3 ms·
This is a company that makes about 18 billion dollars in profit per quarter.
by __loam 3y ago
This is a company that makes about 18 billion dollars in profit per quarter.
- forward1 3y agoIt is still a business - not a charity.
- Pentamerous 3y agoIt's still real people who suffer when the numbers tell a different story - not charity cases.
- forward1 3y agoWow, those poor ex-Google employees. Now that they have been laid off, they must be experiencing true suffering.
- maximinus_thrax 3y agoI don't understand the point of this comment. Are Google employees not workers as well? Do they not experience suffering or what exactly is the point you are trying to make here? Your insensitive comment is probably showcasing the fallacy of relative privation, but these are real people you're talking about, some are on work visas or are from single income families. Their lives have changed in an instant and instead of empathizing, your reaction is a sarcastic 'those poor ex-Google employees'? Shame on you.
- forward1 3y agoLosing an at-will employment position is suffering? It's unfortunate, maybe, even a little sad. But to say this is "suffering" borders on entitled lunacy. Especially considering ex-Google employees can land virtually any job with it on their resume. The risks of working at-will are well known, and one would be well served to understand them to avoid disappointment. Actually, the shame is on them for failing to adequately prepare for an obvious inevitability, especially if others are depending on them for support.
- endisneigh 3y ago> Especially considering ex-Google employees can land virtually any job with it on their resume. Hilarious and false.
- forward1 3y agoIt is false that working for the 4th largest company in the world does not give your resume an advantage? What evidence will you present in support of this conclusion?
- endisneigh 3y agoI don’t disagree that you get an advantage, I disagree with the conclusion that you’ll be able to land virtually any job as a result. It’s simply false.
- forward1 3y agoSo you're just contesting the meaning of the world "virtually"? Sounds like a "fun" discussion. Enjoy!
- maximinus_thrax 3y agoWhat evidence are you presenting to support this? > Especially considering ex-Google employees can land virtually any job with it on their resume It's only fair to present your evidence before asking other people for evidence when they contradict you.
- forward1 3y agoCommon sense and reason, to name two. Now it's your turn!
- freedomben 3y ago> Losing an at-will employment position is suffering? It's unfortunate, maybe, even a little sad. But to say this is "suffering" borders on entitled lunacy. How would you define "suffering?" Merriam Webster includes "to endure death, pain, or distress" or "to sustain loss or damage" as part of the definition, which definitely seems to include getting laid off.
- confidantlake 3y agoThe dude is a troll.
- forward1 3y ago"I have no counter-argument, so I'm just going to call the person I disagree with a silly name, because I'm upset and it is all I can do"
- seuraughty 3y agoI agree, but the mission of private business is not to keep as many people employed as possible.
- johnchristopher 3y agoThat's weird, that's not what they tell our politicians when they ask for more leeway through new and improved labor and business laws.
- endisneigh 3y agoSeems like you should vote those folks out
- wolverine876 3y agoIt's also not to only serve shareholders each quarter. It's none of those extremes: like everything in life, we must balance multiple stakeholders and responsibilities.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoIt’s the government’s job to provide support in the event of loss of income. , i.e. a floor for quality of life.
- no_wizard 3y agoWhich in turn, corporations including Google, lobby to make sure that taxes are as small as possible, and we aren't reasonably funding unemployment benefits. They haven't even kept up with inflation, let alone substitute a standard of living that's even approximately close to middle class. Unemployment is a hell hole of despair in the US. Its not some "blip" or something, like in other countries that have better safety nets, people lose their homes, get kicked out of their rentals and all other things. It can be really damaging for people, even FAANG engineers
- lotsofpulp 3y agoHalf of the voting populace seems to agree with not increasing taxes in such a way too. But the point remains that it is only feasible and efficient for the federal government to be tasked with this responsibility.
- no_wizard 3y agoOver half support higher taxes on corporations (particularly large ones)[0]. If the observational basis for this is simply that roughly half of the votes tallied in most elections are split between democrats and republicans, I posit to say that its a gross simplification of voters and their motivations. [0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/07/top-tax-frustrations-for-americans-the-feeling-that-some-corporations-wealthy-people-dont-pay-fair-share/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/07/top-tax-f...
- lotsofpulp 3y agoIn my study of US politics over the last 2 decades, a candidate that campaigns on higher taxes and lowering/simplifying barriers to receiving benefits will always lose to one that advertises benefits, but in reality it is debt underwritten by future federal taxpayers and/or they have numerous requirements to minimize the number of recipients. As much as they might want to tax corporations, the voters (since they are older) don’t want their 401k/IRA/defined benefit pension plan balances to go down. Another signal is there is never any mention of implementing a wealth tax (property tax). Politicians will keep knocking around increasing earned income taxes (which affects workers), but because the older people are the most important contingent of voters, touching property of wealthy people who do not need to earn income is off the table. In the most recent tax legislation, they even specifically left the 1031 real estate exchange intact, and got rid of other 1031 exchanges.
- podgietaru 3y ago18 billion. An incomprehensible number. I hate this “they’re not charities” bullshit.
- forward1 3y ago"I can't comprehend how a successful business generates such a large profit margin, therefore this entitles me to a share of it."
- __loam 3y agoIt should be very difficult to fire people, especially if you're making a massive profit. The idea that a company making that much money in pure profit needs to "trim the fat" is callous in the extreme, and probably deeply harmful to company morale. The employees of a company are absolutely entitled to a share of the profit they personally helped create.
- forward1 3y ago> It should be very difficult to fire people, especially if you're making a massive profit. What is the basis of this opinion, though? What gives you this entitlement that companies must employ people if they're well off (according to you)? > The idea that a company making that much money in pure profit needs to "trim the fat" is callous in the extreme, and probably deeply harmful to company morale. Who cares? You think business isn't callous or even cutthroat? You think businesses care about "morale" over the bottomline? You would be so wrong. > The employees of a company are absolutely entitled to a share of the profit they personally helped create. According to ... the petulant ranting of HN readers? Or do you have a more authoritative or objective reason to believe this?
- fourteenfour 3y agohttps://www.google.org/ https://www.google.org/
- oh_sigh 3y agoThey probably didn't get to the point of making $18B a quarter by keeping on a bunch of organizational dead weight.
- morkalork 3y agoIt's a failure of creativity and leadership if they can't think of something productive to do with their world class talent and infrastructure.
- hyperliner 3y ago[dead]
- flavius29663 3y agoGoogle never had layoffs before 2022, so maybe they did?
- onion2k 3y agoRegardless of anything else a layoff at Google is an admission that the leadership team have nothing for those people to do that's worth keeping them around for. They're 'dead weight' because Google's ideas, ambitions, and taste for audacious ground-breaking projects have died as well. We should all be a little sad about that.
- oh_sigh 3y agoMaybe Google never had the ambition or ideas to employ 200,000+ people. How big were they in the golden era that you're imagining?