3 ms·
I think it just shows that the CEO earned enough to give every laid off employee a whole annual salary, so you could argue that the layoff could have been preve
by martin82 4y ago
I think it just shows that the CEO earned enough to give every laid off employee a whole annual salary, so you could argue that the layoff could have been prevented for at least a year.
- curious_cat_163 4y agoExactly. Hate to go there on HN but there _is_ a moral side to this. What is the cost of making the kind of mistakes this guy did? And who should pay for them?
- kortilla 4y ago> Hate to go there on HN but there _is_ a moral side to this. No there isn’t. Wasting money to keep employing people isn’t good for anyone. The labor market is still tight right now so the employees are better off going to a company that actually wants them.
- curious_cat_163 4y agoOk. I see your point.
- throw_nbvc1234 4y agoAnd if they'd over hired, their business could still be in the same place (or worse) next year. People should just say they don't think executives should earn that much money (in good times or bad) rather than making moral justifications like this.
- refurb 4y agoSure, but no doubt a Silicon Valley programmer could take a 50% pay cut, still have plenty to live on, and double the salary of 3 cleaning staff that work at their company. Should we talk about that too?
- smabie 4y agoNah probably not since so many people on HN are programmers.