7 ms·
Before the 1980s layoffs were seen as a massive failure of the company and almost never happened to tenured employees unless the company was collapsing. Before
by tracerbulletx 4mo ago
Before the 1980s layoffs were seen as a massive failure of the company and almost never happened to tenured employees unless the company was collapsing. Before we are all made to think this is normal and unavoidable behavior.
- zamadatix 4mo agoI wouldn't have nearly as many complaints about this mindset change if ones life (e.g. insurance) weren't still so deeply tied to who your current employer is.
- yamillove 4mo ago[flagged]
- outside1234 4mo agoAnd the Republicans wrecked it by getting rid of the mandate and then not funding the subsidy.
- wombat-man 4mo agoyeah, and no public option
- cramer4next 4mo ago[flagged]
- lovich 4mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_repeal_the_Affordable_Care_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_repeal_the_Affordab... > On November 2, 2017, a bill later known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was introduced by Representative Kevin Brady of Texas. Included in the bill was the move to change the tax penalty for not having health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act to zero.[62][63] Economists said this would lower interest in obtaining health insurance coverage.[64] The bill was signed into law on December 22, 2017 by Donald Trump,[65] with the loss of individual mandate taxation being set to take effect January 1, 2019.[62]
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- yamillove 4mo agoWell, the government cannot compel you to buy a product for your own protection. What’s next? Forcing you to use protection during intimate activities?
- lovich 4mo ago> Well, the government cannot compel you to buy a product for your own protection. They can, hence the mandates for healthcare. > What’s next? Forcing you to use protection during intimate activities? If you start creating negative externalities for everyone else, then yea. If you are arguing from a libertarian perspective of you can do whatever you want, then I would demand you get a tattoo saying “do not give me medical aid” prominently on your forehead so my taxes aren’t wasted on someone who doesn’t want to contribute to society but expects aid from society. If you are are cool with that deal I am actually ok with you, but don’t be surprised if we drop your body into a Zoroastrian Tower of Silence the moment you go unconscious from a car accident and can’t pay for medical expenses.
- yamillove 4mo ago[dead]
- sbochins 4mo agoI think you’re on the wrong website. You’re allowed to be conservative here. But, you can’t be conservative and an idiot.
- yamillove 4mo ago[flagged]
- iwontberude 4mo agoObama was a corporate stooge and neoliberal fuckhead who had majority in the senate and the house and spent his time fighting to pass a republican health care bill and wage illegal wars. I am a democrat but never ever will fall for that trick again. A fool can’t get fooled again.
- jimt1234 4mo agoI'm aware that HN frowns on "THIS", but...THIS!!! I don't know what the best solution for the current healthcare clusterfuck in the US is, but I think disassociating health insurance from employer/employment is a great first step.
- brianwawok 4mo agoAs a business owner yes please! Charge me a flat insurance tax. And then give everyone insurance. It’s such a cluster.
- kelvinjps10 4mo agoImproving coverage and acceptance by plans in the marketplace would be a good start. Multiple healthcare providers only accept plans from an employer or the state, not individual plans bought in the marketplace. Crazy that in a pro-business country, if you have your own business or you're self-employed, you can't have access to healthcare
- collabs 4mo agoThe goal should be a single payer health care system. I am not asking for like luxury spa five star treatment. However, there definitely should be a "free of cost at the point of service" option that does not have any means testing of any kind. That should be the goal and once we have that, it will not matter if you are self employed or own a business. We keep doing half measures and pretend to be surprised when it doesn't work.
- bigfatkitten 4mo agoThe U.S. already spends considerably more tax dollars per capita on health care than almost any other country, with much less to show for it.
- tonyedgecombe 4mo agoI’m always amazed that the US is as entrepreneurial as it is given the healthcare situation.
- Avicebron 4mo agoI don't know how the social contract between employees/employers gets rebuilt..feels like it needs to though
- danans 4mo ago> I don't know how the social contract between employees/employers gets rebuilt. The only social contract that is guaranteed is the one written into law. That's why we have government, but the problem is that the government is (for a while now) captive to / bought by large corporations, not responsive to employees/workers/voters. Whatever principled social contract you may have thought large corporations upheld was smoke and mirrors. It just worked for enough of the right kind of person for a while.
- b3kart 4mo agoWhat’s written into law is just “contract”, not “social contract”. Your argument is basically “if it’s not illegal it’s not wrong”.
- eli_gottlieb 4mo agoNo, he's arguing that if it's not legal, it's not enforceable by men with nightsticks.
- danans 4mo agoI was thinking the justice system, but yes the entire concept of government and law is built upon the monopoly of violence. Bringing it into this discussion is reductio ad absurdum. Even property rights are protected by the same monopoly (and even more directly). My point is that the so called "social contract" has never been upheld by large corporations - it may have seemed that way at times but it was mostly self serving marketing, not anything that would influence their treatment of employees vs their shareholders and executives. Furthermore I'm arguing that we shouldn't rely on them to uphold it. If we have a belief in what is universally fair or just (i.e minimum wages, no child labor, no slavery), we should encode it in law, not hope corporations find their conscience to renew the social contract.
- torben-friis 4mo agoI know HN is mostly against regulation, but I'm very glad my country restricts mass firings, and particular stricter rules apply for companies that turn a profit. If you're generating benefits, there should be very few reasons you need to let go people massively.
- vanrysss 4mo agoI have a cousin in Belgium who was laid off following some restructuring and her severance was 52 weeks. Not out of the goodness of the company's hearts, but mandated by law since they gave no notice and she had accrued seniority. US labor laws are a joke in comparison.
- para_parolu 4mo agoThis also a reason why starting a business in USA is usually better.
- torben-friis 4mo agoEconomics is hardly a reproducible science, but an American company has basically instant access to 350 million consumers (and workers) with no language barrier and little inter-state red tape. It's hard to imagine that this isn't a larger differentiator than the ability to fire hundreds at will.
- infecto 4mo agoYou would be surprised. Don’t think about it as firing but also being overly cautious. If you run a division in the EU you are overly thoughtful for every single HC you add. You don’t take risks because that HC at minimum is going to cost a year of severance. It’s a balancing act, maybe less new jobs but you get less layoffs.
- tonyedgecombe 4mo agoPresumably you aren’t paying 52 weeks of severance to someone you hired three months ago.
- Rekindle8090 4mo ago"Before the 1980s layoffs were seen as a massive failure of the company and almost never happened to tenured employees unless the company was collapsing. Before we are all made to think this is normal and unavoidable behavior." Yeah and psychology was considered unserious, computers were still new, civil rights was barely ten years old and most work was unskilled labor. What is your point? Stop using "not how it was 50 years ago" as an argument because it isn't one.
- 33MHz-i486 4mo agothe business people took over tech and somehow convinced us Jack Welch’s management philosophy (targeted attrition, layoffs for financial engineering) was a best practice even though he and his proteges drove numerous old guard tech companies into the ground
- darth_avocado 4mo agoWhen Elon fired 80% of the company, I remember a lot of celebration on HN. Some of it was the perceived political bias within the employees and some of it was “The app works fine what were all those employees doing? They probably deserved it.” At the time I remember talking about this becoming a norm as CEOs follow the lead and getting downvoted heavily. Its unfortunate that we are here, but also not surprising, given how limited empathy people have for each other at times here on HN. Unless we stand for each other, this won’t change.
- monksy 4mo agoThat's not from what I remember. I'm sure there was some skepticism about some of the roles that were there. But I do remember Ian Brown just completely dunking on that triobyte on Twitter Spaces. (Ian Brown is an ex-Twitter performance engineer, he pushed Musk on "what is non-performant, and you explicitly define it".. suffice to say gehot and Musk got a little embarassed and kicked him off the stream).
- pram 4mo agoGeorge Hotz’s entire tenure as a Twitter “intern” was so hilariously embarrassing. And the entire preamble at the time about basically “purging the parasites” and Heroic 100x Coders (the search still sucks)
- meerita 4mo agoWhen that happened, AI wasn’t even at today’s level. Elon clearly didn’t fire those people because AI would replace them. They were laid off because the company could run pretty well without them. And that’s exactly what happened.
- darth_avocado 4mo agoYou’re missing the point. You’re still holding on to the notion that somehow getting rid of people was fine because the company could run well without them (that’s debatable but it’s a tangent). The same logic is being applied now with AI. Doesn’t matter there was no AI back then or how good/bad AI is. People are being laid off and the companies are doing fine. You can’t cheer one and then complain about the other.
- outside1234 4mo agoThe worst part about the current situation is that the company is then just turning around and hiring people. It is almost like the company really is just doing it to arbitrage or get rid of expensive (aka old) employees.
- cramer4next 4mo agoIn the 80s you didn't have the majority of your employees being white collar and making six figures. The U.S. is suffering from office worker bloat. They have an increasing growing population of people who know very little about physical labor and most likely won't be able to adapt to upcoming AI induced mass unemployment. I only see the pain getting worse for them. Not sure what the solution is for them here.
- manishsharan 4mo agoAlso so many people with so many guns. Mass Unemployment with no healthcare or supporting social services , very few opportunities and lots of guns. It will not be ok.
- phendrenad2 4mo agoThe tech industry spawned a new type of Wall Street investor who thinks a stock is a high-interest savings account. There's no room for risk, you need to grow at exactly 3.141593% per quarter or you face the pitchforks-and-patagonia-vests threatening to take their money down the street to the next bank.