5 ms·

Many of these companies and people are producing nothing of value, so there is an argument that the companies won't be worse off afterwards. But the people wil

by dajtxx 4y ago

Many of these companies and people are producing nothing of value, so there is an argument that the companies won't be worse off afterwards. But the people will, for sure. And the company leadership should be held accountable for that in some way other than to get bigger bonuses. Did this all start before Musk bought Twitter and in his inimitable way went about reforming its workforce? If not, I'd guess a lot of other managers finally felt they had the excuse to do what they'd been wanting to, but for some reason were holding back on.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> lot of other managers finally felt they had the excuse to do what they'd been wanting t No man rules alone. Do you think before Musk every CEO wanted to lay everyone off, but couldn’t? Are investors punishing companies who grew responsibly and aren’t going Jack Nicholson from the Shining on their teams? Of course not. Leaders want to grow and hire and Dorsey around giving TED talks. But when creditors get uneasy and Board members what-have-you-done-for-me-lately, survivors survive, they have no choice. They must deliver. And it’s not like those creditors and Board members reign sovereign. They have their own LPs, pensions and billionaires, asking why they’re there if Treasuries yield five percent. You’re probably looking at your portfolio or grocery bill and wondering why your fund manager or manager manager can’t get you a better return, or deliver you that raise. That’s what’s causing this. When even the world’s richest man is constrained by margin loans and interest payments on debt trading at dimes on the dollar, with banks who were once friends now threatening to take it all away; by stock multiples punishing losses and leverage with existential consequences; when it all looks like it’s falling down it’s tempting to coronate someone, anyone, as sovereign. But that’s not how it works, it’s never how it worked, kings always had lenders and warlords and pretenders to the throne. Systems have momentum, and when inflation spiked and rates rose, nobody had a choice other than persisting or perishing. No man rules alone.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Allow me to play the world’s smallest violin for the world’s richest man being constrained by margin loans (the taking of which was his own decision).
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    You don't have to pity him to appreciate the forces that drive him (and to a much larger degree other people equally undeserving of your pity)
- matwood 4y ago
  Your point is important because it puts the 'blame' in the right place. Many people tried to blame the Google layoffs on activist investors. But, if Google was innovating with new products and growth, there never would have been activist investors. And people should not be mistaken, CEOs are on the hot seat now. Either cut more, show they are effectively using the resources they control, or be replaced.
wongarsu 4y ago
> But the people will, for sure. And the company leadership should be held accountable for that in some way other than to get bigger bonuses. If leadership is punished for layoffs, are they also rewarded for hiring people? It might make for an interesting model for society, but I imagine it would end up with similar inefficiencies as the USSR's policy of full employment. For each employee it's nice to have three people man a single cash register, but for an economy's productivity it seems better if each company has no more workers than it needs, because those workers become available to other companies. The USA's problem is more in how temporary unemployment is seen as a shameful personal failing, rather than a normal occurance in an economy that people have to be supported through (for a reasonable timespan).
- dajtxx 4y ago
  They are rewarded, to an obscene degree. They are paid unimaginable amounts for 'business as usual' never mind doing their job well which very few seem to be doing.

by dajtxx 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> lot of other managers finally felt they had the excuse to do what they'd been wanting t No man rules alone. Do you think before Musk every CEO wanted to lay everyone off, but couldn’t? Are investors punishing companies who grew responsibly and aren’t going Jack Nicholson from the Shining on their teams? Of course not. Leaders want to grow and hire and Dorsey around giving TED talks. But when creditors get uneasy and Board members what-have-you-done-for-me-lately, survivors survive, they have no choice. They must deliver. And it’s not like those creditors and Board members reign sovereign. They have their own LPs, pensions and billionaires, asking why they’re there if Treasuries yield five percent. You’re probably looking at your portfolio or grocery bill and wondering why your fund manager or manager manager can’t get you a better return, or deliver you that raise. That’s what’s causing this. When even the world’s richest man is constrained by margin loans and interest payments on debt trading at dimes on the dollar, with banks who were once friends now threatening to take it all away; by stock multiples punishing losses and leverage with existential consequences; when it all looks like it’s falling down it’s tempting to coronate someone, anyone, as sovereign. But that’s not how it works, it’s never how it worked, kings always had lenders and warlords and pretenders to the throne. Systems have momentum, and when inflation spiked and rates rose, nobody had a choice other than persisting or perishing. No man rules alone.

sokoloff 4y ago
Allow me to play the world’s smallest violin for the world’s richest man being constrained by margin loans (the taking of which was his own decision).
- wongarsu 4y ago
  You don't have to pity him to appreciate the forces that drive him (and to a much larger degree other people equally undeserving of your pity)
matwood 4y ago
Your point is important because it puts the 'blame' in the right place. Many people tried to blame the Google layoffs on activist investors. But, if Google was innovating with new products and growth, there never would have been activist investors. And people should not be mistaken, CEOs are on the hot seat now. Either cut more, show they are effectively using the resources they control, or be replaced.

wongarsu 4y ago

> But the people will, for sure. And the company leadership should be held accountable for that in some way other than to get bigger bonuses. If leadership is punished for layoffs, are they also rewarded for hiring people? It might make for an interesting model for society, but I imagine it would end up with similar inefficiencies as the USSR's policy of full employment. For each employee it's nice to have three people man a single cash register, but for an economy's productivity it seems better if each company has no more workers than it needs, because those workers become available to other companies. The USA's problem is more in how temporary unemployment is seen as a shameful personal failing, rather than a normal occurance in an economy that people have to be supported through (for a reasonable timespan).

dajtxx 4y ago
They are rewarded, to an obscene degree. They are paid unimaginable amounts for 'business as usual' never mind doing their job well which very few seem to be doing.