Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/01/08/the-best-deals.html
…
3 Likes
Since this is to be easily anticipated, the obvious question becomes how can anti-monopoly activists in the tech sector organize those workers directly affected by these looters/layoffs?
2 Likes
6 Likes
Golly, no one could have predicted this would happen. I mean, the tide goes in, the tide goes out, no body knows why.
8 Likes
Those layoffs will be looked as positive by Wall Street, cutting costs and all, and so the stock will rise and the rich get richer. I’m sure they will be trickling down on the rest of us soon.
2 Likes
Oohhhhhhh, that Vicky though.
I hate her the absolute most as a rival civ.
1 Like
Working as intended. /s
1 Like
$20bn? You could build 3.5 border walls with that money. Or one yuge wall.
But but but… job creators! What about the job creators? This is a complete mystery!
The tax break should have been tied to NET job creation.
(Make AT&T perform first with additional job creation, and insure that the layoffs would have counted negatively towards that goal.)
1 Like
Chumps. They should have seen this coming.
There are 2 prime times for businesses to do large scale layoffs.
-
If the business is going bankrupt and can’t afford to pay their workforce.
-
Your business is experiencing record profits, and you want to look even more profitable to your shareholders.
All other layoffs are probably just rounding errors compared to the above reasons.
Lots of people did.
2 Likes
Duh, those tax breaks will trickle down. Even if they haven’t in the past. Or aren’t right now. Dogma says they will so STFU and stop complaining.
(Need I add the /s? I shall include it otherwise some free market libertarian jackass will agree with me.)
2 Likes
In this bizzaro-ass reality that we’re currently stuck in, sarcasm tags are definitely required.
3 Likes
It was designed by Paul Ryan.
I suspect that an unpleasant #3 option may be contributing in this case:
Your business has concluded that the (lack of) competitive pressure is such that there simply isn’t that much risk in not bothering to try as hard.
Effectively, if competition is weak enough the level of demand for your product isn’t determined by the customers but by what you suspect the maximally profitable level of production to be.
Since AT&T has been given clear signals that market consolidation will be allowed and that there are few risks in failing to improve service, they effectively don’t need as many people because they don’t have to produce as much to avoid being eclipsed by competitors.
That this isn’t standard practice boggles the mind.
