"He substantiates his claim with historical evidence and observation of current trends."
He can substantiate all he want with as much evidence as he wants, there is just not enough information to know how the state of large organizations will look like in 50 years from now.
If a very intelligent person in 1908 tried to predict something about the economy in 2008, do you think he would have gotten it right?
"Do you have anything other than your personal opinion?"
I have not stated much...
""A few decades" is not a short amount of time. I don't think it's naive to believe that this trend is lasting."
How do you get from a few decades to an indefinite future? I believe in start-ups, but it doesn't mean that start-ups are the ultimate sort of company forever. Maybe, and this is just an example, maybe in twenty years from now, corporations will finally learn how to identify smart people, and give them what they need, and to quantify their performance, and all the other things that they're lacking, and start-ups will not have many advantages on them.
In summary, even though start-ups are great now, we shouldn't become fixated on start-ups.
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.
This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help."
"A few decades" is not a short amount of time. I don't think it's naive to believe that this trend is lasting.