5 ms·

I don't think your point passes a back of the envelope math test. Right now Google makes the second most profit per employee of any large enterprise on earth:

I don't think your point passes a back of the envelope math test. Right now Google makes the second most profit per employee of any large enterprise on earth: $269,000 in profit, annually, per employee. I know of other- successful!- companies that make less money per employee, because they hire people to do customer support. To start your argument, I think you have to explain why Google can not hire more CSRs, even though they are the #2 most profitable enterprise on Earth.

stopping 6y ago
IMO, Google's profit per employee isn't an indicator of Google's obligation to increase its customer service headcount. Taken to it's logical conclusion, we should let poorly-performing companies off the hook for having awful customer service. The rest of this comment is going to be somewhat critical of Google criticism and seemingly apologistic. Please assume positive intent. I agree that Google certainly could do more to help people on its platform. But this will always be the case until every single customer service issue is solved to the user's satisfaction. The important question that I never see anybody asking or answering is "How much is reasonably enough, and how do we know (subject X) has done enough?" It all boils down to what we believe the moral obligation of people (and companies, by extension) ought to be. Any extra service that Google provides beyond those required for profit maximization (e.g. customer retention, maintaining reputation, being only slightly better than the second-best option) is purely charity. Then, how do we evaluate when a certain amount of charity is sufficient, let alone necessary? Public sentiment is fickle, and therefore not a great measure. I bet even if Google increased its CSR by 10x, we'd still see communities eagerly latch onto any criticism of the tech giant and shout "you have to do more!" without quantifying what the final demand actually is! I take the moral position that we as a society certainly can and should do much more to take care of each other. Telling each other to be better is absolutely valuable and I will never argue against that. But I believe we ought to do a much better job of suggesting desirable and realistic end states, instead of perpetuating insubstantial discourse amounting to one of either "They need to do better!" or "Come on, they're doing the best they can." Admittedly this places me in a non-committal position. I don't have any great suggestions for what the end states of YouTube, Twitter, et al should look like from a content moderation perspective. But I would love to hear input from actual experts in who can offer some reasonable ideas about the most cost-beneficial solutions for society as a whole.
- ShroudedNight 6y ago
  > Any extra service that Google provides beyond those required for profit maximization ... is purely charity. Duty is not charity. It would be perfectly reasonable for society to determine that YouTube incurs a duty to its content creation partners, and at no point should that be considered requesting a favour.
  - stopping 6y ago
    Allow me to clarify: The word "charity" is used in the perverted capitalistic sense, where Google's predominant "duty" is first and foremost to its shareholders. The capitalist incentive structure requires no more than the bare minimum of customer service from Google. I agree that Google has a moral duty to take care of the people who choose to put their trust in their platforms.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      You are implicitly assuming that the shareholder primacy theory of corporate governance is the only legitimate one. It is not. The business judgement rule allows corporate directors very wide latitude in how they choose to run the business. Google very much can hire more CSRs, exactly because they are insanely profitable on a per employee basis, but they choose not to, for reasons unknown, but likely out of concern for the stock price. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule
      - stopping 6y ago
        Small clarification: I'm assuming that shareholder obligation is the predominant force upon corporate governance, not the only one. But, point taken.
- zaroth 6y ago
  > IMO, Google's profit per employee isn't an indicator of Google's obligation to increase its customer service headcount. Taken to it's logical conclusion, we should let poorly-performing companies off the hook for having awful customer service. That’s not the logical conclusion, that’s the inverse. If P (large profit per employee) then Q (should be able to spend more on customer support)... - The converse is If Q then P (clearly not applicable in this case) - The contrapositive is If not Q then not P (in this case, you would hope it’s true but obviously not!) - The inverse is If not P then Not Q, which would roughly translate into if profit per employee is low then you would not expect a company to pay more for customer support. Perhaps you could argue that the logical conclusion is that any profit just means they aren’t spending enough on their support. Funny thing is economists would argue profit demonstrates they are spending enough on keeping customers happy. It certainly appears that they can afford to do better (although arguably they don’t break out financial results just for YouTube do they?) and we certainly want them to better. I think the fundamental problem is that for every million dollars they pay humans to “do better” it’s like trying to move the beach with a pair of tweezers — you don’t even make a dent. No amount of money will solve the problem by trying to pay humans. They can only succeed by making the algorithm better, and that’s not a problem which scales with headcount (mythical man month)
thaumasiotes 6y ago
Google is profitable because it has a small number of employees and a large number of customers. To begin your "back of the envelope math test", you should ask: If Google were to hire CSRs until its profit went to $0 per employee per year, how much of an effect would the additional CSRs have on the experience of Google's customers? How many CSRs would that be? How many customers would each one be handling per day? Saying that a company which is profitable because a small number of employees serve a large number of customers can obviously afford to hire a large number of employees isn't a math test, it's wishful thinking. Do some math.
- brigandish 6y ago
  > how much of an effect would the additional CSRs have on the experience of Google's customers? It would go up, probably quite a bit, and the profit would re-emerge but at a lower level per employee. The real problem is that their scale (in terms of reach, money, customers, political leverage - you name it) is so large that a company could compete or out-compete on customer service and still wouldn't win a significant chunk of their business. That's why they don't need to hire more CSRs.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    >> How many customers would each [CSR] be handling per day? You need to answer that one before concluding that customers' experience would improve.
    - brigandish 6y ago
      If we assume that each CSR can handle an average number of cases then the absolute number of cases handled by a human increase with even 1 CSR taken on. The Mythical Man Month doesn't apply as there's no time limit on it. So no, I don't need to answer that beyond any number greater than there are now, which I already did.
      - solveit 6y ago
        Sure it would go up. But will it be significant? Or will it be a drop in the ocean. You do need numbers to answer this question.
philwelch 6y ago
I think you’ve unintentionally provided a good argument as to why they don’t have to.
velox_io 6y ago
The X revenue/ profit per employee can be easily manipulated. Take Google, they outsource many areas of the business. You can virtually guarantee that any building security, caterers or cleaners who work at Google, don't work for Google. Apparently temporary works and contractors make up around 54% of Google's workforce. https://www.vox.com/2019/4/4/18293900/google-contractors-benefits-policy https://www.vox.com/2019/4/4/18293900/google-contractors-ben...

stopping 6y ago

IMO, Google's profit per employee isn't an indicator of Google's obligation to increase its customer service headcount. Taken to it's logical conclusion, we should let poorly-performing companies off the hook for having awful customer service. The rest of this comment is going to be somewhat critical of Google criticism and seemingly apologistic. Please assume positive intent. I agree that Google certainly could do more to help people on its platform. But this will always be the case until every single customer service issue is solved to the user's satisfaction. The important question that I never see anybody asking or answering is "How much is reasonably enough, and how do we know (subject X) has done enough?" It all boils down to what we believe the moral obligation of people (and companies, by extension) ought to be. Any extra service that Google provides beyond those required for profit maximization (e.g. customer retention, maintaining reputation, being only slightly better than the second-best option) is purely charity. Then, how do we evaluate when a certain amount of charity is sufficient, let alone necessary? Public sentiment is fickle, and therefore not a great measure. I bet even if Google increased its CSR by 10x, we'd still see communities eagerly latch onto any criticism of the tech giant and shout "you have to do more!" without quantifying what the final demand actually is! I take the moral position that we as a society certainly can and should do much more to take care of each other. Telling each other to be better is absolutely valuable and I will never argue against that. But I believe we ought to do a much better job of suggesting desirable and realistic end states, instead of perpetuating insubstantial discourse amounting to one of either "They need to do better!" or "Come on, they're doing the best they can." Admittedly this places me in a non-committal position. I don't have any great suggestions for what the end states of YouTube, Twitter, et al should look like from a content moderation perspective. But I would love to hear input from actual experts in who can offer some reasonable ideas about the most cost-beneficial solutions for society as a whole.

ShroudedNight 6y ago
> Any extra service that Google provides beyond those required for profit maximization ... is purely charity. Duty is not charity. It would be perfectly reasonable for society to determine that YouTube incurs a duty to its content creation partners, and at no point should that be considered requesting a favour.
- stopping 6y ago
  Allow me to clarify: The word "charity" is used in the perverted capitalistic sense, where Google's predominant "duty" is first and foremost to its shareholders. The capitalist incentive structure requires no more than the bare minimum of customer service from Google. I agree that Google has a moral duty to take care of the people who choose to put their trust in their platforms.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    You are implicitly assuming that the shareholder primacy theory of corporate governance is the only legitimate one. It is not. The business judgement rule allows corporate directors very wide latitude in how they choose to run the business. Google very much can hire more CSRs, exactly because they are insanely profitable on a per employee basis, but they choose not to, for reasons unknown, but likely out of concern for the stock price. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule
    - stopping 6y ago
      Small clarification: I'm assuming that shareholder obligation is the predominant force upon corporate governance, not the only one. But, point taken.
zaroth 6y ago
> IMO, Google's profit per employee isn't an indicator of Google's obligation to increase its customer service headcount. Taken to it's logical conclusion, we should let poorly-performing companies off the hook for having awful customer service. That’s not the logical conclusion, that’s the inverse. If P (large profit per employee) then Q (should be able to spend more on customer support)... - The converse is If Q then P (clearly not applicable in this case) - The contrapositive is If not Q then not P (in this case, you would hope it’s true but obviously not!) - The inverse is If not P then Not Q, which would roughly translate into if profit per employee is low then you would not expect a company to pay more for customer support. Perhaps you could argue that the logical conclusion is that any profit just means they aren’t spending enough on their support. Funny thing is economists would argue profit demonstrates they are spending enough on keeping customers happy. It certainly appears that they can afford to do better (although arguably they don’t break out financial results just for YouTube do they?) and we certainly want them to better. I think the fundamental problem is that for every million dollars they pay humans to “do better” it’s like trying to move the beach with a pair of tweezers — you don’t even make a dent. No amount of money will solve the problem by trying to pay humans. They can only succeed by making the algorithm better, and that’s not a problem which scales with headcount (mythical man month)

thaumasiotes 6y ago

Google is profitable because it has a small number of employees and a large number of customers. To begin your "back of the envelope math test", you should ask: If Google were to hire CSRs until its profit went to $0 per employee per year, how much of an effect would the additional CSRs have on the experience of Google's customers? How many CSRs would that be? How many customers would each one be handling per day? Saying that a company which is profitable because a small number of employees serve a large number of customers can obviously afford to hire a large number of employees isn't a math test, it's wishful thinking. Do some math.

brigandish 6y ago
> how much of an effect would the additional CSRs have on the experience of Google's customers? It would go up, probably quite a bit, and the profit would re-emerge but at a lower level per employee. The real problem is that their scale (in terms of reach, money, customers, political leverage - you name it) is so large that a company could compete or out-compete on customer service and still wouldn't win a significant chunk of their business. That's why they don't need to hire more CSRs.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  >> How many customers would each [CSR] be handling per day? You need to answer that one before concluding that customers' experience would improve.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    If we assume that each CSR can handle an average number of cases then the absolute number of cases handled by a human increase with even 1 CSR taken on. The Mythical Man Month doesn't apply as there's no time limit on it. So no, I don't need to answer that beyond any number greater than there are now, which I already did.
    - solveit 6y ago
      Sure it would go up. But will it be significant? Or will it be a drop in the ocean. You do need numbers to answer this question.

philwelch 6y ago

I think you’ve unintentionally provided a good argument as to why they don’t have to.

velox_io 6y ago

The X revenue/ profit per employee can be easily manipulated. Take Google, they outsource many areas of the business. You can virtually guarantee that any building security, caterers or cleaners who work at Google, don't work for Google. Apparently temporary works and contractors make up around 54% of Google's workforce. https://www.vox.com/2019/4/4/18293900/google-contractors-benefits-policy https://www.vox.com/2019/4/4/18293900/google-contractors-ben...