Both can be true. On competitive environments it's harder to pass along costs to consumers, but when a supply pressure is unilaterally applied the competitive pressure to eat the increased costs goes away and is more easily passed along to consumers.
If the court establishes that this was a tax, how would they administer the refund considering it's impossible to disentangle absorbed tariffs by firms and those passed along to consumers?
To kick this off, I responded by saying that trying to predict the future is a fool's errand, and that he'd just do the best doing something he can be good at and then respond to the world as it changes. However the anxiety over student debt did seem valid considering the recent crop of undergrads are still struggling to land professional jobs.
This pattern suggests the remaining knowledge work becoming increasingly extracted upon by the owners of ai enabled firms, in similar fashion to sugar plantation workers across the global south. I would think the cost of doing so would be a level of social and civic unrest similar to the colonial revolutions (Bolivar for example) of the 19th century.
I'd imagine that when the 80% of less productive time is automated, the market doesn't respond by demanding 80% more output. There's just 20% as much work either making this a part time job or more likely a much smaller workforce as the number of man*hours demanded by the market greatly reduces.
Good accounting teams will have more time and resources to do things like identify fraud, waste, duplicated processes, etc. They will also have time to streamline/optimize existing practices.
Good teams will earn many multiples of their cost in terms of savings or increased earnings.
There may be increased competition for the low-cost “just meet the legal compliance requirements” offerings, but any business that makes money and wants to make more will gladly spend more than the minimum for better service.
B corps are really just a marketing program, perhaps at best a signal to investors that they may elect to maximize a stakeholder model, but there is no legal requirement to do so.
This is a common trajectory for companies. The first CEO (founder) paves a vision, the second CEO grows the firm profitably, the third CEO is usually a wall street hire on a mandate to massage the stock price.
reply