131–140 of 414 posts
See, this is why you stay overemployed. If you're laid off from one of your jobs, you still get to keep the others. Companies are like sociopaths, so employees must act like sociopaths too when interacting with them.
first rule of fight club.
Anyway, it's not even close to a secret, it even has numerous articles across NYT, Yahoo, Forbes, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Is it necessary to fire them? That's the relevant question we should ask ourselves. That's not the relevant question. The relevant questions are: were the layoffs illegal, and if they weren't, then why is it any of your business? If you don't want to live in that world, start your own startup, hire people, and never fire them. Nobody is stopping you.
> The relevant questions are: were the layoffs illegal, and if they weren't, then why is it any of your business? I think a more relevant question is: should the layoffs be illegal? Just because todays law says “tough luck” doesn’t mean it has always been, or will always be, that way, or that we can’t argue for something better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the people who decide exec salaries are execs in other businesses, so they generally have 1) An inflated view of the impact of execs compared to other employees. This is a well studied psychological phenomena. People tend to overestimate their "skill/contribution" even in poor luck or even rigged scenarios. (There was a study which gave some subjects a head start in monopoly, i.e. more money, the subjects ten…
> People tend to overestimate their "skill/contribution" even in poor luck or even rigged scenarios. I don't personally understand this one, although I don't doubt its veracity. I am an engineer with years of experience in the industry, but I don't think my contribution is high or important; I could be fired at any moment and would anyone notice? Maybe in the short term yes, but mostly no. I am easily replaceable, my…
We couldn’t have the workers collectively realizing their worth now, could we? The inmates would be running the asylum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
first rule of fight club.
Talk about it at all times because that's what they do in both the comics and film. How else would they get members? Anyway, it's not even close to a secret, it even has numerous articles across NYT, Yahoo, Forbes, etc.
Pretty ironic seeing as just a few months ago, everyone was ghosting employers, taking counteroffers after accepting, and "quiet quitting". So let's quit pretending employees are holier than employers.
> So let's quit pretending employees are holier than employers.
I haven't seen anyone stating this, or even implying it.
I do see employees (people) as more worthy of sympathy than corporations.
Management needs to be made up of the sort of people who make economically optimum decisions. Without diminishing the horrible experience of being fired; if we have people who purposefully keep tens of thousands of people working on jobs that don't make sense to them, on aggregate society will be much worse for everyone. We have a system that allows people to do unpopular things, like this, because it works better th…
No it doesn't. It works better for 1% of the population. Everyone else is a health crisis away from bankruptcy. Literally. That's all it takes in the US for everyone who doesn't have an eight-figure-or-more net worth to be staring ruin in the face. Your comment is exactly the mythology that perpetuates the problem. Exploitation is sold as participation. "Well we're paid fairly well so I guess we must be privileged an…
It’s incredibly tone deaf.
> The fact is, if I wanted to pay you, I could. I could even give you raises. But once again, that is not the economic reality we face. And so we must make hard choices. Maybe I've hung around in the wrong circles too much recently, but this hit me hard. This is basically how the reasoning behind all top management decisions have been communicated to me in the past year: "There is indeed a clearly better alternative…
wrong view / comparios ... in a 5% interest rate environment, companies fight for investors money .. if you don't do the cuts and find a way to be efficient investors will put their money somewhere else that's more profitable. this reasoning is pure and simple and correct, you start from the top, not from the fact "they can afford it" because their job is not to spend the money they have their job is to increase valu…
Uppity technology specialists are attempting to upend the system and take a seat at the table. They have to be shown their place occasionally to remind them who is in charge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they didn't think about making shareholders richer the years before when they hired all these people or how do you explain that process?
The economy, consumer confidence and investor mood changed. The way you make investors richer changes depending on inflation.
Or was it assumed that those in the tech industry were a "protected" class of people for whom the rules do not apply?
Hell one of the best things about capitalism: everyone is equal before the dollar and everyone is expendable.
Management needs to be made up of the sort of people who make economically optimum decisions. Without diminishing the horrible experience of being fired; if we have people who purposefully keep tens of thousands of people working on jobs that don't make sense to them, on aggregate society will be much worse for everyone. We have a system that allows people to do unpopular things, like this, because it works better th…
No it doesn't. It works better for 1% of the population. Everyone else is a health crisis away from bankruptcy. Literally. That's all it takes in the US for everyone who doesn't have an eight-figure-or-more net worth to be staring ruin in the face. Your comment is exactly the mythology that perpetuates the problem. Exploitation is sold as participation. "Well we're paid fairly well so I guess we must be privileged an…