[mo_42]

The earnings Maersk has posted reflect the past. The mass layoffs reflect the future of the company (i.e., less demand in the future). So I wouldn't put these two things into one argument necessary.

Then, an absolute number of profit doesn't reveal much. Maybe this seemingly huge profit is tiny compared to the effort to make it (i.e., the profit margin).

As much as I'd like to see a world where we value more aspects of a business than only profits, I can not change it alone. There's a brutal competition of companies to earn a certain profit margin. And Maersk is more or less forced to play this game until we change the rules.

[jzjsniiaj]

> The earnings Maersk has posted reflect the past. The mass layoffs reflect the future of the company (i.e., less demand in the future).

If I draw parallels to personal finance, say I have a record high profitable year, would I rather assume my profits stay record high in the future and increase spending/investments OR would I ensure I have enough rainy day funds for the next inevitable slowdown (at least give me enough runway to weather the slowdown before cutting big line items in my expenditure). Funny enough, this time around some big companies that laid off thousands just after a year of record profits also had record amounts of cash on hand, making me wonder if it's more about manipulating stock price to a desired level.

I understand that companies are more complex than personal finance but am I wrong that these are potentially symptoms of mismanagement rather than just to be pushed under the rug as demand-in-the-future? Surely, the money/time spent on hiring, training, laying off, and rehiring, retraining people a year or two later when demand returns is worth something. Just seems to me that the economy will be so much more resilient if everyone simply focussed more on emergency funds

[matwood]

By cutting now they are building that emergency fund. They see demand dropping back to pre-COVID levels or worse. They haven't cut employees that far yet though.

Your analogy can also work here. When I have a record year I might add some extra services to my life. I see that changing and cut the services before it's a huge problem.

[bsbsinai]

Start building an emergency fund when you see an emergency is already too late. Cutting an expense or two in hardship is fine but the problem is after one windfall taking on recurring spend of extra services assumes a windfall to recur too. Isn't this similar to living pay check to paycheck? If this is someone else's personal finance I'd say it's none of my business, but if it's likened to a public company, I'd say it's not well managed.

[sokoloff]

If you believe a public company is mismanaged, you should not invest in it. If you believe it’s seriously mismanaged and others don’t yet realize that, you could even consider shorting it.

Others who believe the company is well-managed by looking at the forecasts and deciding to return to staffing levels still well above their 2021 (but lower than last month) will continue to hold (or even buy) the shares.

This difference of opinion is what makes a market.

[avslinev]

The point looks to be diluted as the thread progressed. It went from questioning potential shortcomings in the status quo to pointing that one could profit off the status quo, and hence justifying it.

The point imo was how many companies can be potentially overly aggressive during a bull market/bubble e.g. over hire, and seemingly have no accountability for a handful decision makers affecting thousands of people. Mass layoffs can have serious consequences on the people and the economy.

Yes, the employees should expect it and be prepared, and yes, share holders can profit off it, however to give an example there are precedents like the mortgage crisis where there were regulations imposed preventing companies taking unnecessary risks and causing major economic events. So, it isn't that outlandish to question if a (many) companies took too many unnecessary risks.

[lotsofpulp]

> making me wonder if it's more about manipulating stock price to a desired level.

The desired level is always higher than the what it is now. This applies to individuals, as well as groups of individuals (businessss).

[mschuster91]

> The earnings Maersk has posted reflect the past. The mass layoffs reflect the future of the company (i.e., less demand in the future).

And should demand pick up again in 2-3 years worth of time, they'll now have a really hard time ramping hiring back up... fucking beancounters don't learn, even as the aviation industry is right now showing just how bad this effect can get.

[ViewTrick1002]

Not really. The shipping industry is known to be extremely cyclical with a liquid labor market. The companies who survive are the ones that react accordingly.

In just a couple of years they have went from scarcity and record profits to a capacity glut and shipping prices cratering.

[gruez]

I'm going to go on a limb and say that the "fucking beancounters" has done more financial modeling on this decision than some armchair CFO on hn who probably haven't even seen their last quarterly statement.

[hef19898]

Especially since people on HN eho are "tech worker" assume the, including an over exagerated importance of themselves, tech employment dynamics apply to other industries. Not that the tech employment is anything like people think is, the mass layoffs showed as much. And as soon as FAANG start hiring again, most on here would be happy to sign up again.

[paddim8]

Why do you think you know more about this than them?