5 ms·

If I got it correctly this is a push of investors in general to pressure developer salaries down. In the same way that much of the inflation is driven by opport

If I got it correctly this is a push of investors in general to pressure developer salaries down. In the same way that much of the inflation is driven by opportunity to increase profits and not by costs. This is another example of what happens when too much power gets accumulated in too few hands. The market freedom is drastically reduced and is easier to manipulate it. But I doubt that this is any coordinated effort but like hiking profits when there is inflation is just opportunistic. > Salaries hit record levels as competition raged for the top talent, and the media was full of stories of lavish perks. So, it’s not a shock to find that the median time a recently laid-off employee has been in their role is roughly two years. .... One possible reason for this statistic could be that longer-serving employees tend to receive higher salaries, and cutting them could help businesses meet their financial targets. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/01/30/the-real-reasons-for-big-tech-layoffs-at-google-microsoft-meta-and-amazon/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/01/30/the-real...

count3rStrike 4y ago
[dead]
dragonwriter 4y ago
> But I doubt that this is any coordinated effort but like hiking profits when there is inflation is just opportunistic You see profit hikes and inflation together because “profit hikes” are a mix of price increases and cost cuts, and the former literally is inflation. Also, because inflation increases perceived near-term risk, and absent infinite risk tolerance, the natural course is to seek either to mitigate risk by cutting off more speculative activities.
- hourago 4y ago
  If there was competition companies would not be able to increase profit. What allow for this cutting cost and at the same time increase prices is that consumers do not have much of an option. When a market is just a couple or three companies owning all the products (think Procter and Gamble, Microsoft or Nestle) the all prices go up and there is no real alternatives left as they own most of their respective markets. So it is perfectly logical for companies to do this. It shows that the market economy is failing in that areas, thou.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > If there was competition companies would not be able to increase profit. That’s true of economic profit, not financial profit, and only true of perfect competition. (In which case, there is also a fixed zero economic profit.)

count3rStrike 4y ago

[dead]

dragonwriter 4y ago

> But I doubt that this is any coordinated effort but like hiking profits when there is inflation is just opportunistic You see profit hikes and inflation together because “profit hikes” are a mix of price increases and cost cuts, and the former literally is inflation. Also, because inflation increases perceived near-term risk, and absent infinite risk tolerance, the natural course is to seek either to mitigate risk by cutting off more speculative activities.

hourago 4y ago
If there was competition companies would not be able to increase profit. What allow for this cutting cost and at the same time increase prices is that consumers do not have much of an option. When a market is just a couple or three companies owning all the products (think Procter and Gamble, Microsoft or Nestle) the all prices go up and there is no real alternatives left as they own most of their respective markets. So it is perfectly logical for companies to do this. It shows that the market economy is failing in that areas, thou.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > If there was competition companies would not be able to increase profit. That’s true of economic profit, not financial profit, and only true of perfect competition. (In which case, there is also a fixed zero economic profit.)