Change the legal definition of corporations? Corporations exist to provide liablity protections to sharholders, which means they are mainly incentivized to externalize costs and avoid liability to maximize profit, or even to make profit in businesses that would not be profitable if they could be held liable for externalized costs (deep sea oil well drilling). Limit the ability of corporations to shield themselves from view through multiple levels of shell corporations and Special Purpose vehicles. These are probably controversial stances on a board about startup culture and breaking the rules to get rich.
Stop voting for people and judges that believe in the Friedman doctrine?
Every decision has tradeoffs. Western society has largely decided to prioritze capital owners over everything else.
In capitalism, society gets what it rewards. If it wants more children it must pay the market price, just like everything else.
If it wants educated, productive children, it must also pay the market price and that price is exorbitant.
At some point, US tech companies will (maybe have already outspent) the US education system k-12 and at some point surpassing all the ivy colleges just for training some ai models.
I disagree with Dan due to my experience as an low level employee under Ballmer. He encouraged political infighting and backstabbing and dog eat dog internal competition, while praising and desiring tight integration between teams.
He wanted "cloud first, moblie first" - two firsts! The culture at the time was built around RAID - the internal bug datadbase and that there should be clear prioritization for everything.
The inability to decide between enterprise cloud and consumer client devices held Microsoft back.
Ballmer had customers asking for enterprise cloud in 2000 but he kept listening to people talking about lifting windows sales by 10 percent with search integrated to the desktop.
And then they chose the bloated SQL server for that and wondered why that couldn't run on normal consumer hardware in Longhorn.
The fundamental tradeoffs between something that sacrifices generalization for specialization and efficiency meant that what is good for running server rack NASDAQ didn't work for low powered laptops.
From a low level employee perspective Ballmer was the ruthless guy that wanted people to hate each other at work as they fought for survival lord of the flies style but was pikachu surprised that we could never deliver integrated experiences that worked together.
Satya's two key abilites to me were the ability to actually prioritize in a coherent way and the decision to bring the rank and file infighting down because integrated experiences are hard to build when you want your brother and sister departments to fail so yours gets more budget because thats how Ballmer worked.
Yes it was QuakeWorld Team Fortess. Funny story of my own. I had just started at Microsoft and met Robin Walker at a lan party with a bunch of other QuakeWorld TeamFortress fans.
As soon as they hired Robin and John i knew they (valve) were going to be a giant hit. As a former windows PM, it seems that Gabe knew how valuable mod authors as first time game designers were. Valve may not have been the first to make their game engine a platform, but they were the most dedicated to it in that era.
I didn't know their contract with Sierra was so much like a music industry contract and that they didn't own their Half life IP. It makes so much more sense why they recruited the founder of counterstrike, which is an even bigger hit than TF2.
If they had been public i would have bought into valve before 2005. I missed the boat on apple, amazon, and so many others, but that one had a competitive advantage of understanding the industry that I understood.
Right now you're making 1 million dollars a year per employee or a 10x or 20x revenue to average employee cost.
The reason your software providers probably suck is that I'm not hearing how permanent or consultant employees can provide the kind of ROI that it will cost to build even basic software.
Let's say you're based in Detroit, MI - somewhere dirt cheap - 3 engineers for 1 year is 350K in salary, another ~300k in benefits and then you'll take 2 to 3 people normally earning money off their real work to be the domain experts.
Let's say 1 million in developers and 2 people providing 10x the value of their 100k salaries as well, and that's 3 million dollars of cost + lost revenue from productive employees.
If your company has a 15% profit margin on revenue and 250M in revenue - you're making 37.5 mil in profit, and you'll be giving up roughly ~10% of the company profits on this venture.
So the question is, do you think you have greater than 70% chance of getting a 3x return on their cost? Maybe 9 million dollars more worth of revenue?
If not, the project will fail just from the ROI expectations of the bean counters.
You could try to outsource stuff to somewhere with cheaper programmers but that just means the 2 million in lost revenue from productive employees becomes 20 million in lost revenue as the outsourced engineers need 10x the handholding because they aren't onsite, watching the people that do the work and interacting with them with a tight feedback loop.
My Sony smart tv was great for 3 years because I never connected it to the internet, but ever since I did, it hangs, takes 2 minutes to allow switching inputs, and in general just sucks.
I will not make the mistake of ever connecting one of these to the internet again, and if I have to buy a Giant monitor for 2k, so be it.
I'm 90% sure that the flash drive on the TV wore out and they want me to replace what is otherwise great working hardware for features I don't even want anymore.
It takes a LOT of time to validate every path, possibly an infinite amount of time, depending on the complexity of the domain.