[News] Post a D&D Picture

Previous incarnations of Cleveland/P&C/D&D have had an image thread, to handle political cartoons and other image-based stuff that doesn't belong in the general post-a-picture threads.

If any of them spawn an extended discussion, please spawn it off into its own thread. Replies to non-picture replies should take the form of a link pointing to a post on a different discussion thread.

And I shouldn't have to say it, but the images still need to abide by the rules.

What's with the Greta Thunberg 'tweet' being dated June 1st 2021?

polypusher wrote:

What's with the Greta Thunberg 'tweet' being dated June 1st 2021?

I can honestly say I have no idea. A google of the event says she was arrested a day or two ago for the protest.

farley3k wrote:

Layoffs always sound bad but maybe we don't need to panic to much about the layoffs at MS

IMAGE(https://preview.redd.it/02u5l7glx0da1.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=98fb1219936d4632226d1184bb965b9fb9433611)

It's not necessary at all though, they still made more money this year than they did last year. Layoffs like this are just something done to appease board members who are upset that their profits didn't grow *enough*.

Stengah wrote:

It's not necessary at all though, they still made more money this year than they did last year. Layoffs like this are just something done to appease board members who are upset that their profits didn't grow *enough*.

+1 bazillion. I am constantly frustrated/disgusted at the ridiculousness of expectations around earnings and profits.

farley3k wrote:
polypusher wrote:

What's with the Greta Thunberg 'tweet' being dated June 1st 2021?

I can honestly say I have no idea. A google of the event says she was arrested a day or two ago for the protest.

Reuters says it's fake. Someone should have just posted the pic themselves with "Rate Greta's Andrew Tate Cosplay". Still funny, though.

If you expect an employer to be able to avoid layoffs, you're implying an ability to predict the future.

The reality is that no-one is able to accurately predict how many staff they'll need in a year. Not a one-person operation or a 100k person one.

Layer on top of that fact the practical reality of the lead times involved in hiring and training new staff, and that just extends the timeline (and therefore the uncertainty) involved.

Although if you look at that graph, for the most part, it was predictable. 2022 was an outlier for an otherwise steady stream of growth since 2014. Maybe they thought their business had changed enough in 2022 for it to be justified, but... my impression of MS does not match that.

I also don't understand how anyone could have looked at the wild IT hiring market of last year and not seen it was a bubble. I know plenty of folks who took advantage of that bubble to see if they could find better employment, but everyone I knew who did so sure as heck knew it wasn't normal.

Stengah wrote:

It's not necessary at all though, they still made more money this year than they did last year. Layoffs like this are just something done to appease board members who are upset that their profits didn't grow *enough*.

The chasing of quarterly profits at the expense of everything else is the root of so many problems

Everything's predictable with hindsight, Rick.

If there one lesson we should have learned from 2019-2022, it should be that sh*t changes quickly.

Jonman wrote:

If you expect an employer to be able to avoid layoffs, you're implying an ability to predict the future.

That’s true for small employers. In what way could Microsoft not “avoid layoffs”? What forced their hand? What was the financial situation that required laying off ten thousand people?

Let’s say those employees averaged a salary of $100k. That probably costs MS, let’s be generous and say triple, so $300k/head. That’s $3B. MS gross profit for 2022 was $135B. Is that 2% of additional profit worth putting literally thousands of people out of work?

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Jonman wrote:

If you expect an employer to be able to avoid layoffs, you're implying an ability to predict the future.

That’s true for small employers. In what way could Microsoft not “avoid layoffs”? What forced their hand? What was the financial situation that required laying off ten thousand people?

Let’s say those employees averaged a salary of $100k. That probably costs MS, let’s be generous and say triple, so $300k/head. That’s $3B. MS gross profit for 2022 was $135B. Is that 2% of additional profit worth putting literally thousands of people out of work?

Yes. Yes it is.

If you think otherwise I don't know what to tell you man, it's like you haven't looked at the world in the last, oooh, two hundred years.

Like, what do you think the purpose of Microsoft even is? Goosing middle-class employment statistics?

IMAGE(https://i.redd.it/gk8q8uoky1da1.png)

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Jonman wrote:

If you expect an employer to be able to avoid layoffs, you're implying an ability to predict the future.

That’s true for small employers. In what way could Microsoft not “avoid layoffs”? What forced their hand? What was the financial situation that required laying off ten thousand people?

Let’s say those employees averaged a salary of $100k. That probably costs MS, let’s be generous and say triple, so $300k/head. That’s $3B. MS gross profit for 2022 was $135B. Is that 2% of additional profit worth putting literally thousands of people out of work?

73b in net income, just under 200b in revenue in 2022. When adjusting headcount I suspect they are trying to predict the future. Earnings come out on Monday, will see how rosy the picture looks then.

Jonman wrote:

Everything's predictable with hindsight, Rick. :)

Yeah, but I guess I should be an MS exec 'cause I'm saying had foresight.

Everyone is trying to shed costs in anticipation of a massive global recession…you pretty much know it’s going to happen…the ultra wealthy need another recession to make more money again.

Jonman wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Jonman wrote:

If you expect an employer to be able to avoid layoffs, you're implying an ability to predict the future.

That’s true for small employers. In what way could Microsoft not “avoid layoffs”? What forced their hand? What was the financial situation that required laying off ten thousand people?

Let’s say those employees averaged a salary of $100k. That probably costs MS, let’s be generous and say triple, so $300k/head. That’s $3B. MS gross profit for 2022 was $135B. Is that 2% of additional profit worth putting literally thousands of people out of work?

Yes. Yes it is.

If you think otherwise I don't know what to tell you man, it's like you haven't looked at the world in the last, oooh, two hundred years.

Like, what do you think the purpose of Microsoft even is? Goosing middle-class employment statistics?

I was unclear. I fully recognize that under Nothing But Capitalism! there is literally nothing more important than maximising profits.

The way I read your comments ("in order for an employer to be able to avoid layoffs") was a nod to the practical economic reality that sometimes requires companies to cut their workforce to stay afloat. This is very demonstrably not the economic reality that Microsoft lives in. The company makes billions of dollars in profit annually. There is no economic need to cut 10k jobs. Keeping those people employed wouldn't hurt the company in any practical way, or impact anything other than those people.

Maybe more interesting, the source of that graph claims a pattern with these tech companies:

https://www.trendlinehq.com/p/micros...

Which is probably true. Most of these companies hired massively over the pandemic. The demand for their services in waining now and they over hired over the last two years. Most are still coming out ahead, which is probably why the job numbers in the US remain very strong despite all these massive layoffs.

This business about a looming recession is kinda BS IMO, but probably self fulfilling at this point.

And for many of them, the only recession will be in how fast their profit margin is growing, they won't be losing any money. Yet they'll still use it as an excuse to raise prices, reduce benefits, and cut jobs.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/sh7GeiJ.jpeg)

Over hired, but also I think they are taking advantage of the situation to provide cover for other cuts they want to make. MS for example gutted the AR dept. Hard to imagine that related to anything other than a product decision.

https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreal...

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

The way I read your comments ("in order for an employer to be able to avoid layoffs") was a nod to the practical economic reality that sometimes requires companies to cut their workforce to stay afloat. This is very demonstrably not the economic reality that Microsoft lives in. The company makes billions of dollars in profit annually. There is no economic need to cut 10k jobs. Keeping those people employed wouldn't hurt the company in any practical way, or impact anything other than those people.

Say you're an employer with a bunch of employees. I offer you a choice - keep all your employees or keep most of your employees and have THREE BILLION DOLLARS.

What choice are you gonna make? Seriously, you think you'd leave the three billion on the table just so you feel like you're a "good boss"? IMO, 3 billion counts as "economic need"

If healthcare wasn't tied to employment yeah sounds great. But in reality you're potentially dooming that employee and their family if they can't find another job quick enough.

Jonman wrote:

Say you're an employer with a bunch of employees. I offer you a choice - keep all your employees or keep most of your employees and have THREE BILLION DOLLARS.

What choice are you gonna make? Seriously, you think you'd leave the three billion on the table just so you feel like you're a "good boss"? IMO, 3 billion counts as "economic need"

Except that's not really the choice. It's "keep all your employees and $70B profit" or "keep most of your employees and $73B profit". $3B only counts as an "economic need" if it actually makes a difference. If my profit is $3B, then keeping some of it is really important; again, this is not the case for MS.

And it's not about "feeling like you're a good boss", it's about being part of a society that gives a sh*t about the members of that society. Again, I recognize that Guess What? It's Capitalism! is anathema to that idea, but that doesn't mean that we as humans should be against it.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Say you're an employer with a bunch of employees. I offer you a choice - keep all your employees or keep most of your employees and have THREE BILLION DOLLARS.

What choice are you gonna make? Seriously, you think you'd leave the three billion on the table just so you feel like you're a "good boss"? IMO, 3 billion counts as "economic need"

Except that's not really the choice. It's "keep all your employees and $70B profit" or "keep most of your employees and $73B profit". $3B only counts as an "economic need" if it actually makes a difference. If my profit is $3B, then keeping some of it is really important; again, this is not the case for MS.

And it's not about "feeling like you're a good boss", it's about being part of a society that gives a sh*t about the members of that society. Again, I recognize that Guess What? It's Capitalism! is anathema to that idea, but that doesn't mean that we as humans should be against it.

But who's going to think about all the poor shareholders who would lose a penny or two a share in earnings in your second scenario?

If they owned a million shares of Microsoft (valued at nearly a quarter of a billion dollars) that penny or two in lower EPS would deny them of $10 or $20K which they totally deserve because...they had enough money to buy Microsoft stock.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/GW5CFGT.png)

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

$3B only counts as an "economic need" if it actually makes a difference.

It's 3 billion dollars. How can it possibly not make a difference?

Is this one of those times where a billion is such a big number you're simply not comprehending the magnitude of it?

Jonman wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

$3B only counts as an "economic need" if it actually makes a difference.

It's 3 billion dollars. How can it possibly not make a difference?

Is this one of those times where a billion is such a big number you're simply not comprehending the magnitude of it?

To the company it's 4%. To the employees it's most if not all of their income.

Yeah, it's a huge number, and it's boggling that we measure corporate profits in BILLIONS.

Jonman wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

$3B only counts as an "economic need" if it actually makes a difference.

It's 3 billion dollars. How can it possibly not make a difference?

Is this one of those times where a billion is such a big number you're simply not comprehending the magnitude of it?

Have they tried cutting back on avocado toast and Sting concerts?

Jonman wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

$3B only counts as an "economic need" if it actually makes a difference.

It's 3 billion dollars. How can it possibly not make a difference?

Is this one of those times where a billion is such a big number you're simply not comprehending the magnitude of it?

If you got three billion dollars a day, it would take you almost 28 years to pay off the US National Debt.

Magnitude cancels magnitude.

Microsoft's net profit was over 73 billion dollars. What difference can that 3 billion dollars make that the other 70 billion doesn't?

Keldar wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

$3B only counts as an "economic need" if it actually makes a difference.

It's 3 billion dollars. How can it possibly not make a difference?

Is this one of those times where a billion is such a big number you're simply not comprehending the magnitude of it?

If you got three billion dollars a day, it would take you almost 28 years to pay off the US National Debt.

Magnitude cancels magnitude.

Microsoft's net profit was over 73 billion dollars. What difference can that 3 billion dollars make that the other 70 billion doesn't?

That's a lot of speech you could buy to lower your operating costs and make more profit!