Why do they need "taking care" of? Are they fragile school kids? Desparate single mothers who can't make ends meet?
What is with this "save our babies!" attitude towards people who are
- Well off
- Highly skilled
??
What is with this "save our babies!" attitude towards people who are
- Well off
- Highly skilled
??
A reputation for sticking with employees, even through a layoff, makes a company more attractive.
It increases trust between employer & employees. Trust increases the efficiency of any collaboration.
From that point of view, severance payments are not noble handouts but compensation strategies to reduce the overall payroll cost.
From a capitalist perspective, the paternal employer-employee relationship is one of mutual benefit. Ensuring that the the employee's incentives align more closely with their employer's. At the same time it acts as (an arguably weak) justification for corporate profit, a comfortable and loyal employee is one who does not concern themselves too much with where the rest of the money is going.
The idea of the relationship as transient and adversarial directly opposes this. When companies force their workers into precarity, while at the same time making record profits, there ceases to be a justification for accepting that profit in the eyes of the worker. Eventually leading to some kind of societal response.
The difference is that in a capitalist system (with a constrained money supply; an even monetary playing field), when you get tossed out, you can get back up and you still have a chance to compete. In this system, when you get tossed out, it's game over (feels like slow withering away, a constant struggle to stay afloat).
The winners' wealth compounds infinitely beyond the point when it becomes impossible to compete against them. Billionaires are earning enough passive yield on their diversified portfolios that some of their businesses become useless appendages and they can afford to run them as a hobby, at a loss... Yet nobody can compete against those businesses; they're essentially subsidized by the money printer which serves as a compounding interest machine for the billionaire.
No real business which relies on profits from its economic activities can compete against a business which is funded by an infinitely compounding source of wealth.
Given that money is taxed by governments each time it hops between economic participants, it can barely hold onto a tiny fraction of its original face value after just 10 hops (at that point, almost all of it will be back in the hands of government)... It can't stray too far from the government money printer. But that's not a concern for billionaires who earn their yields almost straight out of reserve banks.
I'm curious as to how the hypothetical Capitalism would avoid quickly collapsing into a much more extreme version of the current state of affairs. Capital producing more capital seems built into the system, without strict controls on capital accumulation I don't see how the end result could be anything other than monopoly.
B) If the problem is that one profession lacks a union, wouldn't the more natural solution be to start one? Problem solved!
Employees get paid a salary to work. That's it. That's the agreement. There are no expenses passed down to employees - you're just making that up.
Sometimes the expenses get passed down, but I'll agree that's rare. However I have had employers bill me for my uniforms, and I ain't talkin about the military.
Just like you can "just leave" an abusive relationship, but instead much of the system is abusive to their employees.
"Getting laid off" is not a risk. Wasting 2 years for nothing while bleeding income _is_ risk.
If you don't agree, then why would you work for an employer when you could take your own risk?
re why work for an employer when you could take your own risk: generally speaking the odds of losing a job due to layoff are still less bad than the odds of a bootstrapped business failing, even if attempting to start a business was a realistic option, which it is not for many people.
That's the risk. They destroy the bonuses and benefits of their workers to fuel their own rat race.
You are simplying the situation by thinking about everyone as successful unicorns. Most companies and founders are not.
(naturally this is all meant for F500 companies which post a lot of profits, start ups need a different mindset.)
So are you saying that, in the multi-million VC-fuelled start-up climate of the last couple decades, founders haven't made sure to pay themselves at least the same salary as their employees?
If you are, I'm not buying it. And if you're not, i.e. if you admit that they did, your point falls to pieces.
Which includes the employees. They want the cool tech, the stock options, the prestige of working at FAANG or some new startup, the all-you-can-eat cafeterias... the price of working in a fast-moving, always-changing industry is that you're likely to be on the receiving end of some of those changes.
Want to be protected from layoffs? Take a salary cut and work for the government. Or be the most incredible software engineer at a boring as hell credit union or community college.
I certainly don't wish for anyone to be laid off and I know, from personal experience, that it can be tough. But by choosing the startup or FAANG world and enjoying all the benefits, you're practicing guaranteeing that you'll be affected by some adverse outcome, somewhere along the line. Accept it and move on.
It also seems the job wouldn't have existed without someone willing to take the risk? I myself weigh risk in my decisions frequently. I am full aware that a layoff (or firing) is possible every time I accept a job. I'm also fully aware of what my employers obligations are to me. I'm not sure I've ever felt that my employer 'owed' me more than that. Maybe my life would be better if I did?
Layoffs on this scale are understandable, maybe even justifiable, in the case of a 2008 style market crash.
Layoffs on this scale do not feel understandable or justifiable given that many of the companies are extremely profitable, were hiring during, and have continued to hire afterwards. Add to that the prevalence of stock buybacks and the sheer scale of recent hiring and the question becomes why should the employees be the ones to feel the consequence of this behaviour?
The often billionaire CEO tearing up over how hard it was for him to fire thousands of people but "is using it as an opportunity to take responsibility for his mistakes" is simply the cherry on the cake.
Said friend told me numerous stories about how he gave positive references or call his friends in other companies for positions for coworkers who were laid off, during his tenure in IBM.
Helping people who lost their jobs because of reasons which they can't control is being a good person, for once, too.
These are people. This could be you, or your friend, espouse, mother, sister... And just because you can bounce back, it doesn't mean this is okay.
Even if they have money saved and can use that to find a (hopefully) better next job, that's not easy or guaranteed.
It seems that this "criticism" is more like jealousy than anything else. If they were not earning a bit more than others then we can feel bad for them. Otherwise let's pretend it's fine and yell "screw them".
Meanwhile the rich fucks are still getting richer even with the "risk" they take. Not sure how that can even count as risk, given these VCs are all multi-millionaires that can afford to fail multiple times over in the first place.
But it's somehow easier to hate the person that makes a few more bucks than you, than it is to hate the money hoarders that control the lives of so many of us.
Yes they are people, but a company is NOT responsible for them. Where does this come from? An employee has an employment relationship and not a friendship and while it certainly sucks to be let go, it's not the company who is the bad guy.
From what I see, you can't take off your personal morale views from business decisions.
> Meanwhile the rich fucks are still getting richer even with the "risk" they take. What even has that anything to do with what parent is saying? Or the topic we are discussing?
Is in your opinion no company is allowed to let go people, except if they pamper them with a big severance package? Sorry, but your post reads very childish and naive.
Have you talked to anyone from HR in the past decade???? It's all "we're one big family" this, "bring your whole self to work" that. The company trying to brand itself as a good guy and not as a money making vehicle goes both ways.
>Yes they are people, but a company is NOT responsible for them. Where does this come from? An employee has an employment relationship and not a friendship and while it certainly sucks to be let go, it's not the company who is the bad guy.
I agree the company is not fully responsible for them. But they have to have some degree of responsibility. There's an enormous power imbalance in play here and right now companies can just ditch people like garbage and increase stock prices at will just because they can.
The reality is that people don't choose to work. You either work or starve. So when we give companies that much power over our lives, I believe they should have a responsibility for those they employ.
> Is in your opinion no company is allowed to let go people, except if they pamper them with a big severance package? Sorry, but your post reads very childish and naive.
I don't quite get this. My point was that we've been conditioned to believe that letting people go is okay and it's every person for himself.
But you immediately go to the other end of the spectrum saying we can't ever let people go? That's quite childish and naive in my view.
There's a whole range here between basically zero consequences (what happens today) and you can't let people go. But once again it comes back to the conditioning that we all have that this is the system and there's nothing we can do about it. If we can't even imagine how it could be different, nothing will ever change.
Imagine it happened to my sister. So what? Are you expecting me to get emotional or angry at her employers? I wouldn't. What is there to be angry about?
For whatever reason, American tech workers appear to think they should get 5-10x the median income or more, also get stock in the company, also have flexible work/life hours and also be "looked after" (what does this mean? More money?) after they're fired.
They're clearly in a bubble.
Personal responsibility and equal opportunity are how we got to iPhones, toothpaste in every corner store, and a store on every corner.
???