> If you have an honest conversation without a diehard anti-capitalist and walk them logically through “cold” decisions a corporation makes This missed the poi

> If you have an honest conversation without a diehard anti-capitalist and walk them logically through “cold” decisions a corporation makes This missed the point. The reality is, why should someone who's being laid off must think in a "purely logical 'cold' corporate way"? What benefit they could get by doing that? Compare to, say, just crying out loud for public support to pressure the corporate for a better term for themselves and the others? Everyone is speaking for their own asses, with talk points that could advance their own interest. In a sense, it's a poetry contest, sure, with some logic involved, but mainly benefit driven and emotional. > Even if the answer is only one of pure self-interest in profit, having all of your workers hate their lives and the company itself is beyond stupid, and is not the plan. Based on the same train of logic used in your comment, I don't see why "having all of your workers hate their lives and the company" is "beyond stupid". The "purely logical 'cold' corporate thinking" only cares about worker retention rate in order to maintain a good enough production. Whether or not the worker likes or hates the job is simply not on the metric, well, thus of course "is not the plan". So overall, I don't think the logic flows. A more realistic logic is that the corporate should not expect their employees to always act for corporate interests (especially during a lay off), and employees should not expect their bosses to always care about their hatred or happiness.