4 ms·

it is a dangerous simple view and it is why communisum brought so much sufferings because in the real world, it is not that simple though. let's go along with

it is a dangerous simple view and it is why communisum brought so much sufferings because in the real world, it is not that simple though. let's go along with your view. EVERY CEO from EVERY COMPANY must optimize for not hiring more than they think they need. The result would be that there would be much fewer jobs available in the market. Some of the 10000 humans would never get a good paying job in 2021 and 2022. Isn't it a worse outcome for these 10000 human beings?

tombert 3y ago
I really have no idea what communism has to do with anything so I'll ignore that part. I'm sure a good percentage of these people quit jobs specifically to work at Microsoft. When they quit those jobs, their employer probably filled that position. Then Microsoft fired those people, and it's likely that a lot of people were unable to go back to their previous positions. This isn't even taking to account people who moved to Washington or California to work at Microsoft, who sold their homes to move to a place with a substantially higher cost of living.
- ano88888 3y ago
  Okay. So to go along with your assummptions. Their old employer filled their old positions. It means another group of people who filled their positions benefited (lets call them group B). group B moved up the career chain. It is annoying that group A needs to find jobs again. But we can assume that group A can find better jobs compared to group B. Overall, it is actually better for society that group B has an oppourtunity to move up their career ladder to fill up the previous job of group A. And then group C will be able to fill the previous jobs of group B. It brings down our society wealth gap.
- 8note 3y ago
  You're really downplaying the agency of people who accepted these jobs and their own risk analyses. Selling your house and moving for a job in a clearly ridiculous job market is going all in on a gamble. Much moreso than nadella did
  - tombert 3y ago
    Most of these people are not lauded as business geniuses and are not in charge of 2 trillion dollar companies. ETA: I would like to point out that I feel like your point would be more valid if Microsoft were a startup or something. However, I think a lot of people joining assumed that it was a stable company and as such their job would likely be more stable than where they were coming from.
  - com2kid 3y ago
    Microsoft has traditionally been a very safe employer, who typically does a very good job of maintaining revenue per employee. Of course Microsoft also historically benefitted from housing in the surrounding area being 1/2 to 1/3rd what it was in the bay area, so they could pay a lot less. Now that good family housing around MS campus starts at 1.5m, MS has been forced to increase salaries dramatically. > Selling your house and moving for a job in a clearly ridiculous job market is going all in on a gamble. Tech hiring had been crazy for years before the pandemic, IMHO pandemic hiring in tech didn't stand out as being particularly odd. Of course looking at the numbers afterwards, we can see how much companies grew, but no one applying for a job in Jan 2021 knew that Microsoft intended to hire 40K people that year.

tombert 3y ago

I really have no idea what communism has to do with anything so I'll ignore that part. I'm sure a good percentage of these people quit jobs specifically to work at Microsoft. When they quit those jobs, their employer probably filled that position. Then Microsoft fired those people, and it's likely that a lot of people were unable to go back to their previous positions. This isn't even taking to account people who moved to Washington or California to work at Microsoft, who sold their homes to move to a place with a substantially higher cost of living.

ano88888 3y ago
Okay. So to go along with your assummptions. Their old employer filled their old positions. It means another group of people who filled their positions benefited (lets call them group B). group B moved up the career chain. It is annoying that group A needs to find jobs again. But we can assume that group A can find better jobs compared to group B. Overall, it is actually better for society that group B has an oppourtunity to move up their career ladder to fill up the previous job of group A. And then group C will be able to fill the previous jobs of group B. It brings down our society wealth gap.
8note 3y ago
You're really downplaying the agency of people who accepted these jobs and their own risk analyses. Selling your house and moving for a job in a clearly ridiculous job market is going all in on a gamble. Much moreso than nadella did
- tombert 3y ago
  Most of these people are not lauded as business geniuses and are not in charge of 2 trillion dollar companies. ETA: I would like to point out that I feel like your point would be more valid if Microsoft were a startup or something. However, I think a lot of people joining assumed that it was a stable company and as such their job would likely be more stable than where they were coming from.
- com2kid 3y ago
  Microsoft has traditionally been a very safe employer, who typically does a very good job of maintaining revenue per employee. Of course Microsoft also historically benefitted from housing in the surrounding area being 1/2 to 1/3rd what it was in the bay area, so they could pay a lot less. Now that good family housing around MS campus starts at 1.5m, MS has been forced to increase salaries dramatically. > Selling your house and moving for a job in a clearly ridiculous job market is going all in on a gamble. Tech hiring had been crazy for years before the pandemic, IMHO pandemic hiring in tech didn't stand out as being particularly odd. Of course looking at the numbers afterwards, we can see how much companies grew, but no one applying for a job in Jan 2021 knew that Microsoft intended to hire 40K people that year.