Not a good argument from you. As if the sheer number of employees is what made Google successful in the first place. And as if efficiency alone makes a successful company. Why would you think these things?
GP was stating that 50% of tech workers at big companies are redundant. Armed with that knowledge he should be in a stellar position to found a company that is very profitable compared to its competitors who incur double the labor costs. This incredible competitive advantage will enable him to become the next Google eventually.
Sounds plausible? No? I wonder where the error is.
Having a better understanding of who the essential employees are is necessary, but not sufficient, to run a more profitable company than the current market leaders.
I get your point, but don’t you think that if it was really so easy, somebody would have done this already? There are other factors like key people leaving if half their colleagues get laid off.
The claim itself is so extraordinary because it defies all economics.
