[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"