[podgietaru]

My stance is this: Fine, maybe you need to restructure for profit reasons. If that is the case, then it is also beholden upon the people doing the layoffs to understand their responsibility in that.

In an ideal world, a layoff of this scale would also require a shakeup of the management that let it get this bad in the first place.

What's more, the higher up the chain, the less onerous the layoff for the individual getting laid off.

[jdasdf]

Why should people who are profitable to employ be laid off as well?

It just sounds like you're upset and want to hurt whoever you feel is responsible for making you upset. That's not a productive stance to have on important topics.

[podgietaru]

What an odd view of what I said.

I'm not asking for the people who hurt me to be hurt. I am asking that the responsibility of the actions that management layers took be considered in layoffs.

For instance - If overhiring happened, how is this not at least a little bit on the individual that approved of a hiring spree? Why is it that they should be able to yield a baton that hurts the workers they hired, without having to actual bare the brunt of the decisions?

If a business is still unprofitable, a business that touches so much of the internet like Cloudflare, then that is also a strategic failure and should be punished as such.

I feel like your tone in this response was also so condescending.

[jdasdf]

>For instance - If overhiring happened, how is this not at least a little bit on the individual that approved of a hiring spree? Why is it that they should be able to yield a baton that hurts the workers they hired, without having to actual bare the brunt of the decisions?

Do you think shareholders do not consider their employees performance when deciding to hire/keep them?

Do you think CEOs don't do that when it comes to their executive team?

Do you think the executive team doesn't consider that?

It all comes flowing down.

I can assure you as a shareholder i am 100% focused on getting a return, and I will fire (or vote to fire) any executives that i believe are doing a bad job, or who accept that their underlings do a bad job.

Hiring people, and then firing them some time later is not intrinsically the same as doing a bad job, nor does it mean there was "overhiring".

Also. "hurts workers"? What?

Workers receive the payments that were agree to, for the period that was agreed to. No more, no less.

You are no more entitled to a job than the supermarket is entitled to my patronage, and me choosing to no longer purchase from you, whether it be groceries or labor, is not me hurting you.

[shimman]

This is how the elites actually feel tho. They think they can do no wrong, it's not their fault that they don't know how to run a business but you should please give them another chance and not change corporate law to stop benefiting them over workers.

It's a mindset that enables neoliberalism to flourish while vast majorities suffer immensely to benefit the few.

It's a system that's worth questioning as the material lives of 100s of millions of Americans are getting objectively worse every year while we are always being told there is no money for healthcare or childcare but there is always trillions laying around for imperialistic activities like data center expansions and war.

[cj]

Let's throw the elites in jail, so that more elites can come in and do the same thing?

There's a limited pool of execs to run companies. Its a pretty homogenous group of people, similar skill sets, some have varying philosophies on how to run companies, but the majority of them will likely make the same decision if given identical sets of circumstances.

I get triggered when people start calling out "elites" and other boogeymen - what does it mean to have companies run by non-elites? What even is an "elite"? Are they elite simply because they are employed as an exec? Is it possible to have a non-elite executive?

Using "elites" in this context makes it feel like an emotional complaint about the world rather than anything rooted in logic.

[financltravsty]

None of these elites are operators -- they're liberal arts educated and their primary skills are in using words and lack of to achieve status gains -- nothing more.

In many traditional industries, companies are built and run by the most senior members of whichever discipline. Tech is different because most of its skilled members intentionally cede soft power because of personal (imo short-sighted) predilections and the exorbitant amount of money flowing in has caused a mad dash from other disciplines.

The "elites" are people trained either institutionally or personally (from their relationships with others) to understand power dynamics and utilize them for personal gain.

Navel gazing is a great away to achieve nothing. Being lorded over by someone who couldn't even figure out how to build and host a simple webapp is ludicrous. Should the CEO of my hospital not understand that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell? Should the partners at big M&A law firms have no idea how to read a contract? No, because that's fucking ludicrous -- yet it persists in tech because its technicians have zero training, education, or even sense for elite ways of thinking.

[shimman]

No, it's more like we have undemocratically elected people in positions of power that want to act like dictatorships when in reality these people made a mistake that is costing the company billions of dollars and their ineptitude means they should be removed from these positions.

I thought Silicon Valley was all about meritocracy? Why should corporate shills that does not know how to profit from entity that controls 25% of internet traffic be allowed to keep their jobs but the actual people providing real value, the workers, aren't?

That is a system that doesn't benefit humanity. It selfishly benefits the few.

[jdasdf]

CEOs are democratically elected. And if they do a bad job they are democratically removed from office.

What are you talking about??