Everyone is optimizing their personal outcome, be it the CEO firing people, people quitting their jobs to work elsewhere, people quitting their jobs to live off of benefits, people having children early, or having children late, it's what we all do: look out for what's best for us.
I find that totally okay, but I prefer to be honest about it, and don't pretend that it's not perfectly normal, or that people aren't doing it.
In a sense it's the inverse of the "it's moral to steal bread to feed your family" argument.
Nobody has to be there to survive, everyone is there willingly because they saw it as the most advantageous place to work, and they'd switch to a different company tomorrow if they got the right offer. Loyalty is a term from a different era.
That said, I do find that people are fairly loyal to a company that treats them well.
Why do you find it OK for the ones to have power to leverage it in order to get even more? Where do you think this will end up if allowed to continue longterm?
At Twitter? That's hard to say, lots of places are hiring, and getting good people is hard for all of them. Many of those that were fired will probably come out ahead financially. Twitter will probably continue to exist.
> Why do you find it OK for the ones to have power to leverage it in order to get even more?
What do you think salary negotiations are? You go in, say you want even(!) more money, and if your value is high enough, you have the power to make them do it. Again, both Twitter and the employees are playing the same game, they're just on different sides of board, but neither of them is a charity.
Yes I think it’s immoral to put a person with a visa in a situation where they risk deportation unless they get hired just when hiring is slow, not just because of the job market but because other hiring managers are literally spending time with their family.
WallStreet is used to the ups and downs (they are somewhat comparable compensation-wise), and it's a way of life. You win big and you lose from time time. In tech you have some people who think it's their birthright to have good jobs with good pay and benefits and never have to go through a downturn.
But in the US it's really not well supported. If you want to found an LLC you click a few buttons on a form online and talk to any lawyer.
If you want to found a co-op, you generally have to file the paperwork in person or via the mail. No one in the municipal government will help, because they don't know anything except LLCs. You'll need to find a lawyer who can draft not only the articles of incorporation, but also can advise on the issuing of shares, democratic operation, and how new members can join.
Because profits are controlled by the workers, capitalistic investors won't know what to do with you, so you'll need to put in extra effort to find investors who are willing to be paid but not be made owners (or not more than any workers).
It's a high, high initial cost. But once it's going it can be incredibly self sustaining. Every dollar of profit ends up back in the pockets of the people working there, equally. Or they can collectively choose to use that profit to expand.
Social justice means not "equality" but "equity": looking at perceived disparities between social groups and then equalizing them by taking property from perceived "oppressor" groups and transferring to "victim" groups. This is exactly what Stalin, Mao, etc. did.
Why does no one argue that Hitlerism/Mussolini-ism/Francoism wasn't real fascism? "Real" fascism would of course usher in an era of peaceful law and order, harmonious cooperation between govt and business... /s
>Social justice (communism) killed upwards of 100 million
>social justice wins the "Worst Thing Ever" award
You're absolutely insane.
Social justice is NOT communism. Got it? Because I'm repeating myself, and you're not listening to me or refuting what I said.
Apparently you have convinced yourself that phrase means something totally different than it actually does, and you're obsessing and freaking out about it.
You don't get to make up your own whacky definitions of words, and expect people to think you're not crazy or just another worthless troll when you keep insisting you're right and they're wrong.
So social justice is "communism" and the "Worse Thing Ever", huh?
Do you really believe that's what the original poster was referring to when they wrote "demanding your employer take on some social justice cause"?
Exactly who is demanding their employer support communism or perform the "Worse Thing Ever"? You mean stop paying them and insist they keep working for free, or murder hundreds of millions of people? Is that what you're afraid Twitter will do?
If you're simply against health care, and for racism and fascism, then just come out and say it, and stop beating around the bush.
Come back when you'r less unhinged, and can use the same language and definitions that the rest of the world does.
This is "no true scotsman". The ideas underpinning Communism, Marxism, Socialism, and Social Justice are intrinsically linked and overlapped. Castro himself supposedly said "No hay comunismo ni marxismo, pero... justicia social". At the core is the proposition that certain classes / socio-economic groups are "oppressors" while others are "oppressed", and that we in the present must right the social injustices of the past. None of this is controversial or a mischaracterization.
My professors at Brown of course advocated for socialism and social justice, and I too drank the kool-aid while I was there. I graduated 15 years ago so good luck finding links :) (As an aside, there is current a prof of econ Glenn Loury who publicly takes the anti-social justice stance, he has a YouTube channel. Other profs I knew such as one who escaped the Cultural Revolution in China are surely opposed to it as well, but they keep it on the DL.)
Back to the original post, employers who play the SJ game find their employees dividing themselves into oppressor and oppressed groups, and starting grievance wars which ultimately distract from the mission of the company. It's a silly exercise at companies like Twitter where most employees would be within the top 0.5% of wealth worldwide.