4 ms·
"Safety in numbers" herd strategy. "Everyone else" is doing it, so they can "get away with it" now without as much "backlash" as they might otherwise experience
by ergonaught 4y ago
"Safety in numbers" herd strategy. "Everyone else" is doing it, so they can "get away with it" now without as much "backlash" as they might otherwise experience.
You will also sometimes see people referring to "bets that didn't pan out", but the more accurate term for the situation of having TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE as "bets that didn't pan out" is gross mismanagement and active negligence.
Every one of these CEOs should be out as a result.
- yucky 4y agoThis sort of buries the lede though. WHY they're laying off thousands isn't as important as HOW they're able to do that and still function. The reason tech companies are able to layoff all of these people is because they were so overly bloated and had too much deadweight. When you can layoff tens of thousands of people and not miss a beat, maybe those people weren't adding much value to the company to begin with..?
- ergonaught 4y agoNo doubt, but I think that only reinforces "gross mismanagement and active negligence", and again, the CEOs should be out as a result, for cause and therefore without their "my family and I are even more permanently wealthy" severance packages.
- yucky 4y agoYeah in theory, but the Board's let it happen so they really have themselves to blame. The Board's answer to the shareholders (again, in theory) and yet the composition of musical Board chairs never seems to be affected. So we just keep peeling away layers of the onion until we get to the abuses of proxy voting by large fund managers (e.g. Larry Fink of Blackrock), who unfortunately seem to be accountable to nobody.