5 ms·

If I would guess, this kind of wording reflects a view which is quite common in Silicon Valley companies: an employee is an (human) asset for the company to uti

by nirui 4y ago

If I would guess, this kind of wording reflects a view which is quite common in Silicon Valley companies: an employee is an (human) asset for the company to utilize. Once the skill of the employee is no longer needed, they can be dispose of. If I may guess it further, this view might be shared across many high-paying industries. Tech companies in China had similar mass layoffs in the past few years, which prompted many highly skilled tech workers to seek formal opportunities in state controlled companies/entities. Why state controlled companies you might ask, well, because those companies rarely perform this type of layoffs. Once you're one of their formal employees (not employee of contract), you're set safe for life. And even if some "difficult change" has to happen, those state companies will try to compensate the effected workers with other (often equal, sometimes better) opportunities. I know Chinese state controlled companies are heavily criticized by western view points, but you have to admit, they treats their own people fine.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
the U.S. government works the same way. According to one web site, there are over 4 million federal employees. When is the last time any have been laid off? What I find most disturbing is that you think this is somehow a good thing. A government takes money by force and then spends it to "take care of its own", meaning provide cushy jobs to people regardless of their productivity, output, or necessity? This is the very essence of the ever-growing and increasingly corrupt bureaucracy. I'm reminded of a history of Nigeria I encountered recently: https://youtu.be/E2HJbi-AG54?t=603 https://youtu.be/E2HJbi-AG54?t=603. The Nigerian government basically ran the economy. If you wanted a good job, you worked for the government. For most people, getting elected was key to living a cushy life, and once won, the office was used to spread favors and wealth to one's friends, family, and tribe, while losing office in a subsequent election meant going back to poverty because private jobs simply didn't exist. This, of course, was a recipe for widespread corruption. From the video: "Control of the government has been desperately important not only to avoid being oppressed by rival tribes but also because the massive role of government in the economy has made politics the preeminent route to prosperity as well as power whether for individuals, tribes, or regions. As of 1964 governments at the federal, regional, and local levels employed more than half of the wage earners in the country. Government also allocated large sums to the various regions which is also to say to the various tribes. In 1961 for example the northern region containing more than half the population of Nigeria paid only nine percent of the personal income taxes while it received 45 of the money allocated to the various regions by the federal government. At the same time the western region paid 64 percent of all personal income taxes and received less than one-fourth of the funds allocated by the federal government to the various regions. In tribal terms though Yoruba were subsidizing the house of Fulani and other Northern groups." Whatever you might think about the unfairness of being laid off, I promise you that a growing government bureaucracy is not the solution you think it is! The government is just as self-interested as any corporation, the difference being the government gets to use force to compel you to do what it wants, while at least a corporation has to ask for your business.
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  > When is the last time any have been laid off? Presumably when we weren't throwing billions of dollars at 2 x 20 year wars that accomplished nothing. The DoD is the largest single employer in the world. By comparison, I'm way, way less concerned if Health or Education Depts. have more people -- a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of a Littoral Combat Ship, (which is already obsolete). It would be nice of HHS and Education had more funding and legal mandates behind them, though...
- jq-r 4y ago
  Or if instead of Nigeria you want more “civilized” examples, look no further than Eastern European governments. Here in Croatia some years ago a statistic came out that we have 4 times more government employees than Germany. Just for comparison: Germany has 83M people, Croatia little less than 4M. I shudder to think about that metric now as I’m sure its even worse.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    The respective population numbers are irrelevant, because those “four time more” government employees must already be in terms relative to population size – so that's already taken into account. (Just think about it: Surely Germany has more than a million government employees? If Croatia had over four times that in absolute terms, more than its entire population would work for the government.)
    - jq-r 4y ago
      Yeah, that's fair. Thanks for pointing it out.
      - t-vi 4y ago
        In fact, counting federal, state and local governments, Germany has some 6 million government employees (~4.8m directly and ~1.2m in public agencies). Also, there might be things that are government provided in one country and private in another (postal service, telcom and utilities, railway, schools, childcare...), which you would need to account for as well.
ElfinTrousers 4y ago
> If I would guess, this kind of wording reflects a view which is quite common in Silicon Valley companies Remove the words "Silicon Valley" and I agree with you.
v0idzer0 4y ago
> an employee is an (human) asset for the company to utilize. Once the skill of the employee is no longer needed, they can be dispose of. This is exactly accurate and there’s nothing amoral about that. The flip side is a job is just a way to make money and when it’s no longer wanted or needed, the employee is free to dispose of it

by nirui 4y ago

PathOfEclipse 4y ago

the U.S. government works the same way. According to one web site, there are over 4 million federal employees. When is the last time any have been laid off? What I find most disturbing is that you think this is somehow a good thing. A government takes money by force and then spends it to "take care of its own", meaning provide cushy jobs to people regardless of their productivity, output, or necessity? This is the very essence of the ever-growing and increasingly corrupt bureaucracy. I'm reminded of a history of Nigeria I encountered recently: https://youtu.be/E2HJbi-AG54?t=603 https://youtu.be/E2HJbi-AG54?t=603. The Nigerian government basically ran the economy. If you wanted a good job, you worked for the government. For most people, getting elected was key to living a cushy life, and once won, the office was used to spread favors and wealth to one's friends, family, and tribe, while losing office in a subsequent election meant going back to poverty because private jobs simply didn't exist. This, of course, was a recipe for widespread corruption. From the video: "Control of the government has been desperately important not only to avoid being oppressed by rival tribes but also because the massive role of government in the economy has made politics the preeminent route to prosperity as well as power whether for individuals, tribes, or regions. As of 1964 governments at the federal, regional, and local levels employed more than half of the wage earners in the country. Government also allocated large sums to the various regions which is also to say to the various tribes. In 1961 for example the northern region containing more than half the population of Nigeria paid only nine percent of the personal income taxes while it received 45 of the money allocated to the various regions by the federal government. At the same time the western region paid 64 percent of all personal income taxes and received less than one-fourth of the funds allocated by the federal government to the various regions. In tribal terms though Yoruba were subsidizing the house of Fulani and other Northern groups." Whatever you might think about the unfairness of being laid off, I promise you that a growing government bureaucracy is not the solution you think it is! The government is just as self-interested as any corporation, the difference being the government gets to use force to compel you to do what it wants, while at least a corporation has to ask for your business.

red-iron-pine 4y ago
> When is the last time any have been laid off? Presumably when we weren't throwing billions of dollars at 2 x 20 year wars that accomplished nothing. The DoD is the largest single employer in the world. By comparison, I'm way, way less concerned if Health or Education Depts. have more people -- a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of a Littoral Combat Ship, (which is already obsolete). It would be nice of HHS and Education had more funding and legal mandates behind them, though...
jq-r 4y ago
Or if instead of Nigeria you want more “civilized” examples, look no further than Eastern European governments. Here in Croatia some years ago a statistic came out that we have 4 times more government employees than Germany. Just for comparison: Germany has 83M people, Croatia little less than 4M. I shudder to think about that metric now as I’m sure its even worse.
- CRConrad 4y ago
  The respective population numbers are irrelevant, because those “four time more” government employees must already be in terms relative to population size – so that's already taken into account. (Just think about it: Surely Germany has more than a million government employees? If Croatia had over four times that in absolute terms, more than its entire population would work for the government.)
  - jq-r 4y ago
    Yeah, that's fair. Thanks for pointing it out.
    - t-vi 4y ago
      In fact, counting federal, state and local governments, Germany has some 6 million government employees (~4.8m directly and ~1.2m in public agencies). Also, there might be things that are government provided in one country and private in another (postal service, telcom and utilities, railway, schools, childcare...), which you would need to account for as well.

ElfinTrousers 4y ago

> If I would guess, this kind of wording reflects a view which is quite common in Silicon Valley companies Remove the words "Silicon Valley" and I agree with you.

v0idzer0 4y ago

> an employee is an (human) asset for the company to utilize. Once the skill of the employee is no longer needed, they can be dispose of. This is exactly accurate and there’s nothing amoral about that. The flip side is a job is just a way to make money and when it’s no longer wanted or needed, the employee is free to dispose of it