241–250 of 414 posts
> bankrolling your children’s insulin What an utter lack of self-awareness. You guys are some of the best compensated workers in the entire world. At least have some decency not to bring the "little girl who has cancer" into it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This narrative is counterfactual to how capitalism actually works. Your worth is determined by supply and demand. Investors would never agree to paying American developers twice as much as European developers if they knew they would be on the hook for them until their cash reserves bled dry.
> Your worth is determined by supply and demand. Supply and demand works in a world with no information/power assymmetry in Econ 101, a.k.a. freshman's dream. Even in the most basic case, when a sack of flour is being bought and sold, the buyer wants to buy a sack of flour, the seller wants to sell a sack of flour + a variable number of bugs in it, and the seller's profit margin goes up with the number of bugs. That'…
You can make a good argument that protections need to be made to protect income workers and that we wouldn't lose much economic efficiency from these changes. On the other hand, most people in this thread are intentionally ignorant of the market landscape that gave their their cushy mid-six figure compensation. Instead they would rather make the same tired memes about "short term profits" and whatnot.
Why can’t the extremely profitable companies manage their headcount through attrition? Losing 6% of your staff via a hiring freeze would work too wouldn’t it?
Layoffs are the way to lose your least talented and motivated workers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn't the inbetween contract jobs a tenuous time?
I’ve considered independent contracting many times in my career. But I just could never get past the possibility of the stress of being in between gigs.
With contracting, you can take as many clients as you can handle, and you'd have to lose all your clients simultaneously to end up in an equivalent position.
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a huge part of their compensation both to themselves and their employees is floated stock.
That doesn't explain it. It might be a factor, but it's not a big factor. FAANG jobs pay extremely well and then there's the stock on top. Is the vast majority working at these companies (with years of vesting, no?) so shortsighted? Especially the higher ups? Is it a requirement at these companies that you have to be 10000% in debt and living paycheck-to-paycheck to be a SVP/VP/director/whatever so you have to be hyp…
> bankrolling your children’s insulin What an utter lack of self-awareness. You guys are some of the best compensated workers in the entire world. At least have some decency not to bring the "little girl who has cancer" into it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your worth is determined by supply and demand. Supply and demand works in a world with no information/power assymmetry in Econ 101, a.k.a. freshman's dream. Even in the most basic case, when a sack of flour is being bought and sold, the buyer wants to buy a sack of flour, the seller wants to sell a sack of flour + a variable number of bugs in it, and the seller's profit margin goes up with the number of bugs. That'…
Yes. Regulations should exist. Econ 101 is a prerequisite to learning about exceptions to Econ 101, which evidently the general populous has not. This is why people get surprised when the solution of throwing more money at a limited supply of housing and college slots ends up increasing the price of housing and college. You can make a good argument that protections need to be made to protect income workers and that w…
> This narrative is counterfactual to how capitalism actually works. Your worth is determined by supply and demand. Investors would never agree to paying American developers twice as much as European developers if they knew they would be on the hook for them until their cash reserves bled dry.
Supply and demand works best when the data about the market is symmetric. In the job market it is not. Firms know that they are willing to pay, and what they have paid, for work. Workers do not. If a worker takes a penny less than what the firm can bare, that is slippage that is being arbitraged into profit by the firm. Workers are goaded into a cheaper price for their work by firms through the threat of "We will go with another candidate" even if there are no other candidates. Again, asymmetric data.
> On the other hand, most people in this thread are intentionally ignorant of the market landscape that gave their their cushy mid-six figure compensation. Instead they would rather make the same tired memes about "short term profits" and whatnot.
Comparatively (amongst workers) well paid workers does not mean that those same workers are compensated fairly by the firm. Workers do work, managers manage. The core question posed by the thread OP was around the value of the work (and the protections afforded to) workers do as opposed to that of management.
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.
Even harsher is that on the same day Microsoft laid off their staff, they announced a 10B investment in OpenAI.