Huh, I'm starting to notice that people already do incredibly stupid things with their companies for short term gain already.
Now, I'm naturally willing to be proven wrong, but it looks like (from a cursory googling) that most firms only last about 10 years. https://time.com/3768559/company-mortality-rate-survival-stu...
You may think you're building an empire, but you're probably not.
Some people already do incredibly stupid things with their companies for short term gain already. Do we need more of them to?
Choosing a handful of successful winners in comparison to "most firms only last about 10 years" is a selection bias.
All of the original members of the DOW Jones industrial average have declared bankruptcy or been absorbed into other companies -- except General Electric! Oh wait, they were just removed from the index
"Most firms only last about 10 years" is selection bias because most firms don't even last 10 years. Infant mortality is very high. The firms that do last 10 years usually last 20 or more.
Meanwhile you're ignoring my point -- it isn't a question of how many companies are destroyed, it's a question of destroying even more of them. Some evidence that maintaining a stable company is hard is not an argument for making it even harder.
How is that selection bias?
> Meanwhile you're ignoring my point -- it isn't a question of how many companies are destroyed, it's a question of destroying even more of them. Some evidence that maintaining a stable company is hard is not an argument for making it even harder.
Sure. I'm not proposing we should make it harder