Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you elaborate?
Have taken over other coops and made some members redundant - this is from when I worked in coop in the early 2000's
They also have the problem of rising non-coop employees I think.
1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies
61–70 of 70 posts
Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Umm... these are corporations. They are owned by shareholders and exist for the benefit of shareholders. I don’t see any subterfuge here.
If you don't think employees matter, that is an issue. It is overly reductionist to say that a company exists solely for the benefit of the shareholders. Such a model is a rather incomplete description of reality.
Wow you were never a wageslave
Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It is overly reductionist to say that a company exists solely for the benefit of the shareholders. It's not reductionist at all; that's exactly how it is in a purely capitalist system, and how it is in America. It's different in other countries, like European ones and Japan, where companies really do have a responsibility to employees and society at large, but in America they don't have any such responsibility, no m…
Except for one thing: Engaged employees increase shareholder value
That may be, but it is important? What's most important is executive compensation. From everything I've read, executives at American corporations get far more compensation and big golden parachutes than their European counterparts. So obviously, the American system is working much better for the people who really matter.
Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It is overly reductionist to say that a company exists solely for the benefit of the shareholders. It's not reductionist at all; that's exactly how it is in a purely capitalist system, and how it is in America. It's different in other countries, like European ones and Japan, where companies really do have a responsibility to employees and society at large, but in America they don't have any such responsibility, no m…
It's reductionist because it assumes management has no choice in how to run their business and US corporations are basically all the same. This is clearly, obviously not the case. There are many ways to make money and the management of a company has a lot of freedom to choose how to go about it. Different companies have quite different strategies and cultures. Some treat their employees much better than others. Prete…
>Different companies have quite different strategies and cultures. Some treat their employees much better than others.
Yes, but you can find clear trends when you look at different groups, such as American corporations vs. European ones, and if you do that, you can see that employees, on average, are treated much worse at American companies. While there are some success stories in America, such as Costco (which is pretty famous for paying and treating employees very well, considering the jobs there are generally low-skill and don't require college degrees), the American system rewards companies that don't treat employees well and they tend to do better when competing with companies that do.
Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's reductionist because it assumes management has no choice in how to run their business and US corporations are basically all the same. This is clearly, obviously not the case. There are many ways to make money and the management of a company has a lot of freedom to choose how to go about it. Different companies have quite different strategies and cultures. Some treat their employees much better than others. Prete…
>Different companies have quite different strategies and cultures. Some treat their employees much better than others. Yes, but you can find clear trends when you look at different groups, such as American corporations vs. European ones, and if you do that, you can see that employees, on average, are treated much worse at American companies. While there are some success stories in America, such as Costco (which is pr…
This is roughly my understanding as well, but when we start talking about averages and trends across many industries and countries, I think personal observations might not count for much. Very few people have that wide range of experience.
Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except for one thing: Engaged employees increase shareholder value
That may be, but it is important? What's most important is executive compensation. From everything I've read, executives at American corporations get far more compensation and big golden parachutes than their European counterparts. So obviously, the American system is working much better for the people who really matter.
[deleted]
Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except for one thing: Engaged employees increase shareholder value
That may be, but it is important? What's most important is executive compensation. From everything I've read, executives at American corporations get far more compensation and big golden parachutes than their European counterparts. So obviously, the American system is working much better for the people who really matter.
What is your point here? Obviously shareholder value is one of many things that matter. I vehemently disagree that executives are the ones who truly matter.
Executives may often have excessive power and influence, sure. And there is much room for improving how the system affects all individuals. Is this what you are trying to imply?
Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Russia fell down because they disrupted the ability of the market to send and receive accurate price signals and over time that led to catastrophically misallocated resources. This is extremely ahistorical. The fall of the USSR was due to Gorbachev's decision to introduce "western" markets into Russia and Yeltsin's opportunism. Growth and stability weren't flagging in the Soviet Union until they attempted to privat…
They were slowly decaying like Cuba is doing now. Same for East Germany. There wasn’t much growth going on. Stability only in the sense of stagnation.
Cuba is doing better than most other Caribbean countries despite an embargo by one of the biggest economies in the world.
Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies
#69Left out Imperva, which was bought by Thoma Bravo in January. 150 people let go while the CEO makes $15 million. Mismanaged incentives - employees don't matter, just shareholders.
Just make the employees shareholders
Most public companies offer employee stock benefits. That matters for short-term stock price, as much as possible. But ultimately the employees are only minority shareholders, so don't have enough to actually increase value. (The main shareholders are institutional investors, who have a lot of clout.) For private companies, of course, it's a different story and the founders/board/investors often have more clout. Private companies are also less likely to grant (non-liquid) equity, but rather offer it as options, which is more like a lotto ticket.
Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may be, but it is important? What's most important is executive compensation. From everything I've read, executives at American corporations get far more compensation and big golden parachutes than their European counterparts. So obviously, the American system is working much better for the people who really matter.
What is your point here? Obviously shareholder value is one of many things that matter. I vehemently disagree that executives are the ones who truly matter. Executives may often have excessive power and influence, sure. And there is much room for improving how the system affects all individuals. Is this what you are trying to imply?
No, shareholders don't matter at all, only executives and their compensation and golden parachutes. If this weren't the case, companies wouldn't be rewarding these executives so richly while allowing them to do things which harm shareholder value in the long term.
You can disagree all you want, but executives actually run the corporations, and their boards of directors (stacked with other executives who are buddies of theirs) don't care what you think, and will continue to run these companies for the benefit of the executives rather than the shareholders.