I can’t quite reconcile this article with what I’ve seen before like this below…the methodology in the OP seems pretty questionable, so I trust this other article more.
Any definitive statements made about the past half century are pretty questionable, ideological biases notwithstanding (see “ The constant turnover in the Fortune 500 is a positive sign of the dynamism and innovation that characterizes a vibrant consumer-oriented market economy, and that dynamic turnover is speeding up in today’s hyper-competitive global economy.” and “Another economic lesson to be learned from the creative destruction that results in the constant churning of Fortune 500 (and S&P 500) companies over time is that the process of market disruption is being driven by the endless pursuit of sales and profits that can only come from serving customers with low prices, high quality products and services, and great customer service.”).
I think it’s not an unreasonable argument that the process of market disruption (over the past century at least) isn’t being driven by “the endless pursuit of profits that can only come from serving customers with low prices, high quality products and services, and great customer service” (LOL) but by some insane demographic changes occurring in the background of equally insane technological progress.
It actually seems quite delusional that, knowing about Moore’s Law/baby boomers/more than 5 tv channels, this person decided that customer service would be more important in deciding how the economy moves. Bonkers levels of autofellation, I say.
A potential reconciliation is that most of the companies left those lists via mergers with other companies on the list. It both consolidates power and gives churn to that list.
I don't know whether that's true or not, but it's notable that your article counts companies as "leaving" the list if they merge with someone else.
Complete tangent, but I noticed we posted the same exact link [1] around the same time and was curious what your research methodology was?
My Approach to suspect articles is to look for data that would either confirm or deny the claim in the article. Google article results are usually garbage so I look at image results to find actual data tables or charts. In this case, I found the link you posted by searching "Fortune 500 company turnover by year" and looking for line charts with a reasonable time frame.
mxkopy|2 years ago
I think it’s not an unreasonable argument that the process of market disruption (over the past century at least) isn’t being driven by “the endless pursuit of profits that can only come from serving customers with low prices, high quality products and services, and great customer service” (LOL) but by some insane demographic changes occurring in the background of equally insane technological progress.
It actually seems quite delusional that, knowing about Moore’s Law/baby boomers/more than 5 tv channels, this person decided that customer service would be more important in deciding how the economy moves. Bonkers levels of autofellation, I say.
everforward|2 years ago
I don't know whether that's true or not, but it's notable that your article counts companies as "leaving" the list if they merge with someone else.
s1artibartfast|2 years ago
My Approach to suspect articles is to look for data that would either confirm or deny the claim in the article. Google article results are usually garbage so I look at image results to find actual data tables or charts. In this case, I found the link you posted by searching "Fortune 500 company turnover by year" and looking for line charts with a reasonable time frame.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37218514
IG_Semmelweiss|2 years ago