5 ms·

>I was trying to highlight the idea that most workers dont have to rely on having a shitty work product to ensure their job security. I think, then, that we're

>I was trying to highlight the idea that most workers dont have to rely on having a shitty work product to ensure their job security. I think, then, that we're saying the same thing? That, yes, most workers, like heart surgeons, or engineers at a good tech company, don't have to do a shitty job to ensure job security, whereas Musk's employees do, because that means Musk will retain them while firing many workers who do a good job. I don't think either Musk retaining unproductive employees or firing productive employees are desirable, but that seems to be what he's doing, hence the advice spawning this thread.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I guess I just dont understand where that assumption comes from. How is this or any tech layoff different? Builders and surgeons do suffer layoffs when they dont bring in more revenue than they cost. There are tons of industries where jobs, projects, and labor demands are cyclic that dont resort to cynical employee sabotage. I guess this is part of a greater pet-peeve where every time a layoff comes up the predominant sentiment is either: 1) that the workers are productive revenue generators and the company is stupid and less informed than random outsiders or 2) employment should not be contingent on the employer ROI. In my opinion at least, jobs aren't guaranteed lifelong appointments. They are open ended contracts that either party can terminate any time. Termination from either side isn't a moral transgression in general, but I understand there can be some issues on the margin. Im genuinely perplexed by others reactions and I think my post was an attempt to get at why so many people see it different
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > I guess I just dont understand where that assumption comes from. It comes from multiple people in this post, so it might be worth just asking them, if you want to find out. I'm sure the posters are willing to answer a good faith question. >I guess this is part of a greater pet-peeve where every time a layoff comes up the predominant sentiment is either: 1) that the workers are productive revenue generators and the company is stupid and less informed than random outsiders or 2) employment should not be contingent on the employer ROI. I have not seen this, but there are assumptions that the employees fired were somehow unprofitable. Perhaps at another company, this might be a safer assumption. In this case, it's more likely the action was irrational, impulsive, and drug- and/or ego-fueled. We'd need some evidence that they were fired because they were worth less than they cost, to make that assumption.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I guess I just dont understand where that assumption comes from. How is this or any tech layoff different? Builders and surgeons do suffer layoffs when they dont bring in more revenue than they cost. There are tons of industries where jobs, projects, and labor demands are cyclic that dont resort to cynical employee sabotage. I guess this is part of a greater pet-peeve where every time a layoff comes up the predominant sentiment is either: 1) that the workers are productive revenue generators and the company is stupid and less informed than random outsiders or 2) employment should not be contingent on the employer ROI. In my opinion at least, jobs aren't guaranteed lifelong appointments. They are open ended contracts that either party can terminate any time. Termination from either side isn't a moral transgression in general, but I understand there can be some issues on the margin. Im genuinely perplexed by others reactions and I think my post was an attempt to get at why so many people see it different

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> I guess I just dont understand where that assumption comes from. It comes from multiple people in this post, so it might be worth just asking them, if you want to find out. I'm sure the posters are willing to answer a good faith question. >I guess this is part of a greater pet-peeve where every time a layoff comes up the predominant sentiment is either: 1) that the workers are productive revenue generators and the company is stupid and less informed than random outsiders or 2) employment should not be contingent on the employer ROI. I have not seen this, but there are assumptions that the employees fired were somehow unprofitable. Perhaps at another company, this might be a safer assumption. In this case, it's more likely the action was irrational, impulsive, and drug- and/or ego-fueled. We'd need some evidence that they were fired because they were worth less than they cost, to make that assumption.