5 ms·

I've grown to hate executives. This is obviously an AI-generated nothing burger. They never mean what they say publicly.

sandeepkd 3mo ago
Do not want to sound like as if I am taking their side but the reality is that all these decisions are mandated by some subset of investors in one way or another. These executives are replaceable, and they would be replaced if they do not toe the line. In other words these executives happen to choose a easy and beneficial path rather than standing up for the long term right thing for the company.
- eli_gottlieb 3mo ago
  Ok so get rid of the investors then.
  - Wolfbeta 3mo ago
    That's what the pollution is for.
  - Chu4eeno 3mo ago
    Just get Dodge v. Ford Motor Co reversed.
- Grombobulous 3mo ago
  The thing is, a profitable company that sees an obvious efficiency staring it in the face is still going to take that efficiency. I don’t think a lot of us employees will be happy to admit that AI is turning out to be a legitimate productivity aid that is allowing individuals to accomplish more work per person. We’d rather sit here and stew about companies “blaming AI for layoffs” but I imagine that is only sometimes the case. A somewhat related tangent: I have had the thought that many parts of the Japanese system of hiring for life might actually be really appropriate for the AI age. That system seems to result in a lot of companies finding ways to reshuffle employees into making some kind of product that has market value rather than the Western reaction that that seems to favor downsizing and focusing the company on a smaller set of markets in the name of ruthless efficiency. This seems to result in many Japanese firms making a wide breadth of interesting products at very high quality levels. If your company is profitable because AI is increasing efficiency (allegedly, of course), why layoff 7% of your employees when you could instead assign them to make something new or complementary to your current product line? Western companies seem to refuse to do that out of a sense of focus and efficiency, but maybe giving that strategy a go more frequently would result in unrealized opportunities.
  - brianwawok 3mo ago
    I’d love to hire for life, but what commitment can an employee give? It can’t be one sided or it’s terrible.
    - Grombobulous 3mo ago
      The level of commitment to employees from Japanese corporations is astoundingly high compared to ones in the US. Not that I would romanticize them as a whole, as a lot of aspects of Japanese corporate work culture are not to be envied.
  - kanbankaren 3mo ago
    > many parts of the Japanese system of hiring for life This is a terrible strategy. It encourages inefficiency to metastasize throughout the company. No wonder Japan is stuck in a rut since the 90s and its debt-to-GDP ratio is 205% which is one of the highest in the world. Your romantic idea of Japan would get destroyed by just browsing www.reddit.com/r/japanlife/ Japan has one of the worst work culture and low productivity in the world.
    - Grombobulous 3mo ago
      That’s why I said “many parts” and not “all.” I wouldn’t want to pick up a good number of their practices, but I think a company seeing layoffs as an embarrassing last resort is a positive trait. I also think that concepts like debt to GDP ratio are somewhat detached from corporate policies.
      - andsoitis 3mo ago
        > but I think a company seeing layoffs as an embarrassing last resort is a positive trait. Don’t most companies think of layoffs as a last resort? I don’t think one ought to be embarrassed about correcting course when you have made a mistake. It takes courage.
        3mo ago
- mrcwinn 3mo ago
  That’s not how it works. Investors don’t mandate operational decisions. That’s for… operators. What they do ask for, in exchange for their investment, are things like revenue growth or certain margins. You can crap on those investors. The answer then is to never take their money. But without money, the job probably wasn’t created in the first place. So the result is the same. By the way, ever work alongside a really crappy non-executive and wonder how on earth they’re keeping their job? I sure have.
  - tancop 3mo ago
    most investors want maximum short term profit. execs have to do what they say because of fiduciary duty and shareholder votes to fire them. the only way to prevent it is use debt financing exclusively or make every investor sign a contract that limits the companies duty to "dont do things that will actively lose money". thats hard when a lot of vcs strategy is extract as much as possible and let it fall.
BobbyTables2 3mo ago
An AI can also regurgitate others decisions, based on a much wider knowledge base than these executives. AI hardware costs are nothing compared to executives’ stock options too…
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
twelve40 3mo ago
this is a bit... general? there are companies with bullshit executives for sure, then there are companies who slay it. i hate to list the details because people start picking on details, but in my mind MS under Satya made a 180 from crap to relevant. All the while i realize what kind of shit goes on inside and if you read Blind your eyes will bleed. Yet Satya took it from a pure 100% bullshit executive and made it relevant. So not all executives are equal.

sandeepkd 3mo ago

Do not want to sound like as if I am taking their side but the reality is that all these decisions are mandated by some subset of investors in one way or another. These executives are replaceable, and they would be replaced if they do not toe the line. In other words these executives happen to choose a easy and beneficial path rather than standing up for the long term right thing for the company.

eli_gottlieb 3mo ago
Ok so get rid of the investors then.
- Wolfbeta 3mo ago
  That's what the pollution is for.
- Chu4eeno 3mo ago
  Just get Dodge v. Ford Motor Co reversed.
Grombobulous 3mo ago
The thing is, a profitable company that sees an obvious efficiency staring it in the face is still going to take that efficiency. I don’t think a lot of us employees will be happy to admit that AI is turning out to be a legitimate productivity aid that is allowing individuals to accomplish more work per person. We’d rather sit here and stew about companies “blaming AI for layoffs” but I imagine that is only sometimes the case. A somewhat related tangent: I have had the thought that many parts of the Japanese system of hiring for life might actually be really appropriate for the AI age. That system seems to result in a lot of companies finding ways to reshuffle employees into making some kind of product that has market value rather than the Western reaction that that seems to favor downsizing and focusing the company on a smaller set of markets in the name of ruthless efficiency. This seems to result in many Japanese firms making a wide breadth of interesting products at very high quality levels. If your company is profitable because AI is increasing efficiency (allegedly, of course), why layoff 7% of your employees when you could instead assign them to make something new or complementary to your current product line? Western companies seem to refuse to do that out of a sense of focus and efficiency, but maybe giving that strategy a go more frequently would result in unrealized opportunities.
- brianwawok 3mo ago
  I’d love to hire for life, but what commitment can an employee give? It can’t be one sided or it’s terrible.
  - Grombobulous 3mo ago
    The level of commitment to employees from Japanese corporations is astoundingly high compared to ones in the US. Not that I would romanticize them as a whole, as a lot of aspects of Japanese corporate work culture are not to be envied.
- kanbankaren 3mo ago
  > many parts of the Japanese system of hiring for life This is a terrible strategy. It encourages inefficiency to metastasize throughout the company. No wonder Japan is stuck in a rut since the 90s and its debt-to-GDP ratio is 205% which is one of the highest in the world. Your romantic idea of Japan would get destroyed by just browsing www.reddit.com/r/japanlife/ Japan has one of the worst work culture and low productivity in the world.
  - Grombobulous 3mo ago
    That’s why I said “many parts” and not “all.” I wouldn’t want to pick up a good number of their practices, but I think a company seeing layoffs as an embarrassing last resort is a positive trait. I also think that concepts like debt to GDP ratio are somewhat detached from corporate policies.
    - andsoitis 3mo ago
      > but I think a company seeing layoffs as an embarrassing last resort is a positive trait. Don’t most companies think of layoffs as a last resort? I don’t think one ought to be embarrassed about correcting course when you have made a mistake. It takes courage.
      - 3mo ago
mrcwinn 3mo ago
That’s not how it works. Investors don’t mandate operational decisions. That’s for… operators. What they do ask for, in exchange for their investment, are things like revenue growth or certain margins. You can crap on those investors. The answer then is to never take their money. But without money, the job probably wasn’t created in the first place. So the result is the same. By the way, ever work alongside a really crappy non-executive and wonder how on earth they’re keeping their job? I sure have.
- tancop 3mo ago
  most investors want maximum short term profit. execs have to do what they say because of fiduciary duty and shareholder votes to fire them. the only way to prevent it is use debt financing exclusively or make every investor sign a contract that limits the companies duty to "dont do things that will actively lose money". thats hard when a lot of vcs strategy is extract as much as possible and let it fall.

BobbyTables2 3mo ago

An AI can also regurgitate others decisions, based on a much wider knowledge base than these executives. AI hardware costs are nothing compared to executives’ stock options too…

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

twelve40 3mo ago

this is a bit... general? there are companies with bullshit executives for sure, then there are companies who slay it. i hate to list the details because people start picking on details, but in my mind MS under Satya made a 180 from crap to relevant. All the while i realize what kind of shit goes on inside and if you read Blind your eyes will bleed. Yet Satya took it from a pure 100% bullshit executive and made it relevant. So not all executives are equal.