491–500 of 562 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also how we got rid of a store on every corner.
Only in America. In most developed places, there are still corner stores (in addition to big box stores).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can't even bring themselves to say the words 'laying off', 'redundancies' or even the milder 'letting go'. The staff are merely 'impacted' by this change in focus! Execs just feel like they need to retreat to the safety of euphemisms in these kind of announcements, after first boasting about how well the company is doing, of course.
If I would guess, this kind of wording reflects a view which is quite common in Silicon Valley companies: an employee is an (human) asset for the company to utilize. Once the skill of the employee is no longer needed, they can be dispose of. If I may guess it further, this view might be shared across many high-paying industries. Tech companies in China had similar mass layoffs in the past few years, which prompted ma…
I'm reminded of a history of Nigeria I encountered recently: https://youtu.be/E2HJbi-AG54?t=603. The Nigerian government basically ran the economy. If you wanted a good job, you worked for the government. For most people, getting elected was key to living a cushy life, and once won, the office was used to spread favors and wealth to one's friends, family, and tribe, while losing office in a subsequent election meant going back to poverty because private jobs simply didn't exist. This, of course, was a recipe for widespread corruption.
From the video: "Control of the government has been desperately important not only to avoid being oppressed by rival tribes but also because the massive role of government in the economy has made politics the preeminent route to prosperity as well as power whether for individuals, tribes, or regions. As of 1964 governments at the federal, regional, and local levels employed more than half of the wage earners in the country. Government also allocated large sums to the various regions which is also to say to the various tribes. In 1961 for example the northern region containing more than half the population of Nigeria paid only nine percent of the personal income taxes while it received 45 of the money allocated to the various regions by the federal government. At the same time the western region paid 64 percent of all personal income taxes and received less than one-fourth of the funds allocated by the federal government to the various regions. In tribal terms though Yoruba were subsidizing the house of Fulani and other Northern groups."
Whatever you might think about the unfairness of being laid off, I promise you that a growing government bureaucracy is not the solution you think it is! The government is just as self-interested as any corporation, the difference being the government gets to use force to compel you to do what it wants, while at least a corporation has to ask for your business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I would guess, this kind of wording reflects a view which is quite common in Silicon Valley companies: an employee is an (human) asset for the company to utilize. Once the skill of the employee is no longer needed, they can be dispose of. If I may guess it further, this view might be shared across many high-paying industries. Tech companies in China had similar mass layoffs in the past few years, which prompted ma…
the U.S. government works the same way. According to one web site, there are over 4 million federal employees. When is the last time any have been laid off? What I find most disturbing is that you think this is somehow a good thing. A government takes money by force and then spends it to "take care of its own", meaning provide cushy jobs to people regardless of their productivity, output, or necessity? This is the ve…
Presumably when we weren't throwing billions of dollars at 2 x 20 year wars that accomplished nothing. The DoD is the largest single employer in the world.
By comparison, I'm way, way less concerned if Health or Education Depts. have more people -- a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of a Littoral Combat Ship, (which is already obsolete). It would be nice of HHS and Education had more funding and legal mandates behind them, though...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like it is taboo to even discuss the collapse of the so-called "tech" industry. The people invested in it appear to police the dialogue online, which is not something I remember before the dot-com collapse. (Of course, in the early 00's we did not have the same level of manipulation through data collection, tracking, re-ordering of results, comment voting systems, etc.). The attempts of the "tech" believers…
How is this surprising? The tech industry culture around the Bay Area has been extremely hostile towards debate and diversity of opinion for the last two decades.
Cuz now it's gone, and all that's left is Big Corporate. Basically NYC but with that California faux niceness. I'll give the New Yorkers this: they'll tell you to eat shit and die on the street to your face, but they don't fake it; they respect others enough to stab you in the front, not in the back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the corruption of the US system of business and capitalism (and I'm a capitalist). Expenses are passed down on the employees, and the ruling class reaps the reward.
> Expenses are passed down on the employees, and the ruling class reaps the reward Employees get paid a salary to work. That's it. That's the agreement. There are no expenses passed down to employees - you're just making that up.
Sometimes the expenses get passed down, but I'll agree that's rare. However I have had employers bill me for my uniforms, and I ain't talkin about the military.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It always astonishes me seeing how ingrained this individualistic capitalistic mindset is on so many. People have been brainwashed. These are people. This could be you, or your friend, espouse, mother, sister... And just because you can bounce back, it doesn't mean this is okay. Even if they have money saved and can use that to find a (hopefully) better next job, that's not easy or guaranteed. It seems that this "cri…
This has nothing to do with being brainwashed. Couldn't we say the same about your stance? Yes they are people, but a company is NOT responsible for them. Where does this come from? An employee has an employment relationship and not a friendship and while it certainly sucks to be let go, it's not the company who is the bad guy. From what I see, you can't take off your personal morale views from business decisions. >…
Have you talked to anyone from HR in the past decade???? It's all "we're one big family" this, "bring your whole self to work" that. The company trying to brand itself as a good guy and not as a money making vehicle goes both ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only in America. In most developed places, there are still corner stores (in addition to big box stores).
there's still a store on every corner in America, it's just one of (CVS/Walgreens/Starbucks)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you think that looks too bad, then don't do the thing lol what? No serisouly: lol what? "Don't do the right thing if it looks bad" is a loser strategy.
You shouldn't do X if you don't have the balls to admit that X is what you're doing. Either fire someone or don't, but don't fire someone and try to pretend it's not a firing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has nothing to do with being brainwashed. Couldn't we say the same about your stance? Yes they are people, but a company is NOT responsible for them. Where does this come from? An employee has an employment relationship and not a friendship and while it certainly sucks to be let go, it's not the company who is the bad guy. From what I see, you can't take off your personal morale views from business decisions. >…
>Where does this come from? Have you talked to anyone from HR in the past decade???? It's all "we're one big family" this, "bring your whole self to work" that. The company trying to brand itself as a good guy and not as a money making vehicle goes both ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can't even bring themselves to say the words 'laying off', 'redundancies' or even the milder 'letting go'. The staff are merely 'impacted' by this change in focus! Execs just feel like they need to retreat to the safety of euphemisms in these kind of announcements, after first boasting about how well the company is doing, of course.
If I would guess, this kind of wording reflects a view which is quite common in Silicon Valley companies: an employee is an (human) asset for the company to utilize. Once the skill of the employee is no longer needed, they can be dispose of. If I may guess it further, this view might be shared across many high-paying industries. Tech companies in China had similar mass layoffs in the past few years, which prompted ma…
Remove the words "Silicon Valley" and I agree with you.