5 ms·

> wow. the hubris and inhumanity It's a business, not a charity. They have absolutely no obligation to keep tens of thousands of overpaid people on their payro

> wow. the hubris and inhumanity It's a business, not a charity. They have absolutely no obligation to keep tens of thousands of overpaid people on their payroll. It's not like we're talking about abused minimum-wage workers with no alternatives here either. And they're getting some pretty big severance packages, too. I feel bad for the people on work visas, but that's a problem with the American immigration system, not Alphabet, and would apply anyone working at any company that needs to lay off people.

camgunz 4y ago
> I feel bad for the people on work visas, but that's a problem with the American immigration system, not Alphabet If Google had even 10% of the resources working on lobbying the US to fix the immigration system as it did lobbying the US to not antitrust it to death, I would buy this.
manuelabeledo 4y ago
> They have absolutely no obligation to keep tens of thousands of overpaid people on their payroll. Who says they are "overpaid"? It always baffles me how worker solidarity ends at the slightest sign of someone making good money.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
I can feel bad for tens of thousands of overpaid people because being laid off sucks. Choosing Alphabet is also choosing for presumed job security. Among tens of thousands, I can bet 100% that among them will be visa holders, people paying off huge medical debt, people with disabled dependents, people with huge student debt, people who are trying to get their children through school, people with complex medical conditions that now risk changing their medical support system due to insurance changes, people who will struggle to do the interview grind because of being a single parent, etc.
UncleMeat 4y ago
We decide what businesses are. The "of course businesses need to be ruthless sociopathic monsters that care only about profit for investors, even at the expense of their employees and customers" is a choice that society made. IMO, an ethical system would have employers really consider themselves obliged to their employees. At the very least, if we want to go in this direction then we need to retire the term "job creator" from our lexicon permanently. Employers can't get credit for being oh so generous in granting jobs when the response to cutting jobs is "well what did you expect, your employer hates you."
redeux 4y ago
> They have absolutely no obligation to keep tens of thousands of overpaid people on their payroll. I’m not sure why you think they were overpaid. Surely a lot of these people delivered value well above and beyond their salary for Alphabet, who required them to live in a very high COL area. A 300k salary in the Bay Area, unfortunately just gives you enough to live an okay life. It’s not like 300k in Alabama where you can live like royalty because of the depressed area. Your perspective seems to be an internalization of extreme capitalism that only benefits the capitalist class. The workers, be they middle or low income, do not share this sentiment. Most other advanced nations do not allow this type of worker exploitation. Why shouldn’t they have an obligation to keep employees on their payroll? They’re not in danger of going out of business. In fact, they’re wildly profitably. So, there is no need to make these cuts, only a desire to. The company made the mistake, but now society will have to pick up the tab, not the company managers and investors who ultimately made the decision to hire those people in the first place.
- nostrebored 4y ago
  More efficient businesses are better for the world et large. It’s not an indoctrination into extreme capitalism. Things cost less and businesses produce more when they’re run efficiently. And really, your perspective on Bay Area salaries is detached from reality. Yes it’s expensive, but there are people there who survive on below minimum wage, under the table jobs. Make friends with your janitor or something and get some perspective. The rest of the country is starting to hate tech workers, and takes like this are why.
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    > The rest of the country is starting to hate tech workers, and takes like this are why. The rest of the country is myopic, then. Workers should strive towards better wages, instead of celebrating layoffs. It doesn't make any sense to hate engineers who can afford what most families did in the 50s and 60s, on a single paycheck.
  - redeux 4y ago
    > there are people there who survive on below minimum wage, under the table jobs. What you’re describing is someone who’s living in the margins of society. Committing tax evasion just to survive while still living in poverty with multiple roommates just to get by is not what I would consider an okay life. This person will have no hope of retiring, so they’ll work until they die, which will be early because they won’t have access to quality healthcare in our expensive, privatized healthcare system. That’s certainly not a life I want to live, and I doubt you would want that either. > Things cost less and businesses produce more when they’re run efficiently. If you take a narrow perspective where the only thing you want to maximize is economic output, that’s true. But what we see in American society is that this comes with antisocial trade-offs. Wealth inequality has skyrocketed, health outcomes have plummeted, homelessness is a plague. I think there should be a balance. Yes, we want effective and efficient businesses, but we need to balance it with overall benefits to society and that’s not happening in America.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> It's a business, not a charity. They have absolutely no obligation Should keep this in mind next time a corp asks for a bailout, taxbreaks, or has major court case against them. Then it suddenly becomes all about understanding their situation and protecting valuable business Capitalism for mee but not for thee.

camgunz 4y ago

> I feel bad for the people on work visas, but that's a problem with the American immigration system, not Alphabet If Google had even 10% of the resources working on lobbying the US to fix the immigration system as it did lobbying the US to not antitrust it to death, I would buy this.

manuelabeledo 4y ago

> They have absolutely no obligation to keep tens of thousands of overpaid people on their payroll. Who says they are "overpaid"? It always baffles me how worker solidarity ends at the slightest sign of someone making good money.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

I can feel bad for tens of thousands of overpaid people because being laid off sucks. Choosing Alphabet is also choosing for presumed job security. Among tens of thousands, I can bet 100% that among them will be visa holders, people paying off huge medical debt, people with disabled dependents, people with huge student debt, people who are trying to get their children through school, people with complex medical conditions that now risk changing their medical support system due to insurance changes, people who will struggle to do the interview grind because of being a single parent, etc.

UncleMeat 4y ago

We decide what businesses are. The "of course businesses need to be ruthless sociopathic monsters that care only about profit for investors, even at the expense of their employees and customers" is a choice that society made. IMO, an ethical system would have employers really consider themselves obliged to their employees. At the very least, if we want to go in this direction then we need to retire the term "job creator" from our lexicon permanently. Employers can't get credit for being oh so generous in granting jobs when the response to cutting jobs is "well what did you expect, your employer hates you."

redeux 4y ago

> They have absolutely no obligation to keep tens of thousands of overpaid people on their payroll. I’m not sure why you think they were overpaid. Surely a lot of these people delivered value well above and beyond their salary for Alphabet, who required them to live in a very high COL area. A 300k salary in the Bay Area, unfortunately just gives you enough to live an okay life. It’s not like 300k in Alabama where you can live like royalty because of the depressed area. Your perspective seems to be an internalization of extreme capitalism that only benefits the capitalist class. The workers, be they middle or low income, do not share this sentiment. Most other advanced nations do not allow this type of worker exploitation. Why shouldn’t they have an obligation to keep employees on their payroll? They’re not in danger of going out of business. In fact, they’re wildly profitably. So, there is no need to make these cuts, only a desire to. The company made the mistake, but now society will have to pick up the tab, not the company managers and investors who ultimately made the decision to hire those people in the first place.

nostrebored 4y ago
More efficient businesses are better for the world et large. It’s not an indoctrination into extreme capitalism. Things cost less and businesses produce more when they’re run efficiently. And really, your perspective on Bay Area salaries is detached from reality. Yes it’s expensive, but there are people there who survive on below minimum wage, under the table jobs. Make friends with your janitor or something and get some perspective. The rest of the country is starting to hate tech workers, and takes like this are why.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  > The rest of the country is starting to hate tech workers, and takes like this are why. The rest of the country is myopic, then. Workers should strive towards better wages, instead of celebrating layoffs. It doesn't make any sense to hate engineers who can afford what most families did in the 50s and 60s, on a single paycheck.
- redeux 4y ago
  > there are people there who survive on below minimum wage, under the table jobs. What you’re describing is someone who’s living in the margins of society. Committing tax evasion just to survive while still living in poverty with multiple roommates just to get by is not what I would consider an okay life. This person will have no hope of retiring, so they’ll work until they die, which will be early because they won’t have access to quality healthcare in our expensive, privatized healthcare system. That’s certainly not a life I want to live, and I doubt you would want that either. > Things cost less and businesses produce more when they’re run efficiently. If you take a narrow perspective where the only thing you want to maximize is economic output, that’s true. But what we see in American society is that this comes with antisocial trade-offs. Wealth inequality has skyrocketed, health outcomes have plummeted, homelessness is a plague. I think there should be a balance. Yes, we want effective and efficient businesses, but we need to balance it with overall benefits to society and that’s not happening in America.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> It's a business, not a charity. They have absolutely no obligation Should keep this in mind next time a corp asks for a bailout, taxbreaks, or has major court case against them. Then it suddenly becomes all about understanding their situation and protecting valuable business Capitalism for mee but not for thee.