[phlakaton]

Ethically wrong?

Are you saying she is ethically obliged to employ as many people as her bank account makes possible, for as long as her bank account makes that possible?

Or that, having committed to a certain number of employees, she is ethically obliged to maintain that number indefinitely?

You seem to be making a large assumption with the latter: that the dip in revenue is a blip. However 1) general trends in the industry have been pointing down for years, 2) we don't know if business will bounce back to the same level, let alone when. Making an ethical judgment about someone else's business from the outside is fraught enough, but with this level of uncertainty, why would you even go there?

[burkaman]

I think the dip might be a blip because they were profitable for 8 years before she bought them a couple years ago, and they were continuing to do great until the pandemic.

It's a difficult question because I don't think she should be able to have this much power in the first place, so it's hard to say what the most ethical way to wield that power is. I don't think she is obligated to employ as many people as possible for as long as possible.

My basic point is that the magazine is still reaching more people than ever before, it's still achieving its journalistic purpose, so why not use a tiny portion of your immense power to keep these people around for a year or so and see if economic conditions improve. If there's a fundamental shift in the business and, for example, it seems like live events are never really going to happen again, then it's time to let those people go.