3 ms·

> 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

by 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.

by redeux 4y ago

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.