4 ms·

The CEO's job is to deliver results, not maintain full employment. Companies exist, and have always existed, to be temporary money-making enterprises. Acting l

The CEO's job is to deliver results, not maintain full employment. Companies exist, and have always existed, to be temporary money-making enterprises. Acting like they are civil institutions tasked with upholding the social fabric is absurd.

matdehaast 4y ago
Agreed, all these people who make it seem that companies need to be some duty to employee everyone clearly hasn't seen how this has failed in many social leaning states. Don't like how they do it? Create your own company and run it how you want.... We live in a world where you can do that.
- FredPret 4y ago
  Exactly, and startup costs have been dropping like a stone. No-one owes anyone a living, but you don’t need anybody’s permission either. Seeking to create artificial certainty in outcome leads to insurmountable stagnation.
  - UK-Al05 4y ago
    Society exists to create certainty where there was risk.
kalleboo 4y ago
But why did the CEO hire all these useless people in the first place if they are so competent? Why did it take until now to fire them?
- FredPret 4y ago
  Who says they’re competent?
  - bart_spoon 4y ago
    So 20% of Shopify employees were incompetent? Why were they hired then? It’s mismanagement either way. Edit: I clearly misunderstood the above exchange
    - FredPret 4y ago
      Who says the CEO is competent
  - kalleboo 4y ago
    So layoff the CEO if he made such an egregious judgement call as to hire 1 in 5 too many staff
- shmatt 4y ago
  The unspoken part in many of these layoffs, is that hiring people based on 5 back to back zooms, 50% leetcode, 50% STAR-method situational questions, means you have absolutely no idea how these people will actually work in the real world
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- xur17 4y ago
  The CEO isn't an all knowing entity. It's possible they made a judgement call and were wrong. Would you prefer that companies be absolutely sure before they hire anyone to ensure layoffs never happen? It seems like the end result would be less hiring / more people without work.
  - kalleboo 4y ago
    So layoff the CEO if he made such an egregious judgement call as to hire 1 in 5 too many staff
    - xur17 4y ago
      OK, so now we're going to fire any CEO that lays off more than X% of the staff? The likely effect will be slower hiring, and less jobs in our economy. Is that desirable?
kaon123 4y ago
It is not so simplistically true. This is what Reaganomics will want you to believe. Examples abound of companies that did not prioritise shareholder returns over everything. Companies are organisations that operate within a society and therefore have a role to play to keep that society together. There are (very limited) lawful structures that try to make this happen, but much more is down to culture. In many (most?) countries it is considered shameful if a company prioritises shareholder value above everything else. I honestly believe the US is an exception in this regard. Unfortunately US culture is taking over. - And now to go on a complete tangent: In the second part of "The Three Body Problem" trilogy, The Dark Forest, institutions are described that have both an operational officer and a political officer. The navy has an Admiral that decides the strategy, and a political officer that makes sure the Navy does the right thing. The same is then applied to companies. - I wonder if this is a model to apply to a capitalist society: Where you have a CEO doing their regular thing, but also a political officer making sure society is not disadvantaged. Hard to pull off without falling into totalitarianism I guess.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  > I wonder if this is a model to apply to a capitalist society: Where you have a CEO doing their regular thing, but also a political officer making sure society is not disadvantaged. Hard to pull off without falling into totalitarianism I guess Who is choosing the CEO and political officer?
- FredPret 4y ago
  It’s actually hilarious people still believe more political bureaucracy is the answer. Fortunately, US culture is taking over. Companies are formed by shareholders to make money in some venture for the shareholders. People can pursue their social objectives through other types of organizations. Perhaps governments that impose regulations and taxes. I myself support moderate taxes and light regulations. To the extent that companies focus on anything other than money for the owners, it is a failure by the owners to reign in the CEO. The CEO might want to get a fat paycheck for not much performance. The owners want to delegate everything to the CEO. After all, we’re all lazy humans.

matdehaast 4y ago

Agreed, all these people who make it seem that companies need to be some duty to employee everyone clearly hasn't seen how this has failed in many social leaning states. Don't like how they do it? Create your own company and run it how you want.... We live in a world where you can do that.

FredPret 4y ago
Exactly, and startup costs have been dropping like a stone. No-one owes anyone a living, but you don’t need anybody’s permission either. Seeking to create artificial certainty in outcome leads to insurmountable stagnation.
- UK-Al05 4y ago
  Society exists to create certainty where there was risk.

kalleboo 4y ago

But why did the CEO hire all these useless people in the first place if they are so competent? Why did it take until now to fire them?

FredPret 4y ago
Who says they’re competent?
- bart_spoon 4y ago
  So 20% of Shopify employees were incompetent? Why were they hired then? It’s mismanagement either way. Edit: I clearly misunderstood the above exchange
  - FredPret 4y ago
    Who says the CEO is competent
- kalleboo 4y ago
  So layoff the CEO if he made such an egregious judgement call as to hire 1 in 5 too many staff
shmatt 4y ago
The unspoken part in many of these layoffs, is that hiring people based on 5 back to back zooms, 50% leetcode, 50% STAR-method situational questions, means you have absolutely no idea how these people will actually work in the real world
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
xur17 4y ago
The CEO isn't an all knowing entity. It's possible they made a judgement call and were wrong. Would you prefer that companies be absolutely sure before they hire anyone to ensure layoffs never happen? It seems like the end result would be less hiring / more people without work.
- kalleboo 4y ago
  So layoff the CEO if he made such an egregious judgement call as to hire 1 in 5 too many staff
  - xur17 4y ago
    OK, so now we're going to fire any CEO that lays off more than X% of the staff? The likely effect will be slower hiring, and less jobs in our economy. Is that desirable?

kaon123 4y ago

It is not so simplistically true. This is what Reaganomics will want you to believe. Examples abound of companies that did not prioritise shareholder returns over everything. Companies are organisations that operate within a society and therefore have a role to play to keep that society together. There are (very limited) lawful structures that try to make this happen, but much more is down to culture. In many (most?) countries it is considered shameful if a company prioritises shareholder value above everything else. I honestly believe the US is an exception in this regard. Unfortunately US culture is taking over. - And now to go on a complete tangent: In the second part of "The Three Body Problem" trilogy, The Dark Forest, institutions are described that have both an operational officer and a political officer. The navy has an Admiral that decides the strategy, and a political officer that makes sure the Navy does the right thing. The same is then applied to companies. - I wonder if this is a model to apply to a capitalist society: Where you have a CEO doing their regular thing, but also a political officer making sure society is not disadvantaged. Hard to pull off without falling into totalitarianism I guess.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
> I wonder if this is a model to apply to a capitalist society: Where you have a CEO doing their regular thing, but also a political officer making sure society is not disadvantaged. Hard to pull off without falling into totalitarianism I guess Who is choosing the CEO and political officer?
FredPret 4y ago
It’s actually hilarious people still believe more political bureaucracy is the answer. Fortunately, US culture is taking over. Companies are formed by shareholders to make money in some venture for the shareholders. People can pursue their social objectives through other types of organizations. Perhaps governments that impose regulations and taxes. I myself support moderate taxes and light regulations. To the extent that companies focus on anything other than money for the owners, it is a failure by the owners to reign in the CEO. The CEO might want to get a fat paycheck for not much performance. The owners want to delegate everything to the CEO. After all, we’re all lazy humans.