39 ms·

> Companies are imaginary entities chasing profits for its owners. There's nothing sacred about it and they shouldn't EVER be more important than people. A com

> Companies are imaginary entities chasing profits for its owners. There's nothing sacred about it and they shouldn't EVER be more important than people. A company of 50,000 operating at a loss will eventually fire 50,000 people. If it can turn things around by firing 10,000 - why not? Further, in a company there might be temporary teams that implement a project and then are laid off. Surely it's better to have these positions than to not hire any people at all. Even further, life is not static and things change. Not adapting to changes eventually would lead to stagnant and disfunctional situations, where a product would be made more expensive for everyone, just so a some company has the capital to continue hiring 10,000 or so people who are not longer doing any work. But, perhaps more importantly, those 10,000 people are stuck in meaningless positions doing empty "work" for the sake of numbers on some accounting sheet. And even further futher, if these no longer useful jobs are in manufacturing then continuing them would mean wasting natural resources and polluting the environment.

netheril96 4y ago
> A company of 50,000 operating at a loss will eventually fire 50,000 people. If it can turn things around by firing 10,000 - why not? This argument, true or false, is not applicable in this situation, as Google is still enjoying high profits.
Draiken 4y ago
The only reason we find ourselves in this place is because of this hyper-growth mentality that is unsustainable by definition. As someone else pointed out, this specific point is moot in this case. They are just looking for even more profits. It's not even close to a "struggling company". But regardless, if this was a case for a struggling company, this is short-sighted in the sense that it assumes that we have to live in a world bound by the current rules. Of course under these conditions companies will always choose to fire people and keep making profits to its owners. But let's not pretend this would be an effort to help these 50k people in the first place. This is to keep the owner(s) profitable.

netheril96 4y ago

> A company of 50,000 operating at a loss will eventually fire 50,000 people. If it can turn things around by firing 10,000 - why not? This argument, true or false, is not applicable in this situation, as Google is still enjoying high profits.

Draiken 4y ago

The only reason we find ourselves in this place is because of this hyper-growth mentality that is unsustainable by definition. As someone else pointed out, this specific point is moot in this case. They are just looking for even more profits. It's not even close to a "struggling company". But regardless, if this was a case for a struggling company, this is short-sighted in the sense that it assumes that we have to live in a world bound by the current rules. Of course under these conditions companies will always choose to fire people and keep making profits to its owners. But let's not pretend this would be an effort to help these 50k people in the first place. This is to keep the owner(s) profitable.