zlacker

>>fancy_+(OP)
The strangest part to me about the current trends: why do all these business leaders all do the same things at the same time? E.g. Layoffs + micromanagement + cost focus etc... Is this truly about macroeconomic forces that every business is responding to? Or is it just following the latest fad?

There seems to be significant opportunity to zig as others zag. Imagine the Intel letter saying "we are going to take advantage of the current hiring environment to scoop up talent, and push forward on initiatives."

>>johnga+ec
> why do all these business leaders all do the same things at the same time? E.g. Layoffs + micromanagement + cost focus etc... Is this truly about macroeconomic forces that every business is responding to? Or is it just following the latest fad?

I thought about this a lot over the years.

I saw something that piqued my interest last year though, and kind've helped connect the dots. I was on a cruise, and most of the ship was available to guests. One day, one room was cordoned off to an invite-only meeting. The windows weren't blocked, but on the screen was a presentation about AI investments, number of jobs saved (reduced), and etc.

I found one of the attendants later during the voyage and chatted her up. She was head of HR in some big company, and the meeting was supposed to be private. But it contained a lot more than just spreadsheets about AI investments. There was homework and whatnot, but the attendees weren't all from a single company. It was "direction setting". I don't think it was Intel (topic under discussion) but certainly some loosely related tech industry.

I'm convinced that it was nothing less than business collusion.

So, back to your question:

> why do all these business leaders all do the same things at the same time?

Because they're told to.

>>inetkn+yh
The Capital Order lays out an argument that austerity measures are ultimately labor suppression, not necessary. Of course, that’s true of many pieces of policy wisdom: they start from an assumed good. In this case, the assumed good is the current winners should remain the winners despite, well, losing.

https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Order-Economists-Invented-Aus...

>>Dragon+ti
I agree that this definitely is labor suppression, but it has a real cause: the end of low interest rates and inflation. They can no longer "grow" their way into their 6 month bonuses, so they basically have to trim fat and if they all collude on doing it, it _can_ work. If they dont all collude, someone gets cheap engine for growth.

>>cyanyd+Cr
collusion to suppress wages predates tbe raising of interest rates or inflation increases.

all the big tech companies used to have no-poach agreements to not hire from each other, such that they didnt have to compete on price

>>8note+rx
That real world activity is my underlying belief, but we shouldnt ignore that the free money era ended quickly and for these execs do continue to earn their ungainly bonuses, they have to cut costs. Modern texhnology/capitalism allows them to make the same choices without directing collusion.

Best example is the rental market and the landlords all using the same price setting "algorithm"