Google is not a private company though.
> The type of people working for Google will be the first to get hired when the economy picks up again
So instead of spending the time looking for a job, possibly relocating, settling down, getting used to a new workplace, etc, and staying there, they get to do all that and then do it again. This is not a trivial set of events to have to redo.
> if you really care about the impacts of boom and bust don't worry about what the private sector is doing
This makes zero sense.
> link
No thanks.
Well of course it is, isn't it? It's not state-owned, right?
The distinction I’m making is between public sector and private sector, not privately held versus publicly traded
>> if you really care about the impacts of boom and bust don't worry about what the private sector is doing
> This makes zero sense.
No it makes 3 sense.
The private sector will always boom and bust. If you try to solve that with regulation you a) can’t and b) just make it harder for smaller businesses to compete.
Only the government can offset the whimsy of the private sector and prevent the inevitable boom and bust cycles of private investment from destabilising society.
Touting that as the only reality that could exist is not knowing the past, shareholders-first mentality and extract-as-much-profit-as-possible types of business are a thing from the 80s onwards, after Welch gutted GE's engineering prowess to become just another financial scheme.
Finance capitalism is the main issue, businesses are supposed to provide value to society first which they can profit on after.
You can look at basically any capitalist during the Gilded Age or the 1920's and see plenty of clear cut examples of them valuing profit substantially more than "doing the right thing". They didn't treat their workers terribly well, they destroyed large chunks of the environment, and they became richer than anyone could possibly imagine.
Sure, people like Carnegie would later talk about "social responsibility" of rich people, and to some extent I'm sure he even believed what he was saying, but that doesn't really detract from the fact that he still fundamentally made most of his money off suffering of others.
This is just an idea that I have, I'm not sure if it's even true. In any case, corporate speak is and always has been tuned to what the public expects of the corporation (current example is the whole LGBTQ+ signalling). Don't get it twisted: corporations aren't people and they don't really have feelings. They don't care about you; they're incapable of caring about you.
Survival basics are to help yourself first and then help others. Since neither people nor businesses can survive without generating money, this situation we are in seems natural.
Take away people's dependency on money for basic needs, and you will get a lot more businesses that can safely operate for the good of society first and profit second.