Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

Post by IX-103 » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 2:59 PM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #114

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's do a little root cause analysis. Why do companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon, with massive income streams combined with substantial cash holdings, need investor money? Maybe Toyota's "Five Why's" can shed some light on it. We need to fire thousands of people. Why? Because it will make us more attractive for investors. Why? So they put their money in our company. Why? Because that will buoy our stock pric…

But the b2b sourdough app is a potential driver of future growth. Yes it may help the bottom line today, but getting rid of employees today lowers future growth potential. Investors know this. Investors would also question why there are layoffs in an apparently healthy company. All this means that CEOs don't want to do mass layoffs which even more strongly raises the question of why they did it to start with.

Post by p0pcult » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:04 PM UTC

lowercased wrote: post #171

shever73 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. True...contrast Microsoft's decision to take an $800m hit in letting go 10,000 employees with its earnings report showing $16.4b operating profits.

Some analysts were expecting $18b in operating profits - can't you see how much loss MSFT just incurred? EDIT: /s

Post by polygamous_bat » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:09 PM UTC

MintPaw wrote: post #162

cycomanic wrote: post #32

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…

This is a dishonest super one-dimensional analysis, borderline conspiracy theory, I'm disappointed to see it be the most upvoted.

Post by l1silver » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:10 PM UTC

gavinmckenzie wrote: post #172

Amazing. There was a time, nearly 20 years ago, that I was let go from Adobe. My colleagues assumed that because of my position/tenure/knowledge that I was layoff-proof. I told them that I was just a number in a large organization, and that orgs of a certain scale don’t do layoffs in a way that looks at each individual. Sure enough I was let go and after 16 years at the same company, that was acquired by Adobe where…

Post by acdha » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:12 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #136

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just like if you ask an alcoholic what is too many drinks they’ll say “one more than I drink”, it’s hilarious reading comments from tech people who are arguably some of the highest paid people in the US say “the upper class are people who make more than I do”. It’s incredibly tone deaf.