Why Musk is winning
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (65)
sorted by:
one thing about Musk that no one can deny: he knows how to hire competent people and build a technology company from nothing.
firing incompetent and useless people, excising the parasites. obviously this would be his first move. anyone saying this was a bad thing is an enemy of reality.
You sir have just become an enemy of the state. Welcome!
You do realize you just described the kike that posted at the top of that screenie, right?
I personally simply believe Twitter needs to be destroyed.
I interact with a lot of people at work, and a lot more normalacy seems to have returned since Musk started undoing twitter.
Musk showcasing the reality of the Pareto Principle hurts leftists, because it shows the Labor Theory of Value is bunk.
It never occurred to me before that the Pareto principle and the labor theory of value are pretty much mutually exclusive.
I do agree that much of a corporations value lies in their workers, their knowledge, skills and ideas. This is why twitter was shit to begin with.
If you fire 70-90% of your workforce and instead of a degrade of services it stays the same or is even praised by places like Japan because their feeds are more relevant and you increase user engagement, where the fuck was the value?
I'm thinking he's mad Twitter can't babysit his kid anymore because it wants to be an actual business now so now he has to do it.
Big GAE propaganda, presumably.
Robert Reich pushed through NAFTA, which "drove off" 100,000s of real jobs. Many of these were replaced in time by the worthless ones Elon Musk is now cutting. He regretted it years later, boohoo, he's the quintessential virtue signaller.
What Musk understands that many comments here apparently don't is that Reich is an evil bridge troll who doesn't mean a word of the FUD he spews.
You're allowed to say "Filthy jew" here.
bring back suicide for disgraced politicians
True. But if you assume every employee = 1 value, then you are wrong. If he fires all the useless shitheads, but keeps the ones with knowledge, skills and ideas... then is there a loss?
The biggest failure of leadership on the right is basically initiative and discipline. Do your thing unflinchingly, and don't just apologize.
I've been yelling about this for a while, this is why the most effective people on the populist right are either former left-wingers or military.
There are about 100, maybe 150 people who could have completely stopped modern leftism and gender politics completely in their tracks by just saying no instead of immediately knuckling under and surrendering the greatest creation in human history to the worst people to ever exist.
What Robert Reich fails to understand… sorry that list is too long…. What he fails to understand on this instance, if a company is losing money and the employees are lazy or have no real skill that provides value, they are a drain on the company and removing them is a net positive regardless if dip shit speculators temporarily cause your stock value to fall. If my stock loses value but my company is now actually profitable who cares that my theoretical money is now less when my real moneys is increasing
I've worked for three corporations in three separate industries(retail, food service, and manufacturing). At all three, I've seen the same three tightly interwoven problems: lack of communication, lack of coordination, and poor management.
I suspect what happens over time is people are expected to get promoted, or they're great kiss asses, so they do, in spite of making terrible managers. It's a sad reality, but yeah, some people are great workers, but terrible managers, just the way things go.
What then happens is those terrible managers realize they're shit at their new position and hide the fact by keeping garbage employees on as a cover, while pushing the people who are actually good at their jobs extra hard so they still keep their numbers in an 'acceptable' range that keeps the hire ups off their asses.
The problem persists over time as the company expands, and eventually you end up with a company full of workers who are lazy as sin, managers who are incompetent/lazy, and all the people who are worth a shit being driven off or quitting from the extra workload dumped on them by the shit heels they have to deal with.
If Musk has any sense, he'll go back through the old employees who quit long before he came on board and see if any of them are worth bringing back...
It's been a while since I've heard anyone invoke the "Peter Principle," "people in a hierarchy tend to rise to 'a level of respective incompetence': employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another."
I wasn't intentionally invoking it (is that what it's called, by the way? I've heard of it, but yeah.), but it applies.
Fiance also has a theory that corporations intentionally promote psychopaths/sociopaths, assuming they'll make better managers, but that doesn't always work out. Dunno how right he is, but I can certainly see where he's coming from
This is really a problem with the one size fits all pay structure almost all businesses use. Where instead of paying based on work or productivity, you are exclusively paid based on seniority and "how many people are under you."
So someone who dominates the job will get paid the same as the stoner barely coherent for his entire shift. But the company wants to reward him for his years of work and make sure he is paid enough to want to stay, so he is forced into management as that's the only way to accomplish that task short of literally telling him to wait for years. And there his skills are now far less used because he is now 50% working and 50% mangerial bullshit, instead of dedicating himself 100% to his task.
Its one area where I've seen the cubicle/tech industry actually do better. Where some companies will hand out bonuses, both pay and benefits, for quick and effective launches of new products. My buddy who used to work for TMobile would get visa cards with thousands of dollars every time his group pushed out a patch before the deadline.
makes sense. i know a guy at my current job whose losing his mind, because he's gotta be lead man, and overnight saw operater, and he can't do both at the same time.
honestly, i wish bonuses were given more often for getting things in ahead of deadlines. might encourage more people to work hard for the bonus, though some will still slack off and drag everybody else down, unfortunately.
somebody else on one of these forums mentioned a strategy he employed where he basically told his workers if they got all of their work done ahead of schedule, their time was theirs, and he'd pay them like they had been there all week (ie: if they got everything out on tuesday, they could stay home wednesday to saturday and still get paid as if they were still there). his department was apparently one of the best in the company for years because of this.
Back in my time in management, I would generally always let people go home early if they finished their work. Harder they worked, sooner they went home. As it was a "overtime is expected" job, the hours/pay weren't as big a concern as was getting time to relax so they all took it. Usually wasn't a great full shift motivator, but would give them a huge burst of productivity in the last two-ish hours to keep fatigue going.
If I could have paid them for the missed time I would, but corporations don't give that flexibility or power.
ugh, how did you stand it? every manager I've ever seen spend their whole shift, running from department to department, putting out (metaphorical) fires...
Luckily my team was around a dozen to dozen.5 people, which meant I could foster a real "family" environment and idea. Not in the gay corporate sense, but in a real "I'm not calling off because that would make you guys have a bad day" one. And because I tried to keep things on the level with them, they'd do the same with me. They'd pick up slack on things I didn't notice, kept each other accountable without turning into drama, and stepped up when things got rough. Not all of them mind, but having a solid 2-3 guys getting your back does wonders.
The biggest contribution to that was I made sure I was always last to leave and made sure they knew I was better than them at this job. That's something a lot of management misses, making sure your employees know anything you can ask of them can do yourself and good enough to put you in charge. I'd always be knee deep in the shit with them, unflinchingly trying to be the example to keep shoveling. That did sometimes involve dick swinging contests to shoot guys in the pride enough to make them step up, which meant a lot of learning what motivation people had to maximize them (for others its family, either more or less hours for that, or the aforementioned letting them just go home in general).
I also argued with upper management nearly daily. Telling them to fuck off and stay out of our business as much as I could get away with was a constant. Keeping corporate fuckery out of our hair increased productivity immensely. As did outright refusing to do bullshit paperwork as much as possible, to avoid wasting time. Something a lot of managers fall for is just doing whatever they are told to do, and not realizing a lot of it is busy work that you can get away with skipping. Getting yelled at is meaningless until they fire you, so its a valuable tool to maximize.
one of the things I've always respected was a supervisor/manager who'd step up and help when things got rough. it's an instant ten points of respect.
Example: we just got a new mnager for our department. A lot of the guys bitch, because he tries to help, but he's inexperienced at the work (he came from food production. this is cabinetry). I keep trying to tell them, "this is the guy you want in your corner, even if he agrivates you. " The fact that he's slowing things down now by trying to learn just means he'll know what we're going through and be able to help more effectively in the future (besides, one of the guys all but actively sabotages productivity anyway, so I don't know what he's bitching about. Seriously, he spent an hour and a half one shift sleeping on a pile of doors >_># Wish I had the spine to say something to him, but because i don't, I have to just fume and try to do something productive around him)
It helps that I also just wanted to go home too, and if the work wasn't finished no one was leaving. So I had my own motivation to not skimp away for office bullshit and instead be working.
And a lot of people don't seem to grasp that you are training your management as much as they are training you. You need to foster in them what you want to see and benefit from, because it will pay off tenfold later. Too many people are willfully obstinate just because they hate authority or are too stubborn to understand they are making their own life harder by not working with their leadership.
The problem is this doesn't work.
Measuring fine grained productivity goes one of two ways:
what they actually measuring is ass kissing and wasting time faking productivity, or
the company turns into a burn-and-churn environment that burns out the people doing the work, once again the advantage goes to people in unmeasurable roles
You're right when it comes to office jobs, but that's less applicable to something like factory work. Also contractors seem to work out just fine getting paid for product. We're seeing more gig work by people who don't want the typical office BS.
I was going to add blue collar and laborers but they are pretty damned good at faking productivity too. Then they get a union and don't even have to fake it.
Well I'm sure glad in the current model ass kissing, faking productivity, and mass burn out aren't common issues regardless. Plenty already reach management doing only the first two in a huge chunk of industries already meaning we are already doing it with extra steps.
I used to work for a MegaCorp that had explicit parallel mangement/technical tracks, where the pay scales and seniority were matched and based on one's experience and responsibility in their respective track; and policy disallowed you from reporting to a manager with a lower seniority level.
Said MegaCorp had its share of problems (hence the "used to work"), but that policy solved many issue that relate to experienced techies working for inexperienced retards (they might have still been retards, but they'd at least be experienced ones).
In some cases, it's not being horrible managers, but "not being able to manage at the level they get sent to.
That's fair. I'm mainly speculating here. It's not like I've ever been a manager (nor do I really want to, to be perfectly honest. Seems like a massive headache for a moderate rise in pay, honestly)
Most middle management positions function as pyramid schemes. People graduate from entry level to middle management One to work longer hours for mediocre salary, all just for the privilege of a mere shot at the real payday aka upper management. But there are dozens or hundreds of middle managers competing for a handful of executive positions, and those executives are lifers who only vacate their positions when they retire. And anyways, most of those higher slots will actually be filled via “networking” aka nepotism, so even the prize is an illusion.
It's the dangling carrot for wage slaves. You can still be a wage slave, but be responsible for other wage slaves too!
Sounds awful, tbh...
There are some people who make excellent team leaders. Some are good mid-level. FEW are good at the upper echelon. Dealing with that now in my professional life...
Lolololol. Let me introduce you to something called the Pareto Principle, AKA 80% of your workers are pretty useless. As long as Musk kept the good 20%, which I believe he did, he just cut out a lot of deadweight.
That's not what that actually means.
He is evidently "actively destroying" the existing staff because they don't DO anything. He is allegedly improving Twatter, but I won't believe it until my account is reinstated.
Reich is an asshole.
Lmao, like him or hate him he knows how to make NPCs seethe
There’s this concept called ‘addition by subtraction’. Obviously, Reich has never heard of it.
I'm sure he has. He's just afraid of himself being subtracted.
Musk was fucking brilliant.
Fired the totally incompetent.
Then allowed the useless-and-incompetent-but-legally-unfireable to fire themselves.
His operating costs plummet overnight. Giving him a much stronger EBITA for quarterly earnings report.
The only thing that would hurt him is engineering talent. That is definitely in shorter supply these days.
Oh wow. I didn’t realize he was taking it private. That makes the firing even more important
Nearly no one is legally unfireable in the US.
Musk seems to want to destroy the twitter monster, which is cool, but he's not running a company that he wants to keep working or growing.
Wrong. Why do you think severance agreements are so juicy.
They aren't for average people.
they absolutely are for average people. I can guarantee you every "project manager" (aka, useless e-girls who schedule meetings and file HR complaints between lattes) got a severance package.
You said "why do you think severance packages are so juicy"...those people are getting the generous severance packages CEO's get, even proportional to their salary.
Their best severance package seems to be a couole months of salary.
Unless you know something I don't...
A couple months salary. Full cobra coverage. Automatic bearing of complete 401K.
Yeah. That’s a pretty sweet deal if you’re gonna get fired anyways.
CEO compensation packages leave them able to retire with multiple expensive houses. These are the higher ones:
If you fired and weren't already looking for a job, 2 months salary just covers your bills until you get a new job. That's a nicety...it's not a lot.
An equivalent payout for lower level employees would be like they get $750k, enough to retire but only if they're really stingy.
"Economist, political commentor" vs. a guy that started a private company that launches satellites and people into space.
Yeah, I know who my money is on...
Fun fact about that tweeter: the guy has two more successful brothers in frank (who was recently a head coach with the colts), and mark (who is part owner of a bunch of sports teams). This guy is unknown outside of germany, where the "third reich" continues to instill fear in people.
Not a bad joke, but since I was curious, also doesn't seem to be true.
Twitter cut 3/4ths of the workforce and there's been absolutely no degradation in site performance at all (in fact it's gotten noticeably better), the deliberate narrative manipulation in trending topics has completely stopped, and the moderation policies are actually being applied to violent threats from communists instead of exclusively to non-communists tweeting about how child drag shows are bad.
I wonder if Reich is really that dumb or if he plays a role
be me, medieval kang
staff up to build castle
castle built, fire them
some jew: "b-b-b-ut the value was in the workers!"
execute jew as commie scum
If a person is fired from a company and a) business continues as normal and b) nobody was brought in to replace you, then you never had a job, you had a grift. Obvious exception is downsizing, but then business isn't really continuing "as normal" so much as it's following a downward trend, but that's a little more complicated.
He is technically right. Social media doesn't turn a profit. It's value is not in it's stated product. The value of Twitter is not in being the largest platform on the internet. It's value is in CONTROLLING the largest platform for the message.