2 ms·
> Honest question: where would you prefer to put those thousands of individuals making $150-250k? Well, tech companies, if anybody, should have figured out tel
by titzer 8y ago
> Honest question: where would you prefer to put those thousands of individuals making $150-250k?
Well, tech companies, if anybody, should have figured out telecommuting, but they don't because of policies directly from the top. But failing that, tech giants are giant because they want to be giant and have a tendency to want to gobble up smaller companies. A less sharp growth rate and a more "small business-oriented" marketplace would soften the drastic swings brought by the giants throwing their weight around. But this is not what the market rewards, so you get consolidation, massive imbalances, and unsustainable growth.
Housing is on the forefront, but society has a secret grudge against the tech boom, for good reason, and it's starting to show. I expect this is just the first of several waves of backlash.
- ajross 8y ago> A less sharp growth rate On the macro scale we're talking about, that means you want everyone to be poorer. You get that, right?
- titzer 8y agoYou're assuming a whole host of things: 1. High growth creates durable wealth 2. Growth does not create waste 3. Trickle down economics 4. High growth doesn't create bust cycles 5. High growth doesn't ruin the environment I mean, I could go on--it is a complex topic, after all--but your comment wanted to reduce it down to some kind of richer/poorer dichotomy, which is obviously false. And it was snarky, which is annoying.