Re:The Container Throttling Problem
by ClumsyPilot on Sunday December 26, 2021 @02:49PM
(#29695665)
"one has a hard limit on possible upside, whereas the other does not."
Thats plain wrong, the gloval market for cars, bicycles and what have you has a limited size. Every large company that's a market leader understands that.
Would capturing 100% of the market granting a monopoly essentially grant unlimited upside? Cause you can just jack the price to absurdity? Also wouldn't reducing cost to zero have an infinite upside as well? Basically zero cost you can produce infinite output. Gettin real pedantic here heh.
Re:The Container Throttling Problem
by bradknowles on Monday December 27, 2021 @12:31AM
(#29699646)
My experience has been that each additional multiple of revenue has a certain amount of effort increase that is relatively fixed. Likewise, each additional percentage of cost reduction has an effort cost that is relatively fixed.
If you do the math, then increasing your revenue by 2x doesn’t cost 2x the effort. But one additional percentage point of cost reduction might well cost 2x the effort.
Sadly, most employers I’ve known do not seem to understand this thing called math.
Result is that maximising income is generally better than reducing cost. Of course, as with all generalisation, there are situations where this approach doesn’t hold true. But as a high level first order strategy, it’s a good one to adopt.