Hacker News Reader

Comment by cranberryturkey | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

From the perspective of the company/stock market yes.

From the other perspective, 1 fired person is a lot for a family - especially in a bad economy

it's certainly not a bad economy right now. Record low unemployment, record high stock market prices. Inflation is back to reasonable rates. Prices are inflated, but that alone does not define the economy.

The problem is firings almost always happen in bad economies and rarely in good economies.

Microsoft made $146 billion in profit last year. Terrible economy.

Yes, and? They're in no obligation to share that profit with the workers. They're bound to providing value to their shareholders. If the firings don't negatively impact profits or share value, then where's the problem (for Microsoft) if this is the behavior that shareholders reward right now?

I was responding to GP's assertion that firings like this only happen in bad economies. My point was that it's hard to believe it's a bad economy when they made $146b in profit.

The global economy is bad, but not Microsoft's profits. Hence firings. You can make profits in a bad economy.

You can also not fire your workers to make more profit.

How? Profits are not always proportionally related to the number of employees. On-boarding more bodies results in bigger payrolls but not guarantees of more profits.

I'm sorry, I don't really know how to respond to that question. How? You don't prioritize maximizing profits over your workers' livelihoods.

> You don't prioritize maximizing profits over your workers' livelihoods.

Are you 5? Every company prioritizes profits over its employee livelihoods (even in Europe) otherwise no entrepreneur would ever bother working 60h/week and taking huge risks to start a company if their main focus would be charity for workers, and not profits for them and the investors.

Who the fuck wants to actually live in that kind of world as an employee?

Looking at the payroll of Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Apple, etc. a lot of people apparently. Are you new to the labor market or how for-profit publicly listed companies work? Or do you think your company cares more about you than it does about its profits.

I just think it’s not wrong to want something better than fuck you, you’re disposable and the only thing that matters is profit.

That’s not a stable environment for people to live in.

No need to pretend like I’m an idiot. You know exactly what I meant.

>I just think it’s not wrong to want something better than fuck you, you’re disposable and the only thing that matters is profit.

How are they being treated as disposable? Should companies never be allowed to let anyone go ever?

And what do you suggest? Communism? I work in Europe for a private local company and for them profit is also the only thing that matters hence why they had layoffs and hiring freezes.

If I stop being perceived as being productive do you think the company won't fire me here too? If I drop dead tomorrow do you think the CEO will come to my funeral or send money to my family? I have the exact worth to the company my US peer do except for much less pay and a safety net paid from my own high taxes and lower financial opportunities.

what a miserable existence

Welcome to the real world everywhere buddy.

Where do you live that you think your employer won't try to replace you the second you dropped dead?

You keep going on as though I am somehow unaware of the difference between how things are and what I said from the start was an ideal scenario.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem on top of being a smug prick.

You haven't stated any points or argument in this conversation. You're just here insulting people.

And you’ve spent the entire time responding to an argument nobody ever made and then walked away like you won some victory.

>Yes, and? They're in no obligation to share that profit with the workers. They're bound to providing value to their shareholders

Yes, and?

You're describing the state of things and the law as if that makes it a good thing and an optimal situation. It's neither.

All kinds of very good things were no legal obligation for businesses to perform (like no obligation to not use child labor, or to have filters in your factory's chimneys), and all kinds of very bad things were an obligation for businesses to do (like seggregated areas), at different times.

Microsoft laying off some people and child labor are in nowhere comparable. You lost the argument here. What's next, are you gonna compare getting a traffic fine to the holocaust?

If they want to, Microsoft employees could unionize to make sure the company can never fire any of them, but of course that would mean saying goodbye to all those juicy jobs with compensation packages that make big-tech and the US attractive places for lucrative business in the first place.

Nobody forces you to choose to go work at Microsoft or any big-tech that focuses on pleasing Wallstreet. People go work there because they chase wealth building and that comes with higher risks. You can go work at your local mom & pop SW shop if you want a cushy job for life. Of course you won't get a 400k TC package to buy that dream house either.

>Microsoft laying off some people and child labor are in nowhere comparable. You lost the argument here.

Only the comparison, based on the part I quoted and replied to, wasn't about merely laying off some people. It was of maximizing shareholder value - of which this, and treating employees as disposable in general, is just one of countless examples.

And whose results, in aggregate, are comparable, if not worse, than child labor.

>You can go work at your local mom & pop SW shop if you want a cushy job for life. Of course you won't get a 400k TC package to buy that dream house either.

It's as if you're talking about some imaginary universe, where mom&pop SW shops are squashed by Big Tech in all kinds of ways, and where regular shitty jobs, with no "400k TC packages", from Walmart stuff to diaper-wearing Amazon warehouse workers, and countless others, are not also treated like disposable "human capital" and fired without second thought even when those companies make record profits.

>treating employees as disposable in general,

How are they treated as disposable? Should companies never let people go ever once they hire them? How would that ever work?

Even in Europe many companies had layoffs and some are still laying people off as we speak with plans all the way till 2026. It's how private businesses work, they're free to adjust their workforce numbers as they see fit, they're not a charity to guarantee people life employment.

>And whose results, in aggregate, are comparable, if not worse, than child labor.

Yeah being a laid off Microsoft employee with that generous severance package, is worse than being a slave child in Bangladesh.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com