2024 has seen two mass layoffs at Microsoft, with 1900 staff laid off in January, before a further 650 Xbox employees were shown the door in September.

Regardless, Microsoft’s shares are up and the company’s market value is now higher than $3tn, as it works to capitalise on the rise of AI.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    1 month ago

    When I entered the work force in 2005, it was with a company that had never had a layoff in its thirty-year history.

    Then, in 2009, they had their first layoff, and I learned later our CEO had taken an 80% pay raise that year.

    Taxes aren’t theft. Literally firing people and taking their salaries is theft.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      58
      ·
      1 month ago

      Taxes are theft the specific way they are designed in most countries.

      Another example of theft is a hired administrator administrating by the criterion of their own pay.

      I mean, it is understandable how this works - their pay is a counterweight to the incentive to “mismanage” the company if someone else pays a fitting price. The issue here is that these two incentives do not completely neutralize each other, in some dimension their components add up.

      Why I had to say that taxes are still theft - because a CEO is equivalent to a state official in this issue. It’s the same problem.

      Political ideologies divide these problems, because political ideologies are like hedge funds, they diversify investments, so that every political ideology could be usable in every landscape for every policy. They are the opposite of consistent, by design.

      • HerrBeter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Taxes aren’t because they come from societal structure i.e agreement that we’re better off pooling resources

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              1 month ago

              OK.

              The CEO is supposed to maximize the profits of investors or owners or whatever, not act like in this example.

              Just like the government to which you pay taxes is supposed to use it for some public good.

              Neither do what they are supposed to do, because that requires some kind of checks by a mechanism above both, and there’s no such.

              Is that more clear, or have my bad English and bad explaining skills failed you again?

              • syreus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                1 month ago

                This is much better but your previous comment was awful. It read like a LLM alone wrote it.

                That being said I can’t tell you why specifically it reads like that. I’m forwarding it to my friend who is a English professor to find out. If English is your second language then just keep at it and please don’t take the criticism here personally.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              1 month ago

              OK. I further made equivalence between that CEO and the government which you charge with making use of taxes.

      • Alex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        You make zero sense and I feel dumber to have read your comment.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          1 month ago

          and I feel dumber to have read your comment

          Then I have improved your self-consciousness. Thank you.

    • P1nkman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      1 month ago

      Per year. And lets not talk about his stock options and other benefits… Fucking disgusting.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Well his compensation is tied to the stock price so it’s not exactly a “raise.” My employer’s stock is near an all time high right now so I’m not complaining about how much I made from the shares I sold, but neither do I consider it a “raise” because it’s not guaranteed to be the same next year.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        At my last company, they usually gave end-of-the-year bonuses instead of raises. They were pretty generous, usually amounting to about half of our annual salaries, but it of course prevented us from being guaranteed that level of compensation the following year. That’s why I always describe bonuses as raises followed by pay cuts.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah pretty much. Everything about it is a hedge. They can pay less if their numbers tell them to. They can lay you off and not give you anything. They can make more cash disappear if they have to. It’s the squirrelliest shit yet they cast it like a gift from god.

        • iii@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I’m self employed.

          Found out I’m depressed, decided to reduce work to 3 days a week.

          Raised prices to reduce clients. Turns out I now make more, doing less work. It is what it is.

          • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 month ago

            I once quit my job at a software company I really hated. They were desperate to keep me around for the projects I was leading so they asked if I would work hourly for a while. I quoted them a go-fuck-yourselves hourly rate which they immediately agreed to, which made me even more angry about my prior years of poor compensation. I worked under this agreement for about half a year and further improved my effective hourly rate by not working very hard.

  • interurbain1er@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    In case you missed it, in our broken model of civilization a CEO’s only responsibility is to increase value for shareholders. Not to clients, not to employees, not to the biosphere.

    Market cap increased, job’s done successfully.

    • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      A) 1971, Economist Milton Friedman explicitly told the world the “only social responsibility” for businesses is to increase shareholder value. The Business Roundtable heartily endorsed this view, setting the stage for the next half century of villains to gleefully enrich themselves without compunction.

      B) 2019, Business Roundtable reversed their 50 year position to include that businesses should be beholden to all Stakeholders, not just shareholders.

      But of course the damage has been done, and continues onward. To compound this, the FED’s open-purse monetary policy for 14 YEARS ushered in the worst inflation in 40 years, while wages have stagnated for 4 decades, kicking off around the time Baby Boomers were birthing the first Millennial children.

      These are just some of the reasons Millennials lay the bulk of culpability at the feet of Baby Boomers, who of course respond with something like: “Well, I don’t remember that.”

  • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    The board doesn’t care about the number of people employed. They care about the current profitability and future profitability.

    Of course that’s their job; to look after shareholder interests. And the money would move to a better investment if they didn’t.

    It’s the whole system you need to change, if you seek change, not moan about an individual CEO.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        That would be awesome, but would have limited results if there are still a few enormous companies with patent and IP laws preventing competition.

        You can’t have that eternal fight between democratic egalitarian monopoly and competitive jungle. The whole point of civilization is to have both representation and competition.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Current profitability is up. Profit margins are also up from last year. But I could see investors looking at the lack of any path after the current Xbox and wondering why they employ so many there. I’m sure other areas have also seen some stagnation.

    • mynameisigglepiggle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t see how paying him so much is actually increasing dividends though.

      Pay him half as much or find someone else who will do it for half as much

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 month ago

    Typical and most people in the US view CEO’s as heroes. US income distribution is on the same level as fucking Russia.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      As someone from fucking Russia, people with biggest income in your country are usually first businessmen, second - something else, while in Russia those would be cockroaches from MFA, PA and other thieves, plus a few oligarchs who at some point were among those cockroaches.

      So it may not be as bad yet, but frankly yes, you are giving out vibes of going in the same direction.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I agree, but yours are real oligarchs, while those I’m talking about are a relatively new thing for you.

          Russian-style ones are just blokes from one and the same corporation who chose they want to be celebrities. A façade. They used oligarchy as a scapegoat in the 90s, to avoid lustration while it still could be done.

          • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I see your point. In US our oligarchs run the show. In russia, they submit to the “President” to obtain the position.

    • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 month ago

      Trickle down was a rebrand.

      It used to be called “Horse and Sparrow economics.”

      Idea being: The horses eat buckets of whole grains. And the sparrows pick their meal from the horseshit.