Meta to begin retrenching thousands of staff this week — Report

[PaulMurkin]

Anyone who thinks being a content creator is not stressful is naive. Youtube can for any reason they want to, end your business.
Your job security shouldn't come from laws written by communists. It should come from the fact that every employee should strive to make themselves difficult to replace.

In America the view is that cheap, willing Indian workers are the ticket.

 

[deweyzeph]

Your job security shouldn't come from laws written by communists. It should come from the fact that every employee should strive to make themselves difficult to replace.

Couldn't agree more. Companies are not charities. If you aren't contributing to the bottom line then you should be expendable.

 

[Pegasus]

I’m sure the experts who know how to run a business better than the conman Musk will be along any minute to explain how this is a brilliant strategic move.

 

[konfab]

In America the view is that cheap, willing Indian workers are the ticket.

And you tend to get what you pay for. You don't want "cheap workers". You want workers that give good value for money.

Which is why the best option for Americans is to use South African programmers as we are cheap because of the exchange rate, not because of the quality of our work.

 

[AstroTurf]

What if the ex twits join forces with the ex metas and make a metatwit?

 

[Moosedrool]

91 employees:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/vrchat

However VRC has serious copyright and content moderation issues.

 

[koeks525]

It depends on what you do in that tech company. Developers generally will always have job-security in these sense that even if they get retrenched there is always another job waiting for them. It's the non-techy staff in the tech companies that are the first to go.

This is true; developers generally are spoilt for choice; a developer will most likely land their next gig in a few weeks if something happens. However, I do not think this means complete immunity from being laid-off; kind of depends on what the market is looking like, and other factors.

That's exactly why the American economy is so flexible. Our government still hasn't realised the link between our rigid labour laws and the high unemployment we suffer from. They would rather have a low number of people in secure work than a high number of people in unsecure work. It's been shown over and over again that the latter benefits the economy far more than the former.

I am a little mixed on this. With little to no labour laws in place, you can expect a lot of employers won't play fair on providing basic supports to their employees. While a good number of employers in such countries often provide decent basic supports, there are those that won't try.