Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

inc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 250 posts

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#51

Post by LapsangGuzzler »

underratedbug wrote: post #38
LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #13

The real problem that author doesn’t call out is that at the end of the day, the people in charge don’t get hurt from these irresponsible boom and bust hiring practices. These companies knew the growth wouldn’t last, nothing lasts forever. They all maintain control while the little people suffer. The dream is to become insulated from the economic storms like they are.

You are presupposing that boom and bust hiring is bad, and worse than a more steady state approach. If one assumes perfection is impossible, it seems you suggest erring on the side of perpetually under-hiring as opposed to ever over-hiring. Why is that better?

> Why is that better?

Because it doesn't create unnecessary suffering for the unfortunate people who find themselves out of a job because some executive over-allocated for a particular role or department. Fundamentally, we want people to still participate in the capitalist system and not reject it because they're constantly treated like cattle.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#52

Post by Freedom2 »

jgalt212 wrote: post #35
LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #13

The real problem that author doesn’t call out is that at the end of the day, the people in charge don’t get hurt from these irresponsible boom and bust hiring practices. These companies knew the growth wouldn’t last, nothing lasts forever. They all maintain control while the little people suffer. The dream is to become insulated from the economic storms like they are.

Agreed. Another way to justify this behavior is that "pessimists don't get promoted" So you're either a growth CEO or a restructuring CEO. Wall Street has no interest in administrator CEOs.

CEOs are definitely something we should reconsider in this day and age. There's something about the kind of fiefdom that they command that I don't really know the term for it - immoral? Unnatural?

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#53

Post by Paul-Craft »

notho wrote: post #50
whitemary wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Teacher strikes and unionization efforts have been winning Citations needed

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Oklahoma_teachers%27_st... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_West_Virginia_teachers%... If you like some real numbers; All propped up by labor of tens of millions. Let Jamie Dimon go door to door for those mortgages. 10k NYC cops threatened to strike over vaccine mandates; only 34 did. Let them see police work for pay not fealty.

FYI, you appear to be shadowbanned for no good reason that I can discern.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#54

Post by brigadier132 »

stkdump wrote: post #44
brigadier132 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you achieve infinite growth on a planet with a finite population and resources? Efficiency gains. How many "resources" are consumed by a piece of software relative to the "growth" that resulted from it? I can now have a machine generate 100 mediocre pieces of art for $20, two years ago each one would have cost $100 and taken a week for an actual artist to produce.

If efficiency gains were the secret go (infinite) growth, then companies would be able to grow their business without growing their workforce, building more factories, warehouses, etc.

I don't follow your logic. Just because companies could grow their businesses without increasing their workforce it doesn't mean that they couldn't achieve a higher rate of growth by increasing their workforce.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#55

Post by cbsmith »

LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #51
underratedbug wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are presupposing that boom and bust hiring is bad, and worse than a more steady state approach. If one assumes perfection is impossible, it seems you suggest erring on the side of perpetually under-hiring as opposed to ever over-hiring. Why is that better?

> Why is that better? Because it doesn't create unnecessary suffering for the unfortunate people who find themselves out of a job because some executive over-allocated for a particular role or department. Fundamentally, we want people to still participate in the capitalist system and not reject it because they're constantly treated like cattle.

> Because it doesn't create unnecessary suffering for the unfortunate people who find themselves out of a job because some executive over-allocated for a particular role or department.

Unnecessary suffering is going to happen either way. Keep in mind, at the time of hiring, there is real demand, and while "forever" is more than a bit ridiculous (and no doubt a misrepresentation of the executives' thinking), the truth is nobody knows exactly how long it will last, so you're getting it wrong no matter what you do.

> Fundamentally, we want people to still participate in the capitalist system and not reject it because they're constantly treated like cattle.

That some people don't always have a job is part of the capitalist system. What happens to them when they're not employed, that's not about capitalism.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#56

Post by stkdump »

brigadier132 wrote: post #54
stkdump wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If efficiency gains were the secret go (infinite) growth, then companies would be able to grow their business without growing their workforce, building more factories, warehouses, etc.

I don't follow your logic. Just because companies could grow their businesses without increasing their workforce it doesn't mean that they couldn't achieve a higher rate of growth by increasing their workforce.

My point is if it were possible we should see at least some examples of it happening. So far it is an often recited conjecture without any practical proof, so I remain sceptical.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#57

Post by aeternum »

rcme wrote: post #40
underratedbug wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are presupposing that boom and bust hiring is bad, and worse than a more steady state approach. If one assumes perfection is impossible, it seems you suggest erring on the side of perpetually under-hiring as opposed to ever over-hiring. Why is that better?

A boom/bust cycle is over-hiring to the point that you need to lay people off. You can over-hire or under-hire in moderation.

>You can over-hire or under-hire in moderation.

It's unclear whether that would be better. In control theory, underdamped systems are generally preferred as it allows you to reach the desired value rapidly even though you often overshoot.

Overdamped systems (IE hire in moderation) can be very slow to respond and often spend the majority of their time in the un-desired regime.

It's quite possible that tech over-hiring when people were forced to work from home yielded a net good for society even though many of those hires were let go a couple years later.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#58

Post by somedude895 »

tjpnz wrote: post #7

How do you achieve infinite growth on a planet with a finite population and resources? It should be obvious to most, yet the supposed "smartest guys in the room" are the first to stumble through it.

If that was the case then GDP wouldn't be able to grow faster than the population. The fact that GDP per capita growth is a thing disproves that idea. And no, the GDP per capita growth of the past 50 years wasn't by simply using more natural resources either. Efficiency gains and new technologies and ideas can lead to growth as well.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#59

Post by Nasrudith »

stkdump wrote: post #44
brigadier132 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you achieve infinite growth on a planet with a finite population and resources? Efficiency gains. How many "resources" are consumed by a piece of software relative to the "growth" that resulted from it? I can now have a machine generate 100 mediocre pieces of art for $20, two years ago each one would have cost $100 and taken a week for an actual artist to produce.

If efficiency gains were the secret go (infinite) growth, then companies would be able to grow their business without growing their workforce, building more factories, warehouses, etc.

That is an overabstracted viewpoint that assumes they just crank up a variable. How do the efficiency gains take place in the first place?

By creating something new that is more efficent. Even if we ignore economies of scale as a source of efficency there is a replacement curve in action which would create growth! A situation where they would immediately scrap the old equipment for the same payload and switch to a new more efficient one is extremely rare.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#60

Post by bratbag »

Freedom2 wrote: post #52
jgalt212 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Another way to justify this behavior is that "pessimists don't get promoted" So you're either a growth CEO or a restructuring CEO. Wall Street has no interest in administrator CEOs.

CEOs are definitely something we should reconsider in this day and age. There's something about the kind of fiefdom that they command that I don't really know the term for it - immoral? Unnatural?

Effective is the word you are looking for.

Despite occasional anecdotal examples of incompetence, companies with them perform better than companies who lead by comittie.

Post reply on HN