|
|
|
|
|
|
by inglor_cz
1508 days ago
|
|
|
"You are assuming that such workers would have all been unemployed if Musk did not exist, which is very unlikely." No, they would work, but would they be more productive in those other jobs? Possibly not. I wonder what would happen if current engineers at SpaceX were suddenly "redistributed" to Boeing or Blue Origin. Maybe they would raise the technical aptitude of those companies. Or maybe not, maybe the companies would grind them down to their corporate level. You can demotivate smart people and reduce their creativity to almost zero by insisting on idiotic corporate rules and punishing them for "transgressions" (e.g. innovation that wasn't approved beforehand). They will still be working in highly qualified positions, but their collective effort won't be as productive. It is notable what a big portion of contemporary technology is attributable to relatively small organizations (such as Bell Labs) which were able to motivate smart and creative people to do their best. |
|
|
On possibly yes - it depends. Yet, the company mission and priority is usually "maximize shareholders value".
Not "maximize worker creativity and happiness and empower them as much as possible".
Not "maximize technology, wealth, quality of life for humanity"
The last two might sometimes happen as fortunate side effects. Often not. See all the complaints from Tesla workers around safety and anti-union activities.