On Urban Meyer: "Happiness is for losers"
That's not a quote from him, it's a quote about him in a scathing review of his career in the Guardian, a British newspaper. A very interesting read.
February 25th, 2021 at 7:59 AM ^
Urban Meyer is the human equivalent of an American Corporation; a true sociopath.
Edit: imo, the two of these entities are all about the bottom line (winning or maximizing profit). You think the industrial industry decided to start giving employees perks and extra benefits all of a sudden and not because of the human relations movement or competition within the industry?
I appreciate the company I work for, very much so, but let's not kid ourselves that perks, incentives, etc. when incepted are not tied to the bottom line. There is a cost to the extra incentives but the benefit of employee retention, better job candidates, etc. is evaluated to be higher than the cost. Think ROI.
We can work for great CEOs, managers, colleagues but at the end of the day the corporation will do whatever it takes to maximize profit. That includes perceived good (perks, incentives, sustainability changes) and not so good (offshoring, benefit reductions). This obsession with maximizing profit is why I classify corporations as sociopaths.
Good talk and God bless,
timtebro
February 25th, 2021 at 8:17 AM ^
The headline is so over the top:
Urban Meyer embodies the hubris of the US sports industry,
and the article sounds like something a HS student wrote.
February 25th, 2021 at 9:20 AM ^
"An American Corporation" seriously, the most ignorant comment of the day.
you should realize that there are great corporations that treat their clients, employees and vendors fairly. They provide jobs and benefits that afford their employees the opportunity to buy houses, send their children to college, vacation, retire..... etc.
There are shitty corporations as well, but they aren't all the same. just like contributors to this blog, some have very closed and simple minds, others are little more thoughtful.
February 25th, 2021 at 9:40 AM ^
Fisher Investments is one example. They put their clients needs first because they are a fiduciary. At least according to the commercial I see 10 times a day.
February 25th, 2021 at 11:58 AM ^
Ken Fisher, and Fisher Investments, puts the Douche in fiduciary..... they charge you 1.35% per year on your balance, whether you are up or down..... do they do better when you do better? sure, because they are taking 1.35% of your total..... What they leave out is the fact that they also charge you 1.35% whether they are doing anything or not. They aren't efficient, imo.
February 25th, 2021 at 2:11 PM ^
they charge you 1.35% per year on your balance
Do you work for free?
February 25th, 2021 at 6:22 PM ^
I think the point he is trying to make is that their commercials imply that they only make money if your investment grows when in reality the words are structured in a weasely way to not literally mean that.
To be fair, it was probably a marketing firm the company hired that came up with the weasely campaign, but they still went along with it.
February 28th, 2021 at 11:58 PM ^
I think saying that the commercials leaving out the mx fee being weaselly is a stretch.
I'm not sure of any financial commercial for anything on TV discloses the full ToS... and it's not a lie either. They make their money when you make your money.
If we're going to be butthurt over fees we should probably take PSLs to task. And the CSG fee. And the thousands of ways health insurance nickels and dimes us (but BCBS commercials never disclose that stuff do they). Or airline tickets. Yada yada yada.
Respect your opinion... just sayin' that's all.
February 25th, 2021 at 2:44 PM ^
This is pretty normal.
February 25th, 2021 at 3:16 PM ^
I do not work for free, I do pretty well..... on average that about twice what my clients pay.
February 25th, 2021 at 4:14 PM ^
First time I’ve heard “they put the douche in fiduciary.” Nicely done.
February 25th, 2021 at 9:43 AM ^
^^^^Yes. I work for one of these. They’ve enabled so much for my family and I and have given so much back to the community.
February 25th, 2021 at 10:14 AM ^
There is, however, an aspect of corporations that needs to be monitored and kept in check. A corporation is a legally created "person" allowing groups of owners to engage in commerce without being personally liable for every act (which they may not have the authority to control) of the corporation. It is a tremendous engine for production of goods, trade and creating wealth. Albert Einstein said compound interest is the most significant innovation of his life time. That's impossible without a system of corporations.
However, you have to remember how a corporation is designed. Its "life's work" is creating wealth for its shareholders, period. Even more problematic, if it engages in antisocial behavior, it is difficult to impose meaningful accountability. You have a situation where the legally distinct person can act in ways that benefit its shareholders, but the shareholders and officers are shielded from the legal consequences of the acts that benefit them. Think the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma. This is inherent. You can't have the benefits of limited liability without regulating all the possibilities for abuse.
There are specific corporations whose ownership insists it pursue other values in addition to making money. That's laudable, but it doesn't let you off from the responsibility of monitoring all corporations. Expecting the market will regulate itself is a dangerous fantasy. Even more problematic, our legal system has become a bit confused about the "personhood" of these legal fictions. Money=speech, and legal fictions having free speech rights are examples.
Corporations aren't inherently evil, but they are inherently dangerous. The problem with "corporate culture" programs (like those that employ Urban Meyer) is that the regulators, the NCAA, have abdicated watching the things that matter in favor of protecting the vastly profitable (for them) money printing operation.
February 25th, 2021 at 12:27 PM ^
I know this wasn't your intent, but the comment.."are inherently dangerous" could be applied to almost anything if left to it's own devices. Thankfully, there is plenty of regulation which exists. Thankfully, beyond shareholders, there are customers. Customers are still the ultimate stakeholder for any company. Without those you can't deliver to shareholders.
Full disclosure, I work for a big corporation. I have never disputed what my job is. Make my company money. But I also have been fortunate to work for a company which reminds me everyday that the way we deliver for shareholders is to; Be Good, Be Honest, Be Fair, Be Loyal, Be Accurate, Be Respectful.
The point is, I don't think companies themselves are inherently dangerous. Individual people have the capability to be dangerous. When like minded people coalesce around an organization they can become really dangerous. Unfortunately, there are times those types of people make it into positions of power and can use the company (and other systems) to be dangerous. For most companies, the vast majority of their employee base is simply trying to do right and live their lives.
February 25th, 2021 at 4:25 PM ^
You can make an argument "creating wealth for its shareholders, period." as the sole objective of a corporation could well be 'inherently evil'
Apple claims its headquarters to be in Ireland so it can avoid paying American taxes. Who suffers? Americans who have less money for infrastructure.
Google's first mission statement was Don't Be Evil. Yet their algorithm designed to increase viewer engagement by pushing people to the fringes, enrages and fosters disinformation - it's pretty evil.
Facebook knows who you are, 100 likes Mark Zuckerberg knows you better than your spouse 300 and he knows you better than you. Then he sells that info that you gave him for nothing to organization you don't even know about.
Despite earning 37 billion a year Nike unapologetically uses sweatshops. In 2017, Nike blocked labour rights experts from independently monitoring Nike’s supplier factories.
Working in an Amazon warehouse beats and stresses the hell out of worker. Every second is monitored by your gun - Workers are expected to walk or run in most cases about 15 miles per day but they aren't even busiest people at the plant it's the nurse who dole out free pain killers. They monitor buying trends then squeeze out competition. They have a huge carbon foot print and a negative tax bill. It took Jeff Bezos 20 years to earn his first 100 billion 3 years to make it to 200.
All these practices could be called evil and the common denominator they share is maximum return for shareholders.
February 25th, 2021 at 6:01 PM ^
"you have to remember how a corporation is designed. Its "life's work" is creating wealth for its shareholders, period. Even more problematic..." What is problematic about creating wealth? Seriously, what should it do? Destroy wealth and value?
"Corporations aren't inherently evil, but they are inherently dangerous." Corporations aren't inherently dangerous. Where do you get such drivel? Corporations reflect humanity. Some are great. Some are terrible.
February 25th, 2021 at 9:29 AM ^
I think you're making a very big generalization here.
There are plenty of great corporations out there that pay their employees well, treat them right, give them opportunities to voice their opinions and be heard, etc. I'd like to think I work for one. I've never worked somewhere that has been as generous with giving people time off and embracing work/life balance as the place I work now. They give you four months off to care for a newborn. Fully paid. That has been one of the biggest blessings I could've ever asked for with having a newborn this past year. Especially in a year where everything else went to shit. I'm not sure I'll ever find a more generous package than that anywhere in any industry.
Of course there are shitty corporations as well. I've worked for those, too. And its why I'm not there anymore. But to cast all corporations in that light is just wrong.
February 25th, 2021 at 10:17 AM ^
The number of NOT ALL CORPORATIONS posts is astounding.
February 25th, 2021 at 12:35 PM ^
apparently we have a bunch of CEO's on the blog
February 25th, 2021 at 1:14 PM ^
Or just a bunch of folks very fortunate that their Michigan connex afford them the opportunity to only work for good corporate citizens & tell the bad ones (probably owned by Putin or the Kochs) to take a hike!
February 25th, 2021 at 10:16 AM ^
No you were right the first time.
February 25th, 2021 at 12:38 PM ^
i might argue that the big difference is private vs public companies.
a private company has the luxury to be able to do what it wants with its profits. a public company is beholden to its shareholders, and ain't nobody buying stocks because they like how a company treats its employees without the expectation they're going to profit off that stock.
February 25th, 2021 at 2:34 PM ^
This is a red herring. Is treating employees better always at the expense of shareholders? Does it not automatically mean that the ideal company for a shareholder is a slave-factory?
February 25th, 2021 at 3:13 PM ^
i mean. i don't see how you can summarily dismiss the argument as a red herring. obviously, it's relevant. and well, obviously i think that, anyway.
i didn't say that treating employees better is always at the expense of the shareholder. but the reality is that a public company has more stakeholder groups to keep happy. at times, it will be a tradeoff between them.
my point about stocks is that people get into stocks to make money, not because they hope their money is used to create a family environment at that company.
Not necessarily a "Family Environment". Treat the employees as people and not just a "cost center". Remember, the employees are in turn are the consumer of the goods/services that the industry generates. In our current paradigm, people trade in their skill and time in return for money. That money is in turn used to buy products and services. Treat the employees well and the economy will hum along nicely.
I am not advocating spending all the revenue on employees. I am also not advocating that one puts the employees in a chicken factory with adult diapers.
February 25th, 2021 at 1:49 PM ^
Meh, this board would have been ecstatic if Urban replaced Harbaugh this off-season.
February 25th, 2021 at 2:43 PM ^
Can confirm. This is 1000% correct.
February 25th, 2021 at 8:02 AM ^
I take no issue with the article, the source, nor the claims outlined in it. I do not even have an issue with the OP and I will not down vote you.
I am, however, sick of obsessing about Urban Meyer, OSU coaches, OSU, and even football (right now).
All we need is Go Blue, Beat Iowa.
February 25th, 2021 at 8:30 AM ^
Agreed. Don't give a shit about Urban anymore. Let the obsession go.
8.6.1February 25th, 2021 at 8:10 AM ^
Can we pick one day a month as Urban venting day.
A week just can't sneak by without the obsession.
February 25th, 2021 at 10:15 AM ^
Let's call it, oh I don't know...how about "Festivus."
February 25th, 2021 at 8:15 AM ^
Wednesday: "Who's Oliver Connolly?"
Thursday: "My favo(u)rite sports journalist on the planet is Oliver Connolly"
February 25th, 2021 at 8:23 AM ^
Looks like his co-worker at the Guardian based on Google.
February 25th, 2021 at 8:22 AM ^
Will someone do the Cliff Notes version of the article? I really don't plan to subscribe to the Guardian.
February 25th, 2021 at 8:26 AM ^
Basically Meyer keeps being promoted despite leaving every place wrecked with allegations because he’s willing to do whatever it takes to wins. This is common in all of US sports but Meyer is the pinnacle of that.
February 25th, 2021 at 9:26 AM ^
Your Cliff's Notes version here tells me that this story will present words that I've known about Meyer for a while now. So no need to sign up and read it - thank you! Another +1 for you, kind sir!
February 25th, 2021 at 9:27 AM ^
In other words, the Guardian was precisely correct. Love people thinking it can’t have an informed opinion because it’s not American. Redneck nation is alive and well.
February 25th, 2021 at 9:51 AM ^
Yes, "Redneck nation is alive and well." is pretty much their assessment of all things American.
February 25th, 2021 at 2:14 PM ^
Not far from the truth.
February 25th, 2021 at 9:37 AM ^
Still waiting for OSU to be wrecked by his departure like he wrecked Florida. Utah and Bowling Green seemed to have escaped ok.
February 25th, 2021 at 8:36 AM ^
I'd never defend Meyer, but who the fuck are the staff at the Guardian to point fingers at anybody?
The UK has so many problems of its own and they feel the need to single out an American football coach?
Now that is some hubris.
February 25th, 2021 at 8:46 AM ^
Also failing to see how a UK publication would have even a remote pulse on the climate of college football, let alone OSU football and its former coach. I guess they succeeded, they got someone across the pond to link their story.
February 25th, 2021 at 8:50 AM ^
I lived there for 6 years. The regular people are great, but their 'chattering class' is worse than ours.
February 25th, 2021 at 8:57 AM ^
Haha. I have only been over there once, a lifetime ago, and I don't remember much. Don't go on trips like that in your 20's if you want to remember them.
February 25th, 2021 at 9:00 AM ^
True, I was there from when I was 28 through 34 years of age. I was partially growed up then.
February 25th, 2021 at 9:04 AM ^
Worse than a colony of marsupials that eat Eucalyptus leaves.
February 25th, 2021 at 9:10 AM ^
:-) vile varmints.
February 25th, 2021 at 9:25 AM ^
Ah, right, because the Guardian isn’t American and the UK has its own problems means a major British paper can’t weight in on a major American sport that is followed in Britain. What an idiotic, xenophobic take.
February 25th, 2021 at 9:29 AM ^
Except that American college sports are mostly not followed at all in England. Most people don't even know that American colleges play football! The story was written because Meyer is not the coach of an NFL team, and that does have some minor relevance to the UK. Also, the Guardian has a large following in the US.
February 25th, 2021 at 1:09 PM ^
It's relevant because aren't the Jags moving to London?