• Cyclohexane
    link
    fedilink
    4610 months ago

    The efficiency of capitalism. Spend god-knows-how-many millions of dollars and time, then realize you’d rather spend 125 million all over again just to go back and spend even more millions to hire back the dame numbers again in 1-3 years.

    • @RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      23
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      They make 5 billion a year, thats less than 2.5% of the money they make every year, it’s a rounding error to make the spreadsheets look real good to the money lenders .

      My company just let me go with a 6 figure package (x amount of pay + stocks). They could have easily kept me there for another year, but that’s not as good for the spreadsheets.

      • Cyclohexane
        link
        fedilink
        410 months ago

        I understand that, but still, the decision is a net negative. They are merely acting based on short-sighted insights.

        • @RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          8
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Yeah that was kinda my point. All that matters is what the spreadsheet looks like now. It would have probably been a net positive to keep me given they are only going to grow and spend a fortune on hiring and new stocks. That’s a different spreadsheet though, I also live in a country where it’s expensive to fire full time employees collectively, so it’s not like they are paying these kinds of sums for everyone. It’s pretty cheap to make things look good on paper.

          • @rasakaf679@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            210 months ago

            Yeah, their whole goal is to look good on papers and stock market. Not to grow as actual company. They would rather cripple themselves than to strengthen themselves by slow growth…

        • @moody
          link
          210 months ago

          Short term gains are king for stock value.