[voisin]

> wants it for himself

“wants it for his investors”

His job is to advocate on behalf of his investors to get the best return he can. For this service he is well paid. We need to stop demonizing people for doing their job, successfully. Just because he is rich doesn’t mean his argument is wrong.

[pixl97]

>We need to stop demonizing people for doing their job

W.T.F.

I mean I hate to bring up the analogy, but at the Nuremberg Trials we hung people for 'just doing their job' because just following orders can lead to millions dead and other completely and totally terrible outcomes for humanity.

[hindsightbias]

This is the first time I’ve heard Google layoffs equated to the Holocaust.

[quantified]

Not equated, just noting the that the "doing my job" argument is the same. If it isn't, do elaborate. Yes the jobs are different, as are all jobs from each other.

[Kwpolska]

They aren't referring to Google layoffs, the evil people are the hedge fund managers.

[AlexandrB]

Just because he's advocating on behalf of investors doesn't mean his argument is right either. I think the better question is wtf does a hedge fund manager know about running a tech company and why should we give any credence to his ideas about staffing?

[voisin]

I'm not saying he's right or wrong. I'm saying he isn't wrong just because he's rich, or just because he's a hedge fund manager. Both are ad hominem attacks and ignore the actual arguments that Google needs to trim down.

[cmh89]

What's the 'actual argument' here? He's essentially saying that he'd make more money if Google had less costs, and one way to cut costs is firing people. That's it.

He doesn't go into any detail outside of "fire people and pay the ones you don't fire less"

He's just a parasite on society who wants to suck more blood.

[candiodari]

Not to worry. HIS job is increased shareholder value. Google was 92 USD when the layoffs were announced. Currently it's 93 dollars.

Surely if it drops back below 92 he'll change his mind ...

[voisin]

The argument has been made recently by this guy and others that Google grew its ranks second only to Facebook during the pandemic, that it’s performance per employee today hasn’t justified the growth, and that it should stop putting money to inefficient uses given that suddenly there is an opportunity cost to capital with the ending of ZIRP worldwide.

Seems reasonable to me. We learned how inefficient conglomerates are back in the 60s/70s.

[cmh89]

But that's the extent of the argument, and if you take away all the unsupported claims, it boils down to, "Google has more employees than it did, those employees cost a lot, Google should fire employees to lower its cost"

[quantified]

Do they? How much money did they lose this past quarter?

[voisin]

Well isn’t it obvious that if they make the same amount after the layoffs as before, then they lost in the last quarter whatever they paid employees who weren’t adding to the bottom line?

[quantified]

Obvious but wrong. Only salespeople and M&A dealmakers add to the bottom line. All engineers and marketers are cost centers. One acquistion can add billions to revenue. Taking a charge for impairment of good will after a Waymo vehicle kills a busload of Girl Scouts would have nothing to do with that many employees. Earnings changes due to currency fluctuations also have nothing to do with employment. Oh yeah, customers using more or less of paid services doesn't reflect at all on employees either.

[nequo]

> We need to stop demonizing people for doing their job, successfully.

Even when their job is to actively hurt you, your family, and those around you?

[tshaddox]

Other people:

> I don’t like this guy’s job.

You:

> But it’s his job.

Right, they already said that part. They still don’t like his job.

[voisin]

Not exactly.

Other people:

> This guy is wrong because of his job and the fact that he's apparently good enough at it that he's become rich.

Me:

> Neither of these facts has anything to do with his argument. He's neither right nor wrong based on his job or his success at his job.

[pseudo0]

His investors would also be better off investing their money through a fund that doesn't charge 2 and 20 to hold Google stock. Maybe his investors should redirect their focus when it comes to cost-cutting?

[voisin]

Why don’t we assume his investors make decisions in their own self interest and that you probably aren’t the right arbiter of what they’d be better off doing?

[absolutelymild]

You’re right. To be a success capitalist, you need to be maximally greedy at all times. If you’re not greedy enough, someone else will just come and replace you