Families will get torn apart, people with health issues will be on their own, immigrants will get booted. C-suite will get a raise from the stock price bump. Congrats on our system.
[flagged]
Microsoft to lay off 10k workers
41–50 of 284 posts
Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
The scale of benefits generally looks like: Average US worker << Average EU worker < US Big Tech Worker
Depends how you define average. Statistically, the average US workers has a much higher purchasing power than the average EU worker. Unless by average you meant poor people or workers on minimum wage in which case you'd be correct, but that's in no way average anymore.
I was talking purely about “benefits” by which most people mean things outside of standard monetary compensation.
EU workers have much better vacation, healthcare, parental leave, severance pay, etc than US workers on average.
Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could all take massive pay cuts to preserve jobs. They have agency and they have chosen to enrich their stock price at the expense of people’s lives and well being.
Microsoft net income 2022: ~$70B. Why force pay cuts or fire workers when you have roughly $300k of net income per employee to work with?
Why make a profit when you can pay your employees >100% of your revenue and just go into debt instead?
It's not how business works.
You hire people if you need people, and you pay them the least you can get away with, so you maximize profits - because long ago, you raised money with the promise to the people you raised the money from that you would do this, and you have a Fiduciary obligation to do so...
Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Federal Reserve wants to tame inflation by cooling the economy. I don't believe that historically that has ever been achieved without causing unemployment to rise. These large companies are ultimately doing what the Fed wants them to do, no point blaming the c-suite for that?
How did the Fed force the companies to over-hire?
See the Fed's own theory on this topic: https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12856.htm
> For example, when interest rates go down, it becomes cheaper to borrow, so households are more willing to buy goods and services, and businesses are in a better position to purchase items to expand their businesses, such as property and equipment. Businesses can also hire more workers, influencing employment. And the stronger demand for goods and services may push wages and other costs higher, influencing inflation.
Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Federal Reserve wants to tame inflation by cooling the economy. I don't believe that historically that has ever been achieved without causing unemployment to rise. These large companies are ultimately doing what the Fed wants them to do, no point blaming the c-suite for that?
How did the Fed force the companies to over-hire?
My layman’s understanding is that near zero interest rates make borrowing nearly free and so investments like lots of headcount are rational. The companies don’t have to be doing the borrowing directly (though some do), they can simply benefit from investors willing to tolerate more risk since they have fewer “safe returns” as options, or more income from consumers who are willing to spend at low interest rates.
Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers
#46They're spreading it out over the full year. Interesting that they would announce it up front like this? What does this do to morale and retention?
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Federal Reserve wants to tame inflation by cooling the economy. I don't believe that historically that has ever been achieved without causing unemployment to rise. These large companies are ultimately doing what the Fed wants them to do, no point blaming the c-suite for that?
How did the Fed force the companies to over-hire?
By lowering interest rates to the point people chased ever more expansive and risky investments. If all your competition is getting free money you as a business must generally take it too or extinguish to your over-capitalized competition. People also have more loose money which means if you can't up your production your customers will find alternatives and your business will dry up.
Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
People with health issues should still be able to purchase their existing insurance through COBRA, and, once that expires, through the public exchanges that are guaranteed to cover their existing condition. Thanks ACA.
> once that expires, through the public exchanges that are guaranteed to cover their existing condition. Thanks ACA. The ACA just states that insurers can't refuse a customer who wants to purchase a plan just because they have a preexisting condition. It doesn't actually require that the plan cover treatment for said condition. In many states - including wealthier deep blue states - the marketplace plan options are a…
The HHS disagrees with you: https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-co...
> Health insurers can no longer charge more or deny coverage to you or your child because of a pre-existing health condition like asthma, diabetes, or cancer, as well as pregnancy. They cannot limit benefits for that condition either. Once you have insurance, they can't refuse to cover treatment for your pre-existing condition.
Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Federal Reserve wants to tame inflation by cooling the economy. I don't believe that historically that has ever been achieved without causing unemployment to rise. These large companies are ultimately doing what the Fed wants them to do, no point blaming the c-suite for that?
How did the Fed force the companies to over-hire?
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he gave managers a heads up, it would have been immediately leaked to the press.
Becoming a manager in large enterprise companies is basically an entry-level position all over again.. Except people care even less about your job experience since you're "leadership" now and are expected to toe the line no matter what.
At faangs not even directors get a head up before the night before on plans. The only ones that can set strategy are VPs and above.