Spotify CFO cashes in £7.2M in shares after value surges on news of job cuts

Post by djinnandtonic » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 4:41 PM UTC

lgkk wrote: post #39

It’s kind of weird to see people want to work at big corporations but then act surprised or salty about layoffs. It’s nothing personal. You’re a line number even if you’re some leet coder. It’s a business, and it’s a strategy game of utilizing resources. You might have 400k TC but you’re not god you’re a resource. If you think these things aren’t fair or suck, then you should try to move out of the leet coder path an…

Post by lgkk » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 4:44 PM UTC

djinnandtonic wrote: post #121

lgkk wrote: post #39

It’s kind of weird to see people want to work at big corporations but then act surprised or salty about layoffs. It’s nothing personal. You’re a line number even if you’re some leet coder. It’s a business, and it’s a strategy game of utilizing resources. You might have 400k TC but you’re not god you’re a resource. If you think these things aren’t fair or suck, then you should try to move out of the leet coder path an…

It's kind of weird to see big corporations want to attract talent but then act surprised or salty when people don't like being treated like a line item in a budget. It's nothing personal. I'm sure your company is great and you truly believe in your mission beyond just providing value to shareholders but humans like stability and to be treated like people. You might be a Fortune 500 but you're not god just a job. If y…

Post by educaysean » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 4:48 PM UTC

aaomidi wrote: post #76

brvsft wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But this means that we're ignoring the harm that was done to the people that lost their income and the disruptions that the rest of the org will experience. As opposed to the 'benefit' that was done while they were granted income? I'm unsure what your point is. Is a business never supposed to 'harm' its employees? They're never allowed to fire people? What is the logical conclusion of your statement? A business oug…

It should actually be very very expensive for a company to fire people. Why do stock markets have an automated forced "PAUSE" when stocks seem like they are crashing? It's because companies, investors, people, or even computers don't always act rationally. That pause has prevented a lot of hiccups from turning into full-blown crashes. Right now, when a company lays people off, the town, state, and federal government…

Post by code_runner » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 4:56 PM UTC

mimikatz wrote: post #25

rogerkirkness wrote: post #2

Why do so many tech executives seem to make the actual worst decisions possible when it comes to symbolic leadership?

Executives aren't able to time their sales of stock to events and they shouldn't be able to as it would lead to more manipulation. It is likely the sale of stock was planned ahead of the layoff announcement timing.

Post by landemva » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 5:03 PM UTC

aaomidi wrote: post #120

landemva wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when a company lays people off, the town, state, and federal government are the ones who have to end up picking up the downstream effects If the existing unemployment _insurance_ (forced payroll contributions to each State) are not sufficient, then change that insurance system. There could be a business opportunity for supplemental market-priced contributions which pay on job loss. That wouldn't be worse than the '…

Unemployment insurance can't, and shouldn't be designed around market acting irrationally. That's not a reasonable insurance plan. > then change that insurance system. Also, more about this, why? We have a ton of levers and controls we can utilize here. Why does it need to be that the insurance system needs to change? That seems like we're closing off a lot of levers _just because_