261–270 of 295 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with these types of people is that they actually care about more than the paycheck. ;)
Didn't seem to care about more than a paycheck until they'd collected a big one for 15 years. Idealism is easy when there's no risk involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's literally just Friedman's opinion, and one that's come under increasing challenge" If you are flexible enough about what "maximizing shareholder value" means, then it's not an endorsement of any behavior anyone disapproves of. You could say the real issue is just that people do bad stuff and say that it is maximizing value. Corporations often say they have to do stuff to maximize shareholder value, but they als…
Friedman explicitly argued that a company has no social responsibility other than "to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game." I don't think he was endorsing bad behavior, per se, but he was condemning any behavior that could be considered "good" but even modestly value-reducing. There are certainly some economists who might argue t…
I think whether that is a sufficient qualification depends on whether you are trying to break down or eliminate most of the "rules of the game" or instead make them better.
Lots of ideas make sense by themselves and then become toxic when combined with others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At risk of being the "[Citations Needed] Guy," I don't think this is true. This sounds an awful lot like the canard that corporations have a legal duty to act in the interests of their shareholders, but there is no fact no such legal or even regulatory obligation for that. This misapprehension comes from a paper written by Milton Friedman in 1975 in which he argued corporations have a moral duty to maximize sharehold…
"It's literally just Friedman's opinion, and one that's come under increasing challenge" If you are flexible enough about what "maximizing shareholder value" means, then it's not an endorsement of any behavior anyone disapproves of. You could say the real issue is just that people do bad stuff and say that it is maximizing value. Corporations often say they have to do stuff to maximize shareholder value, but they als…
Similarly, Google was vilified by its employees for bidding on government and defense contracts, while Microsoft and Amazon (and nearly every other tech company) very publicly fight tooth and nail to land these contracts. Again, the difference is that you don't hear Amazon or Microsoft employees complain. They don't stage constant protests. They don't leak internal documents to the press. They don't quit in dramatic fashion and write blog posts about it.
Google doesn't have a worse track record on any of these issues than other tech companies. It just has the loudest, most critical employees, who create a public shitstorm whenever the company steps out of line with their progressive politics. Over time, this has gradually seeped into the public conscious. Now even progressives outside the company rally against Google, while ignoring the tech companies that actively support censorship and the military-industrial war machine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google (and, really, all of Northern California) has been actively courting these high-minded idealists for a long time. The problem with these types of people is that they invent windmills to tilt at when they run out.
To me it looks like that while the high-minded idealists remained mostly the same, it's Google that transformed itself into something completely different from what it was the early days. It should be noted that in 2005, when this guy joined Google, both Android and the acquisition of Doubleclick were at least 2 years away. Google execs were probably already planning the move into an advertising and spyware behenoth…
I’m guessing they made enough money from google to retire. I’d imagine any company that may hire him would look at this website and probably pass on them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this comment feels like trying blatantly to pin OP into a bad position, honestly this is quite disingenuous.
The op put themselves there, when you call something "SJWish" without actually talking about the positions, then you're being disingenuous yourself.
> www.alphabetworkers.org/ > The trouble with deep belief > The reason it’s unlikely to work is that although you can persecute the prophets Sounds a bit full of themselves. They worked for a company, they no longer like the company, they quit. Great, move on. No need to make a big deal about it. It's just a job.
It seems to me that "I work for Google" is the new "I'm a member of Mensa" or "I went to Harvard."
The post talks about Google supposedly persecuting LGBTQ employees for speaking up. But the linked articles only talk about them (possibly) getting retaliated against for protesting other issues, like border security or sexual harassment. As an LGBT person (who does her fair share of activism), I'm not clear what the LGBTQ angle is here other than if the people involved happened to be LGBTQ. It seems like even if the…
The angle is virtue signaling and potstirring. Its low hanging fruit to earn plaudits and make it seem like you're doing something. In reality like you said there is nothing to indicate the employees were fired for being gay or trans or whatever. The later reference to 'concentration camps' drives home the kind of person this guy is. Gay and trans people should be disgusted this person is using them in such a dishone…