• N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    124
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Brilliant work is done in bursts. Grinding it out day after day is factory line work. While that work is noble, the way it’s conducted doesn’t apply across the board. Task-oriented jobs should trust workers to complete tasks, not punch a time clock.

    It’s about control. Tech bro billionaires are the only geniuses on earth, and we all need to fall in line. Nevermind that they are literal fascists who are actively destroying the world.

    It sounds like an exaggeration, but efforts to combat climate change have grinded to a halt; WW3 is becoming more likely on multiple fronts; and, the most immediate problem not being addressed, the cost of living crisis is drowning virtually everyone. The only response from the right is to squeeze regular people more and pass tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. There is no opposition.

    • baltakatei@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      1 day ago

      Tech bro billionaires are the only geniuses on earth

      Relevant excerpt from The Internet Con (2023) by Cory Doctorow about the folly of thinking tech CEO monopolies are justified due to merit. Later in the book, Doctorow explains how the recent (since the Reagan presidency) appearance of big tech monopolies was instead due to failure of the US DOJ and FTC to enforce anti-trust laws after Robert Bork successfully lobbied to have the Chicago School of economics’s consumer welfare doctrine (monopolies can be good if companies pinky promise to lower prices for consumers; see Bork’s 1978 book The Antitrust Paradox) adopted by the US Supreme Court.

      from Chapter 1

      If tech were led by exceptional geniuses whose singular vision made it impossible to unseat them, then you’d expect that the structure of the tech industry itself would be exceptional. That is, you’d expect that tech’s mass-extinction event, which turned the wild and wooly web into a few giant websites, was unique to tech, driven by those storied geniuses.

      But that’s not the case at all. Nearly every industry in the world looks like the tech industry: dominated by a handful of giant companies that emerged out of a cataclysmic, forty-year die-off of smaller firms which either failed or were folded into the surviving giants.

      Here’s a partial list of concentrated industries from the Open Markets Institute—industries where between one and five companies account for the vast majority of business: pharmaceuticals, health insurers, appliances, athletic shoes, defense contractors, book publishing, booze, drug stores, office supplies, eyeglasses, LCD glass, glass bottles, vitamin C, car parts, bottle caps, airlines, railroads, mattresses, Lasik lasers, cowboy boots and candy.

      If tech’s consolidation is down to the exceptional genius of its leaders, then they are part of a bumper crop of exceptional geniuses who all managed to rise to prominence in their respective firms and then steer them into positions where they crushed, bought or sidelined all their competitors over the past forty years or so.

      Occam’s Razor posits that the simplest explanation is most likely to be true. For that reason, I think we can safely reject the idea that sunspots, water contaminants or gamma rays caused an exceptional generation of business leaders to be conceived all at the same time, all over the world.

      Likewise, I am going to discount the possibility that, in the 1970s and 1980s, aliens came to Earth and knocked up the future mothers of a new subrace of elite CEOs whose extraterrestrial DNA conferred upon them the power to steer companies to total industrial dominance.

      Not only do those explanations stretch the imagination, but they also ignore a simpler, far more tangible explanation for the incredible die-off of businesses in every industry. Forty years ago, countries all over the world altered the basis on which they enforced their competition laws—often called “antitrust” laws—to be more tolerant of monopolies. Forty years later, we have a lot of monopolies.

      These facts are related.