The extremely rich would rather not have another Einstein unless they knew they could control them and it wouldn't hurt the bottom line.
You're viewing a single thread.
Especially since he was a vocal socialist
Doesn't even have to be about that. Einstein was a disruptor. He scribbled some theories on paper and it dramatically reshaped the global power and wealth dynamic.
The extremely rich have a singular top priority: to stay that way. Unpredictable change, regardless of the net change for good or bad, is not their friend.
This works at all levels. I was hired into the mid level of a company to "lead research to improve the product" - but I quickly found out: that was just a carrot to get me and others like me in the door to fill roles required by regulatory bodies: so many degreed this and thats to oversee implementation of the quality procedures, etc. Everyone above Director level in that company was making fat bonuses every quarter and they didn't want ANYTHING to change, not even an improvement in the product, it was making plenty of money with no signs of competition on the horizon. To announce a potential future improvement would be to derail current sales volumes, and there were new mansions under construction that still needed more quarters of bonuses to complete.
I mean I think I get your point that it's not necessarily as big as the economic system. Innovators disrupt on smaller levels but the disruption you're describing at your company is under pinned by a profit motive so in a way it is threatening capital. Idk not really disagreeing with you per say as saying were describing the same thing for different perspectives
That was a company of 1000 employees, over 500 of them in the traveling global sales force. There were about seven guys at the top taking home millions a year in those bonuses, and their whole priority was to maximize their personal incomes as much and as soon as possible.
In the shiny promotional videos, we were all about helping our customers, improving their lives, but in reality we weren't very good at that, only about 1/3 customers saw any benefits and maybe 3/100 would get anything close to what they were really hoping for, but... they didn't have any alternatives, so they were willing to let their health insurance pay for a $30K surgical procedure on the chance that they might be one of the lucky ones.
Research around methods of testing to determine who might and who might not benefit from the product? Actively undermined by the company.
Research around ways to improve product performance? Squashed as I described, it was more likely to "disrupt" the short term income streams they leaders were all enjoying than to make any significant improvements in income for them on any time schedule they care about.
