I’ll never forget the grade 9 science class Powerpoint presentation I did in 1998. I had each letter of every headline flying in one by one with a laser sound (pew pew pew). That was my first moment of magic with Powerpoint.
I still don’t understand the 100% as productive in 80% of the time. The math doesn’t check out there unless the expectation is people are working 10 hr days Mon-Thurs. Even in that scenario, not everyone has the stamina to execute at that pace and it also makes it hard to recruit anyone with a kid who needs to navigate school dropoffs/pickups etc.
In addition to what other people are saying about productivity not being linear:
Screw productivity.
We, as a society, produce vastly more than enough stuff of all kinds for everyone to live comfortably. Insisting that everyone must continue working a 40-hour week every week forever just because that's the best that could be negotiated the first time workers successfully fought for their rights after the Industrial Revolution is foolishness.
Total productivity has skyrocketed since computers came on the scene and helped to streamline millions of different processes. And where have those gains gone? Eaten up by the very wealthy.
A 4-day work week is one very small step toward letting us, the regular workers who actually produce all the stuff, genuinely share in the spoils that streamlining created.
You're assuming people are 100% productive each day currently. If people are told they need to keep hitting the same KPI's etc. or they go back to a 5-day week, you bet they're going to work a bit harder on those 4 days. A bit less news, Facebook, chatting etc and a bit more actual work.
People aren't machines, they bend to their environment.
Even without crunching extra hours per day, you can be essentially as productive with fewer working days per week if you are more focussed on the days do you do work.
Agreed but I’ve yet to hear the killer tactic for how a company gets every employee 100% focused 100% of the time.
I think there are some roles that end up suffering. Like someone who is a product designer and now has to cram more creativity in fewer hours. Someone who is in inside or outside sales and has less time where they overlap with customers to perform demos and close deals. It may work - it may not work.
The penalty for being sick for a day (or your kid being sick for a day) is more drastic too. Although perhaps those folks just use their extra day to catch up.
I’m more bullish on remote work than these 4 day a week experiments.
People seem to put forth the argument that "people will work more efficiently if they work less hours" to counter the argument "if less time is being worked, then less work is being done, then costs/prices go up". And, while it may be (and probably is) true that efficiency will go up, it's almost certainly true that overall work will go down (because efficiency will not go up enough to compensate for the loss of work time).
Now, the/your argument that the overall loss in work is worth it for the work/life balance benefit is one worth considering. It's just a different point from the one that that less work, overall, will be done, likely resulting in higher costs. I guess another way to look at it might be
- Am I willing to earn 10% less in exchange for working 20% less?
And, as a reverse example for the 6-day work week
- Am I willing to earn 10% more in exchange for working 20% more?
For me, at least, the answer is no to both, because I'm comfortable with my 5 day work week. For some people, the answer to one or the other of those is yes.
> it's almost certainly true that overall work will go down (because efficiency will not go up enough to compensate for the loss of work time)
That might be true, or it might not. It depends on how much efficiency goes up and how much buffer time people has, right? In many jobs people spene a non-trivial amount of time reading news, or in FB/Twitter/etc, so it def can be true that removing one hour of news+twitter yields the same productivity.
I've seen no compelling evidence to suggest that working fewer hours will raise efficiency enough to result in the same amount of work being done in those fewer hours. It _can_ be true, but it seems unlikely enough (to my intuition) that I'll assume it would not be the case unless someone can put forth a convincing argument/evidence.
I really support 4x9, though, for a lot of reasons. It should become a work norm (and 36 hours set as the nominal workweek by government).
- I do think productivity will go up some, and the fall in output will be less than 10%. Split the difference, and call it 5%.
- Because there will be some fall in output, and because there are some professions where you need butts-in-seats for coverage... I think it will, by reducing the supply of labor, push up the equilibrium price and get more people into skilled work.
- It's a hedge against automation reducing demand for labor.
- I think we'll recognize a lot of ancillary benefits from reduction of commute times, etc.
> I think there are some roles that end up suffering. Like someone who is a product designer and now has to cram more creativity in fewer hours.
I’m sure everyone said similar things moving to work week with 40 hours and 5 days. Nothing magical about it, people still work over when they feel the need to because deadlines are silly in some cases.
This is a pilot for a reason. A work week with 32 hours and 4 days does improve the health of people overall, but we will see if it’s the same as 40 hours which also didn’t have merit when it was chosen.
Take the counter direction. Imagine there was a push to extend the current normal to a schedule of 6 days of 8 hours each. Would you expect the typical office worker’s weekly production to soar by 20%? I would not.
One way I make sense of it is that employers are competing for talent. Better working conditions (such as 4 day workweeks) might attract better employees for the same price. This could unlock enough productivity to compensate for the 5th day.
Unless people are machines, it's incorrect to strictly equate hours with productivity. What actually happens is there is quite a bit of slack time in the typical day. Going to 4 days/week is applying a forcing function[1] to remove some of this slack time and given it back to employees.
I think a better question is how much of this slack time is necessary to reach the current productivity levels, and how much is just...slack?
[1] There are a lot of anecdote stories where people have a kid which limits their available time, and suddenly they are more productive than they have ever been during that small time window and get their startup off the ground etc...
> also makes it hard to recruit anyone with a kid who needs to navigate school dropoffs/pickups etc.
But this is a pilot in a country where over 40% of kids go home and get to school by themselves starting at age 5 [1]. Not to mention we are talking about a continent where many children are independent in terms of mobility to school [2]. Denmark, Spain, Poland, Italy, Czechia, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Great Britain, Norway, and the list goes on.
Plenty of bullshit jobs where your input hardly matters. It's like a thin gas that expands to fill the working week - 20% compression doesn't mean much in that context.
Some feedback on your “news” page. Near the bottom there is a section that says: “Are you ready to start with Vega template?”. Probably just an artifact and an easy fix.
Thx, what aspects of their service do you find the most attractive?
I recently listened to the podcast of their CEO https://www.linkedin.com/in/jmalling/ He sounded rather elitist to be honest.. Like everyday ppl are just not intelligent enough to trade options, etc. So that was a bit off-putting.
Feels like a slap on the wrist in the grand scheme of things. I expect this to be a catalyst for Alibaba’s stock since the cloud of uncertainty over how severe the CCP punishment would be has now been lifted and that’s very much been weighing the stock down the past 5-6 months.
A fine based on the profitability of the crime weighted by the probability of getting caught. For example, if Alibaba profited 1 billion from this, and the probability of getting caught is 10%, then the compensatory damage would be 10 billion dollars, and the punitive damage would be 2-3x that amount (based on what the Supreme Court has ruled to be constitutional), for a total fine of 30-40 billion dollars. This would ensure no company even considers doing something like this while still keeping the law constitutional [1].
I understand that this fine is from the Chinese government against a Chinese company, so take my comment as what I consider to be a just fine for a U.S. company.
This is very accurate. I always describe fines as "bimodal" in how they're considered by companies
a) big enough that they could significantly damage a company's bottom line
b) small enough that they are considered to be "the cost of doing business" and factored into the risk of a decision just like supply chain issues, SLA violations, or delivery date violations (e.g. having to pay when one doesn't deliver a product on time)
Only fines in category a) actually work. I really wish countries would issue more of these types of fines
So interesting that people assume that companies will stay in punative enviroments. If there is a risk that a country is going to fine me 30b instead of 2b, I will just go to another country. Just like everyone does with taxes (Apple to Ireland, etc).
You could say, well, everyone should be issuing fines like this, but then all it takes is ONE country to NOT do this and they get all of the worlds corporate taxes.
Policy is not so simple. Just go through the downstream consequences of what you're saying.
That's the entire point. If you're running a company and can't comply with U.S. laws, then you simply shouldn't operate in the U.S. and will need to find another country that allows you to engage in your business practice.
It's not important whether other countries issue fines. Other countries are free to implement laws that suit their population. What's important is that companies operating within a respective country obey the laws of that country.
It's a relatively tiny fine compared to the upside of a monopolistic advantage for several years. People were speculating the ccp would lay down a 10bn+ fine. To give some perspective, alibaba did $80Bn in 2019 alone. We're talking about a monopolistic accusation since 2016. This is less than 1% of revenue earned from then to now.
anyone willing to put a static value on criminal activity misses the point.
the value of the fine should be greater than the payout for the activity. If it isn't the fine only represents a back-step in profits and doesn't really serve to drive away the activity in any meaningful way.
Someone makes this comment every time someone makes a comment about the size of the fine. I don't think the parent comment cares. They're just pointing out the expected outcome.
Given the antitrust investigation was ongoing it was clear something would come out of it and a tiny fine is definitely far better than a ton of possible outcomes. I expect the shares to move up on the news but not too materially.
Unfortunately it still doesn’t clear up the Ant IPO issue.
I suspect it will actually result in a big move up in the share price, just not explosively so.
The reasoning is basically this. Share price was $320 all time high preceding ANT IPO which ANT being valued approximately $300B.
ANT IPO cancellation dropped 10% off BABA market cap, followed by a further tumble on news Jack Ma appeared to be missing/lying low and culminating with a single day drop of 13% when the anti-trust probe was announced.
All in all we are talking about a drop of ~30%+ and 100B in market cap.
If we can assume that BABA no longer relies on Pick One of Two and it's elimination as a practice doesn't materially affect sales (this is consensus) then there is really only 2 major financial impacts associated with this remaining:
The reduction in the value of ANT following restructuring and elimination of it's credit products and the fine itself.
The fine isn't material, it's less than 10% free cash flow/5% net cash on hand.
ANT IPO was revalued recently at about $200B, so it lost 33% of it's value.
BABA holds a stake of 30% in ANT so it's investment value went from $100B to $66B, material but not drastic.
So material damage is about ~$70B. However that shouldn't be deducted directly from market cap because the company isn't valued on it's net cash - that would be insane for a growth company. Instead it's generally valued using a method called Discounted Cash Flow. Effectively you estimate future cash flows and discount it by cost of cash.
If you reduce net cash by $70B and run the numbers conservatively it still shows that BABA should be valued at $300-400 if trading at similar multiple to it's peers that face similar regulatory pressure, potential credit tightness and US trade relationship issues.
There was a statement after Ant IPO incident that the government ask Ant to have 30% in reserve for all the loans it is making, basically the whole business model of Ant would change. I would think it will never be the same for Ant, the valuation has changed forever now. Ant marketed itself as a technology companies, this regulation however ask Ant to register as a financial company.
It's just pragmatic. They are a useful global competitor and economic tool, so it's important to keep them in line without necessarily damaging your own useful asset. A public dressing down and slap on the wrist to remind them of their station.
It is. Given the fact that the illegal practice has been going on for years, and the fine was only applied to 2019. But we have to consider the fact that companies have been behaving badly for years, and there was no enforcement from legal department. It will take a while for Chinese companies to adapt to it.
Actually no, this marks the beginning the decline of power for Alibaba and the rest of the Chinese megatech companies like tencent and baidu.
The chinese government goal for the next 5-10 years is stability, control and state companies, not innovation nor private sector growth. They fear the end of CCP. That's why the recently 5 year plan stresses stability, and doesn't set a growth goal
That's why they cracked down on Hong Kong and basically gave up a conduit of western capital/talents as well as letting Hong Kong citizen's wealth escape abroad.
That's why they are becoming alarmingly nationalistic and lashes out on US/EU politicians and encourages its citizens to boycott foreign brands like H&M.
That's why they are building artificial islands in the south asia sea despite Vietnam/Phillipine's angry protests, to shore up their maritime power.
I think it’s more likely the companies will thrive, but that the CCP will keep them on a tight leash. Jack Ma will be marginalized and replaced with a CCP insider. The company will continue to be a monopoly with de facto support from the CCP. I think the only reason they’re even in the current predicament is that Ma publicly insulted other well-connected financial firms, and Xi started to believe that Ma was stepping out of line, and wanted to make an example of him. Alibaba itself is too important to China, but Ma is mostly expendable.
>Jack Ma will be marginalized and replaced with a CCP insider.
Jack Ma is an CCP insider. I think it would be better described as "trusted" CCP insider.
Alibaba ( And Tencent ) already has those CCP insider within the company. ANT less so before, but will now surely get it if that is not already the case.
Jack Ma had already stepped away from Alibaba. Which is also why the crackdown isn't that harsh on Alibaba itself but is rather focused on ANT which Ma is much more actively involved with. Additionally ANT is the point of contention as the CCP finds anything that muddles with credit or deposits to drastically undermine the iron fist on monetary policy.
I agree in broad strokes that tech firms will thrive now. This fine shows both the intent and the level of severity of policy now which were both previously unknowns. Market hates unknowns and often very pessimistically prices in risk.
How can small corps survive when Alibaba and Tencent bullying people around?
Why stability is conflicting with innovation? Are you saying that somehow the innovation has to be destabilizing the society? That's never the case in the human history. Any innovation make human more united and more understand and easier get across each other.
It is always the case that any kind of change or growth is destabilizing. The most stable state is not to grow, after all.
Usually the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, but there's no point pretending that there are never any individuals or groups who lose out as a result of an innovation.
This is not true. Plenty of innovations have destabilized the world. Look at all of WW1’s weaponry. Look at Facebook allowing mass brainwashing to rip the United States apart.
But more to the point, even if it were true, the CCP isn’t interested in the stability of humanity. They’re interested in the stability of their own power.
FB is only hated in US ( and in UK ). Especially in the Tech sector and media. Most part of planet earth actually enjoys Facebook. ( Despite all of its flaws )
It is a contrarian view, but an objective truth. Especially with Small Business. So Mark Zuckerberg do have a point with its ads, although I think he should have kept his mouth shut during that time when he is clearing in the wrong doing in tracking.
Yes I should have given more context. In English speaking sphere you see attack on Facebook. While places in SEA and many parts of the world enjoy what it brings to them. And of course there are many using Facebook without complaining in "Western World".( Sorry for the lack of better Term, NZ and AUS aren't in the west and most EUR aren't really English Speaking but you get the idea )
So it is not all bad and all evil. While I agree with Facebook "deepens" the division between US or in general any politics, I dont believe it is the cause of division. I am still unsure what causes the divide in the first place.
Actually it's not. For instance cleptocracy of Russia was ever trying to sell "stability" to the masses while creating conflicts in foreign policy. Apparently it's essier to sell this BS of being protectors of stability by creating image that world is full of enemies whose only goal is to destoy your homeland.
CCP regime is different, but I guess it's the same playbook. 1984 in action.
My guess is that that Plaid will go public via a SPAC deal now. I think it's highly likely GSAH (Goldman Sachs Acquisition Holdings) is that SPAC that does a deal. They have $750M to play with and given Visa was going to buy Plaid for $5.3B, the numbers kind of make sense.
anyone jumping in now should be prepared to lose nearly all of their money. That's no a prediction, but nobody can tell you where crypto is going to go from here, and past crashes have been swift and severe, which is fine as long as you can hodl for years.
There's a guy, PlanB (with the bitcoin B) who created a formula for estimtaing Bitcoin's price based on its emission, by correlating it with the price of other assets (mostly gold), called stock to flow. Here's a chart for it: https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/stock-to-flow-model/
As a TL;DR, the price should stabilize around $100k after the current bullrun.
As interesting as that is, those models should not be taken as a basis for investing one's nest egg. If you rely on this money to secure yourself or your family, it should not be placed in risky and speculative assets that are difficult to value and have histories of wild price swings in both directions.
