I am so, so sad about Groklaw. That is a great loss. It portends others. (Sorry about pretentious word).
Suppressed anger over something? That is so rude that I can't stop laughing! I love the "mod me lower" portion!
Seriously, I can't even tell if you're referring to the European Union countries or the U.S.A. Maybe... Switzerland? Not exactly notorious for propaganda or insularity!.(more giggles)
Clearly neither of you have ever met French Canadians. Quebec isn't even a country, yet they top the list of worlds most smugly, annoyingly rude people.
No, French people are worse than Quebecois, as far as smugness and a tendency be annoying and rude! People from Quebec, or Haiti or Morocco or just about anywhere, are willing to speak French with me.... courteously. French people tell me that I am brutalizing their language, to stop hurting their ears. My own brother, well, half-brother, grew up and went to school in Paris. He lives in Geneva now. He barely knows any English. But he will NOT speak to me in French, because it causes him such pain!
Smug, annoying and rude is okay as long as you are also honest, fair and transparent.
You are jumping away from the issue: The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt, in a way that affects everyone on the planet.
If the U.S. government were extremely corrupt, we wouldn't be affecting everyone on the planet. We wouldn't affect much of anyone, other than to make our own citizens miserable. If we were corrupt, we wouldn't be trusted:
*as a trading partner
*as the world reserve currency
*for financial markets transactions
*for guidance and assistance in any sort of research or development, humanitarian aid, public health
and much more. The fact that we are NOT extremely corrupt, but are moving steadily in that direction, is what is so destabilizing. Trust, and consistency is vital.
At some companies, the management is exactly how you described (Eric Schmidt is like that, from what I can tell). But Google is not like other companies in terms of management. They even had Schmidt step down, so that Larry Page could be CEO again. Larry Page and Sergey Brin know that cost cutting at the expense of design and research is unwise. Well, they should. They did, in the past.. Maybe they are too distant now.
Isn't that what the MBAs and metric gurus teach? Once again the Excel numbers make the day and if there is a hidden cost or an opportunity cost then it doesn't exist according to the CPA
Metric gurus teach that. MBAs who have a clue do not.
If a company is in terrible financial condition, losing money, making unreliable products etc. THEN it is time for the Excel spreadsheets and CPA's to say, "Look, you can make payroll for another x weeks, but if you don't turn things around, fast, you'll need to dismiss staff, sell company assets and equipment to survive." In that scenario, the 20% time to work on projects needs to end, temporarily, until the company is more solvent.. Google is far from being in that situation though.
Public companies have a lot of latitude in fulfilling their fiduciary interests to shareholders. Look at what bank CEO's (and Larry Ellison of Oracle) are paid now. Are they really worth a salary that is over 1000 times that of the average employee? Maybe they are sometimes, but certainly not when they are running the business into the ground with layoff's, bad decisions and huge losses.
IF QZ is correct- they probably are, as I've read this elsewhere- that the 20% time had ended, then it is Google management's decision. It isn't motivated by fiduciary interests to shareholders. Google could justify why it is necessary for their employees to have that 20% time. Maybe it really is necessary. I've read that Google employees have been leaving at a higher rates than in the past. But I'm not sure, can't remember sources for that.
Have you reconsidered a computer career?