3 ms·

> he has to instead consider inefficiency in relative terms And I pointed out that, relatively speaking, the (big!) company I work for seems to have eliminated

> he has to instead consider inefficiency in relative terms And I pointed out that, relatively speaking, the (big!) company I work for seems to have eliminated those inefficiencies, and that it does seem to perform better than companies that haven't. From what I've heard, Microsoft is one that hasn't, for example. With up to 18 layers of management and mountains of deadwood middle management at this point, it seems the classic example. And Microsoft is thrashing at this point; I won't say death throes, because they have so much market power still, but it may be early indications of eventual failure. No one (but you) is saying that a group of unmanaged freelancers (i.e., ANARCHY) should be compared to good management. All of the items in the list are things that can be changed in a traditional organization; they just often degrade to the state described in the list. Seems like you're building up and tearing down a strawman. Sure the terrible state of companies like Microsoft is better than 40000 freelancers in a loose organization, but the state of Microsoft isn't as good as a company that size could be. And that's his point.

jasode 12y ago
>No one (but you) is saying that a group of unmanaged freelancers (i.e., ANARCHY) should be compared to good management. I'm not saying anarchy. Some of the freelancers could be "managers" of other freelancers. That's what today's film director is. He's a freelance manager (hired by the producer) of other freelancers (actors, stuntment, etc,). Movies used to be made almost top to bottom by "employees"[1] of a movie studio. That has changed. In today's freelance system, they lost some efficiencies (movies cranked out quickly) but also gained some (hire desired actors directly without dealing with other studios that have them under contract to "borrow" them.) Maybe the world's internet and government reforms could evolve and remove so much transactional friction that a legitimate high-volume freelance model could beat the corporate firm (at least in some industries.) >All of the items in the list are things that can be changed in a traditional organization; Many of those items are accumulated side effects of human foibles. They also exist at a family owned restaurant. Every mature company has those issues. Yes, those items can be improved but I contend they cannot be completely eliminated. Human beings are imperfect. >... Microsoft isn't as good as a company that size could be. And that's his point. But that's describing almost every mature company in existence (not HN startups). We already know all that (see Dilbert cartoons). Therefore, his laundry list is not interesting. What would be interesting is if he was making a case against Theory of Firm[2] with his thought experiments. He made a minor attempt with a hypothetical government oversight/regulation. There just isn't much substance to his essay. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm#Transaction_cost_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm#Transaction_...
- SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
  > That has changed. In today's freelance system, they lost some efficiencies (movies cranked out quickly) but also gained some (hire desired actors directly without dealing with other studios that have them under contract to "borrow" them.) OK, now I'm understanding you, I think. You're saying that a hierarchy of freelancers would potentially be a market-driven system that could potentially compare favorably to a company with monopolistic control. I can buy that. I tried to run my own company that way for a long time, though now I'm working for The Man. >But that's describing almost every mature company in existence I'm working for a very mature company (in the Fortune 100) that it doesn't describe (at least that can be said for most of the items in the list). It may describe most companies on the Fortune 500, but it doesn't describe all of them. And that's my point. It can be better, even if human foibles tend to make it the way it is.
- SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
  > That has changed. In today's freelance system, they lost some efficiencies (movies cranked out quickly) but also gained some (hire desired actors directly without dealing with other studios that have them under contract to "borrow" them.) OK, now I'm understanding you, I think. You're saying that a hierarchy of freelancers would potentially be a market-driven system that could potentially compare favorably to a company with monopolistic control. I can buy that. I tried to run my own company that way for a long time, though now I'm working for The Man. >But that's describing almost every mature company in existence I'm working for a very mature company (in the Fortune 100) that it doesn't describe (at least that can be said for most of the items in the list). It may describe most companies on the Fortune 500, but it doesn't describe all of them. And that's my point. It can be better, even if human foibles tend to make it the way it is.

jasode 12y ago

>No one (but you) is saying that a group of unmanaged freelancers (i.e., ANARCHY) should be compared to good management. I'm not saying anarchy. Some of the freelancers could be "managers" of other freelancers. That's what today's film director is. He's a freelance manager (hired by the producer) of other freelancers (actors, stuntment, etc,). Movies used to be made almost top to bottom by "employees"[1] of a movie studio. That has changed. In today's freelance system, they lost some efficiencies (movies cranked out quickly) but also gained some (hire desired actors directly without dealing with other studios that have them under contract to "borrow" them.) Maybe the world's internet and government reforms could evolve and remove so much transactional friction that a legitimate high-volume freelance model could beat the corporate firm (at least in some industries.) >All of the items in the list are things that can be changed in a traditional organization; Many of those items are accumulated side effects of human foibles. They also exist at a family owned restaurant. Every mature company has those issues. Yes, those items can be improved but I contend they cannot be completely eliminated. Human beings are imperfect. >... Microsoft isn't as good as a company that size could be. And that's his point. But that's describing almost every mature company in existence (not HN startups). We already know all that (see Dilbert cartoons). Therefore, his laundry list is not interesting. What would be interesting is if he was making a case against Theory of Firm[2] with his thought experiments. He made a minor attempt with a hypothetical government oversight/regulation. There just isn't much substance to his essay. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm#Transaction_cost_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm#Transaction_...

SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
> That has changed. In today's freelance system, they lost some efficiencies (movies cranked out quickly) but also gained some (hire desired actors directly without dealing with other studios that have them under contract to "borrow" them.) OK, now I'm understanding you, I think. You're saying that a hierarchy of freelancers would potentially be a market-driven system that could potentially compare favorably to a company with monopolistic control. I can buy that. I tried to run my own company that way for a long time, though now I'm working for The Man. >But that's describing almost every mature company in existence I'm working for a very mature company (in the Fortune 100) that it doesn't describe (at least that can be said for most of the items in the list). It may describe most companies on the Fortune 500, but it doesn't describe all of them. And that's my point. It can be better, even if human foibles tend to make it the way it is.
SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
> That has changed. In today's freelance system, they lost some efficiencies (movies cranked out quickly) but also gained some (hire desired actors directly without dealing with other studios that have them under contract to "borrow" them.) OK, now I'm understanding you, I think. You're saying that a hierarchy of freelancers would potentially be a market-driven system that could potentially compare favorably to a company with monopolistic control. I can buy that. I tried to run my own company that way for a long time, though now I'm working for The Man. >But that's describing almost every mature company in existence I'm working for a very mature company (in the Fortune 100) that it doesn't describe (at least that can be said for most of the items in the list). It may describe most companies on the Fortune 500, but it doesn't describe all of them. And that's my point. It can be better, even if human foibles tend to make it the way it is.