>>24702049
In my experience a lot of the inefficiencies and promotion of those banal petty types, who quickly surround themselves with ballbag sycophants, does help maintain a monopoly or duopoly in an area, paradoxically.
If competitive pressures are off, poisoning the industry for anyone with ambition and common sense makes them fuck off to where the pasture is greener in other industries. If the companies did operate lean and efficient and have a healthy workflow, eventually someone good with enough experience will have everything he needs to strike it out on his own, and take a lot of now-good staff with him. People only really go out on their own when they have a taste of the industry, in many niches that can be prevented by poisoning the environment.
If the environment is completely toxic and the staff overflow is constant, people do struggle to break in. Plus the feudal-minded managers who have a cluster of sycophants will never jump ship as long as they get their egos satisfied and be the king of their domain. The toxicity does come with stability and loyalty, in a roundabout way. It's similar to how autocratic societies achieve stability.
>>24702927
Companies have never really been about maxx-competition at all times, similar to how nations are not always obsessively focused on competing against other countries. There's a lot of unspoken collusion in regards to spheres of influence and market share, where companies will avoid competition to save energy, they're not constantly warring and trying to squeeze prices down like we're taught at school. The whole liberal mythology of corporations constantly obsessing over being competitive and outflanking others is one you just don't really see in reality.
