QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: PaulFor the young ones here who never witnessed the 1970s, early 1980s UK, and for the senile who've forgotten, I'd like to paint a picture. Look at this man. He is Bob Crow, the modern equivalent of Arthur Scargill, the man who destroyed the mining industry and the livelihoods of many families: Imagine if he had the country by the cojones. Also imagine power cuts, reading by candlelight, rubbish in the streets because of strikes, the dead unburied because of strikes. Now add in a prawn cocktail, boil-in-the-bag cod in parsley sauce, an avocado bathtub...and voila, you have the 1970s! PIndeed! Trade unions are just greed dressed up in solidarity clothing.(That said, the organizations that suffer from unionized labour probably deserve their fate.)In the Netherlands, Trade Unions are one of the "Social Partners". So everyone gets around the table and reaches consensus. There is something to be said for it. It is probably much better than the disruptive forces in your countries where 50% is for A and 50% is for B.That's very possible and illustrates another cultural gulf in terms of whether an organization is (adversarial management versus workers) or (cooperative management and workers). In the US, it's been adversarial and unions have negotiated unsustainable wages, benefits and pensions that have all but destroyed their companies. Just because management is forced to agree to pay more, doesn't mean customers will be wiling to pay more.The more dynamic the economy, the greater the rate of change in workforce composition, the greater the need for an ultra-flexible workforce, and the greater the need to eliminate the distinction between workers and management.The situation is very easy now; there are no dynamic economies at the moment. Perhaps I've used the wrong word and a different definition of the same word. I meant "dynamic" == "rapidly changing" == "volatile". By that definition, almost all economies are more dynamic today than they were N years ago for almost all N.QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnWihout unions, it becomes 'race to the bottom' to countries where workers have no rights. Chidrem are cheap labour; they don't need much food or pay.And with unions, it becomes a transient illusion of stability propped up by growing sovereign debt and then a free-fall.Depends on the country, whether it is consensus-based or antagonistic. I wonder how the Japanese do this, but they have a long-term vision in the genes.Exactly!The challenge for the Japanese is that "long-term vision" is suboptimal in a volatile environment. The optimal planning horizon is something like O(1/volatility).Not true.How so? If one's 100-year plan is obliterated because it's assumptions fall apart after a few years, is a 100-year planning process tenable? In a changing environment, the options, risks, opportunities, tools. and goals can all change quite quickly to make the long-term plan obsolete.OK, define 'optimal' and the related stakeholders (minus utility function stuff).The interesting part is can the stakeholders even know what they want in a volatile environment where they don't know what the future will be like? (And if the stakeholder change due to immigration, birth, or death, then it's even harder to plan too far in advance.)QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnBTW , no one does a 100-year planning; you are posing a question and answering the question at the same time Well some do. And I seem to recall all manner of long-term Japanese plans to dominate computing.The point of the example wasn't to say that 100-year plans, per se, are popular in some locale but to illustrate that N-year plans in a world that changes every M-years (M<N) are worse than M-year plans because the excessively long-term plan will waste resources on obsolete goals, obsolete tools, and miss emergent risks and opportunities. If M is declining, then N should decline, too.