Bad management is a problem for a team, I think we can all agree on that. What few people know, or want to admit, is that no management is also a problem. You think upper management (which in my head is VP-type, people that manage teams of 100+) has time for everyone working under them? No man. You have some HR issue, questions, you need cooperation from another team that's reluctant to help? Sorry, you're on your own.

To be fair, managers of 2-3 people are not required, that's just a crazy ratio, but "middle managers" often have 10 or sometimes 30 reports. Just having weekly 1:1s with your team can eat a large chunk of your time. It's not productive work, but it's the necessary lubricant in the corporate machine.

None. There are no good options for ERP, because they're all super complex software that can then be customized, and the majority of "consultants" suck balls. You choose the "best" system to start with, and typically stick with it. Migrating from one to another is... well, let's just say that unless costs go up 25%+ annually, multiple years in a row, you wouldn't think about it. I'd have to think Birmingham was pushed to the limits, or they have decision-makers that don't understand the impact of the decisions.

It's especially funny when a government uses someone else's computer for intelligence (i.e. spying) purposes. Sovereignty of data and IT stack should be primordial for those use cases.

The problem with SAP is that it's old. It's so old, and so core to company processes, that you can't change it quickly because it's too much change management for users. Any upgrade means training for hundreds of random finance folks, AP/AR clerks, etc. If the UI was to change dramatically, it could slow down an entire business.

I worked at SAP when I was younger. I, too, railed against the UI (amongst dozens of other things). After a couple decades in the corporate world, where most of my colleagues are users of SAP, I now believe that it may be shit, but changing it is a bigger issue for customers than leaving it as-is.

They don't deliberately buy a company to make it fail, to "offset what in their portfolio is making a profit", which is what I was responding to. But yes, agree otherwise, they use every trick in the book to maximize profits at the expense of the portfolio company itself, its employees, and us as a society,

The first sentence is correct. The rest is not. Let's get rid of this myth that rich people prefer to lose money than to pay tax. No one has ever refused to make more money, even if that money gets taxed (at least no one that understands taxes and basic finance).

You're right though that PE firms are leeches. They're firms by rich people for rich people, that milk the shit out of anything they touch. The reason why there's an issue now is clearly stated in the summary (for once!): "attractive takeover targets become scarce and financing costs remain elevated while exits prove increasingly difficult". PE firms do not create anything. They're milking what exists. There aren't enough companies to buy, because the true economy (which is people producing stuff and people buying stuff) isn't actually doing as well as the fortunes of the rich. All those PE firms are fighting for the same targets, making pricing frothy. And guess what, once it's frothy, you still want to make money off of it... who's going to buy it? Other PE firms? IPOs are harder in a bad economy, retail investors or the underwriting banks are more risk-averse.

So yeah, at the end, if you as the PE GP cannot show good results... why would I as an LP commit to more money? Some PEs will die, the successful ones will live. That's no different than any other industry. I just wish the whole PE one would die, rather than milk other companies to death.

That's correct. I've seen so many posts here that blame IT, accounting, procurement, whatever. I've worked in large companies most of my life... and very few employees in any function want to do the wrong thing, or would want to prioritize profit over "correct" behavior. That's all the way from entry-level to middle manager (I include director level as middle manager), and including some VPs. People just don't care that much about corporate profit, when the counterbalance to corporate profit is doing a bad job or making your colleagues miserable.

The only people that are truly incentivized to cut corners in the name of profit are high-level execs. They're incentivized because that's literally their job, but you can be sure decisions to cheap out on corporate security was made up there.

And plenty of retired players are very wealthy because they invested... the biggest difference being that people that come from wealth, or acquired their wealth via business-y means, know how to play the game. The people that won the lotto do not, and a lot of them will waste their money. Athletes are basically lotto winners.

Other than from very short periods in history, the entire world has been a plutocracy. Right now is no different.

That's not the right example. The right example is Huawei. We forced all our telecom companies to rip out working Huawei equipment, because "national security", when in reality it was protectionism. Now China is doing the same thing on AI chips.

If we continue on our current trajectory, we'll end up in a divided world with 2 very different technology stacks. We're already most of the way there anyway. In other news we've always been at war with Eastasia...

Worse, an RTX 3080 is also.. quite good. It's not fair to say it was released in 2020. After all, the 5050 was released this year, but the 3080 hardware is more powerful. They're essentially asking for your machine to be updated as of last 2 years to play the game correctly.

That title makes me mad. It costs more and is less profitable, AS ROI FALLS?! Well no fucking shit, what is the color of Napoleon's white horse? "Business makes less money as profit falls". I know that was the Bloomberg title, but please editors, do something. At least rephrase it to "MBA ROI falls as costs increase and post-MBA salary increase drops". Something that's not completely tautological.

Ok, vent aside... Yeah, the MBA is becoming less of a differentiator. The economy is not great for workers, and MBA schools always want the folks with the most potential, thus probably those that made the most in the first place. Everything is cyclical though, I'm not betting on the MBA industry dying for good.

If you follow the link, it goes to Wikipedia that goes to a transcript from a PBS show where "sugar water" is mentioned once. As best I can tell it's a metaphor for uninteresting, uninspiring products that don't change but that people keep buying (i.e. Pepsi/Coke).

And let's be real, this whole article is intellectual masturbation from a dude that just writes about tech to people that care about tech (so, us the Slashdot crowd). Most people irl don't give a shit about innovation other than "does it make my life better", and no one cares or is bummed out if Apple (or any other tech firm) doesn't change the world.

Go to that link from BMO and read it. Turns out dividends can be taxed less than capital gains.

As for the timing of dividends vs. capital gain, yeah that's fair. In practice though.. the timing matters most when you're working (i.e. defer everything when you're drawing a big salary, hence not having a huge dividend portfolio for younger folks). If you're retired, it's less relevant, you get dividends or need to sell a certain amount each year / month.

Of course they're not free money. They're redistribution of company profits to company owners, when the company doesn't know what to do with the money. They're not "bad" though, because as an owner you WANT the company to make money and to give you the part of profit you are owed.

A few issues with your arguments:
1. Dividends are not taxed at your income rate, at least in North America. In the US (and in Canada) eligible/qualified dividends are taxed at a much lower rate than income; not exactly the same as capital gains, but in a similar range.
2. Stock buybacks are good when the stock is fairly valued or undervalued. When the stock is overvalued, it's a waste of money. Like you, I like being in charge, which means if I think the company is overvalued, I'd much rather that money be returned to me via dividends so I can choose what to do with the cash.

So no, dividends are not bad. Like any other corporate action, they run the gamut from "this is dumb as fuck" to "best idea since sliced bread". I invite you to better understand the nuances of something before taking such a strong stance, it will serve you well.

Dividends are not taxed as income in Canada, because there's a tax credit on eligible dividends (BMO explanation I found on Google). Depending on your tax bracket I think you may be better (or worse) off with dividends vs. capital gain, but in either case it's much better than income.