Submitted by AmethystOrator t3_z3uqox in worldnews
tickleMyBigPoop t1_ixo18hd wrote
Reply to comment by RaycharlesN in Amazon workers in the U.S. and 30 other countries plan Black Friday protests by AmethystOrator
>they’re laying off 10,000
Because they hired them during Covid lockdowns, we’re no longer locked down so they’re unnecessary given the current capacity.
Why would businesses keep people around they don’t need, that’s incredibly stupid. Jobs aren’t welfare, welfare is welfare.
We should want companies to be as efficient as possible. Why would we want to misallocate labor and capital, after all we’re competing against every other country on earth.
>$12Billion
Much of that is due to the higher margin AWS, and they’re not doing layoffs of engineers.
LordAlfredo t1_ixo2rm1 wrote
They're laying off engineers in certain divisions, but mostly devices/other orgs (eg Alexa) that are seeing lower revenue this year.
TheWinks t1_ixoi7mh wrote
Because they're losing literally billions of dollars.
Tinito16 t1_ixohihn wrote
> Jobs aren’t welfare, welfare is welfare.
What is this welfare you speak of, and how do I obtain it?
tickleMyBigPoop t1_ixotqsw wrote
RaycharlesN t1_ixo1pkb wrote
Amazing revenue this quarter was up 15% - not a post Covid slowdown
a kind employer might say we only need you through Covid when they’re hiring you - you’d plan your life different.
tickleMyBigPoop t1_ixo205k wrote
>revenue
Revenue doesn’t matter only profit matters in this case net income generated by e-commerce adjusted for inflation compared to previous years. Also if those people aren’t needed why would any company be stupid enough to keep them, it’s like you want American businesses to fail so that way foreign competitors can succeed.
Efficiency makes us all better off in the long term.
> a kind employer might say we only need you through Covid when they’re hiring you
If any company had that kind of crystal ball they’d be better off playing futures markets instead of e-commerce
heliumeyes t1_ixo2t4v wrote
Your points are very valid but people aren’t going to think logically. They’ll just accuse people like us of being heartless capitalists.
davon1076 t1_ixoaca1 wrote
Because it is heartless and capitalist.
Throwing 10,000 people out of a job for 'efficiency' while the higher-ups laugh their way to the bank isn't a good fucking look.
It's not a fair point to say "oh but foreign corps tho!" because guess what, they're heartless and capitalist too.
Valid points my ass. You sit here excusing labor purges like it's fucking nothing while you aren't on the receiving end of one.
heliumeyes t1_ixoj2y0 wrote
Oh I have been on the end of lay offs. Twice actually. So I know pretty well how it feels. And it sucks.
RaycharlesN t1_ixo2ll5 wrote
They did manage to award an extra 1.4B in stock based compensation to executives this quarter so we should feel good about that
tickleMyBigPoop t1_ixoub4g wrote
Stock compensation is paid for via share dilution usually, aka the shareholders pay it.
RaycharlesN t1_ixp3ql4 wrote
Shareholders pay for everything, they own the company
Irr3l3ph4nt t1_ixocr8t wrote
They could have paid every laid off employee 1.4M...
heliumeyes t1_ixojrqf wrote
1.4B/10,000 = 140k
kuburga t1_ixo6tsz wrote
You just came here and decided to make an argument for misallocating capital into billionaires' super-yachts over investing in creating any form of humane job for 10,000 people which is something Amazon can afford doing probably 500,000 times over. This mindset is as nearsighted and apathetic as the average politician's.
Kerostasis t1_ixoi80j wrote
>job for 10,000 people… 500,000 times over.
I know this was hyperbole, but for reference that works out to hiring every working age person on the planet. No, they can’t actually afford this.
[deleted] t1_ixoes36 wrote
[removed]
tickleMyBigPoop t1_ixotw5z wrote
> misallocating capital into billionaires' super-yachts
Billionaires aka CEOs of these companies aren’t (mostly their cash compensation is usually super low) paid via the revenue streams of a company, they’re paid by the shareholders via share dilution.
What that means is the owner equity is decreasing in value (marginally, it’s priced in ages ahead of time) to pay the executives, they’re not being paid via cash flows.
Try some financial literacy courses
kuburga t1_ixpm4zw wrote
I'd rather stay ignorant on economics (which I won't) than running to a sweaty rescue of one of the biggest and immoral companies on the planet all the while explicitly asking and telling other people to think about the company's well-being rather than the workers'. Despicable. I think you get what I mean, and what I mean is: They can do a shit ton with their power and they choose this.
tickleMyBigPoop t1_ixqsvil wrote
> explicitly asking and telling other people to think about the company's well-being rather than the workers
It’s not the job of companies to give two shits about anyone or anything besides maximizing efficiency and shareholder value. Companies aren’t your mom and dad, they’re not a charity, they’re not the welfare state, those three things are what you want to take care of people. Companies exist to provide services and products, the more efficient they are the greater the national wealth and the higher the tax base
kuburga t1_ixqvcuy wrote
Yep it's not their job and no such responsibility given to anyone or whomever who has been allowed to accumulate such power by any governing body and people suffer for it and that is the problem.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments