• Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Say execs. You know, the people who view labor as a cost center.

    They say that because that’s what they want to happen, not because it’s a good idea.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      And only 41%.

      I’ve advised past clients to avoid reducing headcount and instead be looking at how they can scale up productivity.

      It’s honestly pretty bizarre to me that so many people think this is going to result in the same amount of work with less people. Maybe in the short term a number of companies will go that way, but not long after they’ll be out of business.

      Long term, the companies that are going to survive the coming tides of change are going to be the ones that aggressively do more and try to grow and expand what they do as much as possible.

      Effective monopolies are going out the window, and the diminishing returns of large corporations are going to be going head to head with a legion of new entrants with orders of magnitude more efficiency and ambition.

      This is definitely one of those periods in time where the focus on a quarterly return is going to turn out to be a cyanide pill.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Short term is all that matters. Business fails? Start another one, and now you have a bunch of people that you made unemployed creating downward pressure on labor prices.

        • kromem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          No, you have a lot of people you made unemployed competing with you.

          This is already what’s happening in the video game industry. A ton of people have lost their jobs, and VC money has recently come pouring in trying to flip the displaced talent into the next big success.

          And they’ll probably do it. A number of the larger publishers are really struggling to succeed with titles that are bombing left and right as a result of poor executive oversight on attempted cash grabs to please the short term market.

          Look at Ubisoft’s 5-year stock price.

          Short term is definitely not all that matters, and it’s a rude awakening for those that think it’s the case.

          • db2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Mostly the execs don’t care. They’ve extracted “value” in the form of money and got paid, that’s the extent if their ability to look forward. The faster they make that happen the faster they can do it again, probably somewhere else. They don’t give a single shit what happens after.

            • kromem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              It really depends on the exec.

              Like most people, there’s a range.

              Many are certainly unpleasant. But there’s also ones that buck the trend.

              • db2@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Yeah, and there are a few good lawyers and a few good cops and (probably) a few good politicians too, but we’re not talking about the few exceptions here.

                • kromem@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Well, we kind of are as the shitty ones tend to fail after time and the good ones continue to succeed, so in a market that’s much more competitive because of a force multiplier on labor unlike anything the world has seen there’s not going to be much room for the crappy execs for very long.

                  Bad execs are like mosquitos. They thrive in stagnant waters, but as soon as things get moving they tend to reduce in number.

                  We’ve been in a fairly stagnant market since around 2008 for most things with no need for adaptation by large companies.

                  The large companies that went out of business recently have pretty much all been from financial mismanagement and not product/market fit like Circuit City or Blockbuster from the last time adaptation was needed with those failing to adapt going out of business.

                  The fatalism on Lemmy is fairly exhausting. The past decade shouldn’t be used as a reference point for predicting the next decade. The factors playing into each couldn’t be more different.

    • DarkGamer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Freeing humans from toil is a good idea, just like the industrial revolution was. We just need our system to adapt and change with this new reality, AGI and universal basic income means we could live in something like the society in star trek.

  • chakan2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    What’s really interesting this time around is AI will cut middle management and paper pushers. Those are typically very good middle class jobs.

    Unlike manufacturing, those people really don’t have transferable skills. They can’t go become mechanics or plumbers.

    AI is going to hurt.