Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacobmarble | Hacker News Reader

Is it the company's responsibility to employ people until it runs out of money?

Are you certain that "here is some money" is just to keep the internet anger at bay?

Do companies exist to protect their employees, or to provide something useful for their customers?

A lot of us who’ve done this long enough know what the reality is, but companies always like to pretend “we’re a family” to manipulate their employees into working harder. Especially in tech where there’s a long history of company’s saying their values are lofty goals like “don’t be evil” when it’s really “make me, the founder, fabulously wealthy”.

You shouldn’t be surprised at people being legitimately angry everytime this type of hypocrisy comes up

There are some privately owned companies (maybe some public benefit companies) that have done things other than layoffs - some have take "universal paycuts until business improves" - instead of laying off 10% everyone takes a 10% paycut (sometimes management/owner takes more).

Those companies are usually very quiet and not in the news. Others have so much "normal churn" that they can do effectively a layoff by just slowing hiring.

Universal pay cut is terrible. You adversarially select against yourself — good employees get outside offers and bad employees become dedicated lifers.

Public companies make public announcements because they need investors to know they are cutting costs.

> Do companies exist to protect their employees, or to provide something useful for their customers?

Investors will tell you companies exist to return value to shareholders. The customers and employees are just a means to that end.

Yes, that's a good point.

> Is it the company's responsibility to employ people until it runs out of money?

To some degree, yes. Businesses are often portrayed as "job creators" that provide a valuable thing to employees (employment). Bosses do have a responsibility to their employees, just as they have a responsibility to their customers and a responsibility to their shareholders. Our society has just let one of these things balloon and balloon to take over the other two.

I dunno, all these companies probably hope to return to growth trajectories soon-ish. It's not like a manufacturer who discovers that the world needs less of what it produces, so decides to downscale permanently - growth is everything for software companies. Meaning if they have enough runway, they might as well keep people employed during droughts and have them develop what is expected to create value after drought is gone. But it requires long-term thinking.

> Do companies exist to protect their employees, or to provide something useful for their customers?

Neither. They exist to benefit their shareholders/owners. That's it.

It's funny how organisations literally given legal status by states to accomplish things are no regarded as only responsible for their investors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com