3 ms·

While I appreciate the sentiment, surely that is not the reason why we should wish acquisitions to happen or fall through? There's something to be said about so

While I appreciate the sentiment, surely that is not the reason why we should wish acquisitions to happen or fall through? There's something to be said about solving for maximum societal welfare—which may or may not be the case here, but in any event doesn't depend on any specific individual

jacques_chester 2y ago
I think the parent comment may be a reference to IBM being caught in the past deliberately firing older workers.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  Yup.
- thrwaway1337 2y ago
  Allegedly, but not proven, right? https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/ibm-wins-another-ruling-limiting-ex-workers-age-bias-claims-2023-08-04/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/ibm-wins-another-ru... https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/23/ibm_supreme_court/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/23/ibm_supreme_court/
  - jacques_chester 2y ago
    The lawsuit hasn't been brought precisely because IBM fought tooth and nail to cut off access to the courts. Not the sort of thing you do for the hell of it.
lja 2y ago
I think it's important to contemplate the human component of mergers. If lots of gainfully employed people get let go so that fewer people can consolidate expenses and raise shareholder value I think it should be considered as part of the decision making framework.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  It is a consideration; redundancies are eliminated in acquisitions. It's capitalism; not laborism.
inetknght 2y ago
> While I appreciate the sentiment, surely that is not the reason why we should wish acquisitions to happen or fall through? I have another reason (whether or not that's "better" is arguable): because too big to fail is a thing and we've already seen what happens in other industries when big players buy out smaller ones.
- thrwaway1337 2y ago
  I see "too big to fail" most commonly referenced when talking about the GFC of '08-'09. Nothing there happened because big players bought out smaller ones. Lehman Brothers wasn't even big, comparatively speaking

jacques_chester 2y ago

I think the parent comment may be a reference to IBM being caught in the past deliberately firing older workers.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
Yup.
thrwaway1337 2y ago
Allegedly, but not proven, right? https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/ibm-wins-another-ruling-limiting-ex-workers-age-bias-claims-2023-08-04/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/ibm-wins-another-ru... https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/23/ibm_supreme_court/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/23/ibm_supreme_court/
- jacques_chester 2y ago
  The lawsuit hasn't been brought precisely because IBM fought tooth and nail to cut off access to the courts. Not the sort of thing you do for the hell of it.

lja 2y ago

I think it's important to contemplate the human component of mergers. If lots of gainfully employed people get let go so that fewer people can consolidate expenses and raise shareholder value I think it should be considered as part of the decision making framework.

silverquiet 2y ago
It is a consideration; redundancies are eliminated in acquisitions. It's capitalism; not laborism.

inetknght 2y ago

> While I appreciate the sentiment, surely that is not the reason why we should wish acquisitions to happen or fall through? I have another reason (whether or not that's "better" is arguable): because too big to fail is a thing and we've already seen what happens in other industries when big players buy out smaller ones.

thrwaway1337 2y ago
I see "too big to fail" most commonly referenced when talking about the GFC of '08-'09. Nothing there happened because big players bought out smaller ones. Lehman Brothers wasn't even big, comparatively speaking