3 ms·

I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously with statements like this. > Class solidarity and positional maintenance are the real objectives Who's organizing all th

by bko 5y ago

I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously with statements like this. > Class solidarity and positional maintenance are the real objectives Who's organizing all the world's corporate leaders? Who's preventing from non-infiltrated people from starting businesses? This is extremely conspiratorial > Companies will do bad things to make a profit, and on rare occasions they even do good things to make a profit Really? Rare occasions? Do you deal with any private businesses in your every day? 99% of my interactions with private businesses is positive. How can this be taken as a serious statement? > Big companies don't go out of business because they're out-competed. They do so because their management loses the faith of the upper class and can no longer access investment, clients, resources, or political advantages. Who's doing this coordination? Blockbuster drops the ball on streaming and Netflix came out with a better product and consumer tastes shifted away from in-store movie rentals to digital. I'm sure there's some conspiracy theory that Blockbuster execs offended "the upper class" so it was decided they need to go away. I'm trying to read your comments in good-faith but I find it increasingly difficult to do so due to the conspiratorial nature of your argument.

throw1234651234 5y ago
What the parent comment is saying does apply to large corporations. I will be very specific - I worked for Fidelity. Fidelity does not need smart people for 80% of their professional positions. They need someone who can pass the FINRA Series 7/63 to get a licenses and follow procedure. Without exaggeration, there are scripts for most of the work. You don't have to follow them to the letter, but you can. Standing out in most of these roles other than "not messing up" is hard and doesn't really benefit the company except on the sale side of things (where compensations reach FAANG level, while working 70 hour weeks). As a result, people hire their friends and family. They do not care about Fidelity growing - they know it will continue to exist. Take a software startup I worked for later - they care about profits and they care about employee morale. They are out to make money and they need the best and the brightest. It affects their bottom line. A good dev can bring in millions in revenue. They give promotions, they retain. They tell their dumbass son/daughter who got hired to shut his/her mouth, be respectful, and not boss anyone around even if they do hire him/her. I also see this in emerging economies - when the USSR collapsed, people really hired talent, because the markets were competitive. (Even though former USSR is famous for nepotism) A lot of established companies in the US are truly not competitive and have the market cornered, hence some validity in the parent comment.
- myth_drannon 5y ago
  Did you live in USSR after it collapsed? It looks like your information about that places comes from The Economist. It was nepotism + intimidation, USSR was like kindergarten in comparison. Putin & Co (for example) are not talented in any imaginable way except being good in eliminating the competitors.
  - throw1234651234 5y ago
    I am talking about normal people, not OPG members. Nor am I talking about companies riding the privatization wave and/or the exporting of natural resources OR exploiting existing heavy manufacturing. I also realize that if we navigate to the Harvard Economic Atlas for Russia, we will see that this is the bulk of the business there (https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/countries/186/export-basket https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/countries/186/export-basket). But, I personally know a number of guys who became directors in their 20s based on raw talent in Russian tech / e-commerce / straight up commerce companies. Despite what you said, there was a number of business opportunities there for younger people. There was also a lot of opportunities providing basic services - cellular, emergency vehicle support (coming out to change battery/tire), etc, etc. The market is too mature in the US for these "easy" businesses for young people. Of course, we have the best funding for startups, but that's a bit of a higher bar for the average person.

by bko 5y ago

throw1234651234 5y ago

What the parent comment is saying does apply to large corporations. I will be very specific - I worked for Fidelity. Fidelity does not need smart people for 80% of their professional positions. They need someone who can pass the FINRA Series 7/63 to get a licenses and follow procedure. Without exaggeration, there are scripts for most of the work. You don't have to follow them to the letter, but you can. Standing out in most of these roles other than "not messing up" is hard and doesn't really benefit the company except on the sale side of things (where compensations reach FAANG level, while working 70 hour weeks). As a result, people hire their friends and family. They do not care about Fidelity growing - they know it will continue to exist. Take a software startup I worked for later - they care about profits and they care about employee morale. They are out to make money and they need the best and the brightest. It affects their bottom line. A good dev can bring in millions in revenue. They give promotions, they retain. They tell their dumbass son/daughter who got hired to shut his/her mouth, be respectful, and not boss anyone around even if they do hire him/her. I also see this in emerging economies - when the USSR collapsed, people really hired talent, because the markets were competitive. (Even though former USSR is famous for nepotism) A lot of established companies in the US are truly not competitive and have the market cornered, hence some validity in the parent comment.

myth_drannon 5y ago
Did you live in USSR after it collapsed? It looks like your information about that places comes from The Economist. It was nepotism + intimidation, USSR was like kindergarten in comparison. Putin & Co (for example) are not talented in any imaginable way except being good in eliminating the competitors.
- throw1234651234 5y ago
  I am talking about normal people, not OPG members. Nor am I talking about companies riding the privatization wave and/or the exporting of natural resources OR exploiting existing heavy manufacturing. I also realize that if we navigate to the Harvard Economic Atlas for Russia, we will see that this is the bulk of the business there (https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/countries/186/export-basket https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/countries/186/export-basket). But, I personally know a number of guys who became directors in their 20s based on raw talent in Russian tech / e-commerce / straight up commerce companies. Despite what you said, there was a number of business opportunities there for younger people. There was also a lot of opportunities providing basic services - cellular, emergency vehicle support (coming out to change battery/tire), etc, etc. The market is too mature in the US for these "easy" businesses for young people. Of course, we have the best funding for startups, but that's a bit of a higher bar for the average person.