there is no pay for performance at all, but they are still in a fire or retire mode to reduce the head count so its like the old chinese saying "the nail that sticks its head up get hammerd down" so thats the way it is. I think it is that way in a lot of manufacturing plants. Everyone at position X makes X amount per hour.

Yeah, it's a bad policy.

In the last BIG company I worked for, the department manager was alotted a percentage of the total payroll to distribute however he pleased as raises. A few people got a large percentage (usually around 4%), some people got less, some people got nothing. I thought that was a good idea.

Wealthy families in russia really did deserve to lose their family considering how elite treated middle class and peasantry. That and orthodox church in russia was a propaganda arm of czar. Why there should never be state churches in US. This is coming from a person who hates communism. I just happen to know a little bit about russian history. Kinda makes it understandable every action has a opposite reaction. Brutal czar, elite and orthodox church produced communism in russia.

One of the most succesful retail operations over here is The John Lewis Partnership. Everybody that works for the company is also a shareholder, and all profits are distributed between them. IIRC, for the last financial year everyone got an extra 10 weeks salary.
And, whaddaya know, it scores tops for customer satisfaction on almost every chart you care to look at.

I got my present dishwasher from them, for £40 less than I'd have paid anywhere else.

This is a new and slowly growing trend in the U.S. as well.

I'd love to get profit sharing from my company. It's a billion-dollar business that has offices in like 8 or 12 countries - I don't know, maybe more. I've only just started working for them.