Hacker News Reader

Comment by interactivecode | Hacker News Reader

fully agree. Totally ridiculous that a company who makes that much profit is allowed to delete the primary income source of these employees just because they decided to stop their car project.

I would love regulations to make it impossible to eliminate jobs unless the company is bankrupt. Considering how much is of your life is dependent on having an employer, it shouldn't be this easy for a company to toy with that. More so when a company has so much profits.

They could totally offer other positions within the company. If needed support people learning new technologies or languages. Or use these people's expertise to start new projects. but firing it totally unnecessary.

View on HN

We've gone through a round of layoffs, and I've been thinking about the same thing.

It's not that it's too easy—it's that it's too impactful.

The real answer is social safety nets. If you want to protect people, address the root problem that your life is dependent on having an employer. Proper unemployment or UBI plus universal healthcare makes losing a job annoying ("ugh now I have to find another one") vs. terrifying.

Jack up the corporate tax rate (on revenue) to pay for it—which should be a wash after reducing the load of severance, healthcare benefits, etc. that companies are paying today.

Better worker protections like the UK/Europe are mechanisms too—notice periods, guaranteed severance, etc.—but have their own chilling effects.

This has the added benefit of reducing the barriers of entry for individuals: people are more likely to leave bad jobs or pursue their own opportunities, which in turn should drive subsequent job creation.

yes social safety nets would be the usual way the impact/consequences are taken care of. At the same time america could also lean into the idea of the employer providing everything, in that case it would make sense for the employer to also take care of the consequences.

I'm a big fan of social safety nets, but would you agree it needs to stop somewhere? I assume the people laid off here were very well compensated for their work and likely had ample opportunity to build their own reserves. A safety net should be set up in a way that it enables you to have a comfortable, but basic lifestyle. Or should society pay for the CEO's mansion's maintenance should he get fired?

> regulations to make it impossible to eliminate jobs unless the company is bankrupt

This is how you zombify your economy.

what was the saying again? the beatings will continue until morale improves?

Is the threat of financial ruin or the threat of starving worth the advantage that you yourself are getting?

Inside the current "free market" do you really have the agency, choice or leverage to choose a different economic relationship with your employer if you would want one?

> Is the threat of financial ruin or the threat of starving worth the advantage that you yourself are getting?

False dichotomy. There are a myriad of options between the status quo and transitioning to a Southern European-style employment model.

> Inside the current "free market" do you really have the agency, choice or leverage to choose a different economic relationship with your employer if you would want one?

The solution isn't in making the current economy sclerotic, but in better distributing its gains. Destroying the gains just makes everyone poorer. And when that happens, empirically, inequality goes up, not down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com