"I was laughing at you. And you continue to dig the hole deeper"
No. I think at this point I am merely filling in the dirt. Your silly "logic" buried you before your face hit the page.
Defining a conclusion as de facto proof of itself is the last recourse and subterfuge of one who has nothing to say.
"By definition, if an enterprise continues to exist despite the presence of alternative businesses that could draw its customers away, that business is competitive. Thus, most businesses are competitive"
Talk about begging the question, LOL!! Yeah, Neo. All businesses which continue to exist are competitive!! And therefore you think they are competent (unless they were lucky), and are not suffering from unproductive employees?!!--on my...!<g>
"since gross and pervasive stupidity would lead to incompetent management, most businesses are managed with a reasonable degree of intelligence. ......"
Wonderful! Businesses are competitive, therefore they are not incompetent! So you think that if you play a game of chess with some Nob, and you both reach a stalemate on the tenth move, that this demonstrates prima facie competence. There are millions of competitive chess players in the world, and very few of them are competent. How silly you are being.
In the first place, incompetency and luck are totally disparate concepts, such that the suggestion that a business is either competent, or it is unlucky, is a logical nullity. The suggestion disgraces you, and it shames your alma mater.
I did not question competitiveness. I questioned productivity. Productivity is related to such things as alcohol abuse, sleeping on the job, carelessness and inattention to duty--or neglect of same. It may involve interfering with the work of another; it may entail chronic absenteeism or tardiness; and it relates to a host of other behaviours far too numerous to cover here.
I indicated that mismanagement, waste, and alcohol abuse were rampant problems, and both the cause and the evidence of wasted productivity. I even emphasized (by the judicious usage of imagery) the terrible toll these take on society. Your response was adolescent and snide. I was very disappointed in you.
Society, however, embraces a more adult understanding of these problems and demonstrates a mature recognition of the reality of mismanagement and workplace misbehaviour, incompetence, and abuse. Major corporations have EAP's in place, and this alone saves millions of dollars per year in lost productivity and human potential; although I suppose it is only a dent in the one and a half billion dollars which unproductiveness is costing them...
Whether or not a business is "competitive" does not tell us about the unproductiveness, lack of competence, or level of ambition which may characterize the boss(es), the employee(s), or both. The ability to stay in business and to meet minimal standards of ambition does not speak to either their competence or their productivity.
"You get what you pay for" is perhaps the oldest truism. As well, from an employer's point of view...You pay for what you get". And boy do you ever pay sometimes...
I will give a real-life example, as you seem to be having difficulty with the simple fact that incompetence and unproductiveness abound, and that they exist independently of whether or not some intern gives a good couple of minutes of fellatio:
There is a painter I know. He has 2 or 3 employees whom he taps into on an as-needed basis--predicated upon whatever project which is underway. Overall, he probably knows little more about painting than I do; and regardless of that, I am certain I could do a more competent, and a higher quality job. Nevertheless, he carries on his business, makes excuses if a hangover or laziness keeps him from the job site, and generally goes through life as an unproductive employer with unproductive employees.
He earns enough to pay his rent and keep food and beer in the fridge. Often, he and his employees drink on the job, and the pay is frequently topped off by standing them for pitchers of beer at the bar after the job is done for the day.
Another example, if you are slow (and I am not saying that you are): I could get a pimple-faced lawyer to look up a few dozen citations, and summarize their usefulness to me. I can get the work done cheaply through him. For the most competitive, ambitious and productive lawyers, however, this would cost me a great deal--even though they use a pimple-faced lawyer as well. But they might notice something pertinent which will win my case, whereas Pimply will not even notice the things that I notice.
Again, you get what you pay for. The unproductive and the incompetent find a price for their unproductivity and incompetence which some are willing to meet. When they cannot, they go bankrupt, or find some other solution.
What I said to you was accurate and is evidenced by 1.5 billion dollars a year in lost productivity. That does not include the thousands of small businesses which work under the table or otherwise are beyond statistical reach. Nor does it does not measure the cost in human suffering in individuals, and in families.
However, it does not sound like you are too concerned with that. Your concern, as you said to me, was to "make fun of me." Well, whether or not you have "made fun of me", you have made a perfect ass of yourself, IMO!<gg> |
