6 ms·

It's still real people who suffer when the numbers tell a different story - not charity cases.

• forward1 3y ago
  Wow, those poor ex-Google employees. Now that they have been laid off, they must be experiencing true suffering.
  • maximinus_thrax 3y ago
    I don't understand the point of this comment. Are Google employees not workers as well? Do they not experience suffering or what exactly is the point you are trying to make here? Your insensitive comment is probably showcasing the fallacy of relative privation, but these are real people you're talking about, some are on work visas or are from single income families. Their lives have changed in an instant and instead of empathizing, your reaction is a sarcastic 'those poor ex-Google employees'? Shame on you.
    • forward1 3y ago
      Losing an at-will employment position is suffering? It's unfortunate, maybe, even a little sad. But to say this is "suffering" borders on entitled lunacy. Especially considering ex-Google employees can land virtually any job with it on their resume. The risks of working at-will are well known, and one would be well served to understand them to avoid disappointment. Actually, the shame is on them for failing to adequately prepare for an obvious inevitability, especially if others are depending on them for support.
      • endisneigh 3y ago
        > Especially considering ex-Google employees can land virtually any job with it on their resume. Hilarious and false.
        • forward1 3y ago
          It is false that working for the 4th largest company in the world does not give your resume an advantage? What evidence will you present in support of this conclusion?
          • endisneigh 3y ago
            I don’t disagree that you get an advantage, I disagree with the conclusion that you’ll be able to land virtually any job as a result. It’s simply false.
            • forward1 3y ago
              So you're just contesting the meaning of the world "virtually"? Sounds like a "fun" discussion. Enjoy!
          • maximinus_thrax 3y ago
            What evidence are you presenting to support this? > Especially considering ex-Google employees can land virtually any job with it on their resume It's only fair to present your evidence before asking other people for evidence when they contradict you.
            • forward1 3y ago
              Common sense and reason, to name two. Now it's your turn!
      • freedomben 3y ago
        > Losing an at-will employment position is suffering? It's unfortunate, maybe, even a little sad. But to say this is "suffering" borders on entitled lunacy. How would you define "suffering?" Merriam Webster includes "to endure death, pain, or distress" or "to sustain loss or damage" as part of the definition, which definitely seems to include getting laid off.
        • forward1 3y ago
          So suffering is a binary dichotomy? Or are there perhaps varying degrees of it? If I stub my toe and claim I'm "suffering", any intelligent person would laugh at the proposition, because relative to a starving person, for example, it could not be considered a hardship or even mild distress. I posit getting laid off from at-will employment at one of the most prestigious companies in the history of the world is not suffering, and characterizing it as such is tone-deaf and entitled.
      • nanolith 3y ago
        I've seen ex-Google employees passed on the resume pile based on assumptions about what that experience means and what sort of salary they may demand. There are no guarantees in this job market. Google employees are just like any other tech sector employee. They are neither "lucky" nor "unlucky". There's not much difference, even if they managed to land a job at Google. After Google, their struggles are similar to other tech sector employees. At this point, many of them are uncertain about the future. Layoffs are demoralizing regardless of where one works.
        • forward1 3y ago
          I didn't say they're lucky. I said they're not suffering, in the true sense of the word. I am beginning to suspect the coddled and entitled readers of this forum are quite ignorant of what it really means to suffer. A trip to India or any other third-world country would quickly change that attitude.
          • maximinus_thrax 3y ago
            > I am beginning to suspect the coddled and entitled readers of this forum are quite ignorant of what it really means to suffer. I am beginning to suspect that readers of this forum don't know how to read, considering I called you out on this fallacy in my original comment. Here's a lesson about it: https://s28543.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2020/04/Fallacy-relative-privation_Lesson-Plan.pdf https://s28543.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2020/04/F...
            • forward1 3y ago
              Unfortunately, there is no originality in your comment, here or elsewhere in this thread. Just sad and meaningless self-flagellation (now also with weird condescension) with no actual regard for what suffering means to billions of other people. I sincerely hope you find the maturity required to expand your worldview outside of the sheltered, entitled microcosm it presently is.
          • nanolith 3y ago
            > A trip to India or any other third-world country would quickly change that attitude. I don't suggest telling someone who just lost their job that they should keep a stiff upper lip. I certainly don't suggest you tell them that they should spend some time in a "third-world country" because, well, for one thing, that's rather crass. But, also, I don't think you quite understand what "third-world" means. It's not based on economic status. It's based on NATO / Warsaw Pact neutrality. Any use beyond that is pejorative at best. Perhaps you mean a "developing nation" or an "economically disadvantaged" nation. Even then, it's complicated.
      • maximinus_thrax 3y ago
        > Losing an at-will employment position is suffering? Yes. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/updates/upd-11-18-21.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/updates/upd-11-18-21.html At-will employment has nothing to do with anything. Losing your job is a very stressful event.
        • forward1 3y ago
          The linked reference does not support your argument, only that losing healthcare equates to worse health outcomes. Care to try again?
    • confidantlake 3y ago
      The dude is a troll.
      • forward1 3y ago
        "I have no counter-argument, so I'm just going to call the person I disagree with a silly name, because I'm upset and it is all I can do"
• seuraughty 3y ago
  I agree, but the mission of private business is not to keep as many people employed as possible.
  • johnchristopher 3y ago
    That's weird, that's not what they tell our politicians when they ask for more leeway through new and improved labor and business laws.
    • endisneigh 3y ago
      Seems like you should vote those folks out
  • wolverine876 3y ago
    It's also not to only serve shareholders each quarter. It's none of those extremes: like everything in life, we must balance multiple stakeholders and responsibilities.
• lotsofpulp 3y ago
  It’s the government’s job to provide support in the event of loss of income. , i.e. a floor for quality of life.
  • no_wizard 3y ago
    Which in turn, corporations including Google, lobby to make sure that taxes are as small as possible, and we aren't reasonably funding unemployment benefits. They haven't even kept up with inflation, let alone substitute a standard of living that's even approximately close to middle class. Unemployment is a hell hole of despair in the US. Its not some "blip" or something, like in other countries that have better safety nets, people lose their homes, get kicked out of their rentals and all other things. It can be really damaging for people, even FAANG engineers
    • lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Half of the voting populace seems to agree with not increasing taxes in such a way too. But the point remains that it is only feasible and efficient for the federal government to be tasked with this responsibility.
      • no_wizard 3y ago
        Over half support higher taxes on corporations (particularly large ones)[0]. If the observational basis for this is simply that roughly half of the votes tallied in most elections are split between democrats and republicans, I posit to say that its a gross simplification of voters and their motivations. [0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/07/top-tax-frustrations-for-americans-the-feeling-that-some-corporations-wealthy-people-dont-pay-fair-share/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/07/top-tax-f...
        • lotsofpulp 3y ago
          In my study of US politics over the last 2 decades, a candidate that campaigns on higher taxes and lowering/simplifying barriers to receiving benefits will always lose to one that advertises benefits, but in reality it is debt underwritten by future federal taxpayers and/or they have numerous requirements to minimize the number of recipients. As much as they might want to tax corporations, the voters (since they are older) don’t want their 401k/IRA/defined benefit pension plan balances to go down. Another signal is there is never any mention of implementing a wealth tax (property tax). Politicians will keep knocking around increasing earned income taxes (which affects workers), but because the older people are the most important contingent of voters, touching property of wealthy people who do not need to earn income is off the table. In the most recent tax legislation, they even specifically left the 1031 real estate exchange intact, and got rid of other 1031 exchanges.
• podgietaru 3y ago
  18 billion. An incomprehensible number. I hate this “they’re not charities” bullshit.
  • forward1 3y ago
    "I can't comprehend how a successful business generates such a large profit margin, therefore this entitles me to a share of it."
    • __loam 3y ago
      It should be very difficult to fire people, especially if you're making a massive profit. The idea that a company making that much money in pure profit needs to "trim the fat" is callous in the extreme, and probably deeply harmful to company morale. The employees of a company are absolutely entitled to a share of the profit they personally helped create.
      • forward1 3y ago
        > It should be very difficult to fire people, especially if you're making a massive profit. What is the basis of this opinion, though? What gives you this entitlement that companies must employ people if they're well off (according to you)? > The idea that a company making that much money in pure profit needs to "trim the fat" is callous in the extreme, and probably deeply harmful to company morale. Who cares? You think business isn't callous or even cutthroat? You think businesses care about "morale" over the bottomline? You would be so wrong. > The employees of a company are absolutely entitled to a share of the profit they personally helped create. According to ... the petulant ranting of HN readers? Or do you have a more authoritative or objective reason to believe this?