421–430 of 593 posts
God this brings back memories of fuckedcompany.com Right after September 11th, that site got very popular among engineers like me -- seeing (on a daily basis) which company bloodbath was next. It was kind of fun, until it was our company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only 90%? In the US, the CARES Act is paying 250% of payroll costs! https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/cares-act-paychec...
I'm not too familiar with CARES, but I think the difference is that that is a one-time loan, whereas I think the Dutch government is taking up 90% of the salary costs every month, for a period of at most three months (so adding up to 270%), and is a gift, not a loan. That said, my overall point was that different measures can lead to different results - not that specific measures were different.
That said, the PPP ran out of funds today, so not all businesses are getting saved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just out of curiosity, is your comment about "for-profit hospitals" a non sequitur? Your parent comment refers to the Mayo Clinic, which is neither "for-profit" nor "a stain on the American healthcare system".
The existence of for-profit healthcare is reasonably why hospitals have to shut departments in the middle of a pandemic to handle balance sheets. If for-profit healthcare didn't exist, I really don't see how the total amount of money going into a hospital would decrease right now.
Even non-profit, publicly funded hospitals are feeling the squeeze. Most are paid on a fee-for-service basis. If you cancel all your elective surgeries, there goes a huge chunk of funding. Yet you still need to pay salaries and other overhead.
It's not like non-profit hospitals are suddenly immune to the realities of economics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree but that's a whole different discussion. We can criticize bonuses in general but making this company a particular scapegoat is just wrong.
I am not sure what is so particular about this company that the CEO deserved 30M, while neglecting to have a rainy-day fund, just like any reasonable business should. With 30M of bonus, it does not seem like the company was struggling last year?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should not use that term in that manner.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.120831/page/n6... As you can see on that page, here is a definition of the word rape: 1. trans. to take (a thing) by force. In my usage, I was using it as the state government of CA, taking (part of) my severance by force. I don't see any issue with the usage.
You refuse to see any issue with the usage.
Not naming the company, but I know of a startup that's got a round of $10M (not much but enough) who just applied for relief because their burn rate is $200K+ a month. They have no customers, have been in the red for 2 years and have been slowly building their product out -- like most early funded startups -- they are building potential without revenue (yet). Their theory is, get some free money and treat it like 6 m…
Are you really surprised? I think you'd be very hard pressed to find people willing to turn down free money. It's not like are lying to gov't to get it. They qualify, so why not take it.
Not naming the company, but I know of a startup that's got a round of $10M (not much but enough) who just applied for relief because their burn rate is $200K+ a month. They have no customers, have been in the red for 2 years and have been slowly building their product out -- like most early funded startups -- they are building potential without revenue (yet). Their theory is, get some free money and treat it like 6 m…
If they qualify, they qualify. If they don't, then they're a fraud. If they shouldn't qualify but they did, then blame the policy makers. Only (2) would have been their fault.
Is there a website that shows which companies take government bailouts but still do layoffs.
Not naming the company, but I know of a startup that's got a round of $10M (not much but enough) who just applied for relief because their burn rate is $200K+ a month. They have no customers, have been in the red for 2 years and have been slowly building their product out -- like most early funded startups -- they are building potential without revenue (yet). Their theory is, get some free money and treat it like 6 m…
This is the government's fault for not attaching more strings to the money. It should have been a loan at favourable interest rates with a fixed term.
The idea government should have rules around keeping people afloat seems anathema to its mottos.
And the people blaming government... it’s like COVID... reality doesn’t give a shit about you not paying attention
a quote i remembered from twitter: "This is the best time to get rid of employees". a startup based in London just fired 10% of their workforce. all were given two options: government's furlough scheme where the state pays 80% of the salary, or outright dismissal. interestingly, half chose to quit.
For a bit of context, at London startup the furlough scheme is very unlikely to be 80% of their salary because it is capped at 30k per year pre-tax/80% of your salary whichever is lower. That said, I'm surprised half of people turned down 2k/month to job hunt.