Preferences

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.
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.

>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.

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal