5 ms·

If you're correct that WFH is more efficient than work in the office, over time the work in the office companies will be replaced by the WFH ones. Forcing thin

If you're correct that WFH is more efficient than work in the office, over time the work in the office companies will be replaced by the WFH ones. Forcing things through collective action that prevent market forces from working are deleterious in the long run. See Europe's moribund economy. > They have their own agendas that have no concern for their workers' needs or goals. That's right. > The solution will be collective action, rather than bargaining for basic empathy. A business is not a jobs program. It's there to create wealth, and if it does not, it goes bankrupt and everyone loses their job. You are always free to quit and join another company more to your liking, or you can quit and start your own business and run it as you please. It happens all the time, and this message board is run by a venture capital firm, looking for startups to fund.

intelVISA 2y ago
Is the market really free enough for WFH vs RTO to be visible?
- WalterBright 2y ago
  As far as I know, there aren't any regulations about WFH vs RTO.
  - harimau777 2y ago
    Regulation isn't the only thing that can make a market unfree. For example, some of the players in the market could be big enough to exert market power.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      The history of business is that companies rise to dominance, are characterized as having unstoppable monopolies, and then they fall. The US business history is full of examples. Like IBM. Walmart. RCA. GE. Cisco Systems. Intel. Ford. AT&T. The only way dominance can be sustained is by using the government to throttle the competition.
      - HeavyStorm 2y ago
        Monopolies don't need to be eternal to be a monopoly. They will fail when they make a mistake or become obsolete. What they won't do is lose to a competitor on their own terms. For instance, IBM is a recognized mainframe monopoly. They are not valuable today not because they lost the mainframe dominance, but because mainframes are obsolete (or almost).
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Microsoft outmanuevered IBM multiple times. IBM tried to dominate the PC business, was successful for a few years, and then failed. > What they won't do is lose to a competitor on their own terms. Markets are always changing. Large companies tend to optimize for a particular market, and when it inevitably changes, they cannot adapt and get left behind. Often its their competitors that change the market. See the classic book "The Innovators' Dilemma". (The same thing happens in nature when a species over-specializes to a particular niche.)
      - harimau777 2y ago
        I'd compare it to dictatorships: In the long run all dictatorships have failed. However, that doesn't mean that they don't cause immense damage in the medium term, that we shouldn't fight against them, or that they don't have significant influence upon society.
- aeternum 2y ago
  No because switching costs are too high which distorts the market.
p_l 2y ago
A market can be irrational longer than you can keep solvent applies to this as well
- WalterBright 2y ago
  That doesn't justify being irrational yourself.
stego-tech 2y ago
You keep waddling into my comments specifically to taut your mistaken notion of “the invisible hand of the free market”, and it’s not welcome - mostly because it’s demonstrably not true, and also because you have a history of moving goal posts when presented this data that knocks down your assertions. Kindly go away and chew on this while you do so: if everyone started their own billion-dollar business like you claim it’s possible (and plausible) to do, then that means the cumulative wealth available out there is literally infinite and currency has no relevant function. So for currency to be worthwhile and billion-dollar businesses to be viable, there must be finite resources. Furthermore, since humans cannot be trusted to act in the interest of society, then regulation is needed to ensure equitable outcomes and minimize harms. Now go away and leave me be.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > it’s demonstrably not true Please demonstrate. > that means the cumulative wealth available out there is literally infinite There is no limit to the wealth that can be created. For example, if you gave Picasso a canvas and some paints he can turn $50 in supplies into $100,000 in art. > if everyone started their own billion-dollar business like you claim it’s possible (and plausible) to do I didn't say everyone. I said "anyone". Most will never try - but the option is available. Nor did I say it had to be a billion dollar business. Just a business. You can start one tomorrow by filling out a few forms and paying the state license fee. > since humans cannot be trusted to act in the interest of society, then regulation is needed to ensure equitable outcomes and minimize harms. I've always said the purpose of government is to protect peoples' rights. However, "equitable outcomes" is not possible and every government that tried it failed miserably. > Now go away It's a public message board. Feel free to downvote me all you like, though.
- cvalka 2y ago
  Your comment is a word salad. You misunderstand basic economics and this is a public forum where other people can reply to your comments.
- try_the_bass 2y ago
  > Kindly go away and chew on this while you do so: if everyone started their own billion-dollar business like you claim it’s possible (and plausible) to do, then that means the cumulative wealth available out there is literally infinite and currency has no relevant function. I don't exactly agree with GP, but I would ask you to perform a similar thought experiment: if companies could work the way you claim they should, where are the examples of these companies? Why do even you portray the environment as being full of companies whose primary goal is to exploit their workers? We live in a remarkable free time, so alternative models should have ample room to grow. And yet, I don't see a flourishing of companies that work under your "better model". Why?

intelVISA 2y ago

Is the market really free enough for WFH vs RTO to be visible?

WalterBright 2y ago
As far as I know, there aren't any regulations about WFH vs RTO.
- harimau777 2y ago
  Regulation isn't the only thing that can make a market unfree. For example, some of the players in the market could be big enough to exert market power.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    The history of business is that companies rise to dominance, are characterized as having unstoppable monopolies, and then they fall. The US business history is full of examples. Like IBM. Walmart. RCA. GE. Cisco Systems. Intel. Ford. AT&T. The only way dominance can be sustained is by using the government to throttle the competition.
    - HeavyStorm 2y ago
      Monopolies don't need to be eternal to be a monopoly. They will fail when they make a mistake or become obsolete. What they won't do is lose to a competitor on their own terms. For instance, IBM is a recognized mainframe monopoly. They are not valuable today not because they lost the mainframe dominance, but because mainframes are obsolete (or almost).
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        Microsoft outmanuevered IBM multiple times. IBM tried to dominate the PC business, was successful for a few years, and then failed. > What they won't do is lose to a competitor on their own terms. Markets are always changing. Large companies tend to optimize for a particular market, and when it inevitably changes, they cannot adapt and get left behind. Often its their competitors that change the market. See the classic book "The Innovators' Dilemma". (The same thing happens in nature when a species over-specializes to a particular niche.)
    - harimau777 2y ago
      I'd compare it to dictatorships: In the long run all dictatorships have failed. However, that doesn't mean that they don't cause immense damage in the medium term, that we shouldn't fight against them, or that they don't have significant influence upon society.
aeternum 2y ago
No because switching costs are too high which distorts the market.

p_l 2y ago

A market can be irrational longer than you can keep solvent applies to this as well

WalterBright 2y ago
That doesn't justify being irrational yourself.

stego-tech 2y ago

You keep waddling into my comments specifically to taut your mistaken notion of “the invisible hand of the free market”, and it’s not welcome - mostly because it’s demonstrably not true, and also because you have a history of moving goal posts when presented this data that knocks down your assertions. Kindly go away and chew on this while you do so: if everyone started their own billion-dollar business like you claim it’s possible (and plausible) to do, then that means the cumulative wealth available out there is literally infinite and currency has no relevant function. So for currency to be worthwhile and billion-dollar businesses to be viable, there must be finite resources. Furthermore, since humans cannot be trusted to act in the interest of society, then regulation is needed to ensure equitable outcomes and minimize harms. Now go away and leave me be.

WalterBright 2y ago
> it’s demonstrably not true Please demonstrate. > that means the cumulative wealth available out there is literally infinite There is no limit to the wealth that can be created. For example, if you gave Picasso a canvas and some paints he can turn $50 in supplies into $100,000 in art. > if everyone started their own billion-dollar business like you claim it’s possible (and plausible) to do I didn't say everyone. I said "anyone". Most will never try - but the option is available. Nor did I say it had to be a billion dollar business. Just a business. You can start one tomorrow by filling out a few forms and paying the state license fee. > since humans cannot be trusted to act in the interest of society, then regulation is needed to ensure equitable outcomes and minimize harms. I've always said the purpose of government is to protect peoples' rights. However, "equitable outcomes" is not possible and every government that tried it failed miserably. > Now go away It's a public message board. Feel free to downvote me all you like, though.
cvalka 2y ago
Your comment is a word salad. You misunderstand basic economics and this is a public forum where other people can reply to your comments.
try_the_bass 2y ago
> Kindly go away and chew on this while you do so: if everyone started their own billion-dollar business like you claim it’s possible (and plausible) to do, then that means the cumulative wealth available out there is literally infinite and currency has no relevant function. I don't exactly agree with GP, but I would ask you to perform a similar thought experiment: if companies could work the way you claim they should, where are the examples of these companies? Why do even you portray the environment as being full of companies whose primary goal is to exploit their workers? We live in a remarkable free time, so alternative models should have ample room to grow. And yet, I don't see a flourishing of companies that work under your "better model". Why?