Very well put, your comment resonates with my frustrations at a BigCorp.
> These BigCorps are hiring like mad and paying big $$ to fill seats more for the purpose of starving their competition of brains than actually using the brains they hire.
I used to apply Hanlon’s Razor to these types of hypothesis. After spending more time with the decision making class, the amount of psychopathic behavior and analysis I’ve seen has let me to reconsider.
I don't think it's psychopathic or malevolent beyond what's normal for capitalism. It's how you win at making money. In any market you're either disrupting or at risk of being disrupted. There's multiple strategies you could take for the latter. And it certainly helps if you have a firehose of money (ads revenue).
Not speaking from any inside knowledge, BTW. Just my philosophizing.
That may be a legal/valid strategy, but it seems pathological. Instead of spending money on unproductive employees, these companies could just pass their excesses down to share holders. If a specific company is out competed fairly, oh well, companies don’t need to last/grow forever. The share holders will hopefully have allocated the returns more efficiently (maybe in the new competition).
I see it as an invasive vine using all its spare energy to block out the canopy and choke out the forest. Rather than a native tree that uses spare energy to bear fruits, which nourish various critters who in turn contribute to a more efficient and robust ecosystem.
> These BigCorps are hiring like mad and paying big $$ to fill seats more for the purpose of starving their competition of brains than actually using the brains they hire.
I used to apply Hanlon’s Razor to these types of hypothesis. After spending more time with the decision making class, the amount of psychopathic behavior and analysis I’ve seen has let me to reconsider.