Comment by quelup
1 day ago
I know this is gonna trigger some people, but I don't get the outrage here. Does everyone here work at Meta or feel bad that those at Meta are getting treated unfairly? If not, why get angry at what another company rightfully chooses to do? Instead of complaining, we could all start our own multi billion dollar businesses...but that would require more risk which most rightfully don't want to take on. Both are choices made by those responsible for the outcomes of those choices. No need to get upset.
I've worked at Meta. It sucks they laid off people (I have a friend who was impacted), but that's the companies job - make hiring/firing decisions. And I couldn't care less what they pay the exec team - what are they paying employees relative to other companies? Is it good? Ok, maybe I'll choose to go there for a little bit.
While it's bad to get triggered by something like this and then move on, I think your take is incorrect as well. We shouldn't take every corporate decision - whether it's how they choose to compensate, govern, or otherwise - face down and just call it "doing business".
Your view promotes passive participation. Make the optimal decision for yourself in the short-term and ignore any broader implicaition. No disrespect, but this exact behavior is how individuals cede agency and enables corporations to exert more and more influence on society.
If rewarding executives after gross mismanagement of hiring makes someone angry, let them be angry! Then, look into how you can direct that anger somewhere besides the HN comment section. Chances are that others are angry about it as well, and with enough vocal support maybe we can get some semblance of worker protections and corporate oversight in this country [1].
[1] https://inequality.org/article/a-fresh-approach-to-limiting-...
Meta lies at the intersection of a lot of hot button topics: Social media, collecting “your data”, ads, FAANG, LeetCode interviews, high compensation, celebrity CEO, and now layoffs. It checks nearly every box on the list of topics that provoke anger on this website, so it’s hard to have any honest conversations about Meta or any other FAANG here.
Thanks for the honest response. I still find myself pulled into some topics (e.g. this thread), but I've largely tried to avoid the comments lately. Honest conversations are hard to have without getting flagged for disagreeing with people.
You’re thinking about this narrowly. The broader implication is rising income inequality. It’s not sustainable. If GINI gets too high it can only end in reform, revolution, or anarchy.
Who gets to decide what the gap can be? Employees? I don't believe there are ever "unbiased, third parties" in these situations. You want to pre-emptively prevent one outcome by controlling the company - but this level of power also comes with side effects. Why take the risk of starting a company when you don't control income? Who's to say people won't want to continually lower that income gap until countries stop innovating? You have to consider the negative side effects of your own solution...else risk thinking about the problem "too narrowly".