5 ms·

How dare someone accept your application for employment and pay you money for services rendered. It's absurd!

by y1n0 8mo ago

no_wizard 8mo ago
That’s not even a good argument for whatever it is you’re trying to say. While you may not like the energy behind OPs statements he’s pretty clear: CEOs and executives in general face almost zero consequences for their decisions that affect hundreds or thousands of people I’m with OP, thy should face real consequences for stupid decisions
- snihalani 8mo ago
  >I’m with OP, thy should face real consequences for stupid decisions I don't think the investor cares. The investor wants 1 in X shot at beating the majority and is agnostic to failure.
  - no_wizard 8mo ago
    I know investors largely don’t care but that’s the point, they do t care because they don’t have to face any real consequences of bad decisions in aggregate
- csallen 8mo ago
  If you make bad enough decisions, your customers leave, your company dies, and/or you are fired by the board. CEOs get fired all the time, and companies die all the time. It's part of life, and so are layoffs. There's no need for some sort of additional punitive actions to be taken. If you control a company, you have the right to do layoffs, and if you're an employee, you take that risk of being laid off because you prefer it to going out and trying to grow your own company from scratch.
  - ytoawwhra92 8mo ago
    > If you make bad enough decisions, your customers leave, your company dies, and/or you are fired by the board. Not true. Buffet's written a lot of great stuff on this subject.
    - csallen 8mo ago
      The number of famous CEOs who've hopped around from company to company despite being terrible at their job is probably in the dozens. The number of founders/CEOs whose companies have died is demonstrably in the millions. Also, there are plenty of regular employees who suck at their jobs and yet manage to hold onto them, get promoted, get new and lucrative job offers, etc.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - no_wizard 8mo ago
    It’s fine if someone doesn’t believe that executives should not be held to additional high consequence standard, but you’re boiling down this argument without addressing the central element at play which is viability and wealth gap. Now, you can absolutely hold a different position here, that’s okay, I’m fine with that, but at least address it head on. Consider the fact that those getting laid off have disproportionate negative affects compared to what executives face for making terrible decisions in the first place. Jack still keeps his aspen home and whatever wealth he’s extracted out of the company. So he faces no real downside here. He could run block into the ground and still have more money than he would know what to do with. You’re arguing about shares of paper entitling people to do things to other people’s lives without facing much actual consequence in their personal lives. Not to mention professional, I’ve watched executives jump from company to company doing terrible things and they still keep getting hired. Where as the average person is often advised to reduce or obfuscate the fact they were laid off less there be discrimination. Now you can argue that executives shouldn’t face higher consequences in exchange for wielding such immense power over the lives of those which they employ, I ask that you say it plain, don’t hide behind feigned guise of people who live in a world where they don’t have a choice but to work for corporations or not have a roof over their head and basic needs met. It’s fine if you want to defend that, but don’t act like people are just making a deliberate choice. This is a choice society has made for them and the wealthiest perpetuate
    - csallen 8mo ago
      To me what you're upset about basically sounds like, "People who have more money/power/etc have it easier than those who don't." Yes, yes, they do. So what? All else being equal, greater wealth generally brings greater ease and comfort. A billionaire’s life is easier than a millionaire’s, a millionaire’s life is easier than being a middle-class Westerner, middle class living is easier than living below the poverty line, living below the poverty line in a wealthy country is easier than being poor in a developing country, and being poor in a developing country is easier than surviving as a subsistence farmer or living without shelter at all. All else being equal, if you're a majority owner in a company, you're going to get away with a lot more than if you are a smaller owner, or a non-owner, or an employee, or a customer. All else being equal, if you're a general in the military, you're going to have more power and more leeway than if you're a lieutenant or a private. Etc etc. I fail to see what is wrong with this.
neya 8mo ago
When you accept my application, there is an implicit understanding that I will have a job for a foreseeable future. I am making life decisions based on YOU, the CEO - I have to think about commute, renting, school for kids and a lot more. All you need to think about is my pay-check. And once you fuck up, you still get your nice fat cheque and bonus, but I'm very realistically looking at relocating and/or unemployment for a very long time and possibly homelessness. You will be hailed as a hero by the board for saving them money, I will be painted a villain by everyone in my family...just for believing in you and your empty words. I'm not even mentioning the side effects of health I get as a result (possible anxiety, depression, blood pressure, etc.) Services rendered is an acceptable excuse for a contractor relationship, not employees. If that's how you view employees, then good luck with your business.

How dare someone accept your application for employment and pay you money for services rendered. It's absurd!

by y1n0 8mo ago

How dare someone accept your application for employment and pay you money for services rendered. It's absurd!

That’s not even a good argument for whatever it is you’re trying to say. While you may not like the energy behind OPs statements he’s pretty clear: CEOs and executives in general face almost zero consequences for their decisions that affect hundreds or thousands of people I’m with OP, thy should face real consequences for stupid decisions

snihalani 8mo ago
>I’m with OP, thy should face real consequences for stupid decisions I don't think the investor cares. The investor wants 1 in X shot at beating the majority and is agnostic to failure.
- no_wizard 8mo ago
  I know investors largely don’t care but that’s the point, they do t care because they don’t have to face any real consequences of bad decisions in aggregate
csallen 8mo ago
If you make bad enough decisions, your customers leave, your company dies, and/or you are fired by the board. CEOs get fired all the time, and companies die all the time. It's part of life, and so are layoffs. There's no need for some sort of additional punitive actions to be taken. If you control a company, you have the right to do layoffs, and if you're an employee, you take that risk of being laid off because you prefer it to going out and trying to grow your own company from scratch.
- ytoawwhra92 8mo ago
  > If you make bad enough decisions, your customers leave, your company dies, and/or you are fired by the board. Not true. Buffet's written a lot of great stuff on this subject.
  - csallen 8mo ago
    The number of famous CEOs who've hopped around from company to company despite being terrible at their job is probably in the dozens. The number of founders/CEOs whose companies have died is demonstrably in the millions. Also, there are plenty of regular employees who suck at their jobs and yet manage to hold onto them, get promoted, get new and lucrative job offers, etc.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- no_wizard 8mo ago
  It’s fine if someone doesn’t believe that executives should not be held to additional high consequence standard, but you’re boiling down this argument without addressing the central element at play which is viability and wealth gap. Now, you can absolutely hold a different position here, that’s okay, I’m fine with that, but at least address it head on. Consider the fact that those getting laid off have disproportionate negative affects compared to what executives face for making terrible decisions in the first place. Jack still keeps his aspen home and whatever wealth he’s extracted out of the company. So he faces no real downside here. He could run block into the ground and still have more money than he would know what to do with. You’re arguing about shares of paper entitling people to do things to other people’s lives without facing much actual consequence in their personal lives. Not to mention professional, I’ve watched executives jump from company to company doing terrible things and they still keep getting hired. Where as the average person is often advised to reduce or obfuscate the fact they were laid off less there be discrimination. Now you can argue that executives shouldn’t face higher consequences in exchange for wielding such immense power over the lives of those which they employ, I ask that you say it plain, don’t hide behind feigned guise of people who live in a world where they don’t have a choice but to work for corporations or not have a roof over their head and basic needs met. It’s fine if you want to defend that, but don’t act like people are just making a deliberate choice. This is a choice society has made for them and the wealthiest perpetuate
  - csallen 8mo ago
    To me what you're upset about basically sounds like, "People who have more money/power/etc have it easier than those who don't." Yes, yes, they do. So what? All else being equal, greater wealth generally brings greater ease and comfort. A billionaire’s life is easier than a millionaire’s, a millionaire’s life is easier than being a middle-class Westerner, middle class living is easier than living below the poverty line, living below the poverty line in a wealthy country is easier than being poor in a developing country, and being poor in a developing country is easier than surviving as a subsistence farmer or living without shelter at all. All else being equal, if you're a majority owner in a company, you're going to get away with a lot more than if you are a smaller owner, or a non-owner, or an employee, or a customer. All else being equal, if you're a general in the military, you're going to have more power and more leeway than if you're a lieutenant or a private. Etc etc. I fail to see what is wrong with this.

neya 8mo ago

When you accept my application, there is an implicit understanding that I will have a job for a foreseeable future. I am making life decisions based on YOU, the CEO - I have to think about commute, renting, school for kids and a lot more. All you need to think about is my pay-check. And once you fuck up, you still get your nice fat cheque and bonus, but I'm very realistically looking at relocating and/or unemployment for a very long time and possibly homelessness. You will be hailed as a hero by the board for saving them money, I will be painted a villain by everyone in my family...just for believing in you and your empty words. I'm not even mentioning the side effects of health I get as a result (possible anxiety, depression, blood pressure, etc.) Services rendered is an acceptable excuse for a contractor relationship, not employees. If that's how you view employees, then good luck with your business.