• CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    8 months ago

    Yeah, I’m not sure I really get this whole “reduce employment” logic. Like if some product just isn’t profitable and you lay off the employees you hired to work on it, that’s not surprising, but if the employees are doing something profitable, and you actually needed to hire that many to get whatever it was you hired them for done, shouldn’t it be more profitable to a company to keep them, even if one had a large number?

    • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Moreover, if all the oligarchs are doing it, and they are, who will be left to buy their products/services?

      They’re breaking their own ponzi scheme economy for a few more quarterly profit boosts because there’s nowhere else to grow/metastasize. Media companies are making less media. Food makers are making less product types. Their profit is coming out of gutting workers and their ability to produce what their economic sector produced in the first place.

      This is a terminal stage market capitalism fire sale. The snake is eating its own tail having conquered the board.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        Because this is the End of the Line. The snake has found its tail and Oroborous awakens to transform the end into the beginning. An ideology of everlasting consumption will eventually consume itself.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Most of them are not. That’s the beauty of a cash cow like Google. They’re working on things that may be profitable in the future. By cutting the future, you’re cutting future growth.
      It’s why I dislike hedge funds. They’re stripping value instead of creating value.