In the US MBAs are taught to value short-termism, so they'll come in, boost a business in the short term (often getting bonuses in doing so) even if it sacrifices long term viability (e.g. loss customer loyalty/repeat business). Then they'll get a golden parachute on the way out as the business starts to crumble.

So when people say "MBA have taken over" they're saying that the business is focused on short term over long term, and is in a downward spiral. It is the anti-Costco philosophy of doing business, and is extremely prevalent.

For example, the old now unfashionable idea was that Customer Retention occurred by treating existing customers well and acting in good faith, this was a long term strategy. The new fashionable idea is just to make it incredibly difficult to quit, it boosts short term retention but makes it so customer re-acquisition is almost impossible (since customers remember how hard quitting was).

MBAs are seen as people without skin in the game. They are rewarded if things are going well, and are not punished if things go bad. The asymmetry makes these individuals look as if they are here to leech and most of their knowledge is just how to "network". Just pick any big bank and look at how the board members rotate as time goes on.

I think it is a cultural thing. At first the MBA's bring prosperity by increasing revenues, but eventually the revenues hit the limit, and after that the job of the MBA is not to grow the business, but to optimize the profits. Optimizing profits means making everyone maximally unhappy. If your MBA is not doing that, it just means your business has not reached its limits yet, but eventually it will happen. That in India fewer people deride MBAs might just mean that India is still growing.

Since this is a predominantly technical forum, it is more popular to suggest there might be technological ways to increase revenues or for Google to simply be happy with the profits they make.

I think a lot of engineers resent that someone could get more responsibility and more compensation than they do without being 'technical'! (Obviously much work in business administration is deeply technical anyway.)

Yeah ... this dichotomy is a false one: both sides need each other. Sales needs engineering to deliver. And Engineering needs sales to have some reason to build/work on something.

Perhaps a good sales person might command the salary of 10 engineers if that sales person can bring in revenue commiserate of that salary. I read somewhere that one's salary is roughly 10% of the value one brings. So if a sales person brings in 10M in revenue common wisdom says pay them 1M. Now for engineers it is harder to value. So perhaps if it takes 10 engineers to delivery the 10M worth of revenue that sales person brought in then perhaps they're only paid 100k?

certainly in western societies MBAs are also prestigious, in that they are often in charge of large companies, and they of course make lots of moneys for this prestige. But there is a critique of MBAs that says while being an MBA might be good for the individual person, and I suppose for their family, MBAs are harmful to society because they follow harmful behaviors regarding business management that in the end cause those businesses not to serve their customers well, cause those businesses to mistreat their employees, lead to businesses destroying the environment in pursuit of profits, and several other criticisms.

Here it's being used like the pejorative for Accountants or "bean counters" insinuating that all an accountant does is count needless things like beans. (Or so this is the interpretation I've always held).

Here I think the op is saying that Google used to be cool. It used to offer a lot of value for free because search was the golden goose that paid for everything. And now, they're seemingly charging for things they don't NEED to but perhaps the MBA grads now in positions of power and shifting the company into monetise-everything mode.

When a business stops growing, the MBAs drop in with their spreadsheets and metrics to optimize the operational aspects of the business to get whatever the goal is.

Consider the Google strategy; I can pay $7/mo for Google Workspace email with a small quota, or pay $8 for 2GB storage and email that they give away for free. The $7 premium is for the ___domain.

My guess is they are seeing revenue growth slow down as Apple slowly chips away and SMB business and Microsoft continues kicking ass with O365. Somebody will get a KPI hit, get their bonus, and take off.

It's not so much the MBA itself as it is what it represents. An MBA refers to an individual who is a general manager and typically come from sales or finance organization. They generally aren't concerned too much with research and development except they view them as cost centers to be optimized. They tend to be hyperfocused on the bottom line and will do anything needed to maximize profits, even at the expense of the product.

MBAs are seen as analogous to Soviet apparatchiks: leaders who have little to no understanding of what they are actually leading.

It's all a matter of perspective. An MBA is nice for the person who has it and the company the work for. It is not nice for all of the users that have to pay more once the MBA starts working their magic.

my understanding as an American its not that MBAs can't be personally lucrative, it's that they are seen as gateways to overbearing management, corporate jargon and BS, profit seeking at all costs, etc.