The problem is that we judge its success by how much the wealthiest people bet on its success in a glorified casino instead of anything else, like its positive impact on society.
A plane can continue to fly without a pilot. The problem is not “continuing to exist”, but continued success or a spectacular crash.
Also, I’d bet on Dropbox being able to function quite well without its CEO.
Sure, if the CEO is replaced by someone else who can manage the company, sure. But you cannot generally expect people to manage themselves. That’s why communism never worked and never will.
Also, what is according to you a glorified casino?
Your comment does not make sense. In communist countries, companies still have CEOs, they just don’t have private shareholders, they are owned by the state. Not that I care about that.
And what I call a casino is the NYSE, when stocks offering no dividends are pumped to the stratosphere, with purely speculative buys.
The employees are more important than the boss. So yeah, I do count those jobs and feel it means something significant. Also, what does “logical” even mean to you? If the boss cut his own pay, he could have kept the employees. That’s just as logical, isn’t it? So you’re not talking about logic, are you.
If you want to talk about values, let’s do it. Please explain why multi millionaires (and richer) matter more than everyone else. Please.
Suppose that dropbox employs twice as many people as other cloud providers. Would you be willing to pay them the twice amount for the same product the competition offers just because they employ more people?
You know, we live in the world of competition where you need to be ahead your rivals, otherwise your company fails (and all employees lose their jobs). So cutting costs where it’s possible makes perfect sense, especially if the employees can be replaced by computers or sth.
Do you honestly think that’s a comparable analogy?
How about if you have a small computer repair store that employed 20 people last year, but due to the owner’s poor analogy game scaring off the customers, you only need 5 employees to fill all the available work this year? Would you say the employee count is an indicator of the health of the business?
Well, if dropbox can exist without those 500 employees, then it’s logical. You don’t judge success of a business by how many people it employs
The problem is that we judge its success by how much the wealthiest people bet on its success in a glorified casino instead of anything else, like its positive impact on society.
A plane can continue to fly without a pilot. The problem is not “continuing to exist”, but continued success or a spectacular crash.
Also, I’d bet on Dropbox being able to function quite well without its CEO.
Sure, if the CEO is replaced by someone else who can manage the company, sure. But you cannot generally expect people to manage themselves. That’s why communism never worked and never will.
Also, what is according to you a glorified casino?
Your comment does not make sense. In communist countries, companies still have CEOs, they just don’t have private shareholders, they are owned by the state. Not that I care about that.
And what I call a casino is the NYSE, when stocks offering no dividends are pumped to the stratosphere, with purely speculative buys.
The employees are more important than the boss. So yeah, I do count those jobs and feel it means something significant. Also, what does “logical” even mean to you? If the boss cut his own pay, he could have kept the employees. That’s just as logical, isn’t it? So you’re not talking about logic, are you.
If you want to talk about values, let’s do it. Please explain why multi millionaires (and richer) matter more than everyone else. Please.
Company is not a charity. There is a difference.
Suppose that dropbox employs twice as many people as other cloud providers. Would you be willing to pay them the twice amount for the same product the competition offers just because they employ more people?
You know, we live in the world of competition where you need to be ahead your rivals, otherwise your company fails (and all employees lose their jobs). So cutting costs where it’s possible makes perfect sense, especially if the employees can be replaced by computers or sth.
You could argue that you can judge their success based on the ratio of employees they used to employ versus how many they employ now.
So if I have a small computer repair store and want to make it more successful, I should employ at least million people, so the ratio goes up?
Do you honestly think that’s a comparable analogy?
How about if you have a small computer repair store that employed 20 people last year, but due to the owner’s poor analogy game scaring off the customers, you only need 5 employees to fill all the available work this year? Would you say the employee count is an indicator of the health of the business?