SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (John Medaille)
Date:
Fri Sep 29 13:04:15 2006
In-Reply-To:
<200609290950169.SM00260@[192.91.253.73]>
Message-ID:
References:
<200609290950169.SM00260@[192.91.253.73]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Samuel Bostaph wrote:  
>John Medaille wrote:  
> >I was answering your question of how D of L was connected with  
> >hierarchy. The "pin-factory" is the commonly accepted meaning,  
> >and it leads to a multiplication of a pointless, expensive, and  
> >inefficient management structure.  
>  
>  
>It is difficult to take issue with an observation that some people are  
>just bad cooks.  
  
  
I am having difficulty connecting your comment   
with mine. The issue is not whether the cooks are   
good or bad, but how much "management overhead"   
they require. It is clear that the more   
specialization, the more the management function   
grows in cost, power, and importance. Even good   
pin-makers (or good cooks), if they are confined   
to one of the 18 operations, will need a strong   
management structure; if each can perform the   
whole process, they will need less or nil.   
Specialization along the "pin-factory" model   
deskills and disempowers workers, with the result   
that putative skill and actual power passes to a new group.  
  
John C. Medaille  

ATOM RSS1 RSS2