I think this is the central puzzle on the topic: where is the money coming from to pay the rats who are in (and creating) the mazes? Why wouldn’t customers prefer a more efficient provider?
My current speculation is that there’s a ton of slack on the scale were talking about. Mazes aren’t actually less efficient than non-mazes, they just spend the slack on unpleasant things rather than pleasant. To the extent this is true, my advice will actually reduce overall slack—the winners still will have to work harder and longer than they like. But they’ll enjoy it (both the work, and the remaining slack) more. So, less overall non-work energy, but better able to use it for non-work purposes.
Moloch still wins eventually, as eventually you have to compete with other hard-working non-maze-waste orgs. But that can take a long time, and the ramp is far more pleasant.
“Why wouldn’t customers prefer a more efficient provider?”
What choice do they have? If mazes are inevitable, there is no non-maze provider.
I should state that I have loved this series and it matches my experiences and observations so I’m inclined to believe it. With that said....
″ Moloch still wins eventually, as eventually you have to compete with other hard-working non-maze-waste orgs. But that can take a long time, and the ramp is far more pleasant. ”
As best as i can tell your solution is “Don’t do non-maze things”. That there is some kind of ‘good Moloch’ that is possible. (Do you have any examples of that happening?)
Zvi has laid out his case for why this isn’t realistic. You may disagree, and I would love to hear where you think he has gone wrong. But it seems like you are dismissing his points and saying that you can willpower(?) your way out of this.
I truly mean this all in good faith and would love to figure a way out if for financial reasons alone ( I agree with your point that if someone could escape this, it seems like it would be very profitable. I just don’t see any solutions)
This is a new assertion—mazes only occur in monopolies? And I guess the answer for why people would participate in the maze is that they only happen in labor monopsony conditions? It’s possible, in which case the solution is simpler (to state; not always to do): break up the monopoly. I don’t think that’s what Zvi and others are claiming, though (except maybe in the finance industry, which may be an effective monopoly on employment: there are no options which aren’t mazes), and it doesn’t match my experiences or second-hand stories of acquaintances close enough that I’ve gotten details. Even in cases where it _is_ currently a monopoly, you have to answer WHY there are no competing options to do it better and more pleasantly at the same time. (note: if pressed, I will admit that this paragraph was written mostly for me to introduce the phrase “cultural monopsony”).
Oh, wait—you said “if mazes are inevitable”. They’re not universal today. I don’t know about eventual inevitability, but there are large organizations that are not entirely maze-like, at least not to the degree described in this series. I have indirect experience (not myself, but relatively close friends and/or relatives) with GM, IBM, and the US Navy, and none are all that bad for middle managers—there’s politics, but there’s also actual production and rewarding work impact.
I don’t think I’d claim that “good Moloch” exists or is possible. I make the much weaker claim that Moloch hasn’t actually optimized very far, so you CAN beat ‘em and don’t have to join ’em. For some time, at least—perhaps decades or generations. I really have no prediction about the long-term beyond “today isn’t a stable equilibrium”, but I don’t see anything that overall beats competition as a motive for optimizing on legible dimensions over illegible ones, in a finite universe with infinite potential desires.
I think this is the central puzzle on the topic: where is the money coming from to pay the rats who are in (and creating) the mazes? Why wouldn’t customers prefer a more efficient provider?
My current speculation is that there’s a ton of slack on the scale were talking about. Mazes aren’t actually less efficient than non-mazes, they just spend the slack on unpleasant things rather than pleasant. To the extent this is true, my advice will actually reduce overall slack—the winners still will have to work harder and longer than they like. But they’ll enjoy it (both the work, and the remaining slack) more. So, less overall non-work energy, but better able to use it for non-work purposes.
Moloch still wins eventually, as eventually you have to compete with other hard-working non-maze-waste orgs. But that can take a long time, and the ramp is far more pleasant.
“Why wouldn’t customers prefer a more efficient provider?”
What choice do they have? If mazes are inevitable, there is no non-maze provider.
I should state that I have loved this series and it matches my experiences and observations so I’m inclined to believe it. With that said....
″ Moloch still wins eventually, as eventually you have to compete with other hard-working non-maze-waste orgs. But that can take a long time, and the ramp is far more pleasant. ”
As best as i can tell your solution is “Don’t do non-maze things”. That there is some kind of ‘good Moloch’ that is possible. (Do you have any examples of that happening?)
Zvi has laid out his case for why this isn’t realistic. You may disagree, and I would love to hear where you think he has gone wrong. But it seems like you are dismissing his points and saying that you can willpower(?) your way out of this.
I truly mean this all in good faith and would love to figure a way out if for financial reasons alone ( I agree with your point that if someone could escape this, it seems like it would be very profitable. I just don’t see any solutions)
This is a new assertion—mazes only occur in monopolies? And I guess the answer for why people would participate in the maze is that they only happen in labor monopsony conditions? It’s possible, in which case the solution is simpler (to state; not always to do): break up the monopoly. I don’t think that’s what Zvi and others are claiming, though (except maybe in the finance industry, which may be an effective monopoly on employment: there are no options which aren’t mazes), and it doesn’t match my experiences or second-hand stories of acquaintances close enough that I’ve gotten details. Even in cases where it _is_ currently a monopoly, you have to answer WHY there are no competing options to do it better and more pleasantly at the same time. (note: if pressed, I will admit that this paragraph was written mostly for me to introduce the phrase “cultural monopsony”).
Oh, wait—you said “if mazes are inevitable”. They’re not universal today. I don’t know about eventual inevitability, but there are large organizations that are not entirely maze-like, at least not to the degree described in this series. I have indirect experience (not myself, but relatively close friends and/or relatives) with GM, IBM, and the US Navy, and none are all that bad for middle managers—there’s politics, but there’s also actual production and rewarding work impact.
I don’t think I’d claim that “good Moloch” exists or is possible. I make the much weaker claim that Moloch hasn’t actually optimized very far, so you CAN beat ‘em and don’t have to join ’em. For some time, at least—perhaps decades or generations. I really have no prediction about the long-term beyond “today isn’t a stable equilibrium”, but I don’t see anything that overall beats competition as a motive for optimizing on legible dimensions over illegible ones, in a finite universe with infinite potential desires.