[jseban]

I think the underlying reason for why IT companies are so chaotic and inefficient, is because they simply don't need enough people, if they are well structured, do quality work and use simple and powerful tools/solutions.

You could run a super high valued company on just a handful of people, and society is just not ready for that. It's a case of technology advancing faster than human organisation and economic system, and the multiples are just too large, it's a big challenge for society to handle the impact.

So it's better for the organisations to be less efficient and chaotic, and to use dumbed down tools, overcomplicated solutions etc. This will fill the void created by the advancement in technology, so that the organisation can continue to function by at least resembling the traditional model.

You would need to significantly shorten the working hours in order to enable more efficient companies. Otherwise you'd get even more hyper concentration of wealth in a very short time.

[notpachet]

> You could run a super high valued company on just a handful of people, and society is just not ready for that.

Here is the hidden truth. So much of the current information sector is just daycare for grownups. Then there's a secret nucleus of people who actually do the real work. The secret to happy employment rests on being able to determine who's actually cutting lumber versus who's just playing dress-up.

If we want to gradually move towards a system of universal basic income, maybe we could help sell it by funneling larger sections of society into IT, and just give them a bullshit job where they can fingerpaint all day to get their paycheck. Eventually you can let them stop fingerpainting and just give them the paycheck.

> The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.

[spopejoy]

> You could run a super high valued company on just a handful of people, and society is just not ready for that.

My version of this is that those handful of people become critical to the organization, which must be avoided at all costs. Every place I've been that's weighed down by huge IT staffs, undervalues tech, absolutely hates to give coders raises, and sees tech as a cost center, even while preaching how important technology is.

Sadly, this seems to be the case so often that the only companies that really succeed with good tech have builders in the founder's chair who _still code_, at least until the model is firmly established (but even after is good too). Pretty much everybody else resents software devs and thinks they're overpaid.

Weirdly a smaller, better paid team can often be resented _more_ (because of course, you can't see all the money that's being _saved_ by having a small highly-powered team).