Any change requires massive bloodshed and revolution. It's a matter of when not if.
It doesn't have to be massive if it's just the C-suites and up.
Our Company Is Doing So Well That You're All Fired
11–20 of 333 posts
Re: Our Company Is Doing So Well That You're All Fired
#12If the company fires hundreds or thousands of people and there is no visible dip in the productivity, is it really a bad thing? One thing that is baffling to me is that these companies can fire 10% of their workforce and they just keep on chugging without a hitch. The bullshit job phenomenon is the problem here.
[deleted]
Re: Our Company Is Doing So Well That You're All Fired
#13If the company fires hundreds or thousands of people and there is no visible dip in the productivity, is it really a bad thing? One thing that is baffling to me is that these companies can fire 10% of their workforce and they just keep on chugging without a hitch. The bullshit job phenomenon is the problem here.
> is it a really a bad thing?
It's great for the company. Not so much for the people.
It's a matter of perspective.
> The bullshit job phenomenon is the problem here.
Perhaps, but who's fault is that? Sounds like the company's problem. Who suffers from the layoffs however? Per your example, not the company.
Re: Our Company Is Doing So Well That You're All Fired
#14If the company fires hundreds or thousands of people and there is no visible dip in the productivity, is it really a bad thing? One thing that is baffling to me is that these companies can fire 10% of their workforce and they just keep on chugging without a hitch. The bullshit job phenomenon is the problem here.
Yes. These companies are faceless entities, literal money printing machines where some people in charge are the gods who get to decide what to do with the money printer.
They hold an insane monopolistic position. Often these companies utilize verticals which obliterate entire business segments because they are allowed to give products for free (MS Teams for example).
This should not happen.
Re: Our Company Is Doing So Well That You're All Fired
#15If the company fires hundreds or thousands of people and there is no visible dip in the productivity, is it really a bad thing? One thing that is baffling to me is that these companies can fire 10% of their workforce and they just keep on chugging without a hitch. The bullshit job phenomenon is the problem here.
Yes. Getting fired ruins lives. It causes divorces, suicides, depression, home defaults, and more. Firing and laying people off should be more painful for the company than it should be for the firees.
Re: Our Company Is Doing So Well That You're All Fired
#16If the company fires hundreds or thousands of people and there is no visible dip in the productivity, is it really a bad thing? One thing that is baffling to me is that these companies can fire 10% of their workforce and they just keep on chugging without a hitch. The bullshit job phenomenon is the problem here.
Probably a good way to cultivate your garden of technical debt.
Re: Our Company Is Doing So Well That You're All Fired
#17If the company fires hundreds or thousands of people and there is no visible dip in the productivity, is it really a bad thing? One thing that is baffling to me is that these companies can fire 10% of their workforce and they just keep on chugging without a hitch. The bullshit job phenomenon is the problem here.
For the sake of argument, does that mean all those employees were useless or does it mean the management isn't doing a good job of allocating them to effective work? I've been at a few companies that were rudderless and yeah, letting go of people wouldn't have made much difference because the leadership didn't know what to do with them anyway.
Re: Our Company Is Doing So Well That You're All Fired
#18Ah. I'm old enough to remember the last time automation was going to eliminate all the jobs.. back in the 80's, when robots entered the chat and manufacturing jobs got outsourced to Japan. (side note, interesting to read that the nikkei finally surpassed the previous record set in 1993 or so). But now, it's interesting because, well, for one, I'm actually old enough for it to matter to me now. And two, I actually wor…
> when robots entered the chat and manufacturing jobs got outsourced
FWIW: Car manufacturers have started moving back away from robots because productivity gains have not quite materialized. Turns out humans are really really good at solving small problems in real time without needing a bunch of hand holding.
> Research in a highly automated German car body production plant found as many as 20 to 30 human interventions per shift were needed to prevent major flaws in quality and productivity. Agile, cost effective, and high-quality operations in the automotive industry require adaptability and the ability to change quickly, and humans can be more flexible and capable than production line robots.
> Human labour also won in studies conducted by Toyota comparing the time it took people and machines to assemble a car.
https://www.performancedrivers.com.au/single-post/robots-hum...
Re: Our Company Is Doing So Well That You're All Fired
#19Ah. I'm old enough to remember the last time automation was going to eliminate all the jobs.. back in the 80's, when robots entered the chat and manufacturing jobs got outsourced to Japan. (side note, interesting to read that the nikkei finally surpassed the previous record set in 1993 or so). But now, it's interesting because, well, for one, I'm actually old enough for it to matter to me now. And two, I actually wor…
[deleted]
Re: Our Company Is Doing So Well That You're All Fired
#20If the company fires hundreds or thousands of people and there is no visible dip in the productivity, is it really a bad thing? One thing that is baffling to me is that these companies can fire 10% of their workforce and they just keep on chugging without a hitch. The bullshit job phenomenon is the problem here.
> and there is no visible dip in the productivity, is it really a bad thing?
A few issues to consider:
1. Many companies can continue to operate for a time purely based on momentum and existing pipelines. That does not mean that this is sustainable.
2. The lack of a visible dip does not mean the internals are healthy. Often layoffs are accompanied with an expectation to "do more with less", which generally means the conditions going south for remaining workers.
3. In an economy that is predicated on everyone having a job or enough income to spend money to support the continued existence of companies, it is not sufficient to look only at the output of the company itself.
Bullshit jobs may be a real thing, but much of the system is built on "bullshit", all in service of perpetuating the ongoing success of the system.
If every company could automate every function and there were no employees anywhere, this would obviously not be sustainable in the long run, and it becomes more apparent that the role of the worker is not just about the company's output, and is intrinsic to the whole system, and that's something we'll have to contend with eventually.
I'm not arguing that this is a good thing, or that companies should keep people for no reason, but we're in an era where technology is increasingly disrupting core aspects of the system.