[automatom]

It’s the fed dummies!

Why is it that the C-suite folks, who are supposed to understand macroeconomic trends or "Economics 101" as you're calling it, didn't see this coming and didn't make better decisions to not over-hire and mitigate reactionary cost-cutting. These companies have billions of cash on hand, but they choose the easy short term route of slashing labor costs to appease shareholders. I would argue this is a terrible long term solution on growth and profits (despite the shareholders impatience.

Besides even the big tech employees are closer to the average American worker than C-suite folks if you look at median salaries. You're talking down to a large group of people as if you somehow saw it coming before everyone else?

spending it instead on $30 door dashed organic salads

This is effectively the same argument as the one made by the Avocado Toast guy, and it's out of touch. You can empathize with folks that make less than you and still criticize the action of management that could have had the foresight to prioritize people over profit, but chose not to out of greed.

[IX-103]

Why didn't the C-suite folks do better? Because their contracts hold stock prices above all else.

That means that making any group of stockholders unhappy risks reducing their earnings. Many stockholders don't understand macroeconomics. Many see the news and start calling for action, however misguided.

When enough demand action, the C-suite is forced to act, even when they know the actions are symbolic at best or counterproductive at worst.

That's assuming they know best. The C-suite command their salaries not because of what they know, but because of who they know. So making economic predictions may not be their strength.

[automatom]

The C-suite command their salaries not because of what they know, but because of who they know. So making economic predictions may not be their strength.

This is literally the opposite point of this:

If you don’t understand how economics 101 works, you probably didn’t deserve your high paying tech job,

Why not apply the same logic to tne C-suite folks rather than just individual contributors or the regular rank and file. Why are tech workers who exchange their labor and knowledge of working with technology dummies if they "don't understand the fed" (which I can guarantee you is not an expectation when working as a software engineer, product manager, etc.), but the C-suite gets a pass? Arguably the execs should understand how to navigate different economic climates if they get a leadership role, regardless of who they know. Also on an anecdotal note, every job I've ever gotten I've had to know someone, whether it be someone who works there or a recruiter, and I'm a worker in tech. So that argument doesn't hold up from my point of view.

Maybe you are an executive, or someone who has an acquired a taste for their carpet-protected rubber soles, and it's just a difference in opinion. But it seems to me by your own logic the executives are even dumber than the workers, there's really no reason for the original commenter to be so hostile. The whole point of the article is that it satirizes the decisions tech CEO's make because they are completely driven by the shareholder, but they are also major shareholders whose compensation is in equity.

Many stockholders don't understand macroeconomics

Including the C-Suite, they are forced to act out of their own self-preservation, which after a certain point, is just pure greed.

[2devnull]

Because they are not the fed! They don’t make rate decisions. And they can’t guess what the fed will decide with any reliability. Those who have tried over the past couple years got hosed.

Why do you think people pay so much attention to the fomc meetings and the data they use, and minor off the cuff statements by kashkari or Powell, or any of them, will without exception send the market into a tailspin?

The fed controls the value of money, and that controls the employment rate, which is what influences hiring/firing decisions. It’s simple high school economics.