Mentions of Job Cuts in Earnings Calls Hit Pandemic-Time Peak (bloomberg.com) 58
Layoffs are being mentioned on US earnings calls at the highest rate since the pandemic -- and as Meta Platforms shows, such cost cutting can pay off for investors. Bloomberg: Efforts by the Facebook parent to slash costs and refocus its business upended the lives of thousands of workers, but has since helped propel its stock 340% from a 2022 low. With an economic soft landing being the base case for many, positioning by firms to protect margins -- particularly in the technology sector -- is being welcomed by investors. Mentions of job cuts and synonyms per earnings calls this season have jumped to the highest levels since the second quarter of 2020, according to a Bloomberg transcript analysis of S&P 1500 Composite Index firms. For the technology industry in particular, "more recent cuts come out of a position of strength," said Wolf von Rotberg, equity strategist at Bank J. Safra Sarasin. "Confidence in the sector appears high that growth can persist even with a smaller workforce," he said.
You just know capitalism is inhumane (Score:4, Insightful)
when company financials improve with fewer humans.
I for one would like social duties baked into the legal definition of a corporation, and not just duties to the shareholders. Something like the - exceedingly rare - two lines in the mission statement of the small company I work for:
- Provide values to the community by doing well and pay taxes
- Provide a means of living to the employees that enriches their lives
I kid you not: that's literally written in the company's foundational documents, and the company has been doing very well since the 1980s. It's not growing at an extraodinary rate, and it's not producing obscene billionnaires that regularly make the news. But the 55 of us working there have a happy work life, and the company consistently exceeds its targets and hires - slowly - all the time.
What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't some of what my employer choses to focus on be legally mandated? It's not outrageous and it's not groundbreaking.
Re: (Score:1)
It costs money.
Re:You just know capitalism is inhumane (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it?
I would argue that it doesn't. At least if you consider society as a whole and not just what the company can't externalize.
If employees aren't as stressed out, they're healthier: they cost less in healthcare.
They keep their jobs for a long time: they cost less in unemployment benefits.
Remember, I'm talking companies that have performance requirements for society here, not just for the owners.
Ruthless and cutthroat corporate behaviors certainly have a very real and very high cost: it's just that the cost is borne by someone else other than the company shareholders in today's capitalism, and I argue that it doesn't have to be that way.
Re: (Score:1)
It does. Your particular company may operate in an industry where there's a steady need for the same people, but that's not universal.
Many companies, particularly new ones, need different numbers and types of employees in different phases. TSMC needs different people to build a fab than to run it. Software companies need lots of coders when they're starting, and more support and marketing types when their product is already written.
Holding on to employees you don't need obviously costs the company in terms
Re: (Score:3)
Many companies, particularly new ones, need different numbers and types of employees in different phases. TSMC needs different people to build a fab than to run it. Software companies need lots of coders when they're starting, and more support and marketing types when their product is already written.
It might be, but not likely. Especially given both the examples you give make no sense.
TSMC keeps building new fabs all the time. 7 nm fab built ? Working with good yield ? Nice. Who is the best suited to improve yield when there are problems ? The people who built the fab. TSMC wants to build a unit in the US ? Who gets consulted to decide whether the US is good enough for it ? What resources should we look for in the location in the US for building 7 nm fab in the US as well ? The same people, who build t
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine, so long as they're growing. Eternal growth is not sustainable. TSMC needs more builders when they're expanding and fewer or none when they're not.
Your assertion that a mature software product needs just as many developers to fix bugs that crop up as to build the thing in the first place is ridiculous.
Re: You just know capitalism is inhumane (Score:2)
Your assumption that a typical software company is ever "mature" in the sense of not needing many software developers is ridiculous. Just an example, Microsoft employs thousands of times more software developers now when it is "mature" in normal ways, than when it was releasing its software for the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You just know capitalism is inhumane (Score:4, Insightful)
Well. On reason why capitalism needs strong regulation to work at all longer-term.
Re: (Score:1)
Help me understand. Regulation should require companies to employ people they don't need?
Re: (Score:2)
You are clearly not interested in understanding, but only in pushing your view. That is called "dishonesty" and quality people do not do it.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, I have a view that I think is logical, and I'm willing to express it and back it up with facts and sources. But I'm also interested in hearing from people whose opinions differ from mine, if they're willing to express them and back up *their* point of view with facts and sources.
So here's my take.
Employment is the exchange of work for money. That's it. Companies want to make money--after all, that is why they exist. And to make money, they need people to do work for them, and they pay them to do that
Re: (Score:3)
Employment is the exchange of work ...
Ok, but you started the story mid-way. Even before all this, comes the system. The reason why companies are allowed to exist at all. So "why they exist", and "their job", etc. all are viewed by that lens. Is the whole system benefitting mankind ? Or, since we have nicely cleaved "mankind" into sovereign countries, is the system at least benefitting the people of the country ?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the system absolutely benefits mankind.
Before "the system" people had to grow their own food. It was not an easy life, even as recently as American pioneer days. Long days of work, backbreaking labor, and still no guarantee of enough to eat. Or those who hunted for their food likewise had to do dangerous, arduous work, and no guarantees.
People later figured out that if they banded together, they could accomplish more with less energy expended. People who had farms, would hire (employ) people who didn't
Re: You just know capitalism is inhumane (Score:2)
Nope, companies by themselves absolutely didn't benefit mankind in that way. The work was back breaking in early industrialisation era as well. The work conditions were cramped, dangerous and arduous. It took employees to band together to fight for their rights to improve the working conditions.
Internationally, the early companies (e.g. the various East India companies) also created their own armies, subjugated whole countries, caused wars, artificial famines , enslaved and killed millions of people within
Re: (Score:2)
Internationally, marxist political parties (e.g. the Soviets, CCP, etc.) also created their own armies, subjugated whole countries, caused wars, artificial famines , enslaved and killed 10's of millions of people within a century.
Re: You just know capitalism is inhumane (Score:2)
This is not relevant, get a clue about what is being discussed if you want to butt in.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor are your comments about bad companies relevant. Yes, we agree that bad companies, and bad governments, should be eliminated.
Re: (Score:2)
You couldn't understand the obvious timeline of my examples. When companies started to exist, and when unions came into being.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, companies by themselves absolutely didn't benefit mankind in that way
So, you made this statement, and just left it hanging. The sentences that follow, have nothing to do with whether companies benefit mankind. Yes, there are bad companies. We agree on that. Unions have a role to play. We agree on that. Neither of those things relates to whether the concept of companies benefits mankind. And neither of these things relates to any of the points I made about why companies *do* benefit mankind.
There are also good companies, not just bad ones. Most, frankly, are just mediocre, av
Re: (Score:2)
What I described was the period with companies but no unions. What you described, where some "good companies" existed, was an era with unions.
Spot the difference. Hint - it is not the existence of companies.
Re: (Score:2)
I have personally worked for non-union shops that were excellent employers. Sorry, unions don't get to take *all* the credit for improving the lives of employees. There are some actually good employers, and a lot of average ones.
Your focus is on how companies treat employees, and the role of unions. That's all fine and good, but is beside the point. The point is that the concept of a *company* was an invention that intrinsically has benefit for mankind. The fact that many companies are used for evil, or are
Re: You just know capitalism is inhumane (Score:2)
The unions not only brought about direct actions on the employers they work for, they also brought about legislation, regulation and awareness for employees of other employers. The only way to evaluate the effect of companies alone without the role of unions, is to look at an era where unions didn't exist.
Just because your employer didn't have unions, did the laws of minimum wage, overtime, 401k matching or the like in the jurisdiction not apply ? Did employees become unaware of the possibility of unions ju
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, unions do get some credit for employment reforms. I don't dispute that. My beef is that you are attributing *all* goodness at any company, to the work of unions. Well I've got news for you, there are sleazy unions, and there are company owners that would be good to their people with or without unions. Things aren't as simple as you make them out to be.
And even if you're completely right that unions get all the credit, it doesn't change the fact that companies are an invention that benefits mankind.
Re: You just know capitalism is inhumane (Score:2)
My beef is that you are attributing *all* goodness at any company
This I attribute to your poor reading comprehension. Or poor logic. Or both.
Re: (Score:2)
Quoting you...
Nope, companies by themselves absolutely didn't benefit mankind in that way. The work was back breaking in early industrialisation era as well. The work conditions were cramped, dangerous and arduous. It took employees to band together to fight for their rights to improve the working conditions.
I'm pretty sure you are saying here exactly that...that companies are evil except for the impact of unions. There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension or logic, but there might be something wrong with your memory.
Re: (Score:2)
So my suspicion was correct, you don't know the meaning of "by themselves". It is surely poor reading comprehension (which includes basic knowledge of the language in question). Your logic might be ok for all I know.
Free tutorial :
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
https://dictionary.cambridge.o... [cambridge.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how the qualifier "by themselves" changes anything.
And it still doesn't change the basic benefit of the concept of a company, which you've never actually addressed, but rather just sidestepped.
Re: You just know capitalism is inhumane (Score:2)
Some people are difficult to educate, that's fine. I didn't sidestep, you were unable to progress beyond point 1 of a 3 point chapter.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever. You never acknowledged that point 1 was valid. We already agreed on points 2 and 3, that unions also provide benefit, and that some companies are evil.
Re: You just know capitalism is inhumane (Score:2)
These are not the 3 points. We are far from there now due to the long route needed to educate you on the first point.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun! I see that even you don't remember what they are anymore.
And I know that you won't be convinced on the first point either, because you apparently believe that Socialism is superior to Capitalism. In theory, that may be true, except that in all the places where it's been tried, Socialism always turns into a dictatorship (as in Russia and China), or economic meltdown (as in Argentina and Venezuela), or hybrid mongrel combination of Capitalism and Socialism (as in China). So while Capitalism is deeply fla
Re: You just know capitalism is inhumane (Score:2)
Fun! I see that even you don't remember what they are anymore.
Wrong. I remember the points, for an educated person all of them are summarised in my first post in this thread, but you couldn't understand the first concept in it for so long.
you apparently believe that Socialism is superior to Capitalism.
This is also wrong. So you enjoy building and smashing strawmen, you don't need anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
I went and looked at your history. Your first post on this thread was this:
Ok, but you started the story mid-way. Even before all this, comes the system. The reason why companies are allowed to exist at all. So "why they exist", and "their job", etc. all are viewed by that lens. Is the whole system benefitting mankind ? Or, since we have nicely cleaved "mankind" into sovereign countries, is the system at least benefitting the people of the country ?
I only see one statement (one point) in your quote:
"The system" is the reason why companies are "allowed" to exist.
What system, exactly?
Companies aren't "allowed" to exist, they just do exist, because they serve a purpose. They existed long before any "system."
I re-read a number of your posts. You hint at a lot of things, without coming out and saying anything. Are you a conspiracy theorist? It seems so, but I'm not sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure, but I think you are agreeing with me that companies should be allowed to let people go, when they are over-staffed.
Re:You just know capitalism is inhumane (Score:4, Insightful)
Slash and Burn is the new capitalism.
Slash costs and burn the company down for today's profits -at the expense of future profits. "If we don't invest anything at all in the future, think of how much we will have now!"
These people need to read the story of the ant and the grasshopper [wikipedia.org]...
Re: (Score:2)
This is nothing new. Ever heard of Jack Welch?
Re:You just know capitalism is inhumane (Score:5, Insightful)
You just know capitalism is inhumane when company financials improve with fewer humans.
I'd say finding ways to produce value with as little human labor as possible is a very humane thing. I don't view labor as a good thing, but as a necessary evil when there is no alternative way to generate value. Finding a way to feed the US with 5% of the labor it took 100 years ago is a very good and very humane thing.
Forcing someone to starve if their labor has no value is the inhumane thing, not creating as much value as possible with as little labor as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe these corporations shouldn't hire people in the first place.
Multivariate function (Score:3, Insightful)
You just know capitalism is inhumane when company financials improve with fewer humans.
A fine statement that I agree with.
The problem is the alternatives. We have several other models to choose from: communism, socialism, fascism, and totalitarianism to name a few.
No other model has worked as well as capitalism, and virtually all of the others have resulted in far greater suffering.
Another way to view it is to note that economics is a multivariate function. If you marginalize it in one dimension you can easily show that it's unhumane, or evil, or unfeeling, or any other way you want to descri
Re:Multivariate function (Score:4, Interesting)
Better is to compare Russia with its pure capitalism with the USSR. Other examples of more pure capitalism is any country controlled by drug cartels and similar. They also don't care at all about climate change and barely other types of pollution.
What really works is having a good market, one where a mixture of economic systems can compete, socialist Credit Unions vs Capitalist banks vs other Capitalist banks. Along with a government that does things like build roads, regulate various industries and most important, keep that market being fair. A proper functioning legal system too.
The positive results from capitalism happen when the capitalist is kept on a leash and you get things like competition happening with a market that is called free, otherwise capitalism evolves into oligarchy where society exists to benefit the oligarchs rather then the members of that society, see Russia.
Don't confuse the free market and capitalism as the capitalist hates the free market, does not want to compete and will happily become a rent seeker rather then produce stuff of value.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Canada has a socialist Constitution? The Mafia is very capitalist and corruption is also very capitalist as it involves using capital to acquire more capital.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada has a socialist Constitution? The Mafia is very capitalist and corruption is also very capitalist as it involves using capital to acquire more capital.
I think he's trying to say he's as ignorant about Canada as he is about Russia.
Modern Russia is the poster boy for crony capitalism. Wealth and power centralised in the hands of the few oligarch whilst average people struggle to eek out a living. It seems Russia excels to be a huge warning beacon over how not to run a country (First imperialism, then communism, now showing us what happens when capitalism is allowed to run amok).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine if we said to pay-hone companies, "You have to keep your employees, you can't let them go just because you don't need so many people anymore." Would that be more humane? In reality, such companies would soon collapse entirely.
China tried this. They used their major corporation as a way to drive a better living for millions of its people. Companies like Evergrande kept employing people long after the demand for their buildings had dried up. Now that giant corporation is collapsing, leaving behind tho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And why is Europe having more success than China? It's because its companies have more freedom to employ people, or not, based on their needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Massive job gains, actually. (Score:2)
The US runs on corporatism, not capitalism (Score:1, Insightful)
The big players in every industry own the government and it's a revolving door of money and influence to maintain power.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is a shame. Shareholders could receive even more value by trimming the fat in the c-suite. But thanks to overt collusion on corporate boards, executives protect one another, and the gubment turns a blind eye.
My favorite dialog on this... (Score:2)
Zorg: Fire One Million
This is a promise to vulture capital (Score:2)