Literally the only concern you even regarded in that entire comment is the bottom line. As far as I can tell, expectations are so gruelingly low that the two things a company is expected to do is (barely) follow the law (but not too closely, as it would be wasteful) and make profit.

It's not surprising that companies who just got done squeezing the pandemic economy and growing senselessly for what they knew was temporary had to leak employees, but just because what they did was rational doesn't mean it was good, or respectable. It's not the standard we should want.

>Literally the only concern you even regarded in that entire comment is the bottom line.

Going back to your previous comment:

"Companies bend over backwards to make their financials fit the narrative of constant growth and are rewarded for it even when they get there by callously cutting costs rather than investing in the long term"

Why should they be "investing in the long term"? For the bottom line? Or as some sort of jobs program to keep people employed even if they're not really needed?

>As far as I can tell, expectations are so gruelingly low that the two things a company is expected to do is (barely) follow the law (but not too closely, as it would be wasteful) and make profit.

Yeah, that's basically the point of a company. Would you rather companies be responsible for making money, and keeping people employed even if they're not really needed?

>It's not surprising that companies who just got done squeezing the pandemic economy and growing senselessly for what they knew was temporary had to leak employees, but just because what they did was rational doesn't mean it was good, or respectable. It's not the standard we should want.

Would you rather that the people not be employed in the first place?

> Why should they be "investing in the long term"? For the bottom line? Or as some sort of jobs program to keep people employed even if they're not really needed?

What are companies even for in society to you? They're supposed to provide goods and services. The "long term" is a healthy, respectable business. If you just follow short-term financials all the time, obviously that won't work. But chasing only financials in general won't work either.

Does a restaurant not strive to have good service and quality food in some part for the sake of it? Does nobody ever start a business in a field they genuinely care about? Obviously a company itself can't strive for anything since it is not a person, but the people who found them and work at them can and do. Financials are not the ultimate signal of success. They're part of surviving and growing, but far from the only thing a company should ultimately desire to maximize.

Not everyone in society is a grifter. For some, finances are just something that have to be balanced with accomplishing the real goals. A necessary evil of an economic system that has trade-offs, like any. Having money-obsessed psychopaths in every CEO position is a terrible outcome because the truth is that you should actually care about what your company does.

So no, they shouldn't optimize for keeping people employed even if they don't need them. However, they should optimize for sensible hiring strategies so that they are less likely to need to "cut the fat" later.

> Yeah, that's basically the point of a company. Would you rather companies be responsible for making money, and keeping people employed even if they're not really needed?

No, I'd rather we had higher expectations than the absolute bare minimum. I'm not sure why your takeaway from what I said is that they should needlessly hire and maintain employees.

> Would you rather that the people not be employed in the first place?

Yes, I would rather companies do not senselessly hire a bunch of full-time long-term employees during a very blatantly obvious temporary boost in the market only to inevitably shit can them in a year or less. What they did looked good on the balance sheets. So much growth! So why not?

The reason for why not is that it's shitty behavior.

It may very well be that with where we're at now, shitty behavior is so normal among American companies that it's wishful thinking to believe any long-term consequences could ever come from it. I mean, it's not like there are even consumer choices left in most categories that feel like they have much dignity. The most genuine brand loyalty you'll find in America is power tool companies, and they're not really saints either.

I wasn't there, so I can't really say, but I postulate that in the past, when the naive facade of the American company broke, and people became increasingly aware of the level of greed and corruption that they could exhibit, they just sort of let it become normal. Apathetic pessimism.

I don't care if it's stupid. Or naive. Or pointless. To me, it does matter that people give a shit. It does matter that every single possible facet of grifting is not exploited just for the mere fact that one can get away with it. And, of course, it does matter that companies respect their employees and prospective employees by not taking advantage of market conditions and hiring people in an irresponsible and clearly unsustainable fashion.

I remember the alarms on this hiring spree being sounded as early as last year when it was still in a huge boom. You can't tell me that the only way a company like Google can possibly deal with "changes in market conditions" (...that everyone knew was going to happen in advance anyways...) is by having a hiring freeze so late in the game that they even cut off prospective employees that have already passed the entire interview, followed by some pretty strong layoffs.

If those employees matter so little that this effectively changes nothing about a company like Google's ability to operate and deliver the same stuff they planned on doing anyways, then what was the point?

I don't even like Apple, but at least in this case it seems like they are able to behave in a significantly more conservative fashion. I'm not sure how much of that is their notoriously large bank reserves, or their hiring strategies, but either way, they're probably going to be the last of the tech giants to announce layoffs. That's a good play for their employee morale even if they could be in a better place in some regards. Are they perfect? No. I literally hate Apple, and frankly it's probably still all just bottom-line oriented behavior. It's just that it's hard to not respect some slightly longer-term planning above the absolutely stupid short-term quarterly financials driven behavior that I've witnessed first-hand at a different FAANG company.

>What are companies even for in society to you? They're supposed to provide goods and services.

In a free market, they're supposed to provide goods and services, and the way the free market incentivizes that is by giving them rewarding them with money.

>Does a restaurant not strive to have good service and quality food in some part for the sake of it? Does nobody ever start a business in a field they genuinely care about?

There certainly are people who do things out of passion or altruism, but we can't run an economy off of that. There aren't enough bakers who care about feeding people in and of itself to feed everyone on earth. As such, the economy is set up to give people money for providing goods and services, so that we don't need to rely on people's passion/altruism to keep us fed.

>Financials are not the ultimate signal of success. They're part of surviving and growing, but far from the only thing a company should ultimately desire to maximize.

And that's fine, if money isn't your end goal there are other types of legal structures for that (ie. non-profits or charities).

>The "long term" is a healthy, respectable business.

Right, but that only matters insofar as that a "healthy, respectable business" generates more money. It's not something to pursue in and of itself.

> If you just follow short-term financials all the time, obviously that won't work. But chasing only financials in general won't work either.

My argument isn't that we should always chase short term financials, it's that the decisions made (ie. layoffs) aren't necessarily inconsistent with long term growth. The monetary regime changing in such a way where future revenue is suddenly worth less is a example of this.

>No, I'd rather we had higher expectations than the absolute bare minimum. I'm not sure why your takeaway from what I said is that they should needlessly hire and maintain employees.

"higher expectations than the absolute bare minimum" says nothing about what you actually want, considering that there's a laundry list of things that people seemingly want from corporations. Be specific. Is it just not hiring people only to fire them a short time later?

>Yes, I would rather companies do not senselessly hire a bunch of full-time long-term employees during a very blatantly obvious temporary boost in the market only to inevitably shit can them in a year or less.

1. hindsight is 20/20. it's not really clear that they intentionally hired people with the knowledge that the "boost" was temporary. If anything, if you knew that there would be a crash in the market, hiring would be a bad idea, given how much it costs to hire/ramp new engineers up.

2. if it's really so "blatantly obvious", then surely the engineers who were getting hired knew what they were signing up for? After all, it's not like the nature of at-will employment is some sort of secret. If you don't want the risk of getting 6 months later, don't sign up for the job. Don't ruin that for the people who want to take the risk.