And yet we are told that competition will determine that capital and talent will flow towards that most efficient organisations over time. Thus, surely organisa

And yet we are told that competition will determine that capital and talent will flow towards that most efficient organisations over time. Thus, surely organisations that eschewed this practice would emerge and dominate? So, either capitalism doesn't work, or your thesis isn't quite right... I have two other counters to offer, first we have seen GDP per capita gradually increasing in major economies for the last 50 years (while the IT revolution has played out). There have been other technical innovations over this time, but I believe that GDP per capita has more than quadrupled in G8 economies. The USA and Canada have, at the same time, enjoyed a clear extra boost from fracking and shale extraction, and the USA has arguably enjoyed an extra extra boost from world dominance - but arguably. The second one is simple anecdote. Hour for hour I now can do far more in terms of development than I did when I was a hard core techie in the 90's and 2000's. In addition I can manage and administer systems that are far more complex than those it took teams of people to run at that time (try running a 10gb size db under load on oracle 7 sitting on top of spinning rust and 64mb ram store for fun) I can also manage a team of 30's expenses, timesheets, travel requests and so on that again would have taken a person to do. I can just do these things and my job as well and I do it mostly in about 50 hrs a week. If I wasn't involved in my people's lives and happy to argue with customers to get things better I could do it in 40 hrs regularally, for sure. But I put some discretion in. My point is - we are just more productive. It is hard to measure, and anecdote / "lived experience" is a bad type of evidence, but I think it's clearly there. This is why then accountants have been able to reorganise modern business organisations to use fewer people to do more. Have they destroyed value while doing this - totally - but they have managed to get away with it because 7/10 they have been right. Personally I've suffered from the 3/10 errors. I know many of us on here have, but we shouldn't shut our eyes because of that.