2 ms·
> wants it for himself “wants it for his investors” His job is to advocate on behalf of his investors to get the best return he can. For this service he is we
by voisin 4y ago
> wants it for himself
“wants it for his investors”
His job is to advocate on behalf of his investors to get the best return he can. For this service he is well paid. We need to stop demonizing people for doing their job, successfully. Just because he is rich doesn’t mean his argument is wrong.
- nequo 4y ago> We need to stop demonizing people for doing their job, successfully. Even when their job is to actively hurt you, your family, and those around you?
- chairmanwow1 4y ago[flagged]
- bitsavers 4y agoIt is long past time for people to consider that working for public companies might not be in their long-term personal best interest.
- nequo 4y agoAre private companies better?
- joshuamorton 4y agoWhether or not it is my "right", firing me absolutely hurts me and my family, and and advocating for it does too. Nothing about that is a mischaracterization.
- nequo 4y agoI did not say it’s a right. If it was, we’d be talking about this in court, not in HN comments. What I said was that it hurts you if you get fired and thus it hurts your family. There is a lot of research on the negative effects of layoffs on those who are laid off. Also, not everyone is affected in the same way. For example, a US citizen or someone on a green card will need to find a new job. But someone on an H-1B is legally tied to the company that employs them. They cannot just switch jobs. But if they’re fired, they must uproot their lives, cut social ties, leave the country, and find a new job in a completely different economy. Sure, an employer has the right to fire its employees. But by firing them, the employer also has a causal effect on their well-being. And the employees are in their right minds to protest that.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pixl97 4y ago>We need to stop demonizing people for doing their job W.T.F. I mean I hate to bring up the analogy, but at the Nuremberg Trials we hung people for 'just doing their job' because just following orders can lead to millions dead and other completely and totally terrible outcomes for humanity.
- hindsightbias 4y agoThis is the first time I’ve heard Google layoffs equated to the Holocaust.
- Kwpolska 4y agoThey aren't referring to Google layoffs, the evil people are the hedge fund managers.
- quantified 4y agoNot equated, just noting the that the "doing my job" argument is the same. If it isn't, do elaborate. Yes the jobs are different, as are all jobs from each other.
- AlexandrB 4y agoJust because he's advocating on behalf of investors doesn't mean his argument is right either. I think the better question is wtf does a hedge fund manager know about running a tech company and why should we give any credence to his ideas about staffing?
- voisin 4y agoI'm not saying he's right or wrong. I'm saying he isn't wrong just because he's rich, or just because he's a hedge fund manager. Both are ad hominem attacks and ignore the actual arguments that Google needs to trim down.
- cmh89 4y agoWhat's the 'actual argument' here? He's essentially saying that he'd make more money if Google had less costs, and one way to cut costs is firing people. That's it. He doesn't go into any detail outside of "fire people and pay the ones you don't fire less" He's just a parasite on society who wants to suck more blood.
- candiodari 4y agoNot to worry. HIS job is increased shareholder value. Google was 92 USD when the layoffs were announced. Currently it's 93 dollars. Surely if it drops back below 92 he'll change his mind ...
- voisin 4y agoThe argument has been made recently by this guy and others that Google grew its ranks second only to Facebook during the pandemic, that it’s performance per employee today hasn’t justified the growth, and that it should stop putting money to inefficient uses given that suddenly there is an opportunity cost to capital with the ending of ZIRP worldwide. Seems reasonable to me. We learned how inefficient conglomerates are back in the 60s/70s.
- cmh89 4y ago
- tshaddox 4y agoOther people: > I don’t like this guy’s job. You: > But it’s his job. Right, they already said that part. They still don’t like his job.
- voisin 4y agoNot exactly. Other people: > This guy is wrong because of his job and the fact that he's apparently good enough at it that he's become rich. Me: > Neither of these facts has anything to do with his argument. He's neither right nor wrong based on his job or his success at his job.
- jk20 4y ago[dead]
- absolutelymild 4y agoYou’re right. To be a success capitalist, you need to be maximally greedy at all times. If you’re not greedy enough, someone else will just come and replace you
- pseudo0 4y agoHis investors would also be better off investing their money through a fund that doesn't charge 2 and 20 to hold Google stock. Maybe his investors should redirect their focus when it comes to cost-cutting?
- voisin 4y agoWhy don’t we assume his investors make decisions in their own self interest and that you probably aren’t the right arbiter of what they’d be better off doing?