4 ms·

Why does it need to be symmetric? There’s no reason we couldn’t decide that we want to err on the side of employing too many people. We already do with legisla

Why does it need to be symmetric? There’s no reason we couldn’t decide that we want to err on the side of employing too many people. We already do with legislation that requires severance packages and tax benefits for hiring. Many countries go much further.

simianwords 4mo ago
If its not symmetric then you bias towards status quo which is a really bad way to act as a CEO. > There’s no reason we couldn’t decide that we want to err on the side of employing too many people. Yeah that's not how a company should run.
- sarchertech 4mo ago
  > If its not symmetric then you bias towards status quo which is a really bad way to act as a CEO. That doesn’t follow. It could just as easily bias a CEO towards over hiring, or finding ways to retrain existing employees, or any one of a million things that’s not the status quo. It’s also possible that there currently exists pressure to push CEOs to lay off too many people and a little pressure in the opposite directions puts CEOs in a position where they are free to either layoff or hire as they see fit. > Yeah that's not how a company should run That should is attaching a moral judgement to this, and that’s not up to you. Many people think that the one of the primary purposes of a company is to provide employment. Even in the US our system makes it easier to hire someone than it is to fire them.
  - simianwords 4mo ago
    > Many people think that the one of the primary purposes of a company is to provide employment This is not good for society.
    - sarchertech 4mo ago
      Go argue with most of the developed world I guess.
      - simianwords 4mo ago
        This holds true for most of the world. The economy is not a jobs program.
        sarchertech 4mo ago
        You might not want it to be a jobs program but a portion of the economy is a jobs program. I think you’re just repeating the same thing over and over so you can get the last word in.
civet_java 4mo ago
> There’s no reason we couldn’t decide that we want to err on the side of employing too many people. One might bring up the personal consequences bourne by surplus employees who're then laid off during the unavoidable corrective phase - or is that not something society should care about? What are you optimising for?

simianwords 4mo ago

If its not symmetric then you bias towards status quo which is a really bad way to act as a CEO. > There’s no reason we couldn’t decide that we want to err on the side of employing too many people. Yeah that's not how a company should run.

sarchertech 4mo ago
> If its not symmetric then you bias towards status quo which is a really bad way to act as a CEO. That doesn’t follow. It could just as easily bias a CEO towards over hiring, or finding ways to retrain existing employees, or any one of a million things that’s not the status quo. It’s also possible that there currently exists pressure to push CEOs to lay off too many people and a little pressure in the opposite directions puts CEOs in a position where they are free to either layoff or hire as they see fit. > Yeah that's not how a company should run That should is attaching a moral judgement to this, and that’s not up to you. Many people think that the one of the primary purposes of a company is to provide employment. Even in the US our system makes it easier to hire someone than it is to fire them.
- simianwords 4mo ago
  > Many people think that the one of the primary purposes of a company is to provide employment This is not good for society.
  - sarchertech 4mo ago
    Go argue with most of the developed world I guess.
    - simianwords 4mo ago
      This holds true for most of the world. The economy is not a jobs program.
      - sarchertech 4mo ago
        You might not want it to be a jobs program but a portion of the economy is a jobs program. I think you’re just repeating the same thing over and over so you can get the last word in.

civet_java 4mo ago

> There’s no reason we couldn’t decide that we want to err on the side of employing too many people. One might bring up the personal consequences bourne by surplus employees who're then laid off during the unavoidable corrective phase - or is that not something society should care about? What are you optimising for?