4 ms·

“Better for society” sounds like an overstatement. I think you mean better for Shopify or their investors. Are you excluding those 20% MFs that are getting fir

“Better for society” sounds like an overstatement. I think you mean better for Shopify or their investors. Are you excluding those 20% MFs that are getting fired from Society? Where are they gonna do their scissoring now?

monero-xmr 3y ago
You are falling into the trap of the Luddites. As a society we allow layoffs because it reallocates skilled workers to new areas that actually need them. Otherwise why not pay people to dig holes and fill them back in again, forever?
- throwaway290 3y ago
  straw man analogy. yes, if your end goal is something crazy and unthinkable like functional society with less crime and full of happy, mentally healthy non stressed people. only then keeping people employed even if in some cases it is not the most ruthlessly financially effective thing to do can be desirable
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bhargav 3y ago
  Not saying downsizing does not make sense, but its a stretch to say that its a service to our society to downsize one's company. > As a society we allow layoffs because it reallocates skilled workers to new areas that actually need them This more sounds like a trap mindset to me to be honest. Its associating some sort of morality to what is just regular part of running a business. Companies do what's best for the company and its investors first and foremost.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    The conceit that there exists human actions that are exempt from “morality” is fundamentally depraved.
    - bhargav 3y ago
      I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. Are you suggesting that all corporations actions are based on morality? I was pointing out that’s not the case.
      - drewbug01 3y ago
        > Are you suggesting that all corporations actions are based on morality? I believe the suggestion is that they certainly should be based in some moral system. Corporations are a convenient fiction we use to shield the actual humans from the effects of the actions they collectively take.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  You are falling into the meta-trap of misunderstanding the Luddites. The Luddites weren't idiots, nor they were against progress. They revolted because the way the new technology was applied was destroying their specialization, and in many cases, destroying their lives. The promise of "reallocating skilled workers to new areas" is bullshit at the individual level. What's being reallocated is the new generation, the kids that grow to specialize in the new area instead of the old one. The specialists from the old area aren't being transferred along with rank and pay. They get to restart at the junior level, with commensurate pay, while they retain their age, their living costs, their families and other dependents. Even the kids of those "reallocated" old-timers aren't going to partake fully in the newly opened fields of work - they'll be weighed down by the fallout of their families suddenly dropping a level or two on the living standards ladder. The Luddites rebelled because their lives were being destroyed. And the people who did the destruction? They didn't give two damns about what society will get out of it. They did it only because they saw a way to cut costs down and increase their own profits. You don't get to criticize Luddites for selfishness when the other side was just as selfish, if not more.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    I’m saving this, and suggest others do as well, because it’s the best exposition I’ve seen describing this phenomena in an empathetic and precise way. Kudos!!
  - monero-xmr 3y ago
    For hundreds of thousands of years, pre-historic man became very skilled at cutting rocks in order to make stone age tools. Generations upon generations of early humans learned, worked on, and passed down to their children the way to perfectly smash rocks against each other in order to cut them into pointy shapes. In this way they made arrow heads, knives, axes, and so on. It's hard to believe, but this primitive technology was revolutionary. When metal working developed, all of the hundreds of thousands of years of skill in making stone tools was meaningless - it had been superseded by new technology. I don't care one iota about craftsmen who can no longer conduct their craft in the way they want because a better technology came around. If one person can make 1000 shoes a day while a cobbler can only make 5, this is great for society. This is why we live in skyscrapers rather than huts. This is why I don't pay people to cut my grass with scissors.

monero-xmr 3y ago

You are falling into the trap of the Luddites. As a society we allow layoffs because it reallocates skilled workers to new areas that actually need them. Otherwise why not pay people to dig holes and fill them back in again, forever?

throwaway290 3y ago
straw man analogy. yes, if your end goal is something crazy and unthinkable like functional society with less crime and full of happy, mentally healthy non stressed people. only then keeping people employed even if in some cases it is not the most ruthlessly financially effective thing to do can be desirable
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bhargav 3y ago
Not saying downsizing does not make sense, but its a stretch to say that its a service to our society to downsize one's company. > As a society we allow layoffs because it reallocates skilled workers to new areas that actually need them This more sounds like a trap mindset to me to be honest. Its associating some sort of morality to what is just regular part of running a business. Companies do what's best for the company and its investors first and foremost.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  The conceit that there exists human actions that are exempt from “morality” is fundamentally depraved.
  - bhargav 3y ago
    I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. Are you suggesting that all corporations actions are based on morality? I was pointing out that’s not the case.
    - drewbug01 3y ago
      > Are you suggesting that all corporations actions are based on morality? I believe the suggestion is that they certainly should be based in some moral system. Corporations are a convenient fiction we use to shield the actual humans from the effects of the actions they collectively take.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
You are falling into the meta-trap of misunderstanding the Luddites. The Luddites weren't idiots, nor they were against progress. They revolted because the way the new technology was applied was destroying their specialization, and in many cases, destroying their lives. The promise of "reallocating skilled workers to new areas" is bullshit at the individual level. What's being reallocated is the new generation, the kids that grow to specialize in the new area instead of the old one. The specialists from the old area aren't being transferred along with rank and pay. They get to restart at the junior level, with commensurate pay, while they retain their age, their living costs, their families and other dependents. Even the kids of those "reallocated" old-timers aren't going to partake fully in the newly opened fields of work - they'll be weighed down by the fallout of their families suddenly dropping a level or two on the living standards ladder. The Luddites rebelled because their lives were being destroyed. And the people who did the destruction? They didn't give two damns about what society will get out of it. They did it only because they saw a way to cut costs down and increase their own profits. You don't get to criticize Luddites for selfishness when the other side was just as selfish, if not more.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  I’m saving this, and suggest others do as well, because it’s the best exposition I’ve seen describing this phenomena in an empathetic and precise way. Kudos!!
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  For hundreds of thousands of years, pre-historic man became very skilled at cutting rocks in order to make stone age tools. Generations upon generations of early humans learned, worked on, and passed down to their children the way to perfectly smash rocks against each other in order to cut them into pointy shapes. In this way they made arrow heads, knives, axes, and so on. It's hard to believe, but this primitive technology was revolutionary. When metal working developed, all of the hundreds of thousands of years of skill in making stone tools was meaningless - it had been superseded by new technology. I don't care one iota about craftsmen who can no longer conduct their craft in the way they want because a better technology came around. If one person can make 1000 shoes a day while a cobbler can only make 5, this is great for society. This is why we live in skyscrapers rather than huts. This is why I don't pay people to cut my grass with scissors.