4 ms·

A lot of folks wax sympathetic for the employees who've been laid off. But rare is the company which grows large and doesn't develop a lot of entropy in the pro

A lot of folks wax sympathetic for the employees who've been laid off. But rare is the company which grows large and doesn't develop a lot of entropy in the process. Hiring beyond its needs, bloating, and mismanagement of resources. Does the company owe a living to those people that it doesn't actually benefit from having on board? Sometimes it sounds like people think so.

ganelonhb 7mo ago
This will be an unpopular take but I agree with it mostly. Always remember that you are not entitled to a job just because you need it to live. Always make sure you stay sharp and prepared for the worst case
- bad_haircut72 7mo ago
  If you're not entitled to a job, neither is anyone in the capital class entitled to own shit, they own the best houses, all the means of production - they're not entitled to any of that either.
  - abcde666777 7mo ago
    You think they didn't have to apply themselves to be able to acquire those things? They just got it handed to them for free?
    - johnnyanmac 7mo ago
      Many of them, no. Tim's been in the weeds, but most billionaires inherited millions and had the money make money for them. They start in positions with more money than many will see in a full career.
    - linehedonist 7mo ago
      Of course they did. It’s called inheritance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ellison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ellison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family https://www.forbes.com/profile/haas/ https://www.forbes.com/profile/haas/ And the list goes on.
      - abcde666777 7mo ago
        What about the remainder of the top 1%? From what I've heard it has a lot of churn, it's not just people inheriting it.
    - nickvec 7mo ago
      > They just got it handed to them for free? As it turns out for the vast majority of cases: yes. Just look at the ultra wealthy in today’s society and trace back their lineage.
  - IncreasePosts 7mo ago
    What? A job is a mutually beneficial agreement between two parties. Either side can generally sever the agreement if it's not viewed as beneficial. Owning things like houses and companies is more about the compact between people and the government. People are entitled to "own shit", because that's how our government is set up.
  - paulddraper 7mo ago
    > neither is anyone in the capital class entitled to own shit No one would argue otherwise. You may acquire property, but that is on you.
  - ganelonhb 7mo ago
    I agree, you’re only entitled to what you have the power to protect. Unfortunately they have a lot of power up there
johnnyanmac 7mo ago
1. It's more a matter of respect in the process than the act. People are notified out of nowhere, irrespective of performance, and they need to quickly change many plans. You do that to a company and it's "unprofessional". The double standards are real 2. Given the economic conditions, I am more sympathetic. Normally a large severance would he good reassurance that they'd land on their feet. But I see more and more devs (especially game devs) going through year long gauntlets just to find something not as good. Tim, in comparison, will manage.

ganelonhb 7mo ago

This will be an unpopular take but I agree with it mostly. Always remember that you are not entitled to a job just because you need it to live. Always make sure you stay sharp and prepared for the worst case

bad_haircut72 7mo ago
If you're not entitled to a job, neither is anyone in the capital class entitled to own shit, they own the best houses, all the means of production - they're not entitled to any of that either.
- abcde666777 7mo ago
  You think they didn't have to apply themselves to be able to acquire those things? They just got it handed to them for free?
  - johnnyanmac 7mo ago
    Many of them, no. Tim's been in the weeds, but most billionaires inherited millions and had the money make money for them. They start in positions with more money than many will see in a full career.
  - linehedonist 7mo ago
    Of course they did. It’s called inheritance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ellison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ellison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family https://www.forbes.com/profile/haas/ https://www.forbes.com/profile/haas/ And the list goes on.
    - abcde666777 7mo ago
      What about the remainder of the top 1%? From what I've heard it has a lot of churn, it's not just people inheriting it.
  - nickvec 7mo ago
    > They just got it handed to them for free? As it turns out for the vast majority of cases: yes. Just look at the ultra wealthy in today’s society and trace back their lineage.
- IncreasePosts 7mo ago
  What? A job is a mutually beneficial agreement between two parties. Either side can generally sever the agreement if it's not viewed as beneficial. Owning things like houses and companies is more about the compact between people and the government. People are entitled to "own shit", because that's how our government is set up.
- paulddraper 7mo ago
  > neither is anyone in the capital class entitled to own shit No one would argue otherwise. You may acquire property, but that is on you.
- ganelonhb 7mo ago
  I agree, you’re only entitled to what you have the power to protect. Unfortunately they have a lot of power up there

johnnyanmac 7mo ago

1. It's more a matter of respect in the process than the act. People are notified out of nowhere, irrespective of performance, and they need to quickly change many plans. You do that to a company and it's "unprofessional". The double standards are real 2. Given the economic conditions, I am more sympathetic. Normally a large severance would he good reassurance that they'd land on their feet. But I see more and more devs (especially game devs) going through year long gauntlets just to find something not as good. Tim, in comparison, will manage.