[js8]

Actually, it is. You have been blinded by capitalism to consider it ethical.

The tribes usually treat the members as a family. While kicking someone from a tribe can happen, it's considered to be a harsh punishment.

In a tribe, when hard times come, people usually redistribute. That's a normal, human way of dealing with that situation. Not a layoff.

The other aspect is the economic crises. When a central bank decides to increase interest rates, it decreases lending to new investments in favor of lower inflation. This can lead to layoffs, instead of having inflation inflicted on everyone (especially the rich with huge savings). So that decision is essentially some random guys get kicked out of economic (and societal) participation in order to prevent more redistribution of existing wealth.

If you think about it, yes layoffs are deeply immoral. But we can understand, why they happen in capitalism, as a sort of big tragedy of the commons.

[shepherdjerred]

My employer is not my “tribe”. That is crazy. We have a contract saying I do X units of work and they pay me Y in return. Either of us end it at any time.

At least this is in the case in the US. What you are saying might be true in other cultures.

[bombcar]

What we have in the USA is not necessarily the final and best form of all interactions, as much as it pains me to say it.

Most people's reactions to large-scale movements like this seem to imply that we feel there should be something more than a simple "money duty" between employer and employee, and we seem to also have respect for companies that act that way (e.g, some Japanese companies perhaps, or baseball teams keeping a sick player on the payroll so they get healthcare even though they never play another game).

Attempting to realize that duty and at the same time abscond it to the state or the family may be an aspect of the failing.

[js8]

No, that's another sort of misconception, also expressed in another comment by WalterBright, which conveniently ignores the reality of most jobs.

It glosses over the fact that employers exercise control over the social relations required for production (of anything larger that can be built by a self-employed person). This happens by virtue of owning all the crucial means of production involved. And that point, where you need to coordinate work of several people, it ceases to be a system of contractors who freely determine their working conditions, and becomes a collective that has a common goal.

So no, it's not case in the U.S., in no economy of the world is majority of production organized into everyone being a little independent contractor who brings (or rents) their own equipment. That would be horribly inefficient (not to mention that people don't want it either, by and large).

There is a clear rebut to this, how can employer own the social relations (required for production), like managerial relationships, when they ostensibly only own the factory equipment? Well, it's like when you own an appartment, you technically only own the four walls, but practically you also enjoy the privacy that comes with it. In a similar way, capitalists owning a factory don't just rent equipment to a bunch workers, but can dictate the whole social superstructure of production, including the redistribution of earnings.

[Apocryphon]

And yet, employers love to use the "we're a family", "we're a team", and other such messaging, especially in the tech industry. They elide the transactional nature of the entire relationship.

[BeetleB]

It's a job. Not a tribe.

The role an employer plays in societies varies from culture to culture, but note that in many cultures, it is "just a job".

[js8]

Yes, that's what people tell themselves to deal with it psychologically. That it's just a job, not a community, and you better not make friends in the workplace (despite spending majority of your life there). And that when you're unemployed, life just goes on, as if it doesn't mean much.

Like when a traumatised kid never loved by the parents concludes that life is harsh and love doesn't exist, so better be tough.

[BeetleB]

> Yes, that's what people tell themselves to deal with it psychologically. That it's just a job, not a community, and you better not make friends in the workplace (despite spending majority of your life there). And that when you're unemployed, life just goes on, as if it doesn't mean much.

That's a lot of stuff you're saying. Not what I'm saying.

[psychoslave]

Sure. Also the profitability of a company is just a number, and shareholders dividend is just fiduciary fictions, and company hierarchy is just arbitrary title attaching this or that person to this or that loosely defined role.

Drama is just in the head of people melted in the ambient narrative, sure.

[christkv]

Yeah because marxists systems "take such good care" off people in comparison.

[wiseowise]

Marxist systems don’t exist in real life.

[christkv]

They do in some peoples heads as an utopian dream.

[js8]

Actually they kinda do, for example worker cooperatives. Not common, have some issues (different than those claimed by propaganda), but they do exist. (If we understand "marxist" as somewhat in favor of worker emancipation instead of alienation. Marx was an eclectic guy and can be interpreted in different ways.)

[WalterBright]

> layoffs are deeply immoral

It's no more immoral than you deciding to buy from Safeway, even though you'd been buying from Fred Meyer before.

[wiseowise]

Safeway won’t starve and die if I decide to buy from Fred Meyer. You really don’t see that an individual is not on equal footing with multibillion company? It is absolutely immoral. And I’m not even talking about charity, those people were hired and did actual job for the fucking trillion dollar company.

[WalterBright]

Several grocery stores in Seattle have closed recently. The same with local Starbucks outlets. Locations that don't make money get closed, even if the rest of the company is doing well.

Also, employees can quit anytime, no notice required. Nobody is obliged to work.

[wiseowise]

> Several grocery stores in Seattle have closed recently. The same with local Starbucks outlets. Locations that don't make money get closed, even if the rest of the company is doing well.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. Don’t give me a sob story about mom and pop shop, we’re talking about a trillion dollar company.

> Also, employees can quit anytime, no notice required. Nobody is obliged to work.

Okay? What’s your point?

[WalterBright]

> Don’t give me a sob story about mom and pop shop

The grocery stores were run by national chains. Starbucks is global.

> What’s your point?

It's symmetric. Companies employ at will, and workers work at will.

[wiseowise]

> The grocery stores were run by national chains. Starbucks is global.

So you’re confirming my point that billion dollar companies (like Starbucks killing mom and pop shop) have disproportionately more power over individuals or what are you saying?

> It's symmetric. Companies employ at will, and workers work at will.

Workers don’t work at will. Last time I checked UBI is not there, so workers work to pay the bills and put food on the table.

[nickpp]

> Safeway won’t starve and die if I decide to buy from Fred Meyer.

Ironically, you (along with a significant number of others) deciding to buy from a competitor will eventually lead to financial trouble for Safeway and thus to layoffs and losses for their investors (pension funds among them).

So, do you find your decision to buy from Fred Meyer "absolutely immoral"?!

[wiseowise]

I don’t think there’s any point in having a conversation with you if you don’t see any difference between employment, community, civic duty and market. If you treat people as a market product, then we have even less to discuss.

[nickpp]

Ignoring market realities and proclaiming to care about noble but unrealistic ideological goals is how the communist regime I grew up under managed to fail to even feed its population.