So his 3 years of restricted Microsoft stock awards has mostly vested and now he's leaving Microsoft.....

1. X happened or was studied

and

2. It could cure cancer or some easy to digest by the non-scientist reader

and

3. My company found that ... (self promotion line)

It's classic at the end legacy building, release a positive book about yourself + book tour, get favorable reporting on your past activities especially early in your life, be an expert speaker at positive charity and nonprofit events, ....

Simply, less people are buying homes and less people are forming households.

So a large wave of buying bigger TVs for a new not apartment place is less likely.

And, when you price a TV which is equivalent to 3 or more months rent, you price out lots of potential customers

Year over year most companies are selling less product/service based on inflation adjusted revenue numbers.

Year over year they are buying back stock to make earnings per share to look better.

Year after year a lets cut costs, not let sales fall much and buy back stock instead of innovating is not a viable long-term business plan.

The questions stock analysts should be asking are:
- Why is year over year revenue lower in inflation adjusted terms for the last 3 years?
- Why is executive compensation growing even though the company is smaller every year?
- Why are there no new products adding to the net revenue and net profits in a meaningful way?
- Why are the board members and executive team entrenched and rewarded with 5 or more years of employment if the company is slowly shrinking year after year?

Exclude the top 10 most profitable in terms of total profit, sales growth, etc. and the remaining 490 companies int he S&P 500 have gone nowhere in terms of revenue growth in real terms in the last few years.

Cutting costs and improving financial efficiency are not a viable long-term business plan.

> because of the status they bring in the eyes of other women.
>for women, primary mode of selection of a mate is about seeking approval from their own sex.

Agree that women always shaming, denigrating or venting about men has a large component of "he does not elevate my social status among other women" negativity.

That social status elevation could come from some of "he's very attractive", "he makes lots of money", or "he has a prestigious job" much like the display of a$5000 purse or $25,000 engagement ring.

The knock-on effect is that the highly attractive men will eat dinner with, get drinks with, go dancing with, see a movie with, and sleep with lots of average to attractive women but won't date them, become a boyfriend to or marry them. The attractive men have tens of women matching with them on dating apps to replace any women who starts with a "where is this going" (here is my timetable and life goal business plan) conversation. The man does not want to 100% change to fit into her business plan and life goal timetable.

What's happened is that the younger men and teenager boys have learned from their fathers, uncles, grandfathers and other older men that

1) trading your short term health, long term health and physical quality of life after age 40 for higher wages is not a great deal.

2) making the physical injury and life shortening sacrifices still won't get a long-term loyal marriage (50% divorce rate) and family, and that in the case of divorce, all the physical sacrifices result in you having an 18 year term of near poverty lifestyle and threat of jail for contempt of court along with losing half of what you have worked for (especially if the ex-wife had a near minimum wage job or less).

Refer to "Man in the House Rule" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and how the mom goes and claims all the food, government poverty program claims which are then by the state/county DA collected from the father with the threat of jail time for not paying, even if the father is injured on the job and cannot work, gets sick, or is laid off.

Add in that unpaid child support debts compound at 7% penalty interest which is paid to the state government and not to the children or mother.

So the net effect of working hard, providing for your children, is in many cases a path with lots of negatives given the 50% divorce rate - being broke, under threat of jail time, being pursued for debts by the DA and having no abilitty to save money, buy a house, see your children except for 4 days a month.

$35 an hour for a fiber optic installation crew job is not much better than much less injury prone, less lifespan reducing, less permanently crippled at 55 years old jobs.

Why the jobs don't get filled"

1. Pay is not worth the risk of permanent injury or being crippled by age 55
2. Other jobs, indoors, low risk with similar education/skill training requirements pay nearly the same
3. Lack of any long term incentives given that pensions are a thing of the past and most of this work is done by third-party (poor benefits) contracting companies
4. The difference in pay $70k a year vs $55k in year won't help a man much to buy a house, date much or get married since the twin factors of physical attractiveness and disposable income factor largely in getting that first date.

5. Social status where a girlfriend or perspective wife can't get admiration for her boyfriend's earning potential with her social circle like she could if he was a doctor or lawyer.

6. Lack of suitable partners for a man working the trades given that 33 percent or more women have one or more of:

- Mental health issues - 20% of women have had mental health treatment in the last year (21% are on psychiatric medicine)
- Venereal disease / STDs - 33% have venereal disease / STDs
- W percent have large debts
- X percent have one or more children from other men
- Y percent are addicts (drugs or alcohol)
- and other things which could exclude the women from being dating material (compulsive spending, jail / prison time, lack of a job and lack of financial contribution ability even at near minimum wage, and a social / family circle of ill-adjusted angry people)

Microsoft should be simplifying their entire OS, system services and removing legacy usage of obsolete technologies so that they can ship a much smaller, less complex base operating system.

And giving vendors a 3 year timeframe for them requiring that third-party software cannot install their own Windows service to prevent OS level permissions for third-party software. Feasible?

45 years of always adding more features/APIs than are retired got Microsoft here. Too many "What's new in product X?" releases listing only new features and not any removed features.

With retailers cutting back their shelf and floor space for all consoles for years, the Switch is simply taking sales that would have gone to Sony or Xbox since the Switch has the largest part of the kids 4 to 12 market and is the first game console/handheld most kids get.

Predict that multiple large software companies will end of life with no migration path elderly software products just to cut costs.

The old way was to sell off the dying product to a third party, wait a year or two, then the third-party will greatly increase the licensing costs to drive customers away.

I've seen it where a company sold a product to a third-party, who was incorporated outside of the USA, that waited until license renewals, signed 1 year deals with customers and and then after the 1 year was up, drastically raised the maintenance price. No assets in the USA, nothing to sue for and no migration path for the customers. The original software company had multiple layers of "go talk to the new company" protection from prior customers.

In another case, a third party C++ library vendor for embedded software waited until October to announce the next years maintenance cost per developer. The vendor had been "acquired" by a consolidator firm earlier and that consolidator firm increased the per-seat developer licensing from near $100 per developer to thousands per developer with a January 1st of the next year for the new licensing to take effect. The company had hundreds of developers using it and had a two month fire drill to remove it from all existing software applications.

It is a multiple year decline in the number of high school to college to newly graduated college degree holders focusing on AI instead of computer science, full stack development and what was the mainstream computer jobs before the current AI round.

The largest loss is that there will not be anywhere the number of blog posts, stackoverflow questions, etc. for the more recent open source technologies since somewhere from 5% to 50% (pulling numbers out of the air) of the rookie and mid-level experience questions will never be posted on the internet.

There's a larger danger in a new basic programming stack from language, web layout, web styling, web framework and more gains traction. There won't be 10+ years of old blog posts and stack overflow questions for AI to train on.

Agree.

Giving the major automakers a challenge is good. The 70 year up escalator of car prices via unneeded features and unnecessary extra computer chips needs competition.

Everyone other than the family homeowner has a vested interest in keeping homes as expensive as possible:

1. City / county government gets more property tax revenue from a more expensive home as some jurisdictions exempt a fixed amount of the property value from taxation
2. Water / Sewer get higher fees, need to maintain less pipes, less water flow and infrastructure per square mile for larger homes
3. Bankers / Wall Street - They originate and securitize mortgage loans which only works if the loans are above a certain dollar amount. A $40,000 loan on a small home is likely too small to package up and sell on wall street as a mortgage bond
4. Real estate developers make more money per house for larger houses since connecting utilities are cheaper (less homes per acre) and similar build/sell cost per square foot of the home
5. City /County / State / Federal government want larger cities sprawled out to increase budgets and jobs and GDP via more road building, more traffic, more gasoline tax revenue
6. Real estate industry want more commission from selling homes.

Small homes under $50,000 are a threat to the up-front and ongoing jobs and tax revenue from an individual home.

Refer to the government panic about EV cars where they don't get gasoline tax revenue and increased the yearly license fee to offset the loss in government revenue.