5 ms·

Microsoft net income 2022: ~$70B. Why force pay cuts or fire workers when you have roughly $300k of net income per employee to work with?

w0m 4y ago
The argument would be sustainability I believe.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  Microsoft will survive even if they never fire another person for years.
  - coldpie 4y ago
    Microsoft spending $70B in cash this year is proof of that, in case anyone reading doubts the above statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_acquisition_of_Activision_Blizzard_by_Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_acquisition_of_Activi...
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Why make a profit when you can pay your employees >100% of your revenue and just go into debt instead? It's not how business works. You hire people if you need people, and you pay them the least you can get away with, so you maximize profits - because long ago, you raised money with the promise to the people you raised the money from that you would do this, and you have a Fiduciary obligation to do so...
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  Long ago capitalism and then neoliberalism infected our brains. There’s no rational reason why any of these promises were made in the first place while still having people without health care or a home.
- coldpie 4y ago
  > you pay them the least you can get away with, so you maximize profits We agree then that employees should put in the least amount of work that they can get away with, right? Fair's fair.
  - ckdarby 4y ago
    That is what a lot of employees do. That is why these layoffs are probably happening, cutting 5% could have been done by freezing hiring and performance evals. They're particular individuals who will take a stance like what you're outlining and sit in a limbo state outside of performance firing them. They bring down team moral, high performing employees feel cheated, etc.
    - coldpie 4y ago
      I think it would be more accurate to say it exposes to the high performers that they are being cheated. Those employees are donating their time & effort to the company so that their bosses can drive fancy cars, fund yacht racing teams, take tourist trips to LEO, buy social media companies to use as toys, and pay off politicians to keep those same employees desperate. The owners want employees fighting amongst themselves for scraps because it keeps them distracted from their real enemy.
- roflyear 4y ago
  Lots of companies do take no profit and pay out entirely to their employees, and there are some famous examples of that.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    Lots of co-ops and private companies... Please show me one public company that has said - sorry shareholders - we're returning 100%+ of profits to our employees forever.
    - skinnymuch 4y ago
      Who cares if a public company hasn’t done it? We know it’s possible. We need to make the world a better place not have the status quo.
      - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
        You can't do it with a public company because you have a fiduciary obligation. You can't raise money from Shareholder A with the promise to never return the money. That's a donation. Not gonna be able to raise money like you can from VCs and IPOs.
        skinnymuch 4y ago
        Have people gotten in trouble for breaking the fiduciary obligation by being nicer to workers? Has any one been in a serious chance for getting in trouble for being nicer to workers? I have always assumed this stuff is basically made up. It might be written somewhere, but no one is enforcing it. It appears to be greed and keeping the status quo.
        onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
        > Have people gotten in trouble for breaking the fiduciary obligation by being nicer to workers? Has any one been in a serious chance for getting in trouble for being nicer to workers? Being nice to workers, and never returning money to shareholders because you're overpaying your workers are two entirely different things. FAANG has treated their workers quite well for a 10+ years, and shareholders have not cared, because profits and growth have been enormous. They could've treated their workers much better and paid them 2-3x as much money, though. But they didn't. Because they would've gotten sued by shareholders.

w0m 4y ago

The argument would be sustainability I believe.

skinnymuch 4y ago
Microsoft will survive even if they never fire another person for years.
- coldpie 4y ago
  Microsoft spending $70B in cash this year is proof of that, in case anyone reading doubts the above statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_acquisition_of_Activision_Blizzard_by_Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_acquisition_of_Activi...

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

Why make a profit when you can pay your employees >100% of your revenue and just go into debt instead? It's not how business works. You hire people if you need people, and you pay them the least you can get away with, so you maximize profits - because long ago, you raised money with the promise to the people you raised the money from that you would do this, and you have a Fiduciary obligation to do so...

skinnymuch 4y ago
Long ago capitalism and then neoliberalism infected our brains. There’s no rational reason why any of these promises were made in the first place while still having people without health care or a home.
coldpie 4y ago
> you pay them the least you can get away with, so you maximize profits We agree then that employees should put in the least amount of work that they can get away with, right? Fair's fair.
- ckdarby 4y ago
  That is what a lot of employees do. That is why these layoffs are probably happening, cutting 5% could have been done by freezing hiring and performance evals. They're particular individuals who will take a stance like what you're outlining and sit in a limbo state outside of performance firing them. They bring down team moral, high performing employees feel cheated, etc.
  - coldpie 4y ago
    I think it would be more accurate to say it exposes to the high performers that they are being cheated. Those employees are donating their time & effort to the company so that their bosses can drive fancy cars, fund yacht racing teams, take tourist trips to LEO, buy social media companies to use as toys, and pay off politicians to keep those same employees desperate. The owners want employees fighting amongst themselves for scraps because it keeps them distracted from their real enemy.
roflyear 4y ago
Lots of companies do take no profit and pay out entirely to their employees, and there are some famous examples of that.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Lots of co-ops and private companies... Please show me one public company that has said - sorry shareholders - we're returning 100%+ of profits to our employees forever.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    Who cares if a public company hasn’t done it? We know it’s possible. We need to make the world a better place not have the status quo.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
      You can't do it with a public company because you have a fiduciary obligation. You can't raise money from Shareholder A with the promise to never return the money. That's a donation. Not gonna be able to raise money like you can from VCs and IPOs.
      - skinnymuch 4y ago
        Have people gotten in trouble for breaking the fiduciary obligation by being nicer to workers? Has any one been in a serious chance for getting in trouble for being nicer to workers? I have always assumed this stuff is basically made up. It might be written somewhere, but no one is enforcing it. It appears to be greed and keeping the status quo.
        onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
        > Have people gotten in trouble for breaking the fiduciary obligation by being nicer to workers? Has any one been in a serious chance for getting in trouble for being nicer to workers? Being nice to workers, and never returning money to shareholders because you're overpaying your workers are two entirely different things. FAANG has treated their workers quite well for a 10+ years, and shareholders have not cared, because profits and growth have been enormous. They could've treated their workers much better and paid them 2-3x as much money, though. But they didn't. Because they would've gotten sued by shareholders.