4 ms·
> and it's usually easily undone Because employees are automatons that have no feelings and won’t hold a grudge.
by Cyph0n 2y ago
> and it's usually easily undone
Because employees are automatons that have no feelings and won’t hold a grudge.
- joshstrange 2y agoAlso, all employees are just cogs in the machine. You can totally lay off that grizzled senior dev and hire a kid fresh out of college, what’s the difference? It’s not like there was any institutional logic locked up in the senior’s head right? /s if it wasn’t painfully obvious.
- dralley 2y agoNot to mention the externality of having extra people floating around who know intimate details of the nations nuclear weapons secrets, who you have now pissed off. I'm sure anyone who has been entrusted with such a position is fairly responsible, but it still seems like a bad idea. Plus our adversaries would know we're hiring, and this bunch doesn't seem to care so much about proper vetting.
- scarab92 2y agoA grudge? They've just been put into a strong negotiating position, because now both parties acknowledge that these are key employees.
- ruszki 2y agoI would never go back under a boss who thinks even for a second that I’m easily replaceable. It would immediately indicate to me, that I can’t trust in my boss at all. Nobody really can work effectively without trust. That’s the base of our whole society.
- intelVISA 2y agoIf you're not easily replaceable then the company has failed on some level. This is why I think current org structures, and incentives, don't map properly to SWE and fuels this employment theater of "trust me I'm not a cog" => "trust me you are". Don't know what an ideal arrangement would be, maybe SaaS is closer. Even then, still have to convince some 'cogs' to build your SaaS corp while you recoup 90% margins off their labor which is a fast path to class consciousness and we're back at square one!
- ageofwant 2y agoYes good, and now because their value is appreciated they can be paid what they will be paid in the private sector, perhaps ~180k/y instead of 60k/y. So if you fire 2/3 of the workforce and pay those that remain what they are "worth", you have saved exactly what ?
- scarab92 2y agoIn your hypothetical scenario, it would be a no brainer to proceed. Your key workers are now paid at market rate, and those who were unnecessary will find other jobs.
- ty6853 2y agoSorry, they are servants of the public. Maybe they ought not have been fired, but their feelings are 2nd place when their salary is funded predicated on men with guns forcing people to pay up. Maybe my feelings are hurt and I hold a grudge for being forced to pay their paycheck rather than spend that money on my family, but I'm nearly certain most of them don't care nor does much of HN.
- nickpeterson 2y agoThese firings will have no impact on your taxes. Instead of people having a job, the money will just get given to oligarchs and you’ll pay largely the same taxes but have moderately less government services. Socialism is needed to some degree for society to function. Capitalism alone is an awful system.
- scarab92 2y agoSo, basically, left wing conspiracy theories? In reality, whether taxes fall or not likely depends on whether the savings are returned in the form of income tax cuts, or whether the savings are used to repay the massive debt that has accumulated from decades of deficits. Both outcomes are good in the long run.
- throwaway173738 2y agoI hope you’re right, but I suspect you’ll be wrong. I think Obama was the last president to shrink the national debt. Clinton did before that.
- senordevnyc 2y agoPrediction: when Trump leaves office, the federal workforce, budget, and debt will all be higher than they were at the start of his second term.
- b_davis_ 2y agocome on, that was easy. for a challenge, predict how much each will go up.