5 ms·

> The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. This shows an utter misunderstanding of how businesses or fina

> The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. This shows an utter misunderstanding of how businesses or finances of any kind work and would completely discredit anyone who tried to use it as an argument.

pydry 4y ago
It's completely reasonable. Google's motives for doing this are no more honorable than they were the last time they were caught setting up a wage fixing cartel: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...
newswasboring 4y ago
Can you elaborate on your statement for dummies? (Only if your argument isn't companies exist only to maximize profit, that one I understand and reject).
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Does it matter what you accept or reject? The business’s owners determine the goals of the business.
- voidfunc 4y ago
  It doesn't matter what you accept of reject. The owners set the priorities not the workers or the general public.
  - pm90 4y ago
    The owners don’t operate in isolation, they live in society with other people.
    - refurb 4y ago
      That’s true, but so far society had supported free markets. So why are you not the one that has to adopt to society?
  - newswasboring 4y ago
    Why are you in the comments if you don't even want to discuss anything? Me accepting and rejecting is in the context of an HN thread where people like to discuss things.
- version_five 4y ago
  Even if they exist for the good of their employees, should they employ everyone until they run out of money, or should they operate competitively? Having billions of dollars, or even being profitable, has no relationship to sustainability of carrying extra employees in a competitive market. I don't expect you actually want to have a discussion though.
  - newswasboring 4y ago
    > should they employ everyone until they run out of money I dont know that, but I know they should keep their employees if they made 13 billion in profit last year. I would like to understand if this is anything apart from greed.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  The idea that companies only exist to make money for the owners/shareholders is not a law of nature. Heck it’s not even a very old idea but is probably about 50 years old. The fact that so many commenters here seem to think it’s akin to a law of nature is an absolutely fascinating study in the effectiveness of propaganda.
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    Propaganda for what?
    - version_five 4y ago
      There must be some maxim like "reality is the best propaganda" that's already out there
  - ThrowawayR2 4y ago
    Most developers at Google, the rest of FAANG, startups, etc. get a big part of their compensation as stock. They _are_ shareholders and profiting handsomely from it so of course they're firmly aligned with the pro-shareholder, pro-corporate viewpoint. Yet, somehow, people are failing to understand this and attributing it to propaganda? To tweak the parent poster's words, the fact that so many commenters fail to realize that is an absolutely fascinating study in how common ignorance is of how people's bread is buttered, even their own.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Slavery being bad is also not a law of nature. It's an agreed upon convention in society though. Ideas don't have to be intrinsically true for them to be powerful and acted on.
- ExoticPearTree 4y ago
  > Only if your argument isn't companies exist only to maximize profit, that one I understand and reject The fact that you do not like reality doesn't make it less real. Companies are created to make money for founders and investors. And if they need to shed load to make those people more money, this is how it is going to be. You can always boycott Google and use/buy any of their products if it makes you feel any better about them firing people.
  - newswasboring 4y ago
    The whole system is made up, I prefer to make it a different way. That is why I reject it, and vehemently advocate for changing this. Advocacy requires me to point out the cruel and unnecessarily unfair nature of this sytem.
- Quarrel 4y ago
  Even if they are entirely employee owned, having thousands of staff working towards goals that you're no longer trying to meet or are unproductive is a bad idea. You need to employ & deploy your people in a productive capacity (however that is defined, it could be pure research, not profit motivated). Big tech expanded a LOT during the pandemic. Too much. Google hired 30,300 people in 2022! (and 21k in 2021) While layoffs are tough for everyone (especially those losing the job), if you expanded too fast, I think that an early reset is probably better than burning through more cash to deal with a bigger problem later, when you then might have to make deeper employee cuts than if you'd acted sooner. After these layoffs Google will still be a LOT bigger than it was a year ago.
  - newswasboring 4y ago
    > While layoffs are tough for everyone That's the thing though, its not tough for everyone. Its only tough for the employee, the employer gets more money. Its not tough for them at all.
    - Quarrel 4y ago
      Having had to sack 90% of staff that worked for me at one point, I'd disagree and say that it is pretty tough on both sides. That said, I meant it was tough on all employees, not just those fired, to be going through layoffs.
      - nonethewiser 4y ago
        Paying people to work on stuff that doesn’t doesn’t generate value is also tough on the employer.
  - sobrenien 4y ago
    Even if layoffs are the correct decision now, the company playing fast and loose with over expansion and thus their employees is absolutely worth criticizing and protesting over. The company with billions of dollars in the bank will have teams of people assessing risk management. But apparently those assessments didn’t address the human risk of over hiring tens of thousands of people to such a degree that they ‘need’ to dispose of them at the first sign of trouble. Other sectors of the economy didn’t see such drastic layoffs so they can’t claim it’s a widespread and unforeseeable problem. They made a risky bet that had a real human cost, and people are right to wonder what’s the point of mega corps if they’re not any better at this than a small or medium business.
samwillis 4y ago
Just because that's how most large business operate doesn't mean we should blindly except it as "just how it's done". Everyone has a right to complain about how an organisation is run, and entitled to push them to put employees before maximising profit. Personally I think society could benefit from being a little more people focussed rather than profit driven.
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
evidently different arguments are allowed in different countries, so if Google wants to have a presence in that country it should follow the standards of the country or it will run into problems of the sort now being experienced.

pydry 4y ago

It's completely reasonable. Google's motives for doing this are no more honorable than they were the last time they were caught setting up a wage fixing cartel: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...

newswasboring 4y ago

Can you elaborate on your statement for dummies? (Only if your argument isn't companies exist only to maximize profit, that one I understand and reject).

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Does it matter what you accept or reject? The business’s owners determine the goals of the business.
voidfunc 4y ago
It doesn't matter what you accept of reject. The owners set the priorities not the workers or the general public.
- pm90 4y ago
  The owners don’t operate in isolation, they live in society with other people.
  - refurb 4y ago
    That’s true, but so far society had supported free markets. So why are you not the one that has to adopt to society?
- newswasboring 4y ago
  Why are you in the comments if you don't even want to discuss anything? Me accepting and rejecting is in the context of an HN thread where people like to discuss things.
version_five 4y ago
Even if they exist for the good of their employees, should they employ everyone until they run out of money, or should they operate competitively? Having billions of dollars, or even being profitable, has no relationship to sustainability of carrying extra employees in a competitive market. I don't expect you actually want to have a discussion though.
- newswasboring 4y ago
  > should they employ everyone until they run out of money I dont know that, but I know they should keep their employees if they made 13 billion in profit last year. I would like to understand if this is anything apart from greed.
rhaway84773 4y ago
The idea that companies only exist to make money for the owners/shareholders is not a law of nature. Heck it’s not even a very old idea but is probably about 50 years old. The fact that so many commenters here seem to think it’s akin to a law of nature is an absolutely fascinating study in the effectiveness of propaganda.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Propaganda for what?
  - version_five 4y ago
    There must be some maxim like "reality is the best propaganda" that's already out there
- ThrowawayR2 4y ago
  Most developers at Google, the rest of FAANG, startups, etc. get a big part of their compensation as stock. They _are_ shareholders and profiting handsomely from it so of course they're firmly aligned with the pro-shareholder, pro-corporate viewpoint. Yet, somehow, people are failing to understand this and attributing it to propaganda? To tweak the parent poster's words, the fact that so many commenters fail to realize that is an absolutely fascinating study in how common ignorance is of how people's bread is buttered, even their own.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Slavery being bad is also not a law of nature. It's an agreed upon convention in society though. Ideas don't have to be intrinsically true for them to be powerful and acted on.
ExoticPearTree 4y ago
> Only if your argument isn't companies exist only to maximize profit, that one I understand and reject The fact that you do not like reality doesn't make it less real. Companies are created to make money for founders and investors. And if they need to shed load to make those people more money, this is how it is going to be. You can always boycott Google and use/buy any of their products if it makes you feel any better about them firing people.
- newswasboring 4y ago
  The whole system is made up, I prefer to make it a different way. That is why I reject it, and vehemently advocate for changing this. Advocacy requires me to point out the cruel and unnecessarily unfair nature of this sytem.
Quarrel 4y ago
Even if they are entirely employee owned, having thousands of staff working towards goals that you're no longer trying to meet or are unproductive is a bad idea. You need to employ & deploy your people in a productive capacity (however that is defined, it could be pure research, not profit motivated). Big tech expanded a LOT during the pandemic. Too much. Google hired 30,300 people in 2022! (and 21k in 2021) While layoffs are tough for everyone (especially those losing the job), if you expanded too fast, I think that an early reset is probably better than burning through more cash to deal with a bigger problem later, when you then might have to make deeper employee cuts than if you'd acted sooner. After these layoffs Google will still be a LOT bigger than it was a year ago.
- newswasboring 4y ago
  > While layoffs are tough for everyone That's the thing though, its not tough for everyone. Its only tough for the employee, the employer gets more money. Its not tough for them at all.
  - Quarrel 4y ago
    Having had to sack 90% of staff that worked for me at one point, I'd disagree and say that it is pretty tough on both sides. That said, I meant it was tough on all employees, not just those fired, to be going through layoffs.
    - nonethewiser 4y ago
      Paying people to work on stuff that doesn’t doesn’t generate value is also tough on the employer.
- sobrenien 4y ago
  Even if layoffs are the correct decision now, the company playing fast and loose with over expansion and thus their employees is absolutely worth criticizing and protesting over. The company with billions of dollars in the bank will have teams of people assessing risk management. But apparently those assessments didn’t address the human risk of over hiring tens of thousands of people to such a degree that they ‘need’ to dispose of them at the first sign of trouble. Other sectors of the economy didn’t see such drastic layoffs so they can’t claim it’s a widespread and unforeseeable problem. They made a risky bet that had a real human cost, and people are right to wonder what’s the point of mega corps if they’re not any better at this than a small or medium business.

samwillis 4y ago

Just because that's how most large business operate doesn't mean we should blindly except it as "just how it's done". Everyone has a right to complain about how an organisation is run, and entitled to push them to put employees before maximising profit. Personally I think society could benefit from being a little more people focussed rather than profit driven.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

evidently different arguments are allowed in different countries, so if Google wants to have a presence in that country it should follow the standards of the country or it will run into problems of the sort now being experienced.