forward1

Employees are equally free to "screw over" companies by terminating their employment at any time; at-will is a two-way street. That seems like a fair and faithful manifestation of a free market.

Health care and insurance is also available without an employer, at least in the US.

Only a fool would think the part to be separate from the whole.

It makes no sense to you because you're seeing it from the inside as a developer.

Step outside the echo chamber and realize macro-economic trends have replaced the need to innovate with a basic instinct to just survive the coming storm caused by a decade of free money.

Psychopathy is generally a requirement to exploit the amount of people a typical CEO has to and does.

Common sense and reason, to name two.

Now it's your turn!

If you honestly believe the product is separate from the production and supply chains, you are either woefully misinformed or under the disillusionment of modern capitalist economics.

We're not "stretching" anything.

I made a simple assertion: business cannot be ethical, but it is inherently exploitative.

I asked for examples of businesses where this is not the case.

Instead of examples, I got back screetching, whining and whataboutism. People would rather bury their head in the sand and think they're acting virtuously in this world. The cognitive dissonance here is frankly alarming, if it weren't so expected for entitled first-world engineers.

Unfortunately, there is no originality in your comment, here or elsewhere in this thread. Just sad and meaningless self-flagellation (now also with weird condescension) with no actual regard for what suffering means to billions of other people.

I sincerely hope you find the maturity required to expand your worldview outside of the sheltered, entitled microcosm it presently is.

The linked reference does not support your argument, only that losing healthcare equates to worse health outcomes. Care to try again?

So you're just contesting the meaning of the world "virtually"?

Sounds like a "fun" discussion. Enjoy!

I didn't say they're lucky.

I said they're not suffering, in the true sense of the word.

I am beginning to suspect the coddled and entitled readers of this forum are quite ignorant of what it really means to suffer. A trip to India or any other third-world country would quickly change that attitude.

How about the cost of producing and shipping the new motor pump, and the cost of disposing of the old one?

And do you think the individuals who made the motor pump are treated and compensated fairly, or are they likely exploited in third-world dystopia to bring you (but mostly the business) cost savings?

And this is saying nothing of the actual use of the furnace and all the energy it requires.

And I have yet to see ONE example of a business which does not exploit someone or something, only cognitive dissonance.

It will be a glorious pay day for all lawyers involved!

It is false that working for the 4th largest company in the world does not give your resume an advantage?

What evidence will you present in support of this conclusion?

"I can't comprehend how a successful business generates such a large profit margin, therefore this entitles me to a share of it."

So suffering is a binary dichotomy? Or are there perhaps varying degrees of it?

If I stub my toe and claim I'm "suffering", any intelligent person would laugh at the proposition, because relative to a starving person, for example, it could not be considered a hardship or even mild distress.

I posit getting laid off from at-will employment at one of the most prestigious companies in the history of the world is not suffering, and characterizing it as such is tone-deaf and entitled.

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

― George Carlin

Yet past the sarcasm, you're not able to offer a compelling counter-argument. I wonder, why is that?

> How the heck is this not criminal fraud?

It may surprise you to learn criminal fraud occurs on a regular basis and the simple act of acknowledging it does nothing to address it.

> Why are people allowed to simply bill whatever they feel like it

Pretty simple economics: they have something you want (healthcare) which no one else can provide. Supply and demand - they dictate the terms.

Must there be an alternative? What if the world is not ethical by design? What does the evidence say about it?

Engineer: “I can write that code.”

Senior Engineer: “Should we write that code?”

Staff Engineer: “We should delete that code."

Turns out macro trends change based on circumstances outside the control of any one company.

All business is inherently unethical and relies on hiding and externalizing costs of production unto the environment, a vulnerable population, or other forms of legal/tax trickery.

Advertising is no more evil than the for-profit healthcare system in the US, or the food industry, or really any other industry, when you really stop to consider it.

People who think they are operating or working for an "ethical" business are simply unaware or willfully ignorant of its costs. Typically it is the latter, or as Upton Sinclair beautifully put it — "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Losing an at-will employment position is suffering? It's unfortunate, maybe, even a little sad. But to say this is "suffering" borders on entitled lunacy. Especially considering ex-Google employees can land virtually any job with it on their resume.

The risks of working at-will are well known, and one would be well served to understand them to avoid disappointment. Actually, the shame is on them for failing to adequately prepare for an obvious inevitability, especially if others are depending on them for support.

That's a separate company and legal entity, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Wow, those poor ex-Google employees. Now that they have been laid off, they must be experiencing true suffering.

The past ten years of tech have been subsidized with low interest rates, i.e. free money.

That is now gone and companies must tighten belts. There really is no greater mystery here.

Intrigue? The economy is teetering on recession. These companies understand macro trends better than anyone, and can plainly see what is coming. Now the play is to protect the war chests they have amassed to weather the storm.

It is still a business - not a charity.

I just want to point out this entire site works and appears 100% functional WITHOUT Javascript. This is worthy of recognition - bravo!