Hacker News Reader

Comment by samwise | Hacker News Reader

So,i would assume that you would rather have us assigning superficial jobs to employees just to give the impression of a healthy economy.

It's that kinda of think that i believe will render America unable to compete globally and ultimately will do more harm than our temporary slump.

also, it's really lame to down mod someone, just because you don't agree with them.

View on HN

Don't confuse what I said. I'm merely objecting to the inappropriateness of referring to human beings as "fat".

My second statement in the above comment was to get you to realize that real people are going to be facing tough times and that they are going to suffer in a VERY real way. Lightly referring to others as "fat" is unnecessary; it's a matter of politeness to those individuals.

Btw, I agree with what you are suggesting overall. I just don't agree with the way it is expressed. Perhaps this discussion has no place here, and for that I apologize to all.

People aren't "the fat", redundant jobs are.

Jobs aren't people.

I understand your point (and the points above) but it's those 'redundant jobs' that built the company into a viable purchase for Google. How can they value it at $3.1Bn then ditch the very machine that created that value?

Isn't the value in replacing the competitor's product with your own? As the article said, all that they really prize is the user base. It's not like that's the first time they have paid for a possible competitor in order to assimilate them and wipe out their product (I'm thinking Dodgeball, Dulance, etc), it's just on a larger scale.

It's the removal of redundancies which can make a merger greater than the sum of its parts. Why should Google maintain a separate set of HR, sales and administration departments when it already has those in place?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com