6
jassole
1y

Clench your butt tight hole and prepare:

Microsoft, Google, Amazon are the early owns, others going to follow. It's going to be painful year (Build back better).

https://blog.google/inside-google/...

This is just the start.....

Comments
  • 2
    I heard that tech companies collectively lost like a ridiculous 4 trillion last year. I thought the number was a mistake. That seems way too high. But money is so inflated I guess it could be correct.
  • 4
    Why is it when brown people get involved in companies the employees suffer. Are indian millionaires more sadistic than already sadistic white ones or is it an age group thing ?
  • 3
    Yes originally this was meant as. Inflammatory comment and I resent indians being so present in the tech market since their government used to finance oracle certs and the like while I had to teach myself things and troll irc and read books and hope I got a job
  • 1
    Especially when google was a story of American success
  • 1
    Hmm and his select round number of employees he's refiring
  • 6
    AKA countries outside of the US have better protections in place for employees to stop this shit from happening.
  • 3
    We just had a round of 'right sizing' (yes, their term) and fired 6 developers (4 devs, 2 DBAs) . TL;DR, its related around a multi-multi million dollar construction fiasco and every department was told to make sacrifices.

    One, of many things, that pisses me off is our department has nothing...NOTHING to do with any of the drama. Did any of the senior leaders/upper-mgmt responsible for the fiasco get fired? Nope, not a one.

    Average number per department was around 12, so I guess we were lucky?
  • 0
    @sariel a bit further down:
  • 3
    @spongessuck that's nice that they are doing that. What about the non-salary employees?

    If only the US government had a fucking spine. Oh sure, we'll kick every other countrys ass when there's profit on the line, but Republican American Jesus forbid employees get any protection from this.

    Have you ever asked why bank accounts have insurance on them while your job doesn't? I guess you could claim unemployment could fit that model but let's get real, anyone who's claimed unemployment in the last 3 years knows that's a fucking shitshow.

    Employee rights are civil rights.

    Fuck capitalism and all the greedy cucks at the top.
  • 4
    So what's going on - is advertising on the decline or why do they suddenly care about the costs of having an absurd amount of employees? And how could i blame this on Musk?
  • 2
    @sariel protection from what? Getting laid off? What entitles one to be immune from reality? Why should it be harder to lay someone off than it is to hire someone?

    Say there was a legal requirement for employers to give some sort of severance to laid off employees, or give paid notice, or whatever. Who do you think is more equipped to absorb the cost of that: the biggest companies or the smallest companies? What looks like "protecting employees" on the surface really just keeps small companies out of the competition.

    BTW you frame bank account insurance as pro-consumer when really it shifts the liability to pay depositors from banks to ultimately the taxpayer (for FDIC insured accounts, anyway). Who is it really protecting?
  • 0
    @spongessuck sorry, can you say that a bit clearer? I couldn't understand with all that capitalist dick in your mouth.

    Do you even understand the words you're using? The majority of Europe has protections in place to ensure that employers are responsible enough to hire employees in some form. Yet, in America, you can be fired from your job for literally being too ugly.

    I hope you get to experience the shit you're spinning at the worst possible time in your life. I mean it can't be THAT bad right?

    You should be able to lose your job anytime and just...pick yourself up with those bootstraps.
  • 3
    @sariel I think you misunderstood my point.

    EU has protections, so what? Again, who is it really benefiting? Just because it sounds good on paper, and people support it with noble intentions, doesn't mean there aren't negative consequences or ulterior motives. The benefits are very visible to people and it makes them feel good. The costs are hidden, and pernicious.

    If I'm just a capitalist cock-gobbler, why would I be trying to convince you that more rules just protect the biggest companies from competition? What are you afraid of, exactly? Do you really think I'm pro-exploitation? Do you really think what we have here in the US is capitalism?
  • 0
    I’m sure the Cs will have to cut down as well, let’s cut them some slack. Down to 20 million, from 40 perhaps? A 50% cut is quite harsh!
  • 2
    I am a capitalists and a realists, but it doesn't come off as a surprise to me. Nothing is permanent. You can have all the rules, regulations but eventually it comes down to simple math:

    Profit = Revenue - Cost

    Shrink the revenue component, profit is in negative if you don't reduce cost. You need loans on a loss-making company to keep the bloodline running, Lenders are hesitant to provide money to a loss run company.

    Rules, regulations only hurt the smallest guy who dreams of opening a business, who has to take the highest risk. The barrier to open a business becomes too high, it's better not opening one at all and you have a shrinking economy.
  • 0
    @spongessuck the fact that the US has the largest(growing) wealth inequality proves the US is a capitalist oligarchy.

    Every action has negative and positive reactions. Bringing this up is just a red herring and confuses the point that these protections are in place so that employees benefit from them. I could not give two fucking shits about a business that goes under because they fired an employee. If you can't distinguish a good decision for your business versus a bad decision for your business you should not be in business.

    This includes hiring and firing employees. Just like whenever you adopt a child, you take responsibility for that life. You have to make sure that you have everything that's necessary to provide a positive experience to that person.

    I'm tired of companies treating employees like slaves and just firing them when the time comes and they're no longer "necessary".

    Also, you're not trying to convince me. You will never convince me. You're trying to convince them.
Add Comment