[fecaleagle]

I have a question for ONLY INTJs.

There was a capitalist named "George Pullman". Pullman was a true American capitalist. He would constantly raise capital and would pay his workers such a low wage that their families would literally starve and suffer.

Were Pullman's actions right or were they wrong.

 

[Filo]

Wrong, of course. Starving workers are not as productive as they could be.

 

[Snowguard]

Question seems poorly-worded and there are innumerable factors that are confusing. What's so great about him being a 'true American Capitalist'?

I think this is more a question of ethics or good business practice or social justice. If you'd asked if felt the pain of his workers, then it would have been about empathy.

Do I think what he did was wrong? By my standards, yes? Do I empathize with his staff? Not particularly. I've had, and still have, some pretty brutal bosses, but I constantly do an internal cost-benefit analysis of things.

Perhaps reconsidering your proposal might net you more results.

 

[EYENTJ]

Wrong, both from an empathy and business standpoint.

 

[very bored]

Wrong, both from an empathy and business standpoint.

How was it wrong from a business standpoint?

 

[Peter]

I have a question for ONLY INTJs.

There was a capitalist named "George Pullman". Pullman was a true American capitalist. He would constantly raise capital and would pay his workers such a low wage that their families would literally starve and suffer.

Were Pullman's actions right or were they wrong.

I'd say his actions were Stupid.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Could he effectively replace these workers? Could these workers, if given more wage/more food be made to be more effective?

 

[Archangel]

I have a question for ONLY INTJs.

There was a capitalist named "George Pullman". Pullman was a true American capitalist. He would constantly raise capital and would pay his workers such a low wage that their families would literally starve and suffer.

Were Pullman's actions right or were they wrong.

Need further info as to why he did it to such an extent. It's obviously a clear cut that people would be unhappy and a revolt is very likely. The way you phrase it doesn't helps. Not everyone knows him, you know.

Wrong, both from an empathy and business standpoint.

Well, actually wrong doesn't exist in business. There's no right or wrong. Only what's most productive. But since the most productive tend to be viewed and defined as " right ", I guess you could say this is wrong, under that restricted context.

 

[EYENTJ]

Well, actually wrong doesn't exist in business. There's no right or wrong. Only what's most productive. But since the most productive tend to be viewed and defined as " right ", I guess you could say this is wrong, under that restricted context.

I take wrong to mean what is bad for business and right as what is good for business. Nebulous, I know, but I thought we had a shared vocabulary to that extent. To put it another way, the wrong move business-wise as opposed to wrong morally.

Unless their workers are serfs or indentured servants living in a country without labor laws, one simply cannot treat their employees this way without repercussions... either from public opinion, when recruiting new workers, or from the government.

 

[very bored]

Unless their workers are serfs or indentured servants living in a country without labor laws, one simply cannot treat their employees this way without repercussions... either from public opinion, when recruiting new workers, or from the government.

What about China and India? What happened to all those children in sweatshops they supposedly have?

 

[Filo]

What about China and India? What happened to all those children in sweatshops they supposedly have?

They are currently working hard and diligently to make sure we can have $7 clothes. The good thing about slave labor is that it deals handily with the "friday-afternoon-quality" problem.

Of course, if you want your people to be more than fleshy machines, and actually contribute something of substance, this is not the way to go.

 

[Expat in Japan]

I have a question for ONLY INTJs.

There was a capitalist named "George Pullman". Pullman was a true American capitalist. He would constantly raise capital and would pay his workers such a low wage that their families would literally starve and suffer.

Were Pullman's actions right or were they wrong.

Here is one site about George Pullman. I only did a (very) brief read over, but....seems to be just a bio of a businessman who was against organized labor, but supported people in other ways.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....the question on this thread is fine, but not sure if the "George Pullman" part of it was necessary.

 

[fecaleagle]

The question was not meant to stir up a discussion lol. Somebody used it to argue that most INTJs think that this sort of activity is okay and lack an ability to empathize etc...just copied and pasted the question. Just wanted to prove them wrong.

 

[Expat in Japan]

The question was not meant to stir up a discussion lol. Somebody used it to argue that most INTJs think that this sort of activity is okay and lack an ability to empathize etc...just copied and pasted the question. Just wanted to prove them wrong.

I think if more background was given, your poll would have very different results.

 

[fecaleagle]

I think if more background was given, your poll would have very different results.

I think you are right. Based on the responses it seems like most INTJs do not value empathy much. Instead of firmly saying that the actions were wrong because of the inhumanity, issues of productivity and efficiency were brought up lol. Which was really the point of the vagueness of the question.

Personally, I am 100% business minded. But it's hard for me to think in those terms when it involves such suffering on other people's end.

 

[Connor Atreid]

Wrong...but that is nature of capitalism....profit is all that is important...and when worker can t be productive anymore you just find another.....there are plenty peoplel who need jobs

 

[EYENTJ]

Unless their workers are serfs or indentured servants living in a country without labor laws, one simply cannot treat their employees this way without repercussions... either from public opinion, when recruiting new workers, or from the government.

What about China and India? What happened to all those children in sweatshops they supposedly have?

The answer was right above.

It's not that I think empathy is unimportant, it's that arguments rooted in efficiency, productivity, and self-interest tend to be the most persuasive.

 

[The Great One]

lol, you based a thread upon my words to prove me wrong, and you instead proved me right. Man, I'm lovin this thread.

 

[very bored]

lol, you based a thread upon my words to prove me wrong, and you instead proved me right. Man, I'm lovin this thread.

Link please?

 

[cosmos]

Even a "boss" that is empathetic to his or her worker's plight could still be perceived as cold, ruthless, and inhumane. As others have noted, efficient business practices are often seen this way.

Henry Ford had to continually raise the wages of his Model T workers because assembly line work was widely considered harsh and inhumane; people would just quit!