Hacker News Reader

Comment by wickedwiesel | Hacker News Reader

I know you are sharing some interesting observations, but can we all stop talking about employees as the "fat" of companies and firing of employees as "culls".

> underperformers lying about to cull

is not just bad wording. By definition, there will always be underperformers. A profitable company only has "too many" employees if you think it has to pay a larger dividend to its owners / shareholders or that future growth is mandatory.

Why is it not fine when a company is more or less breaking even but paying good salaries to its employees?

View on HN

> Why is it not fine when a company is more or less breaking even but paying good salaries to its employees?

Because this ignores reality. Especially at FAANG companies, growth is expected and the majority of compensation is stock. If you stop growing, and stop having a profit, your stock tanks, and future compensation - as well as compensation from years prior that is still in the form of company stock - becomes worth much less. You can't hire people who are as good because you're "in decline." Your products falter because talent leaves and you can't find new talent. Even if all the above is imagined (it's not) you now have real impacts in terms of declining application quality and shrinking user bases.

I was trying to point out that not every company ownership model is a publicly traded stock company. Your point is totally valid in the context you give.

> "Why is it not fine when a company is more or less breaking even but paying good salaries to its employees?"

Do you have a retirement plan that contains stock or get any options/stock grants as part of your compensation? Those shares are your ownership stake in corporations and your retirement quite directly depends on those shares increasing in price faster than inflation.

Your point is valid but also quite obvious. As soon as you own stock you will want them to increase in valuation. My point is a different one. Publicly traded stock companies have very specific (growth) and often bad (growth, disregarding other impact) incentives. Other forms of ownership can provide a stake for talented employees and safeguard their financial Fortune. I believe a cooperative may better align everyone’s incentives for example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com