4 ms·

I actually found this.. disturbing. I get that sometimes you have to fire people because you are running out of money. What I can't agree with is that you can

by rifung 11y ago

I actually found this.. disturbing. I get that sometimes you have to fire people because you are running out of money. What I can't agree with is that you can just fire people and it's fine because people's careers are long and this is just another spot in their "journey". Sure, maybe a person will work at many companies over their life. On the other hand, people work to make a living, sometimes for an entire family, and suddenly not having work can affect someone's livelihood very negatively for obvious reasons. Don't get me wrong, I understand that sometimes as a boss/manager you have to make difficult decisions for the sake of the company. But, you're just lying to yourself if you think it's not a big deal to fire someone.

psykotic 11y ago
I'd agree if we weren't talking about a company renowned for having among the highest base salaries in the business. Engineers who go to Netflix have a lot of other options and should know what culture they're joining.
- timr 11y ago
  I knew that Netflix paid well, but I didn't know that they operated like this. After hearing the story about laying off the tech team to move to AWS...well, let's just say that the salaries I've heard wouldn't be enough. They recruit engineers like crazy, but they still couldn't find a use for their existing, high-performing team? That seems insane. The whole time I was listening to this, I was thinking: if a company is going to treat me like a de facto contractor, shouldn't I just ask for the (much higher) hourly risk-adjusted rate I'd demand as a contractor? Why bother with the charade of full-time employment at all?
  - lmm 11y ago
    Absolutely, ask for the rate you'd demand as a contractor. Netflix might actually be willing to pay it.
- codeonfire 11y ago
  They might pay a lot but the apartments next to their HQ cost $3300 for a 1 bedroom apartment. That only works if they don't have a family. Housing near Netflix is going to be $5k per month. Employees also have to factor in the cost of unemployment and job search, self paid insurance and medical when between jobs, self paid retirement, relocation to and away from Netflix, etc. I would put the total extra cost for the opportunity of a 12 month stint at Netflix at $50k. Maybe they pay $200-220, but they don't give stock, don't give bonuses, and you won't be taking any vacation during those 12 months.
cbd1984 11y ago
This is why I think improved social safety nets (not necessarily any specific scheme such as mincome or negative income tax or similar, just guarantees that nobody lives worse than some minimum) will actually save capitalism: It will free businesses from the moral quandaries expressed in your post, and enable them to make pure business decisions without having to consider the well-being of anyone involved. The alternative is inherently unstable, socially: Once people think they have nothing to lose by tearing down the system, it gets torn down. The anti-safety-net capitalists are inadvertently creating a society which will have little to lose from destroying what they're working to build.
- zo1 11y ago
  The instability you mention resolves itself in a purely "capitalist" system. For example, I currently pay X amount of money every month, privately to an insurance company. They, in turn, insure me against the risk of losing my job, becoming disabled and unable to work and a bunch of other things. They calculate the amount required based on how much I earn, and probably my age/risk profile. No need for a social safety net to protect me from losing my job there. Sure, a safety net is all nice and dandy. And you could possibly argue that it'll benefit those that can't pay for it like I can, but I'd respond to that in saying that their insurance amount would be a whole lot less. Classic sliding scale. But to be fair, if I was that poor, I'd put more value into having such a fall-back as I'd probably be unskilled labor at that point. On a side note, when I hear a lot of arguments against an "emergent behavior" system like relatively pure capitalism, I am reminded of the whole "evolution vs intelligent-design" debate. I guess, for me, emergent and self-correcting systems are inherently elegant just by themselves. There is no need for a "creator" (government in this case) to guide the lowly agents to do whats best for themselves within their local constraints.
  - mamon 11y ago
    Things like insurance work well as long and you are young, healthy and have a well paying job. I don't know when your current insurance expires, but good luck renewing it when you are 60 old and have serious heart condition. Then your risk profile may simply be unacceptable to any insurance company, and you end up being on your own.

by rifung 11y ago

psykotic 11y ago

I'd agree if we weren't talking about a company renowned for having among the highest base salaries in the business. Engineers who go to Netflix have a lot of other options and should know what culture they're joining.

timr 11y ago
I knew that Netflix paid well, but I didn't know that they operated like this. After hearing the story about laying off the tech team to move to AWS...well, let's just say that the salaries I've heard wouldn't be enough. They recruit engineers like crazy, but they still couldn't find a use for their existing, high-performing team? That seems insane. The whole time I was listening to this, I was thinking: if a company is going to treat me like a de facto contractor, shouldn't I just ask for the (much higher) hourly risk-adjusted rate I'd demand as a contractor? Why bother with the charade of full-time employment at all?
- lmm 11y ago
  Absolutely, ask for the rate you'd demand as a contractor. Netflix might actually be willing to pay it.
codeonfire 11y ago
They might pay a lot but the apartments next to their HQ cost $3300 for a 1 bedroom apartment. That only works if they don't have a family. Housing near Netflix is going to be $5k per month. Employees also have to factor in the cost of unemployment and job search, self paid insurance and medical when between jobs, self paid retirement, relocation to and away from Netflix, etc. I would put the total extra cost for the opportunity of a 12 month stint at Netflix at $50k. Maybe they pay $200-220, but they don't give stock, don't give bonuses, and you won't be taking any vacation during those 12 months.

cbd1984 11y ago

This is why I think improved social safety nets (not necessarily any specific scheme such as mincome or negative income tax or similar, just guarantees that nobody lives worse than some minimum) will actually save capitalism: It will free businesses from the moral quandaries expressed in your post, and enable them to make pure business decisions without having to consider the well-being of anyone involved. The alternative is inherently unstable, socially: Once people think they have nothing to lose by tearing down the system, it gets torn down. The anti-safety-net capitalists are inadvertently creating a society which will have little to lose from destroying what they're working to build.

zo1 11y ago
The instability you mention resolves itself in a purely "capitalist" system. For example, I currently pay X amount of money every month, privately to an insurance company. They, in turn, insure me against the risk of losing my job, becoming disabled and unable to work and a bunch of other things. They calculate the amount required based on how much I earn, and probably my age/risk profile. No need for a social safety net to protect me from losing my job there. Sure, a safety net is all nice and dandy. And you could possibly argue that it'll benefit those that can't pay for it like I can, but I'd respond to that in saying that their insurance amount would be a whole lot less. Classic sliding scale. But to be fair, if I was that poor, I'd put more value into having such a fall-back as I'd probably be unskilled labor at that point. On a side note, when I hear a lot of arguments against an "emergent behavior" system like relatively pure capitalism, I am reminded of the whole "evolution vs intelligent-design" debate. I guess, for me, emergent and self-correcting systems are inherently elegant just by themselves. There is no need for a "creator" (government in this case) to guide the lowly agents to do whats best for themselves within their local constraints.
- mamon 11y ago
  Things like insurance work well as long and you are young, healthy and have a well paying job. I don't know when your current insurance expires, but good luck renewing it when you are 60 old and have serious heart condition. Then your risk profile may simply be unacceptable to any insurance company, and you end up being on your own.