“On Tuesday we set a new record for total daily transaction volume processed.”
How does a company breaking records 36 hours ago conclude they need to lay off 14% of the workforce? Even with economic storm clouds on the horizon that seems very jumpy.
How does a company breaking records 36 hours ago conclude they need to lay off 14% of the workforce? Even with economic storm clouds on the horizon that seems very jumpy.
I worked at companies that were in no way impacted by the 2008 financial crisis (in fact, business was booming). Leadership managed to use it as an excuse to do a hiring freeze and plead with existing employees that they are the lucky ones and they need to work harder during “this difficult time”. Facebook and Google just turned to that page recently in the “ruthless business playbook: version 1 (it never needed to be updated since the dawn of time)”.
It’s kind of psych 101 stuff. Never underestimate the true nature of business: Amorality.
There is some genuine bullshit going on now days because we have record low unemployment and open job positions. If they say it’s all in the service and labor sectors, well, that just means you gave more people an opportunity to earn money. Those people will then go online and spend it, so how the fuck would Stripe get less business? Unless Stripe is genuinely retarded, in which case I wouldn’t blame the 14% layed off, I’d look to replace leadership. But you see, Stripe isn’t retarded.
Be ready for your company that’s in some booming industry to use the recession and inflation as an excuse.
What avenues have they exhausted before laying off workers?
For example my company during COVID chose to make a temporary 3% reduction to salaries rather than laying off the people. That was that year's minimum salary increase. Basically they took what they gave that year.
Many companies are very disloyal to their workers, vice versa.
Hence, it's disingenuous for businesses to put up prices by CPI. In fact, businesses putting up prices is often a driver of CPI.
Businesses face their own changes in prices, yes, but not by CPI.
Or they just took the opportunity when customers are expecting price hikes anyway.
Look at all the openings they have: https://stripe.com/jobs/search
You Inc.
I inferred that you meant record ^low^ unemployment?
https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-is-the-r-word-3105651
Your post brings up interesting view points, thanks for sharing.
And I am not sure which is worse, being selective or being consistent but annoying.
Bringing Charles Darwin into the conversation does not help your point.
"Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of your misfortune? Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, often behind your back by throngs offended on your behalf?"
This is a false trade-off. The whole conversation started because someone used a harmful word, knowing full well it was harmful. If they refrained from using the offensive word they knew was offensive neither condition would have happened (casual insult or patronization).
Conversely, people tried to introduce the term "special needs" to avoid the connotations of "retarded", and then "special" became an insult.
The word "lame" is also incredibly widely used and no longer considered offensive even though it's still a valid term for those who have difficulty walking.
I don't have a point, just find the whole thing very interesting. "retarded" is definitely in the grey area where I personally try to avoid using it, but it's still commonly used. Perhaps "crazy" and "insane" are next.
Lots of conditions of being are generally disfavored as a condition of our biology. Referencing that disfavor abstractly doesn't bring it in to being. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
Sure, we shouldn't use harmful language and emotional intelligence matters. If you're overweight and talking with someone and they constantly find ways to derogatorily refer to your weight or even being overweight abstractly, they may be a jerk. But if someone online abstractly calls something fat, it's not directed at you. That's part of emotional intelligence in my opinion.
There are lots of injustices happening in this world that deserve your attention. Policing the use of a word is not one of them.
I could understand your objections if jesuscript called something/someone retarded, but they explicitly wrote "But you see, Stripe isn’t retarded." I think that whether a word is offensive or not depends on the context in which it is used.
About the article you linked... perhaps I'm mentally disabled, but despite its "Why Use of the R-Word Needs to Stop" title, I was not able to understand why the use of the r-word needs to stop. Would you mind to elaborate?
https://www.pacer.org/bullying/info/students-with-disabiliti...
So, there are certain... specific... groups of people with specific characteristics who are sometimes not well thought of by some other people. And there's a word to refer to this specific group of people, and it's considered a Bad Word. And then we as a society come up with a new word for these people, which is now a Good Word. But in a couple of years, it starts being used as a slur (by the other people who dislike the specific people) and quickly becomes a Bad Word. This process keeps repeating ad infinitum and you're not going to solve it by successively banning each subsequent word and coming up with a new one which is now politically correct.
I don't think the words themselves are the problem here? The problem is that some people don't think well of some specific groups of people and whatever term is being used to refer to the specific group of people quickly becomes a Bad Word. And I don't think we'll solve this problem by banning the Bad Word and replacing it with the Good Word.
In western culture it is usually considered offensive to use a characteristic that is a consequence of birth as an insult. For example: "Don't be such a black person/jew/asian" is considered offensive because you cannot control the trait of your race any more than you can control an intellectual disability.
Compounding that, as I mentioned above, the term 'retarded' or 'mentally retarded' is no longer used medically or legally, in the same way that 'moron' and 'idiot' aren't considered diagnoses anymore.
Therefore, using the term 'retarded' is culturally associated - exclusively - with insulting a person's actions by comparing them to someone who is disabled with the implication that a disabled person would necessarily act foolishly or irrationally.
It would be the same as if you needed an explanation simplified for you, and from then on every person who then needed a simpler explanation was then said to have 'needed a Tasuki'. You can surely understand, even if you personally don't mind, how that might cause offense.
After all, you are 'somewhat offended' by someone assuming that a link might provide a sufficient explanation instead of holding your hand through the explanation like someone who lacks reason, empathy, logic and intelligence ... Or do I need to Tasuki that further for you?
The problem is the insult, not the characteristic that is a consequence of birth. "You're retarded" is offensive, while "you're Asian" isn't. What about "You don't have legs" said to a person born with no legs? It might or might not be offensive, depending on the context.
> Therefore, using the term 'retarded' is culturally associated - exclusively - with insulting a person's actions by comparing them to someone who is disabled with the implication that a disabled person would necessarily act foolishly or irrationally.
I get how calling someone retarded might be considered offensive, but jesuscript specifically said that Stripe was not retarded. How is that offensive? Would you be offended if I said you were not retarded?
> Or do I need to Tasuki that further for you?
Oh please do tasuki that further for me, I'm a simple man and not offended by you suggesting so.
Why is it the author could understand certain actions only if someone has a medical condition?
Surely there could be multiple other reasons.
The context in which the word is used isn’t appropriate. Many find using the word when referring to a medical condition to be derogatory.
Saying someone/something isn’t a derogatory word isn’t kind. The words association and connotation is still there.
> The problem is that some people don't think well of some specific groups of people and whatever term is being used to refer to the specific group of people quickly becomes a Bad Word.
If a group of individuals actively find a word offensive and ask others not to use it, I think it’s generally kind to respect their request.
Word associations may change over time, and it’s great you have that insight. I don’t have a solution, other than recognizing the words we say invoke feelings in others. We live in the now.
Finding someone whom feels targeted by the word and is open to a conversation can help you understand why the word is harmful.
Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, behind your back, by throngs hell-bent on pretending away that generally accepted disfavor (and even Darwin himself)?
As much as people complain about businesses only looking at the next quarter, they do typically have a longer horizon than that. When you have the US fed raising interest rates every meeting and outright saying "unemployment is going to increase" then you should expect pretty much every business to take note of this and adjust appropriately.
What avenues have they exhausted before laying off workers?
For example my company during COVID chose to make a temporary 3% reduction to salaries rather than laying off the people. That was that year's minimum salary increase. Basically they took what they gave that year.
Many companies are very disloyal to their workers, vice versa.