I think this is the real key.
Why are these people in charge of these huge corporations?
In a world with 8 billion people they cannot be uniquely qualified for those positions, so why them and why not someone else?
Nowadays I always just assume they're someone's buddy.
Satya Nadella has made it abundantly clear that he's a moron, or at the very least a gambling addict. Does it really make sense for him to be in charge of a company that is worth almost as much as the nominal GDP of Africa [1] [2]?
[1] https://companiesmarketcap.com/microsoft/marketcap/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Africa
This is a bad allocation of funds, but presumably this was done because of the off chance that the market would keep growing and the work for these people would follow.
When you do high-risk things with the express purpose of short-term gains, that's basically just gambling.
Now, it's possible they hired all these people in anticipation of future needs, which is fair, but it doesn't take a hyper-genius to know that markets fluctuate, particularly after a global pandemic.
So at this point, either Satya Nadella is so stupid that he didn't know that markets tend to fluctuate, or he's gambling with human lives.
The entire point of a low interest rate economy is that, if you have a bunch of cash, you need to put it into something other than a savings account in order to make anything of it. From that perspective, simply paying engineers to sit and twiddle their thumbs all day has the business advantage of preventing your competitors from moving any faster or to prevent your employees from forming future competitors. It's a complete win win for the companies.
In fact they remind me of financial advisors who charge you regardless of whether they make you or lose you money and are all consistently worse than passive investment in the long run.
That's how I feel about these overpaid CEOs. They are worth orders of magnitude less than they are paid
In what world was it a bad idea for them to hire thousands of people and then fire them? Laying someone off saves tons of costs, and in the meantime, you prevent your competition from utilising those resources. Literally a win-win for them. I say this as someone laid off. I don't understand how this whole trope of 'lay offs are bad for the company that did the laying off' has taken over.
It makes 100% of sense to hire and fire if your competitors are doing it, and you have the money. Microsoft is not suddenly going out of business here.
That's why, as an employee, it's smart to work towards financial independence and just not quite give a whole lot of you know whats. Like when my former boss told me layoffs were expected, that was just a signal that I was going to have way more time to go skiing, which we did.
The main reason so many employees feel like suckers is because they are not as ruthless as their ceos. I changed jobs during the pandemic with the express purpose of maximizing compensation. I made way too much for those years, and when I got laid off, I got free unemployment, free medical, and a free sabbatical. The only ones who were suckers were those who gave their companies loyalty and got laid off anyway. Stop doing that.
I guess I made the mistake of believing them when they said that they “regret this decision”, and assuming a human level of empathy.
But then the layoffs happened, and they both gave a big song and dance about how they're "taking responsibility" (whatever the hell that actually means), and that these were "tough decisions" to fire tens of thousands of people.
It shouldn't require a 10,000 IQ to think that maybe hiring thousands of more people than you actually need is a bad idea, and if they couldn't see shit like this coming, then what value are they actually bringing to company? Vague truisms and platitudes about how they regret having to uproot peoples' lives?