And im not saying this as someone who just had to pay hundreds to get their towed car back ... but then it got me thinking, why is this even a thing? I can understand the part where the car gets towed, but now a company can essentially steal your car over a few hundred bucks. If you dont pay it, fuck you, the car is ours now. You never own anything, since anything you own is so overtly commoditized it can be taken away for any reason or no reason. If you own a house, a lien can be used over property taxes or HOA, or whatever, and you are now SOL. No recourse, fuck you.
This got me thinking to the whacky liberal ideal that if you cant afford X you dont deserve to be in business. But most of their ideals are completely arbitrary and all over. If you cant afford to waste money hiring niggers, you dont deserve to be in business. But the question then is, what company can? If you cant afford 15$/hr then you deserve to go bankrupt. And yet liberals will scream they can never find a job. But when you look at it, their immensely retarded ideals caused their own demise. And yet if you ask any liberal, they simply can not link their own actions to consequences.
And when you look at the top paying fields: none of them producing anything. Finance is just moving fake numbers from one screen to another, insurance is moving contract law around to not pay out, lawyers go neurotic over man made contracts which have been broken for any or no reason because fuck you. Contract nullification makes this even weirded since one contract can say one thing but its invalid, but the rest of the contract is valid unless its not, but you need to spend thousands to figure out what the contract says.
Meanwhile the farmers, service workers, HVAC, and all the other fields that produce something of value pay close to nothing. This system can't go on like this forever, eventually it will be forced to downsize or collapse.
There has been a trend in business - and I mean it's a trend, like any other - to start prioritizing "business intelligence". There is this idea, in part due to misconceptions about machine learning and "big data", that the key to competitive intelligence today is to be the best at gathering and interpreting lots and lots of data. So naturally, given computing power and all of the latest fancy-pants softwares for visualizing data, the trend has seen the highest-paying jobs become roles which either program these software "solutions" or use them competently to do a lot of internal housekeeping. (To motivate that intuition, ask yourself how quickly the mobile app market peaked, and how much of the current innovation results in any really great products, i.e., things that move the needle in your life, instead of just helping you organize things you had previously gone without organizing. You'll probably find that the way to create positive impressions about this functionality is to first cause you to think you need to complicate your life.)
It isn't clear at all that this trend has actually resulted in better decision-making, if our metric is meaningful outcomes. I think a lot of people get the effects of consolidation of ownership and monopolistic competition confused with the effects of so-called better decision-making. In fact, we're watching companies make downright awful decisions left and right, which are in large part facilitated by the decrease in industry-specific competition. So, figuring out where the upsides exist (if they exist at all) is an absolute quagmire. I think the obscurity of these so-called upsides, rather, the difficulty in establishing causal relations to explain them, is another reason this trend is continuing. It's more ideological than scientific, if you ask me.
But I know plenty of people who know a smidge of "high-level" programming, but are competent with the softwares that have certain industries cornered, who are making $150k or more annually, and their jobs usually have names that include words like "analyst". You find out that what they do all day is basically generate reports, and these drive BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE. Other than that, various fields are run amuck with all kinds of consulting services. These businesses charge high-dollar for more BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE. I knew one person working for a "data-driven" consultancy that was paid almost half-a-million dollars to consult a pharmaceutical company on answering the following question: "Where is the best place online to advertise our drug for protecting homosexuals from HIV?"
After 3 months, their answer turned out to be the dating app devoted to gay people. This is the sort of thing that, decades ago, would have been decided by a marketing leader internally and with a much more efficient process. So, it's not clear to me at all that the return on investment for these BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE spends is really efficient at the end of the day. Instead, I think competition is dwindling, so more room for inefficiencies is being created, and this permits upper management to operate under the misgivings that expanding all of these "internally directed" business functions looks good for business. This all combines within a complex soup that includes the fact that universities are teeming with people who need jobs, who expect certain kinds of jobs for all of their high education, and who are entering a culture that thinks "good" jobs are corporate, office-bound roles that somehow orbit BUSINESS DECISION-MAKING. Expanding the complexity of the bureacracy can also be viewed a couple of ways from the standpoint of any given middle-manager: (a) your job safety increases because you can show this whole layout you've established for making safer decisions and pass the blame onto those responsible (be they internal or outside consultants), and (b) simply being responsible for more complicated staff and processes looks, in itself, like greater competence.
There is also the element of liability. Because of this artificial DEI movement (and the environmental movement), companies are having to overhaul and expand existing infrastructure for ensuring they are meeting legal standards. Human resources departments have exploded because of this, and there are millions of jobs in this country dedicated just to this kind of housekeeping, i.e., for assuring completely artifical standards are being met in order to protect the company. This, in turn, feeds the consolidation of ownership and capital in the economy because only the "monsters" of industry tend to have the buffering capacity for handling these increased needs. This also goes for the environmental shit.
And all of this is occurring within the even broader trend of the financialization of the nation's economy (and the global one, too). Capital is accruing in centers constituted by already-wealthy speculators who are all well-connected and operate playing a game of insider trading. The rest of our society is being pulled by their gravity into an orbit around them of developing and using softwares that help them gamble better. And to do that, they simplify the competitive environment through ownership consolidation so that in, say, the entertainment industry, you force the livestock (that's us) into certain fenced-in areas that make the risks these financiers take a lot more predictable.
Finally, the way this trend is talked about is very relevant. This is where I think people like Elon Musk, and some other examples of prop companies, play a major role. They want people to avoid noticing how actual capital is being consolidated into the hands of a few, while the majority of workers are just playing around generating reports all day. They need people to see the future a certain way in order to avoid them seeing the obvious: that they own less, they produce nothing, and they are just busy-bees for a bunch of Jews vacuuming up all the real assets. They need people to see the future as one dominated by A.I. and computers, where being someone important increasingly means working at consoles all day. If people can be made to think that's the future, and that this is what educated, sophisticated people do, they'll march happily into this future. At the end of day, most people operate on the wavelength of attempting to maximize (i) their status locally, among friends and family and (ii) the status conveyed by the words and pictures in their online profiles. Like, the number of people who would push a button for Corporation X that would drop a bomb on some foreign country, just so they can have that job role listed on their LinkedIn page, would shock you. But look how much money he is making, bro.
CHIRO 0 points 3 weeks ago
There has been a trend in business - and I mean it's a trend, like any other - to start prioritizing "business intelligence". There is this idea, in part due to misconceptions about machine learning and "big data", that the key to competitive intelligence today is to be the best at gathering and interpreting lots and lots of data. So naturally, given computing power and all of the latest fancy-pants softwares for visualizing data, the trend has seen the highest-paying jobs become roles which either program these software "solutions" or use them competently to do a lot of internal housekeeping. (To motivate that intuition, ask yourself how quickly the mobile app market peaked, and how much of the current innovation results in any really great products, i.e., things that move the needle in your life, instead of just helping you organize things you had previously gone without organizing. You'll probably find that the way to create positive impressions about this functionality is to first cause you to think you need to complicate your life.)
It isn't clear at all that this trend has actually resulted in better decision-making, if our metric is meaningful outcomes. I think a lot of people get the effects of consolidation of ownership and monopolistic competition confused with the effects of so-called better decision-making. In fact, we're watching companies make downright awful decisions left and right, which are in large part facilitated by the decrease in industry-specific competition. So, figuring out where the upsides exist (if they exist at all) is an absolute quagmire. I think the obscurity of these so-called upsides, rather, the difficulty in establishing causal relations to explain them, is another reason this trend is continuing. It's more ideological than scientific, if you ask me.
But I know plenty of people who know a smidge of "high-level" programming, but are competent with the softwares that have certain industries cornered, who are making $150k or more annually, and their jobs usually have names that include words like "analyst". You find out that what they do all day is basically generate reports, and these drive BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE. Other than that, various fields are run amuck with all kinds of consulting services. These businesses charge high-dollar for more BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE. I knew one person working for a "data-driven" consultancy that was paid almost half-a-million dollars to consult a pharmaceutical company on answering the following question: "Where is the best place online to advertise our drug for protecting homosexuals from HIV?"
After 3 months, their answer turned out to be the dating app devoted to gay people. This is the sort of thing that, decades ago, would have been decided by a marketing leader internally and with a much more efficient process. So, it's not clear to me at all that the return on investment for these BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE spends is really efficient at the end of the day. Instead, I think competition is dwindling, so more room for inefficiencies is being created, and this permits upper management to operate under the misgivings that expanding all of these "internally directed" business functions looks good for business. This all combines within a complex soup that includes the fact that universities are teeming with people who need jobs, who expect certain kinds of jobs for all of their high education, and who are entering a culture that thinks "good" jobs are corporate, office-bound roles that somehow orbit BUSINESS DECISION-MAKING. Expanding the complexity of the bureacracy can also be viewed a couple of ways from the standpoint of any given middle-manager: (a) your job safety increases because you can show this whole layout you've established for making safer decisions and pass the blame onto those responsible (be they internal or outside consultants), and (b) simply being responsible for more complicated staff and processes looks, in itself, like greater competence.
There is also the element of liability. Because of this artificial DEI movement (and the environmental movement), companies are having to overhaul and expand existing infrastructure for ensuring they are meeting legal standards. Human resources departments have exploded because of this, and there are millions of jobs in this country dedicated just to this kind of housekeeping, i.e., for assuring completely artifical standards are being met in order to protect the company. This, in turn, feeds the consolidation of ownership and capital in the economy because only the "monsters" of industry tend to have the buffering capacity for handling these increased needs. This also goes for the environmental shit.
And all of this is occurring within the even broader trend of the financialization of the nation's economy (and the global one, too). Capital is accruing in centers constituted by already-wealthy speculators who are all well-connected and operate playing a game of insider trading. The rest of our society is being pulled by their gravity into an orbit around them of developing and using softwares that help them gamble better. And to do that, they simplify the competitive environment through ownership consolidation so that in, say, the entertainment industry, you force the livestock (that's us) into certain fenced-in areas that make the risks these financiers take a lot more predictable.
Finally, the way this trend is talked about is very relevant. This is where I think people like Elon Musk, and some other examples of prop companies, play a major role. They want people to avoid noticing how actual capital is being consolidated into the hands of a few, while the majority of workers are just playing around generating reports all day. They need people to see the future a certain way in order to avoid them seeing the obvious: that they own less, they produce nothing, and they are just busy-bees for a bunch of Jews vacuuming up all the real assets. They need people to see the future as one dominated by A.I. and computers, where being someone important increasingly means working at consoles all day. If people can be made to think that's the future, and that this is what educated, sophisticated people do, they'll march happily into this future. At the end of day, most people operate on the wavelength of attempting to maximize (i) their status locally, among friends and family and (ii) the status conveyed by the words and pictures in their online profiles. Like, the number of people who would push a button for Corporation X that would drop a bomb on some foreign country, just so they can have that job role listed on their LinkedIn page, would shock you. But look how much money he is making, bro.