4 ms·

> that wasn't your original argument. Yes it was, there was absolutely no shift in subject matter between the two posts. “Hollowing out” is a thing that the co

> that wasn't your original argument. Yes it was, there was absolutely no shift in subject matter between the two posts. “Hollowing out” is a thing that the company is doing to itself, and has (frequently) very little to do with its employees themselves. You have that equally as much with random mass layoffs as you do with intentional mass employee resignations. The company has done something intentional to cause an exodus which is largely random in nature, and is invariably along lines that has only a dimly vague association with an employee’s competence. We saw that with some very prominent mass layoffs in Silicon Valley in early 2023, where employees of all kinds were sacked regardless of skill level, experience, and employability. It’s no different when employees as a whole reach a breaking point and initiate a wave of resignations - those with the means and resources to either immediately quit or be rapidly re-hired elsewhere will do so, those without those means will linger on and cling to the job. > I wish we could simply respect the choices of an individual and not assume their aptitude because of their views on work from home. Quit sticking additional meaning and intent where there is absolutely none. I never insinuated this, never had that as an objective, and took pains to keep the target on the company. So let me re-iterate: Those remaining from Grinder’s mass loss of employees are most likely either people who would have difficulty getting rapidly hired elsewhere due to lower skill levels, or people who have been “locked into” their employment by whatever means and are therefore under a significant disadvantage of choice regardless of their actual skill level. Those that left would have seen the abusive and toxic behaviour of the company for what it is, and chose to execute their much more available options by seeking employment at a less hostile employer. There just isn’t any other way to phrase this. > it's certainly tonedeaf when you consider properly funding your kids as "desperate" Capitalism as is implemented in America makes such desperation a key aspect of its existence. The cruelty of such desperation IS THE POINT OF CAPITALISM: desperate employees will accept lower wages and more abusive employers, who will cut more corners and squeeze their workforce ever more tightly for concessions in order to maintain those obscenely fat profit margins flowing upward to the Parasite Class. So, “tone deaf”?? To paper over such cruelty-based objectives of Capitalism so as to not offend, is to foster ignorance by omission and is an epithet flung in the faces of the desperate for their crime of being that desperate. I consider ignorance by far the greater offence, and will gladly be “tone deaf” all day long where this subject is concerned. I will gleefully ram such “tone deafness” down the throats of everyone who refuses to acknowledge such inequalities by making it viscerally uncomfortable for them to ignore those inequalities.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>I never insinuated this, never had that as an objective, and took pains to keep the target on the company. you very much said so in words. Intentional or not, you explicitly said that only the worst or least competent employees remained: >Grindr is hollowing itself out in terms of talent and it’s best employees, leaving only the sub-par and desperate. If you want to clarify or correct, that is fine. But doubling down and acting like these words were never said doesn't make a good look for you. >The cruelty of such desperation IS THE POINT OF CAPITALISM We're getting way off topic on a thread that was about WFH, so I'll make it brief: it's a side effect, but not the point. Capitalism is about profit and in a vacuum is simply about that. if long term capitalism determines that happier employees makes more money, it won't go out of its way to make them miserable in order to maintain control. Going down that route to maxmize replacability or minimize employee satisfaction is incompetence at best and greed at worst. Because on system operated by humans will have benevolent nor even competent actors.
- rekabis 3y ago
  > you very much said so in words. Intentional or not, you explicitly said that only the worst or least competent employees remained: >>Grindr is hollowing itself out in terms of talent and it’s best employees, leaving only the sub-par and desperate. So the word “desperate” does not exist in that sentence? Because it is a valid word, separate and distinct from “sub-par”. Plus, “desperate” does not equal “sub-par”. A simple dictionary can teach you that. The word “and” between then indicates that each type of person is present in the group that remains, it is not an either-or group that consists of only one type of person or another. Some will be sub-par. Others will be desperate. I strongly recommend you brush up on your comprehension of the English language, as it appears to not be your native tongue.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>I never insinuated this, never had that as an objective, and took pains to keep the target on the company. you very much said so in words. Intentional or not, you explicitly said that only the worst or least competent employees remained: >Grindr is hollowing itself out in terms of talent and it’s best employees, leaving only the sub-par and desperate. If you want to clarify or correct, that is fine. But doubling down and acting like these words were never said doesn't make a good look for you. >The cruelty of such desperation IS THE POINT OF CAPITALISM We're getting way off topic on a thread that was about WFH, so I'll make it brief: it's a side effect, but not the point. Capitalism is about profit and in a vacuum is simply about that. if long term capitalism determines that happier employees makes more money, it won't go out of its way to make them miserable in order to maintain control. Going down that route to maxmize replacability or minimize employee satisfaction is incompetence at best and greed at worst. Because on system operated by humans will have benevolent nor even competent actors.

rekabis 3y ago
> you very much said so in words. Intentional or not, you explicitly said that only the worst or least competent employees remained: >>Grindr is hollowing itself out in terms of talent and it’s best employees, leaving only the sub-par and desperate. So the word “desperate” does not exist in that sentence? Because it is a valid word, separate and distinct from “sub-par”. Plus, “desperate” does not equal “sub-par”. A simple dictionary can teach you that. The word “and” between then indicates that each type of person is present in the group that remains, it is not an either-or group that consists of only one type of person or another. Some will be sub-par. Others will be desperate. I strongly recommend you brush up on your comprehension of the English language, as it appears to not be your native tongue.