4 ms·
That was last quarter. Now they need to achieve even higher profits for the next one.
by Zanfa 11mo ago
That was last quarter. Now they need to achieve even higher profits for the next one.
- throwawayqqq11 11mo agoI am affraid there could be could be a political reason behind it all. Like Musk/Twitter. I know, its unlikely to not have heard about internal rumors but who can tell how far the dystopian tech cult around thiel and co reaches. These guys clearly conspire for something. Ok, tinfoil head off now.
- UncleMeat 11mo agoThere's no political reason here. VEPs have been rolling out across different chunks of Google all year. They just got to youtube now. I'm not sure why they've been staggered, but I don't think that there is any connection to politics.
- pjmlp 11mo agoI really hate this MBA, always go up curve, when it is physically impossible to have everyone go up. What is so wrong with having a sustainable business with happy employees.
- hazbot 11mo agoNothing, they just don't make the headlines.
- lazide 11mo agoAlso, if you were someone picking a stock, which is likely to go up higher? One where the stock demonstrably keeps going up and to the right, or one that doesn’t? The issue is everyone’s own greed. Including the old ladies and pension fund managers. Which provides many benefits - but also, when push comes to shove - exposes the ‘teeth’ more directly. The stock market just allows more abstract and scalable access to that greed, that otherwise would be more randomly distributed.
- lotsofpulp 11mo ago> One where the stock demonstrably keeps going up and to the right, or one that doesn’t? The one that doesn’t go to the right, because if they figured out how to stop or go back in time, they probably have some smart people working there.
- lazide 11mo agoThey have a term for ‘doesn’t go to the right’ in business - liquidation. It has nothing to do with time travel, and investors really don’t like it most of the time.
- perpetualpatzer 11mo agoNothing, it's just hard. The problem you trip over is retention of strong employees. Many strong employees are ambitious and need the prospect of progression to be happy with their job. When growth slows below the employee ambition rate, not everyone can be sustainably paid more. Then you're faced with a choice of removing people to make space or employees being unhappy. You can let this equillibrate naturally. The employees who are both ambitious and skilled enough to land other jobs will disproportionately be first out the door, leaving room for others. But this reduces the average talent level, and hurts company prospects, so many companies choose other paths. Some proactively fire the bottom 15% every year. Some heavily differentiate pay to make up for lack of promotions. Some constantly reorg and fail to find spots for employees in internal interviews. Offering a paid out for those who were thinking about it anyway seems a uniquely humane solution.
- pjmlp 11mo agoAnother thing that is kind of physically impossible, unless one lives in a region with pleotheora of choices. In many regions, one needs to be happy to have a job at all, while others cannot accomodate everyone that wants to be there.
- fred_is_fred 11mo agoAgree. Early in my career I was in an org that had been fast growing but then sales went flat. I was effectively told that I could not be promoted because there were already too many people at level N+2 and N+1. I told my M2 that this to me meant we'd all just grow old together and the org would be static. He didn't disagree and I transferred to a new org which although it was also not growing, did have a leadership gap and a growth path for me.
- darth_avocado 11mo agoNever understood the backwards ass logic of expanding profits by firing people when the business is doing good. If majority of people are unemployed, no one’s going to pay for your YouTube Premium.