6 ms·

It’s not unethical to lay someone off

whamlastxmas 7mo ago
When 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 ago
  Profit maximization makes for the high standard of living we enjoy.
  - wiseowise 7mo ago
    The one where one trip to ER can leave you on the street and students have six digit debts?
    - WalterBright 7mo ago
      Ironically, 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 ago
        Heavily interfered how? Canada / UK / Australia have healthcare which is "heavily interfered" as you call it, and they're better off for it
        WalterBright 7mo ago
        How? 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.
        genthree 7mo ago
        Whoa now. Consider that getting the government out of healthcare would mean all the rural hospitals close. Consider who that would most-hurt, while saving you money, before you jump to the humanitarian position. Consider it in light of the 2024 election.
      - razakel 7mo ago
        Was the hospital affiliated with a religious order?
        WalterBright 7mo ago
        no
  - whamlastxmas 7mo ago
    ah 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 ago
      Interestingly, 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 6mo ago
        Socialzied 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 ago
  There’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 ago
Actually, 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 ago
  Yeah because marxists systems "take such good care" off people in comparison.
  - wiseowise 7mo ago
    Marxist systems don’t exist in real life.
    - christkv 7mo ago
      They do in some peoples heads as an utopian dream.
    - js8 7mo ago
      Actually 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 ago
It's an unpriced negative externality.
Zigurd 7mo ago
It'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 ago
It 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 ago
Irresponsible, careless, negligent. No planning leads to all of this. Ultimately unethical from this point of view

When 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 ago
Profit maximization makes for the high standard of living we enjoy.
- wiseowise 7mo ago
  The one where one trip to ER can leave you on the street and students have six digit debts?
  - WalterBright 7mo ago
    Ironically, 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 ago
      Heavily interfered how? Canada / UK / Australia have healthcare which is "heavily interfered" as you call it, and they're better off for it
      - WalterBright 7mo ago
        How? 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.
      - genthree 7mo ago
        Whoa now. Consider that getting the government out of healthcare would mean all the rural hospitals close. Consider who that would most-hurt, while saving you money, before you jump to the humanitarian position. Consider it in light of the 2024 election.
    - razakel 7mo ago
      Was the hospital affiliated with a religious order?
      - WalterBright 7mo ago
        no
- whamlastxmas 7mo ago
  ah 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 ago
    Interestingly, 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 6mo ago
      Socialzied 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 ago
There’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 ago

Actually, 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 ago
Yeah because marxists systems "take such good care" off people in comparison.
- wiseowise 7mo ago
  Marxist systems don’t exist in real life.
  - christkv 7mo ago
    They do in some peoples heads as an utopian dream.
  - js8 7mo ago
    Actually 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 ago

It's an unpriced negative externality.

Zigurd 7mo ago

It'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 ago

It 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 ago

Irresponsible, careless, negligent. No planning leads to all of this. Ultimately unethical from this point of view