4 ms·

Do those metrics count "number of people laid off" explicitly? We know they do implicitly because laying off people makes the company more profitable, but is t

Do those metrics count "number of people laid off" explicitly? We know they do implicitly because laying off people makes the company more profitable, but is there any penalty for killing jobs? If not, shouldn't there be?

mulmen 2y ago
The purpose of a corporation is to make money, not jobs.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  to play devils advocate, there are different levels one can look at that. From the level of the companies and owners, the goal is to make money. From the perspective of society there are tons of answers. A common answer is that companies provide goods and services that give consumers more value than they cost, thereby enriching the lives of consumers. It seems like some people, especially those who take issue with layoffs, tend to think the social purpose of companies is to give jobs/money to workers. This leads to a lot of frustration for those people because the entire economic system is set up such that jobs are an optional byproduct of making goods, not the other way around.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- duped 2y ago
  We live in a society where there are more metrics than money. The entire notion of corporate amorality is a thin veil that people use to hide their own unethical and immoral behavior. That's why I made the comment that layoffs are the trolley problem. It's an ethical question and companies don't always make the ethical choice, for example choosing profit over jobs in a downturn.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    That presupposes an ethical obligation to provide jobs, which is of course at the center of this. If you think companies have a ethical obligation to provide jobs and do so continuously, of course you will find issue with the rest of it. All objections stem from this, and it is controversial.
    - duped 2y ago
      I disagree, and think you're missing the forest for the trees. I think that people have an obligation to keep their promises to other people - that's a virtue called honesty or integrity. When a promise needs to be broken, that presents an ethical dilemma. One example of people making a promise is hiring. A layoff is fundamentally breaking the promise you made to a group of people to keep them employed - whether that's the most ethical choice or not circles back to the trolley problem. If 20% need to be laid off to save the 80% then it's not an unethical choice. If 20% need to be laid off to make up for the mistake of a small group of leaders in order to benefit the small group of shareholders, then it's unethical. > All objections stem from this, and it is controversial. It's only controversial when you pretend that you can absolve an unethical choice by placing it behind the corporate veil. It's not controversial outside of Milton Friedman disciples.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Do you think hiring is a promise? What do you think the promise consists of? I think you are projecting a promise where you want one to be, but nobody is actually under the impression it exists. Neither employers and employees are under the impression jobs are for life. If you're concern is primarily honesty and promise, would this piece satisfied by a written declaration and acknowledgment that the duration of employment is not indefinite and can change based on the arbitrary whims of the employer? If you remove the corporate veil, what do you think the promise is for one human hiring another, and the ethical requirements. If I hire a housekeeper or babysitter, what am I committing to? I dont see how corporations are held to anything but a higher expectation than individuals, not lower. Can you expand on this?
      - 2y ago
s1artibartfast 2y ago
No, I dont think there should be a penalty by default. The objective of a company isnt and shouldn't be to run a charity. Some amount of layoffs are desirable just as a matter of housekeeping. Layoffs can be a hard part of doing a good job. I think there are extreme examples and tactics where layoffs cross a moral line but not a legal line. for example, I think the humane thing to do is freeze hiring before layoffs so you dont relocate someone only to let them go. That said, there are already a lot of business incentives to avoid turbulence in headcount. It is slow and expensive to hire people and let them go.
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  > Layoffs can be a hard part of doing a good job. Yeah firing people is so tiring - might have to skip my tee time!/s
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    /s aside Its actually incredibly hard to to figure out which people to cut in an efficient manner. It is one of the reasons companies suck so bad at doing it, and many avoid layoffs and firing when they should be doing more of it.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >I dont think there should be a penalty by default. I do. >The objective of a company isnt and shouldn't be to run a charity. Charities pay employees too. 501ks don't mean you run on all volunteers and that it's okay to remove them at your whim. Horrible metaphor. Anyways, a company has 3 goals 1. serve the customer 2. support your labor to enable efficient production 3. overall stimulate the economy and society These all help the bottom line of "make profit". Shareholders have little stake here so it's annoying that that is all they prioritize lately. because you then break all 3 rules just for them, who will leave on a whim for some other speculation. And then they wonder why they lose money as workers burnout and leave, as customers get frustrated and move, and the economy gets worse as money is pocketed to the rich instead of the public. It'a all a horrid death spiral. It needs to stop. It will stop forcefully if not voluntarily. >It is slow and expensive to hire people and let them go. And who's fault is that? I don't remember shouting in glee whenever I hear 5 rounds of interviews, including 2 rounds dedicated to trivia. >Its actually incredibly hard to to figure out which people to cut in an efficient manner. it is. That's why Hanlon's razor simply tells me they aren't trying very hard. They need to cut numbers, maxiize money and care about next quarter next quarter. efficiency wasn' prioritized before the layoffs, why would it be now?

mulmen 2y ago

The purpose of a corporation is to make money, not jobs.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
to play devils advocate, there are different levels one can look at that. From the level of the companies and owners, the goal is to make money. From the perspective of society there are tons of answers. A common answer is that companies provide goods and services that give consumers more value than they cost, thereby enriching the lives of consumers. It seems like some people, especially those who take issue with layoffs, tend to think the social purpose of companies is to give jobs/money to workers. This leads to a lot of frustration for those people because the entire economic system is set up such that jobs are an optional byproduct of making goods, not the other way around.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
duped 2y ago
We live in a society where there are more metrics than money. The entire notion of corporate amorality is a thin veil that people use to hide their own unethical and immoral behavior. That's why I made the comment that layoffs are the trolley problem. It's an ethical question and companies don't always make the ethical choice, for example choosing profit over jobs in a downturn.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  That presupposes an ethical obligation to provide jobs, which is of course at the center of this. If you think companies have a ethical obligation to provide jobs and do so continuously, of course you will find issue with the rest of it. All objections stem from this, and it is controversial.
  - duped 2y ago
    I disagree, and think you're missing the forest for the trees. I think that people have an obligation to keep their promises to other people - that's a virtue called honesty or integrity. When a promise needs to be broken, that presents an ethical dilemma. One example of people making a promise is hiring. A layoff is fundamentally breaking the promise you made to a group of people to keep them employed - whether that's the most ethical choice or not circles back to the trolley problem. If 20% need to be laid off to save the 80% then it's not an unethical choice. If 20% need to be laid off to make up for the mistake of a small group of leaders in order to benefit the small group of shareholders, then it's unethical. > All objections stem from this, and it is controversial. It's only controversial when you pretend that you can absolve an unethical choice by placing it behind the corporate veil. It's not controversial outside of Milton Friedman disciples.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Do you think hiring is a promise? What do you think the promise consists of? I think you are projecting a promise where you want one to be, but nobody is actually under the impression it exists. Neither employers and employees are under the impression jobs are for life. If you're concern is primarily honesty and promise, would this piece satisfied by a written declaration and acknowledgment that the duration of employment is not indefinite and can change based on the arbitrary whims of the employer? If you remove the corporate veil, what do you think the promise is for one human hiring another, and the ethical requirements. If I hire a housekeeper or babysitter, what am I committing to? I dont see how corporations are held to anything but a higher expectation than individuals, not lower. Can you expand on this?
    - 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

No, I dont think there should be a penalty by default. The objective of a company isnt and shouldn't be to run a charity. Some amount of layoffs are desirable just as a matter of housekeeping. Layoffs can be a hard part of doing a good job. I think there are extreme examples and tactics where layoffs cross a moral line but not a legal line. for example, I think the humane thing to do is freeze hiring before layoffs so you dont relocate someone only to let them go. That said, there are already a lot of business incentives to avoid turbulence in headcount. It is slow and expensive to hire people and let them go.

DrillShopper 2y ago
> Layoffs can be a hard part of doing a good job. Yeah firing people is so tiring - might have to skip my tee time!/s
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  /s aside Its actually incredibly hard to to figure out which people to cut in an efficient manner. It is one of the reasons companies suck so bad at doing it, and many avoid layoffs and firing when they should be doing more of it.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>I dont think there should be a penalty by default. I do. >The objective of a company isnt and shouldn't be to run a charity. Charities pay employees too. 501ks don't mean you run on all volunteers and that it's okay to remove them at your whim. Horrible metaphor. Anyways, a company has 3 goals 1. serve the customer 2. support your labor to enable efficient production 3. overall stimulate the economy and society These all help the bottom line of "make profit". Shareholders have little stake here so it's annoying that that is all they prioritize lately. because you then break all 3 rules just for them, who will leave on a whim for some other speculation. And then they wonder why they lose money as workers burnout and leave, as customers get frustrated and move, and the economy gets worse as money is pocketed to the rich instead of the public. It'a all a horrid death spiral. It needs to stop. It will stop forcefully if not voluntarily. >It is slow and expensive to hire people and let them go. And who's fault is that? I don't remember shouting in glee whenever I hear 5 rounds of interviews, including 2 rounds dedicated to trivia. >Its actually incredibly hard to to figure out which people to cut in an efficient manner. it is. That's why Hanlon's razor simply tells me they aren't trying very hard. They need to cut numbers, maxiize money and care about next quarter next quarter. efficiency wasn' prioritized before the layoffs, why would it be now?