"I saved the company $800M, I should get 10% of that"?

>"I saved the company $800M, I should get 10% of that"

Only at the executive tier.

At your level, you get a plaque. A cheap one. Plastic, maybe some aluminum.

Relevant Dilbert: https://dilbert.com/strip/1993-09-16

Some analysts were expecting $18b in operating profits - can't you see how much loss MSFT just incurred?

Youre getting downvoted, but perhaps you meant this as satire? Poe's Law and all...

Seems obvious to me that its satire.

Thanks, but I didn't ask you, because you didn't write it. I think it is satire, but sometimes one can't really know. It is undoubtedly a position that some people hold that missed revenue/profit estimates are akin to losses. Hence, Poe's Law.

Its not actual satire though ... Missing analyst expectations is a massive failure of management, they set the guidance and the expectations for the market; thus missing it by 2bn is actually a pretty poor performance.

Say company X issues guidance of $1.34/share

Analysts expect $1.40/share.

Company X releases earnings of $1.45/share.

Things still tank, because... the "real" expectation was 5% over analyst expectations, which was already over guidance.

Why is nobody questioning the analysts methods and models? Are they using DSGE economics models? I'm sure there's plenty of angles of criticism for their tools if one digs a bit.

Even harsher is that on the same day Microsoft laid off their staff, they announced a 10B investment in OpenAI.

how is that harsh? its just common sense that giant corps restructure and move their talent and assets around as the world changes, otherwise half of Microsoft would still be working on Windows and we'd be laughing at them.

layoffs arent always about cutting costs, its usually about restructuring and reprioritizing

Couple days apart, and they announced an investment, but the $10B figure is rumors. Could be right, could be wrong.

But so what? There’s no gotcha here; it’s not like Microsoft or Google or Amazon claimed they were cash poor and could t afford to pay people. They are changing the areas they spend money in. Would it be better if they were only cutting back and not also investing in new areas?

The comment thread you're responding to is reflecting on how painful it is to be laid off when:

  * showing profits
  * showing multi-billion in investments in new companies
  * when the money saved is tiny compared to the increased year-over-year profits

on a topic that's a short story in the form of a letter written by someone pretending to be a CEO and telling the story's real truth about a layoff: that they don't feel like paying the reader anymore.

"But so what?"

Their response is _exactly_ on topic. There is a real sting on these human lives where a company has decided they don't have value relative some new tech purchase. This is contrary to particular ethics frameworks many of us are familiar with around human value.

Apologies if I sounded like I was unsympathetic to the people. I’ve been laid off, I know it hurts.

But I guess I don’t see how empathizing with that means. . . What? Microsoft should cancel an investment they think is strategic? Microsoft should keep job roles they no longer things are important?

Highly profitable companies like Microsoft are not zero sum. Nobody said “let’s lay people off so that we can invest in openAI”. Each decision is made independently, for its own ROI. If they believed that keeping these people and making the investment was the best approach, they have the funds to do so, easily.

I love the McSweeney’s piece, and I’m sympathetic to those laid off, I just don’t get the innuendo that a company should do something differently.

A useful question I think can be asked in circumstances like this is "what value does this new comment bring to the table?"

If a family in financial trouble just lost their son to a car accident, for example, is it the right time to say "well, at least you won't need to pay for his college."?

There is a third option: Redeploying existing talent to the new strategic objectives.

Especially in software, skills are pretty fungible, and most of the support organization's on-going requirements are likely to be highly agnostic of what, specifically, is being engineered.

If the company actually thought they could make more money by redeploying, they would. Positive ROI strategic objectives are not obvious or readily available. If they were, the company would already be pursuing them.

IT does bring up an interesting alternative. What if instead of layoffs, companies provided an ultimatum:

Your employment costs $X. You have 3 months to find a new source of $X+1 revenue that requires your continued labor.

Just because they don't hypocritically claim they care about their employees and only laid them off because they HAD to, doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize them and (if possible) use our leverage as workers to influence them to make better decisions. Just because we know corporations only value profit, to the detriment of human quality of life in general, doesn't mean we should accept it

As someone who holds stocks, I see value and appreciate that those corporations work hard to maximize my returns over providing charity employment.

Shareholders like me are the ones you have to convince, not some CEO or abstract concept of a corporation.

Fair warning, you will have to convince me that it is more important than supporting my children and maximizing my retirement.

I’m pretty sure that if you need some stock to grow in order to support your children, then your influence on a public company is virtually irrelevant.

You have a good point on my individual control of a public company is quite small. Luckily, basically every single other stockholder has the same reason for owning the stock as me- making money.

There is basically no risk that a different group of stockholders with more voting power want to run it as a public works jobs program

Yet the fact that shareholders want to get richer doesn’t mean that laying off people when a company is drowning in money is ethically right.

If you want to look at it simply in terms of ethics, I'm not sure layoffs are always unethical, even if the company is profitable.

I do think it is unethical to jerk people around (e.g. new hires), but I think generous severance goes a long way towards addressing this.

> use our leverage as workers to influence them to make better decisions

Most workers don’t want to use their leverage to make corporations make better decisions - they want to use their leverage to get paid more.

Where do you think they got the money for the investment?

Embarrassment if Google and other companies have something better than OpenAI.

They saved it by not employing unprofitabe workers in past years.