4 ms·

It’s very easy: spend an insane amount of money, usually at a time when your business can’t afford it.

by naldb 1y ago

surgical_fire 1y ago
That's not how it works. You just can't fire at will. If your business can't afford to fire people it probably shouldn't be hiring too.
- naldb 1y ago
  How do you know at the time of hiring that months or years down the road the business won’t go well?
  - piva00 1y ago
    Isn't that part of the job of being in top management? Being paid millions of bucks for your skills that should tell what your business need? If the signs are showing that you might need to fire people, you need to think and work for that: set enough money aside to pay for severance and/or buy-outs, not just decide "oh shit, I can't pay them, and I can't pay what is needed for me to fire them", that's just incompetence. The way you present this is like business leaders are victims that were helpless on forecasting what their businesses need, which is exactly their fucking job to do.
  - Muromec 1y ago
    Your problem, not mine, lol.
    - naldb 1y ago
      Actually it’s everybody’s problem, since job inflexibility is one of the reasons why Europe is so poor compared to other first world countries. Who exactly benefits from a business going under? Its bigger competitors? The less well off are the ones that suffer the most from oligarchic sectors and cartels.
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        > Actually it’s everybody’s problem, since job inflexibility is one of the reasons why Europe is so poor compared to other first world countries. Except it is not. I chose to live in the EU when I had the option to move to the US, and it is fine. Unless your measurement of "being poor" is that you can't exploit people in a get rich quick scheme and make destructive amounts of money but being acquired or dumping your IPO in the stock market.
        naldb 1y ago
        We are talking here about businesses with say 10 employees that go through dire straits and can’t fire people to survive. The only solution is to close down and lay EVERYONE off. IPO? Get rich quick scheme? Why is hyperbole the only response to this actual issue?
        surgical_fire 1y ago
        Again, of the business with only 10 employees cannot survive, it was due to the incompetence of those managing it. Part of a healthy economy is allowing businesses to fail, so that others can take its place. If demand for those services exist, other businesses will take it. If the demand is not there, the business should not exist. How your reply is related to the previous point of "Europe being poor" is for anyone to guess.
      - Muromec 1y ago
        >Europe is so poor compared to other first world countries. is it? >Who exactly benefits from a business going under? Its bigger competitors? The less well off are the ones that suffer the most from oligarchic sectors and cartels. The big thing going under right now is legacy auto manufacturers in Germany. That's sad, but the same happened in US without all the labor protections. It's just a lifecycle of industries -- they got fat and comfortable. The way German manufacturers managed to outlive US ones while having stronger labor laws seems to contradict you story big time.
      - onraglanroad 1y ago
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    If you are a business owner, the business doing well is your fucking job. If you can't do your job you should fail. What you want is the freedom to be shitty at running your company, and offload your incompetence by exploiting the workers under you.
    - naldb 1y ago
      It’s not “you” failing. If your business fails, everybody gets fired. Why is everybody getting fired better than firing a few people?
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        If the business fails, the owners will have to use their assets to adequately compensate the employees according to what they are owed, and the employees are free to find another job. Let's not mince words here - if the business fails it was because of the incompetence of those managing it, and it would fail whether or not it was treating employees unfairly. I won't accept this as an excuse to erode labor rights. Moreover, what weak-ass crybaby rhetoric is that now? I always hear that business owners should earn more because they take risks. Failing is a very real possibility when you take risks. If you don't want to take risks just don't start a business.

It’s very easy: spend an insane amount of money, usually at a time when your business can’t afford it.

by naldb 1y ago

It’s very easy: spend an insane amount of money, usually at a time when your business can’t afford it.

That's not how it works. You just can't fire at will. If your business can't afford to fire people it probably shouldn't be hiring too.

naldb 1y ago
How do you know at the time of hiring that months or years down the road the business won’t go well?
- piva00 1y ago
  Isn't that part of the job of being in top management? Being paid millions of bucks for your skills that should tell what your business need? If the signs are showing that you might need to fire people, you need to think and work for that: set enough money aside to pay for severance and/or buy-outs, not just decide "oh shit, I can't pay them, and I can't pay what is needed for me to fire them", that's just incompetence. The way you present this is like business leaders are victims that were helpless on forecasting what their businesses need, which is exactly their fucking job to do.
- Muromec 1y ago
  Your problem, not mine, lol.
  - naldb 1y ago
    Actually it’s everybody’s problem, since job inflexibility is one of the reasons why Europe is so poor compared to other first world countries. Who exactly benefits from a business going under? Its bigger competitors? The less well off are the ones that suffer the most from oligarchic sectors and cartels.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      > Actually it’s everybody’s problem, since job inflexibility is one of the reasons why Europe is so poor compared to other first world countries. Except it is not. I chose to live in the EU when I had the option to move to the US, and it is fine. Unless your measurement of "being poor" is that you can't exploit people in a get rich quick scheme and make destructive amounts of money but being acquired or dumping your IPO in the stock market.
      - naldb 1y ago
        We are talking here about businesses with say 10 employees that go through dire straits and can’t fire people to survive. The only solution is to close down and lay EVERYONE off. IPO? Get rich quick scheme? Why is hyperbole the only response to this actual issue?
        surgical_fire 1y ago
        Again, of the business with only 10 employees cannot survive, it was due to the incompetence of those managing it. Part of a healthy economy is allowing businesses to fail, so that others can take its place. If demand for those services exist, other businesses will take it. If the demand is not there, the business should not exist. How your reply is related to the previous point of "Europe being poor" is for anyone to guess.
    - Muromec 1y ago
      >Europe is so poor compared to other first world countries. is it? >Who exactly benefits from a business going under? Its bigger competitors? The less well off are the ones that suffer the most from oligarchic sectors and cartels. The big thing going under right now is legacy auto manufacturers in Germany. That's sad, but the same happened in US without all the labor protections. It's just a lifecycle of industries -- they got fat and comfortable. The way German manufacturers managed to outlive US ones while having stronger labor laws seems to contradict you story big time.
    - onraglanroad 1y ago
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  If you are a business owner, the business doing well is your fucking job. If you can't do your job you should fail. What you want is the freedom to be shitty at running your company, and offload your incompetence by exploiting the workers under you.
  - naldb 1y ago
    It’s not “you” failing. If your business fails, everybody gets fired. Why is everybody getting fired better than firing a few people?
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      If the business fails, the owners will have to use their assets to adequately compensate the employees according to what they are owed, and the employees are free to find another job. Let's not mince words here - if the business fails it was because of the incompetence of those managing it, and it would fail whether or not it was treating employees unfairly. I won't accept this as an excuse to erode labor rights. Moreover, what weak-ass crybaby rhetoric is that now? I always hear that business owners should earn more because they take risks. Failing is a very real possibility when you take risks. If you don't want to take risks just don't start a business.