6 ms·
One of the ideal things that companies can do is not hire people. A company that never hires someone will never let anyone go and consequently is the only ethic
by renewiltord 7mo ago
One of the ideal things that companies can do is not hire people. A company that never hires someone will never let anyone go and consequently is the only ethical company. The worst thing that a company could do is pay someone to do a job for a while. In fact, one thing we could do is make sure that all jobs should be perpetual. If someone hires you, they can't stop paying you until they die or declare bankruptcy. This is sure to be good for workers.
- the_real_cher 7mo agoTermination will take on a while different meaning of this turns out to come true on some Black Mirror future.
- shepherdjerred 7mo agoIt’s not unethical to lay someone off
- whamlastxmas 7mo agoWhen done for profit maximizing reasons it's not any worse than capitalism itself, but then this degrades into whether capitalism is ethical which is off topic
- WalterBright 7mo agoProfit maximization makes for the high standard of living we enjoy.
- wiseowise 7mo agoThe one where one trip to ER can leave you on the street and students have six digit debts?
- WalterBright 7mo agoIronically, you picked two systems that are heavily interfered with by the government. Back in the Great Depression, my great grandmother got sick and was hospitalized, and they took care of her until she passed. My grandfather did not have enough to pay the bill. The hospital told him not to worry, just pay what he could. It took him a while, but he paid the bill in full.
- wiseowise 7mo ago> Back in Great Depression Why not civil war? > It took him a while, but he paid the bill in full. How long was “a while” specifically? And how much did it affect your grandfathers life?
- WalterBright 7mo ago> Why not civil war? My great grandmother's brother, Frank Taylor, fought in the Union Army. He later became a bodyguard for Buffalo Bill. And that's all I know about him, and the personal side of the Civil War. Keep in mind that doctoring was pretty primitive in those days. A doctor could set your broken bones and sew up wounds, and that's about it. You got better or you died. Doctors were called "sawbones" in those days. > How long was “a while” specifically? If I recall correctly, it took him 3 years. I don't know much about his finances. I do know that his first job was shoveling coal in a steamship, which is a filthy, rotten job. https://walterbright.com/trip/chas.html https://walterbright.com/trip/chas.html
- Synthetic7346 7mo agoHeavily interfered how? Canada / UK / Australia have healthcare which is "heavily interfered" as you call it, and they're better off for it
- WalterBright 7mo agoHow? The government runs it, and/or heavily regulates it, and shifts costs. > and they're better off for it In the US, the cost of medical care rose in step with inflation until 1968. After that, it rose at a much steeper rate, and has not slowed down. 1968 was when the government got involved with health care. Countries with a heavily-interfered health care system are poorer as a result.
- whamlastxmas 7mo agoah yes, the high standard of living inlcuding checks notes world-leading medical bankruptcies, collapsing life expectancy despite insane healthcare spending, crippling student debt, unaffordable housing that requires a trust fund just to rent, and wages that stagnated decades ago while corporate profits and CEO pay skyrocketed. i spent $57 on a regular size pack of paper towels and toilet paper in the bay area yesterday truly, the invisible hand is giving us the finger
- WalterBright 7mo agoInterestingly, you mentioned the trifecta of industries most interfered with by the government - healthcare, education, and housing. The government puts its foot on the scale there. In contrast, look at the software industry. No regulations, yet highly sophisticated software where the price went to zero. I just reinstalled Ubuntu on my (now fixed!) computer, and every bit of the software was 100% free. And I give away the software I write for it! $zero!! Can you believe it?
- whamlastxmas 7mo agoSocialzied medicine works well in many countries where it's 100% government controlled and socialism is much more cultural accepted. The problem isn't government involvement, it's the AMERICAN government involvement, which is largely controlled by billionaires and rich donors (i.e. capitalism) Also software can be reproduced without cost. I cannot get back surgery without a lot of physical time and labor and resources. I think you're rage baiting at this point so I'm done.
- genthree 7mo agoThere’s weirdly-weak evidence that the layoff-happy strategy is actually better for long term company health than trying to retain workers through down periods. Like, it’s kinda just something you do now because it’s “how things are done” but it wasn’t always that way, and it might not even be the right call for profit-maximizing. Basically, yet more management by fad.
- js8 7mo agoActually, it is. You have been blinded by capitalism to consider it ethical. The tribes usually treat the members as a family. While kicking someone from a tribe can happen, it's considered to be a harsh punishment. In a tribe, when hard times come, people usually redistribute. That's a normal, human way of dealing with that situation. Not a layoff. The other aspect is the economic crises. When a central bank decides to increase interest rates, it decreases lending to new investments in favor of lower inflation. This can lead to layoffs, instead of having inflation inflicted on everyone (especially the rich with huge savings). So that decision is essentially some random guys get kicked out of economic (and societal) participation in order to prevent more redistribution of existing wealth. If you think about it, yes layoffs are deeply immoral. But we can understand, why they happen in capitalism, as a sort of big tragedy of the commons.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- christkv 7mo agoYeah because marxists systems "take such good care" off people in comparison.
- wiseowise 7mo agoMarxist systems don’t exist in real life.
- christkv 7mo agoThey do in some peoples heads as an utopian dream.
- js8 7mo agoActually they kinda do, for example worker cooperatives. Not common, have some issues (different than those claimed by propaganda), but they do exist. (If we understand "marxist" as somewhat in favor of worker emancipation instead of alienation. Marx was an eclectic guy and can be interpreted in different ways.)
- throwaway85825 7mo agoIt's an unpriced negative externality.
- Zigurd 7mo agoIt's a failure of hiring, planning, and management. It's an off the books opportunity cost. It's an off the books cost of hiring a replacement. And if over hiring was done willfully, then yes it's straight up unethical.
- wiseowise 7mo agoIt is unethical, if there was nothing wrong with their performance and the company never tried to find a replacement position within the company. Stop licking boots, I heard they don’t even taste that good.
- arkaic 7mo agoIrresponsible, careless, negligent. No planning leads to all of this. Ultimately unethical from this point of view
- whamlastxmas 7mo agoOracle has record revenue and has for many years in a row. Laying people off is a result of mismanagement and not because they can't afford to keep them. In an ideal world I believe we'd have human centered employment instead of profit centered, and while I know that's unlikely to happen, it doesn't mean we can't criticize profit centered
- WalterBright 7mo ago> Laying people off is a result of mismanagement and not because they can't afford to keep them. Markets are a chaotic system and the needs of a business must constantly adapt - or they go out of business.
- psychoslave 7mo agohttps://academic.oup.com/ser/article/22/4/1843/7644954?login=false https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/22/4/1843/7644954?login...
- whamlastxmas 7mo agoin other words: "won't somebody think of the economy!"
- zulux 7mo agoMy only problem with this is: Some of my best people are those that "I gave them a chance." I'd only hire perfect people from my tribe if I had to have them forever.
- renewiltord 7mo agoAnd what about those who you have a chance to and they didn’t cut it? Their life is ruined by being fired.
- zulux 7mo agoHaha.. No. I've rehired people I've fired, so I know that's not the case. Had one guy pop back a decade later and thank me for saving his life. I was fully aware he had a drinking problem and lived in a van. It didn't work out for long, but the job gave him enough stability to sort some things out.
- perching_aix 7mo ago> In fact, one thing we could do is make sure that all jobs should be perpetual. If someone hires you, they can't stop paying you until they die or declare bankruptcy. This is sure to be good for workers You jest, but that's pretty much South Korea if this video (and my interpretation of it) is to be believed: https://youtu.be/pjjhrwVYPE8 https://youtu.be/pjjhrwVYPE8 For those not interested in watching 30 mins of this, long story short, it doesn't bode well. They do have some other circumstances going on in addition though.
- BlueRock-Jake 7mo agoThat is insane. Like a turbo charged pension
- WalterBright 7mo agoMandated perpetual employment is bad for workers because the company will be extremely reluctant to hire and take on such an open-ended liability.
- triceratops 7mo ago> One of the ideal things that companies can do is not hire people This, but unironically. Companies that make money without hiring anyone provide the most "value". Simultaneously we should stop calling business owners "job creators". They're actually "job minimizers". They only hire people when there's no other choice.
- renewiltord 7mo agoMake money? Seems kind of corpofascistic. That’s profit that should be shared with workers. If no employees it could be distributed to unions.
- triceratops 7mo agoOk go for it.