Point 1: The hidden implication is obviously the continued problem of large firms over-hiring when labor or money is cheap and then performing mass layoffs when

Point 1: The hidden implication is obviously the continued problem of large firms over-hiring when labor or money is cheap and then performing mass layoffs when it's not. If you are hiring someone or a group with plans of firing them later then the contract wasn't established in good faith. Many of these workers can make more hourly if they are independent, they are paying for stability. No company should be able to double dip by hiring a large team to build a system and then firing most of them to maintain it on a shoe-string budget, if they want to do that they can pay top dollar to have a 3rd party build it Point 2: No matter how it shakes out, if you structure your company in a way that white men or asian men are incentivized to do more or women and blacks are incentivized to do less, then your company has a racist incentive structure and it should be rebuilt. They aren't flying in 15-year-old Hadje from Chad, the people they hire are all similarly qualified so there shouldn't be such a large gap, as we know cause if we restrict it to just white men then there isn't this large pay gap. Besides, it's a complete myth that people are "payed what they are worth" if that were the case a 100xer would make 100x more than a 1xer after firing 99 people and keeping the 100xer. In reality they might double or tripple their pay and the rest just becomes (record) profits for the company and 99 people are out of work. Point 3: Does the company have any evidence that it doesn't work or should we just take their word? Doesn't work in what sense? That profits for the company aren't maximized? If that's the only metric then why should the employees be payed at all? Just have them as slaves and use the government to beat or kill them if they disagree.