3 ms·

The comment thread you're responding to is reflecting on how painful it is to be laid off when: * showing profits * showing multi-billion in investments in

The comment thread you're responding to is reflecting on how painful it is to be laid off when: * showing profits * showing multi-billion in investments in new companies * when the money saved is tiny compared to the increased year-over-year profits on a topic that's a short story in the form of a letter written by someone pretending to be a CEO and telling the story's real truth about a layoff: that they don't feel like paying the reader anymore. "But so what?" Their response is _exactly_ on topic. There is a real sting on these human lives where a company has decided they don't have value relative some new tech purchase. This is contrary to particular ethics frameworks many of us are familiar with around human value.

brookst 4y ago
Apologies if I sounded like I was unsympathetic to the people. I’ve been laid off, I know it hurts. But I guess I don’t see how empathizing with that means. . . What? Microsoft should cancel an investment they think is strategic? Microsoft should keep job roles they no longer things are important? Highly profitable companies like Microsoft are not zero sum. Nobody said “let’s lay people off so that we can invest in openAI”. Each decision is made independently, for its own ROI. If they believed that keeping these people and making the investment was the best approach, they have the funds to do so, easily. I love the McSweeney’s piece, and I’m sympathetic to those laid off, I just don’t get the innuendo that a company should do something differently.
- t-writescode 4y ago
  A useful question I think can be asked in circumstances like this is "what value does this new comment bring to the table?" If a family in financial trouble just lost their son to a car accident, for example, is it the right time to say "well, at least you won't need to pay for his college."?
- ShroudedNight 4y ago
  There is a third option: Redeploying existing talent to the new strategic objectives. Especially in software, skills are pretty fungible, and most of the support organization's on-going requirements are likely to be highly agnostic of what, specifically, is being engineered.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    If the company actually thought they could make more money by redeploying, they would. Positive ROI strategic objectives are not obvious or readily available. If they were, the company would already be pursuing them. IT does bring up an interesting alternative. What if instead of layoffs, companies provided an ultimatum: Your employment costs $X. You have 3 months to find a new source of $X+1 revenue that requires your continued labor.

brookst 4y ago

Apologies if I sounded like I was unsympathetic to the people. I’ve been laid off, I know it hurts. But I guess I don’t see how empathizing with that means. . . What? Microsoft should cancel an investment they think is strategic? Microsoft should keep job roles they no longer things are important? Highly profitable companies like Microsoft are not zero sum. Nobody said “let’s lay people off so that we can invest in openAI”. Each decision is made independently, for its own ROI. If they believed that keeping these people and making the investment was the best approach, they have the funds to do so, easily. I love the McSweeney’s piece, and I’m sympathetic to those laid off, I just don’t get the innuendo that a company should do something differently.

t-writescode 4y ago
A useful question I think can be asked in circumstances like this is "what value does this new comment bring to the table?" If a family in financial trouble just lost their son to a car accident, for example, is it the right time to say "well, at least you won't need to pay for his college."?
ShroudedNight 4y ago
There is a third option: Redeploying existing talent to the new strategic objectives. Especially in software, skills are pretty fungible, and most of the support organization's on-going requirements are likely to be highly agnostic of what, specifically, is being engineered.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  If the company actually thought they could make more money by redeploying, they would. Positive ROI strategic objectives are not obvious or readily available. If they were, the company would already be pursuing them. IT does bring up an interesting alternative. What if instead of layoffs, companies provided an ultimatum: Your employment costs $X. You have 3 months to find a new source of $X+1 revenue that requires your continued labor.