| GoOnKid said: 1) I probably could have worded it better. Rockstar should change the way they work, not simply work less. There are more ways to maintain a high level of productivity without simply throwing in more work hours. 2) This only works only in Economy 101 where we try to emulate the real world through models, but the real world is much too complex, so models (as well as graphs, functions and mathematical formulae used within these models) need to make sacrifices of accuracy. If someone tried to emulate the real world with its entire complexity, the result would be the real world again. So, a function of labour can only measure something within its range, or scope. Your labor function ignores every social aspect of labor (how much do you like what you do?), but also every physical, like workers getting tired and exhausted. So no, productivity is not simply measured by working hours. Labor efficiency plays a major role in the real world. 3) This mindset belongs to the century before the last one. We have long since moved on. 4) It's neither a trade-off nor a zero-sum game. We can have both, we just need to work on it. Of course it takes time and it's hard - but it's worth the effort. |
1) The game was delayed twice already and Rockstar's studios themselves employ over 2000 employees. What exactly are other ways could they maintain a high level of productivity other than adding more hours ? (adding more hours is especially effective for those familiar with the project)
2) For the most part, productivity being a function of labour holds in the vast majority of cases in our observed world. As long as labour remains a scarce resource then productivity is not unlimited. Sure hours may not be everything and that's why milestones are a benchmark as well for productivity but if more hours did help Rockstar reach their milestones quicker then that simply augments my argument further ...
3) Nope, to this very day humans still have to work in providing value. As long as we continue to use money to put a price on labour then that mechanism can be the only way to truly measure productivity ...
4) Do you realize the irony you've created ? You say it's neither a trade-off nor a zero-sum game but then claim we have to "work" towards it but we already are working towards it by making many commodities and services abundant through "hard labour" that you decry so much about ...
Those are the simple realities of our current world. As long as scarcity exists then the value of hard labour will not ever diminish so the idea of employee welfare coexisting with pro-consumerism is a fairy tale. If we have to make a hardline choice between the two then pro-consumerism is the far more ethical and just path when it can only be the customers who hold the workers accountable for the value they provide. Employee welfare is no better than rent-seeking behaviour which only seeks to increase the share of one's wealth without creating new wealth by one's self. Selfishness among consumers breed competitive pressure, however, selfishness among employees only breeds complacency ...
