what was the incentive to hire them in the first place anyway?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829502)

if it's anything like the academy, bullshit regulations and risk aversity drive a lot of it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829508)

empire building by middle managers with personal incentives counter to company incentives

lack of disincentive due to interest rate environment

social pressures, govt pressures and anything else creating “election integrity social responsibility community outreach” positions - macro societal trends drive a lot of this, essentially paying protection to keep internet retard mobs from coming at you. but arguable that this is rational and directed to profit motive, just a cost of doing business in 🤡🌎

lack of spine by executives

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829581)

every "day in the life" tiktok vid is a lesson in how retarded and inefficient bigtech is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829381)

If the ROI was even potentially slightly higher than 0%, it was worth the investment

That was the pernicious evil of 0% rates

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829467)

also, another wrinkle is implicit government guarantee. these companies know they'll be bailed out, so there is really no incentive to playing safe with 0% rate money.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829507)

sure, but i don't see how an email job + the infrastructure that supports it (free coffee! wacky meeting rooms!) could conceivably be greater than 0%

---

Free coffee means people don't need to leave the office for it. Or brings psychic benefits, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829571)

there is a caveat for jobs that are about production (e.g. an automaker firing factory workers because sales are down). the jobs i'm talking about are complete nonsense that should never have existed in the first place, and the reason they're the first to go is because of how unnecessary they are.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829423)

right now we're in this quasi-ubi world where a bunch of makework jobs exist to provide resources to people. however, this sort of noblesse oblige is very weak when the value of labor is so low, resulting in workers being treated like a cogs and made to suffer through a humiliating and spiritually devastating existence.

most jobs are unnecessary but we haven't figured out how to distribute resources, even though we have more resources than ever. perhaps human nature makes this impossible and we'll just keep sliding further and further into neoliberal feudalism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829494)

it's absolutely disgusting how libs infested the academy and turned it into a enrichment scheme focused on trading prestige for profit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829401)

neither of these things will happen and is just as much of a pipe dream as what you mentioned though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829466)

prosecutions of governmental employees who play the revolving door game

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829486)

The theory that “ If only these companies had no government regulation and also strong government antitrust regulation they’d be efficient” is self contradictory in itself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829500)

no reasonable, modern libertarian believes in absolutely no regulation or government. the government's role should be setting the rules of the game. otherwise we'll devolve into monopolies and company towns, as history has shown.

but this very limited need for government regulation of private enterprise does not lead to the conclusion that *all* regulation is valuable. that's very black and white thinking. it's not contradictory to believe that the government should exist to ensure a fair free market exists.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829518)

With that being said, a couple critiques:

1). You’re engaging in a sampling timing error. The short term sample at any point in time shows inefficiencies (in this case, lots of e-mail girl jobs). However, the long term trend reveals that the inefficiencies are not static; yesterday’s inefficiencies were addressed, but have been replaced by new inefficiencies. This implies that at some level, these inefficiencies are being identified and addressed.

2). Many of the inefficiencies we see aren’t actually inefficiencies; they are failed business initiatives. “Risk” by definition means there is a chance of failure. When a risky venture succeeds, it looks efficient, but when it fails and the venture is divested, we retroactively view it as an inefficient use of capital. When several businesses compete for a market that can only take one or two winners, the overall private sector economy will look efficient (“look, there are two companies who are extremely efficient at XYZ”) but most businesses will look inefficient (“can you believe they flushed $Xmm down the drain only to lose to someone else”).

3). A business’s view of “efficient” will be different from a worker’s or consumer’s. The business wants to be a monopolist, so tying up capital or throwing up barriers to entry is an extremely efficient use of their capital/time, even though it is a net loss to the economy/society.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829535)

Of course, the classic case of Regulatory Capture is Utah requiring a cosmetology license 1,600 hours of practice to braid hair (since repealed, after much criticism https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/1/29/22252723/legislature-asks-do-you-need-hairstyling-license-for-blow-dry-bars-salons-speak-against-bill )

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45832056)

However, I do think the monopoly argument (and related harms, such as ability to hire infinite email jobs) is most clear in tech with network effects producing natural monopolies. In other industries, there are often competitors, and thus competition. It is still true that there are imperfections in competition, and some gain the edge through illicit means such as bribery and collusion, behavior that is net negative for society generally (high legal toxic output), and sheer luck -- but there is still the semblance of Randian healthy competition.

Even in these industries, you will have pockets of inefficiency. Perhaps you think ESG or DEI fall here for public cos; or perhaps not. Perhaps there is nepotism that leads to talentless hacks getting plum positions. Perhaps there are inertia and institution bureaucracy problems. But over time there is at least some justice.

One of the biggest difficulties in the legal space specifically is the challenge to measure quality of workproduct. I think a lot more of the job comes down to "bedside manner" (to steal the doctor's concept) and whether anything has gone wrong lately.

Finally, California is a tough place to fire people, and with all of tech doing it right now, if you're a tech co you might as well join the party so as not to miss a unique opportunity to rightsize.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45829755)

It is natural enough to suppose that rich capitalists, who made their fortunes through the free market, would be proponents of that system. This, however, has not been the case historically. Free enterprise means competition: it means, in its purest form, that everyone has an equal opportunity to make it in the marketplace. But John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and other kingpins of the Money Trust were powerful monopolists. A monopolist seeks to eliminate competition. In fact, Rockefeller once said: “Competition is a sin.” These men were not free enterprise advocates…their coziness with Marxism (it is well to remember that Marx’s coauthor, Friedrich Engels, was a wealthy businessman) becomes more comprehensible when we realize that communism and socialism are themselves forms of monopoly…[Frederick C.] Howe explained: “These are the rules of big business. They have superseded the teachings of our parents and are reducible to a simple maxim: Get a monopoly; let society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics, for a legislative grant, franchise, subsidy or tax exemption is worth more than a Kimberly or Comstock lode, since it does not require any labor, either mental or physical, for its exploitation.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45830728)

Peter Thiel

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5276155&forum_id=2#45832198)