• samokosik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    1 month ago

    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

    • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • samokosik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        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?

        • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          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?

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • samokosik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.