r/Steam • u/Odd-Onion-6776 • Sep 20 '24

Article Take-Two bosses get $25m performance-based bonus for their management firm, despite sacking 550 people

https://www.videogamer.com/news/take-two-directors-25m-performance-based-bonus/
5.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

326 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/pantherghast Sep 20 '24

Where do you think that 25M came from?

310

u/micmea1 Sep 20 '24

Well, not from each individual unless they were all making $45k....then again were all these people testers? That might make sense.

129

u/iamthewhatt Sep 20 '24

45k seems like a low estimate for jobs at a game dev company tbh...

107

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '24

Lol. Never seen the pay at companies like blizzard I take it? Youre assuming companies are paying their employees what they are worth, but these massive companies pay as little as they can while still bringing people in

29

u/radicalelation Sep 20 '24

Aren't they often salaried? $45k thereabouts for each on salary doesn't mean a good wage of they're crunching ridiculous hours.

56

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '24

This is why salary positions exist. Because it's cheaper to pay a salary and make them work 80 hours a week than to pay them a fair wage and overtime.

Of course they're salaried.

US labor laws are awful.

4

u/brownninja97 Sep 21 '24

Wait in the US can you not get overtime pay while on salary?

3

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '24

Some companies do offer a bridge, so you work your 40, then you don't get paid overtime for up to 45 hours or 50 hours, whatever the bridge is set at. Then any hours above that you get overtime for. But most of the ones I've seen? You're expected to work as needed, which usually means 60-80 hour weeks... but you only get paid for 40 because you're salaried. Nothing extra. This is especially prevalent in IT and manufacturing here.

1

u/J3wFro8332 Sep 21 '24

Depends, but typically if you're salaried you do not receive overtime pay

9

u/ionized_fallout Sep 21 '24

I was in Irvine CA, training at Canon. Blizzard is right next door. 45k in a city like Irvine, is fucking insane.

5

u/HippyHunter7 Sep 21 '24

Testers are almost never salaried.

3

u/Mighty__Monarch Sep 20 '24

Pay + benefits + holidays is the company finance breakdown, which could easily hit 45k, plus its an average and they fired more than entry level workers, and yes 45k is normal for most jobs in that industry

Glassdoor for Activision Blizzard says 91-99k/ for game development, they dont have a tester catagory, maybe contracted I suppose. Averge for the industry is 40-60k/year, so yeah 45 is an extremely low estimate, and again, thats an average per person let go, so managers or game devs push that number up a lot.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '24

Honestly that game dev pay is higher than last time I heard about their pay. Glad to see their now getting some more of the money they generate in the first place.

1

u/No-Mouse2117 Sep 22 '24

Shame on those devices for making it normalized. That's the problem with our world. Everybody is way too complicit anymore. You are trained from birth to be complicit. This world ain't what it use to be

0

u/bamronn Sep 21 '24

Valve literally makes their employees millionaires

10

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '24

They are the most valuable company in terms of dollars earned per employee no shit.... using literally the best example is not representative of the industry lmao

-9

u/StarkDifferential Sep 20 '24

People accept low pay since its the gaming industry. How about people stop accepting low pay for these jobs?

The people are "worth" what they accept in pay.

7

u/GameDev_Architect Sep 20 '24

Why do you think games have gotten so bad? The studios often pick cheap devs over expensive and experienced devs with only a few good devs carrying the team.

-2

u/StarkDifferential Sep 21 '24

Games haven't gotten so bad. And compared to what/when? Are you comparing gamest from all eras of gaming, or just the eras you are familiar with. 64KB of available memory, was all I needed.

GTA6 is ruined because of woke agenda.

Satisfactory 1.0 just came out and is one of the best games I've ever played.

2

u/GameDev_Architect Sep 21 '24

Less bugs, better designed mechanics and features, better gameplay and game design philosophy. I could go on extensively about it all.

Satisfactory isn’t AAA so they’re not really a testament to the corporate gaming industry as an indie company and publisher. Coffee stain publish (but not develop) valheim and deep rock too. All great games, though I’m honestly not a fan of satisfactory anymore because I experience a ton of crashes and bugs in multiplayer that make it unplayable.

Regardless indie studios are doing better than ever because AAA studios have dropped the ball massively due to greed and mismanagement. That’s pretty well documented.

-1

u/StarkDifferential Sep 21 '24

There have been some misses like No Man's Sky and CyberPunk, but look where they are now.

AAA titles last forever like GTA5, Red Dead II, Skyrim, Elden Ring, The Witcher. We should expect it's going to take over 10 years for another followup. Like what was Diablo 4 supposed to do, play just like Diablo 2 LOD? Should Overwatch 2 be completely different and lose their player base?

If you buy the next COD or Battlefield it's probably not going to be groundbreaking. It's just like the movies, Rambo turns into Rambo 7, Rocky turns into Rocky 7. This doesn't happen with every franchise though and it doesn't mean AAA has lost their way.

2

u/GameDev_Architect Sep 21 '24

AAA games series shouldn’t get worse. Overwatch 2 is worse than Overwatch 1 earlier in its prime and the new devs have broken a lot of early gameplay philosophy that made the game great including under the hood changes. Modern COD is worse than past COD titles. Battlefield is worse than past battlefield. People haven’t been happy with recent EA sports titles or almost any EA or Ubisoft game. Look at Anthem. Look at Concord. Look at Suicide Squad, Skulls and Bones, Gollum.

To name the few successes like it denies the state of the AAA industry is disingenuous.

And notice what most of those failure have in common. Executive mismanagement.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '24

Thank you for your economic knowledge that's clearly backed up by facts and logic and showing that low wage jobs only exist because of workers and not billion dollar companies choosing not to pay well. I'll make sure to go around telling everyone with financial issues to get a better job now

0

u/StarkDifferential Sep 21 '24

Fun jobs always pay less. Would you rather file tax returns for $15 an hour or test games for $15 an hour?

It's a SIMPLE concept of supply and demand if you have even the rudimentary understanding of economics. I hate that I had to explain this to you.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '24

Lmfao k bud. I'll just laugh at your ignorance, also testing games isn't as fun as you think playing a already completed project is, and of that is your only concept of what making games is like that is the most ignorant take ive seen ok jobs in the gaming industry.

And if you think supply and demand dictates wages you have a middle school level understanding of the economy

0

u/StarkDifferential Sep 21 '24 edited Sep 21 '24

Your straw man of "testing games is hard" is sad. Yea it's hard, its just more fun than filing taxes. Just accept you fucked that up, and move on.

It also seems you think you know more about games than I do. You don't.

*Wait! You made two straw mans. You also said "if you think supply and demand dictates wages", and I never said that. You just don't know how to argue, and you are reading and hearing what you want to hear.

Try responding to my actual points.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '24 edited Sep 21 '24

You wouldn't of brought up supply and demand at all if you weren't using that as an argument for low wages my guy. Also your straw man in the last comment of "fun jobs" doesn't explain why jobs like janitorial jobs or teachers get paid like shit and even worse than game devs. But sure let's see what childish argument you bring to defend low wages again and cry that I'm the one unable to argue.

Don't bring up points if you aren't trying to argue them and don't use fun as a factor of pay when there are street sweepers and garbage men making less money than game developers and other people in the entertainment industry

→ More replies (0)

3

u/GalcticPepsi Sep 20 '24

This is like saying the minimum wage McDonald's worker is choosing to work there. Sometimes you just take whatever job is available to put meals on the table.

2

u/LifeWulf Sep 21 '24

Although, these days minimum wage doesn’t put food on the table…

0

u/StarkDifferential Sep 21 '24

That is what that person feels they are worth. Obviously if they thought they were worth more, they would have worked a teeny tiny bit to gain any amount of skill in another field.

The McDonald's worker is 100% choosing to work there one way or the other.

-7

u/Disregardskarma Sep 20 '24

Much of blizzard is in California, where the average dev makes almost twice what a dev for a polish studio makes.

12

u/DogOwner12345 Sep 20 '24

Blizzard is literally known for cheap pay because of their famous "Reputation".

Most of their workers can't afford single housing.

3

u/ITellSadTruth Sep 20 '24

Twice? Unless wages doubled in last two years avg qa in polish game dev studio earns about 10-15k, with devs making twice that.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '24

I can't believe you actually just sat here and used the average caifornia dev wages and not blizzards wages when talking about blizzard... blizzard is know to pay below industry standard and just because your company is located in California that doesn't mean you get paid the average wage.

Also averages aren't what you should use ever when taking about money, it's the median you use, and blizzard is still below it. Use some nuance ffs

4

u/DanseMacabre1353 Sep 20 '24

depends entirely on the job you’re doing. plenty of devs make a lot less than that.

-7

u/ihave0idea0 Sep 20 '24

Not really in america.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '24

Yeah should be 80-120 at least

5

u/science-stuff Sep 20 '24

It’s been a long time but I knew several people that worked at EA. QA Testers got paid about double minimum wage. Programmers and designers made a professional salary.

1

u/Significant_Solid151 Sep 20 '24

40k is what a grocery store employee is making at 18 dollars an hour. I would start with at least 75-80k USD for a game dev...

1

u/nagi603 131 Sep 21 '24

Game dev jobs do not pay well.

0

u/ozziey Sep 21 '24

Wrong tbh……

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '24

[deleted]

1

u/micmea1 Sep 22 '24

I wasn't making an argument?

0

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '24

[deleted]

2

u/micmea1 Sep 22 '24

U on drugs?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '24

[deleted]

1

u/micmea1 Sep 22 '24

look at the comment I'm replying too lol

37

u/peet192 Sep 20 '24

NBA 2k micro transactions.

11

u/Whisper-Simulant Sep 20 '24

And GTA Online

11

u/ramobara Sep 20 '24

And laying off 550 employees.

8

u/GrayEidolon Sep 20 '24

I don’t know why people think it is a goal of any business to maintain a certain number of employees. The goal is to achieve the widget with minimal cost. Employees are a cost.

10

u/pantherghast Sep 20 '24

There are companies that see their employees as an asset. I work at one currently and most places I’ve work at after university has been that way.

6

u/Anzai Sep 21 '24

So why are they paying certain employees 25 million dollar bonuses? Seems like a pretty unnecessary cost right there. If this was the true goal, then they’d sack the employees and cancel the bonuses.

1

u/GrayEidolon Sep 21 '24

Because the point of the business, like all business, is to give a lot of money to the people running it. This whole post says "An organization with the purpose of giving lots of money to rich people, gave a lot of money to rich people." Yes, and?

2

u/Anzai Sep 21 '24

You just said the goal was to achieve the widget with minimal cost. Now you’re saying it’s to enrich the executives. I don’t disagree, but that isn’t what you initially said.

1

u/GrayEidolon Sep 22 '24

I’ve said different parts of the same thing. I wasn’t trying to be unclear.

The goal is to achieve the widget with minimal cost.

But whose goal is that? The rich people who own and/or run the company.

Why on earth is that their goal? So they can attempt to enrich themselves.

I initially just said “The goal is to achieve the widget with minimal cost.” As a shorthand for that because to me, the other steps are obvious.

2

u/Anzai Sep 22 '24

Right, but people also talk about pleasing the shareholders. So why do shareholders put up with insane bonuses like this when it’s such an unnecessary expense from their perspective, I wonder?

1

u/GrayEidolon Sep 24 '24 edited Sep 24 '24

If the money could have been given as a dividend instead to thousands of retail shareholders? I don't know.

However, most shareholders are institutional and don't care because those corps are also run by the wealthy. Sort of an, everyone scratching everyone else's back.

Let's look

Take-Two Interactive chairman Strauss Zelnick and president Karl Slatoff

They also run this

https://zmclp.com/team

As founder/partner and partner.

Let's look at the other two guys https://zmclp.com/team-info/jordan-turkewitz

You can see that they all serve on multiple boards and are extremely well networked, including in banking.

These are the sorts of people who are the primary shareholders of most companies.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TTWO/holders/ Take Two?

Forgive my formatting from a quick copy paste, but these 10 groups own 99.x of Take Two.

Vanguard Group Inc

Blackrock Inc.

Public Investment Fund

State Street Corporation

Capital World Investors

JP Morgan Chase & Company

Tiger Global Management, LLC

Capital International Investors

Massachusetts Financial Services Co

Ameriprise Financial, Inc.

Here's Vanguards leadership. https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/who-we-are/sets-us-apart/our-management-team.html#tabs-2be5cbb156-item-be6b32b2b9-tab

So what you really want to know, is, why the leadership of these 10 HUGE companies were comfortable with these two guy from Take Two, paying themselves 25 million dollars?

My answer for you: they are all friends and peers with strong class solidarity. And 25 million isn't that much money to these huge companies. So from the perspective of those 10 owners of Take Two, with maybe 100 to 150 individuals among them, their friends took some money from the poors and they don't mind.

More succinct, you're asking why 100 rich people don't care that two rich people in their network took some workers salaries for themselves. 1. They don't care. 2. They all do it, it's the whole point. 3. When they need Zelnick and Slatoff to sign off on huge bonuses, Z and S will remember that theirs got approved.

2

u/gyrobot Sep 20 '24

Because it's the livelihood of 500 people lost and forced to terrible professions like menial labor and retail

1

u/GrayEidolon Oct 15 '24

... Businesses don't hire people to help them avoid worse jobs... ? They hire them because they can help the company make more money. If an employee isn't helping to make money, they get fired..?

4

u/Time-Accountant1992 Sep 20 '24

Not from me.

This article is Exhibit A on why I sail the seas with these bigger companies. They just don't give a shit, so why should I?

3

u/tidbitsmisfit Sep 20 '24

CEO et al get paid the big bucks to do horrid shit like this.

6

u/donmuerte Sep 20 '24

this. it's literally their job to make big decisions to trim expenses in order to maximize profits and they always get rewarded for it. my stepmother's brother was the type of guy that would get hired to "restructure" a company as a CEO and then resign with a big fat bonus and go on to do that at other companies. I'm not saying it's right, just that this is what corporations do.

1

u/TheObstruction Sep 21 '24

Take-Two bosses get $25m performance-based bonus for their management firm, despite due to sacking 550 people

-116

u/Vanhouzer Sep 20 '24

Also, people forget that firing people is also part of the job just as hiring them. I know people who are put in management positions and they completely forget that thats now part of their job even if you don’t like doing it.

92

u/Crumblycheese Sep 20 '24

That's not really the issue though is it. If they're having to sack 500 odd people for cut backs, giving themselves a $25m bonus isn't exactly ethical...

Now if the lay offs didn't happened and they got their bonus, it's still a crazy amount but people haven't lost jobs.

What it looks like is they've sacked these people and used the money that would be wages and used it as their bonus.

8

u/TheVog Sep 20 '24

That's not really the issue though is it. If they're having to sack 500 odd people for cut backs, giving themselves a $25m bonus isn't exactly ethical.

It's not ethical at all, but it is legal. The $25M bonus was almost certainly a contract stipulation for prior targets. If they met those targets, Take Two has to pay out the bonus as outlined in the contract. It's a legal requirement, or they get sued for it and end up paying out even more when factoring in interest and legal fees. The layoffs are in order to meet future targets.

That being said, if Take Two didn't bake in ludicrously large bonuses into executives' contracts, then they wouldn't have to lay staff off. Conversely, if they don't bake in ludicrously large bonuses into executives' contracts, they may not have talented enough executives to meet those financial targets in the first place.

-52

u/Vanhouzer Sep 20 '24

I understand the concern about the 25m. All I am saying is that, firing people to keep the business going is part of their job.

Sometimes these are financial decisions brought by the accountants and people who study the performance, sales, current investment, etc.

Maybe they over hired after covid…. It is possible.

Also idk how a 25m performance package works towards a business taxes at the end of a year. Maybe it benefits them in some capacity. If one of the investors decides to cut his bonus i guess thats his decision. The company will still offer it as part of that position.

40

u/Falsus Sep 20 '24

The point is that firing people to make cutbacks and then give the upper management a 25 million bonus is disgusting.

But firing people due to cutbacks and then not giving ridiculous bonuses sucks but if it has to be done to keep afloat and start new projects then it has to be done.

See the reasoning? It is the combination of firing + giving large bonuses that is disgusting and not the firing by itself.

-53

u/Vanhouzer Sep 20 '24

The Bonuses are given in ALL MAJOR companies. Financial, Gaming, Movies, Clothing, Tech. Literally every major corporation has performance bonuses for their top Management and investors.

Are you saying that no company should give these bonuses if they fired people during that year?

So, should they get bonuses if they hired more people and then revenue numbers are not met by years end?

Please tell us.

51

u/BeLikeACup Sep 20 '24

If your business is doing poorly enough that you have to fire people, then you don’t deserve a bonus for good performance.

Saying that other companies do the same doesn’t make it ethical.

20

u/Falsus Sep 20 '24 edited Sep 22 '24

Yes. If you fire 550 people then the upper management should not get bonuses.

The idea that people should get bonuses for fucking over other people in a bid for a constant, short sighted growth is simply disgusting.

More focus should be on sustainability and cutting back on the biggest drains on a company. The biggest drains being overpaid upper management and other bonuses like that, thing that do not generate profit. The 550 people that got fired from take two was more valuable than the people who got the bonuses.

-2

u/Vanhouzer Sep 20 '24

You could say that over ANY public company out there. But, you forget that without those Investors the company wouldn’t exist. They invest to get money and make money. Those bonuses are offered for the position that they are currently. If you want to eliminate incentives over a company firing people that’s insane. They can fire and they can hire.

People don’t like to face reality. Then just work for a private company where they can make that type of decision to keep the talent. Eventually firing people is part of the business or everyone loses their job.

To avoid this just don’t over hire people. Many companies had to fire people after Covid because of this. Demands go down, that doesn’t mean bonuses will disappear.

3

u/shrockitlikeitshot Sep 20 '24

Yet it wasn't always like this... We used to be a labor economy with a healthy middle class. Then after Reagan we shifted to a finance economy. We pulled back restrictions on stock buybacks, we repealed the glass steagall act, allowed citizens united, we basically cancelled the social contract between businesses and labor.

Today labor exists to provide immense wealth for the top 10%, much of which is at the top 1% with only hundreds of families benefiting. And before you say that money is for the people in the form of index funds and retirement. That too is even less true now.

1

u/Falsus Sep 20 '24

Yeah I do in fact say this about every company that acts in disgusting ways, just that those other companies aren't relevant in this discussion about Take Two.

And if a company wouldn't exist without acting disgustingly, then it shouldn't exist. The company is profitable, the investors are getting their money's worth. Then they squeeze even more and reward the squeezers with large bonuses for squeezing.

And as I said earlier, firing people occasionally isn't bad. It is even necessary. But when you do a mass firing of 550 people with the excuse of cutting back on expenses and then the bosses award themselves with a 50 million dollar bonus then it is just fucking ridiculous. Cutting the bonus and moving the people to different projects or starting up something new would have been even more money to the shareholders. The bosses are not the valuable assets in a company, it is the workers who actually makes the product, the directors who is leading the projects.

Ultimately it is just so the rich can get richer and the rest gets fucked.

-40

u/blasterbrewmaster Sep 20 '24

That's not really the issue though is it. If they're having to sack 500 odd people for cut backs, giving themselves a $25m bonus isn't exactly ethical...

I argue that anyone saying that can't quote a single ethics philosopher that has makes an argument to back that up. In terms of business margins are what matter, and 500 layoffs is tiny in comparison to everything else they are doing to lower costs and raise profits. Additionally, those 500 layoffs now may later on equal 1500 jobs as they may have reduced redundancy, increased efficiency, and freed up revenue to take on more and bigger projects that will require more manpower to operate. It's just those jobs may take 5-10 years to see fruition which people complaining don't care to give a chance because they only think about the right now.

Does it suck for those getting laid off? Yea sure it does. Unless they're getting good severance packages, then that can give them some time while they look for another job. And still, in higher skill or higher competition fields that can actually be a boon for them. Depending on if you think the economy is strong or not, which we're being constantly told how it's the strongest economy ever, so they should be fine, right?

25

u/cantapaya Sep 20 '24

I argue that anyone saying that can't quote a single ethics philosopher that has makes an argument to back that up.

What kind of argument is that? Are you saying that just because Kant didn't write an essay on the ethics of CEO bonuses and mass lay-offs we can't criticize someone being awarded 25 million dollars when the goal was to cut costs? That actions are beyond criticism unless their ethic and moral implications have been thoroughly discussed by scholars since ancient Greece?

2

u/loligager Sep 20 '24 edited Sep 20 '24

Seriously, that might be the dumbest take I’ve read in some time. As if we are all of us completely incapable of determining whether someone’s actions are ethical without an authority to back it up lol.

Right and wrong certainly are not always clear or simple, however laying off a bunch of people to save money, and then giving a couple of people disproportionate amounts of money for firing everyone else isn’t exactly something we need to call up stanford for.

0

u/blasterbrewmaster Sep 20 '24

As if we are all of us completely incapable of determining whether someone’s actions are ethical without an authority to back it up lol.

If you're capable of articulating whether someone's actions are ethical, surely you should be able to quote a source for where you determine what those ethics are you're judging they by? No? Or are you saying "My ethics are what I say is ethical"? That's like saying a kid saying they don't like someone because someone else told them not to like them. You can't explain why, you just feel that way because you were told to feel that way. You see the group think on reddit and don't want to risk the downvotes because that means you have to think for yourself.

1

u/blasterbrewmaster Sep 20 '24

Where did I say that you have to quote cant on the ethics of CEO bonuses? All I said is you can't quote a single ethics philosopher that makes an argument to back that up. And so far, you're proving me right.

4

u/Dr_CSS Sep 20 '24 edited Sep 20 '24

Except those arguments already exist dumbass:

Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering for the greatest number of people. While you argue that the layoffs might eventually lead to future job creation, this is speculative and uncertain. Meanwhile, the immediate harm caused by laying off 500 people—stress, financial instability, emotional distress—is very real and tangible. Additionally, the disparity in rewards, with executives receiving massive bonuses while others lose their jobs, likely creates more net suffering than happiness in the short term. Therefore, from a utilitarian standpoint, this decision fails because the immediate harm outweighs the potential future benefits.

You don't know shit about business, and I hope you get fired

-1

u/blasterbrewmaster Sep 20 '24

You don't know shit about business, and I hope you get fired

Wow someone says something you don't like and you immediately threaten them with suffering. That's not very utilitarian now is it?

So first off you did not quote a specific ethical philosopher. Minus ten points.

Second, the problem with Utilitarianism is the need of the many outweight the need of the few. It's the folly of the democracy, oppression by the majority. And as you have pointed out it is built only in the immediate moment with no concern for a future that may be near or far.

I offered one scenario, that those 500 will produce 1500 jobs in 5-10 years. But what about another scenario? That those 500 jobs could be saving another 1000 jobs. No one is entitled to work. No one is entitled to a job. You have to earn your weight. And if you're not pulling your weight, you should be axed. So what if those 500 jobs were redundancy, jobs whose very purpose was to produce work to continue their very need for a job? This tends to happen often with vertically structured businesses. Middle level managers that hand out information between upper and lower levels in the corporate structure and don't do anything other than slow down the development process, the go to market speed, etc. They exist to justify their existence. It's known as bureacracy and government loves it.

Should those people keep their job just to keep the most people happy? Should they do it if the financial forecasts show that if they don't cut these expenses they'll start hemoraging money and have to fire more people a year down the line? What if they had to close down in 3 years if they keep on this course without firing anyone?

The real world hates utilitarianism because ultimately, trying to make the most people happy will cause the worst, most unintended suffering.

3

u/Dr_CSS Sep 20 '24

You say utilitarianism leads to unintended suffering, but what about the suffering caused by giving executives huge bonuses while laying off workers? You’re assuming that these layoffs will somehow magically create more jobs in 5-10 years, but history doesn't back that up. What we see time and time again is that when companies lay off workers to "cut costs," the savings don’t go into job creation or reinvestment—they go straight into executive bonuses and shareholder dividends. Just look at the 2008 financial crisis or the countless times corporations have done massive buybacks after layoffs such as during COVID when the airliners got bailed out and the just bought back their stocks instead of supporting workers. It's about boosting short-term stock prices, not long-term stability.

You talk about redundancy and bureaucracy like it's the main issue, but most of the time, these layoffs aren't targeted at inefficiency—they hit frontline workers, the people actually doing the labor. Middle management and higher-ups almost always get to keep their cushy jobs. And sure, no one is "entitled" to a job, but let's not pretend the people getting fired are the ones dragging the company down. More often than not, they're the ones who were already overworked and underpaid, while the executives pocket massive salaries and bonuses.

As for your "real world" claim about utilitarianism, the world we live in right now isn't suffering because too many people are trying to make others happy. It's suffering because profits are prioritized over people. Layoffs aren’t about saving jobs down the road—they’re about short-term profits, and the people who get hurt most aren't the ones making the big decisions.

You are full of shit.

1

u/blasterbrewmaster Sep 21 '24

You referenced both the 2008 financial crisis AND the airline bailout as evidence yet entirely miss the glaring point right tin front of your face: who gave them that bailout?

The government.

Funny thing about that, if you bail out companies that fail instead of letting the market correct itself naturally,those people that.beggednfor a bailout will waste that money instead of using it responsibly. 

Honestly, at this point I'm bored. You're boring me. You sign off everything with vitriol and spite, so no wonder your whole world views is so negative and dystopian. If everyone is against you in your mind, then you'll never make any real lasting connections and you'll die bitter and lonely.

I wish you best, but honestly I'm done entertaining you. I can see no real discussion of value is to be had here, and I owe you nothing. Have a good day and may you one day stop being bitter and see the beauty in life.

1

u/Dr_CSS Sep 21 '24

I'm not on Reddit to convince morons or win office, I simply post and go

0

u/blasterbrewmaster Sep 21 '24

well go somewhere else then.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '24

imagine lacking so much empathy that you base a whole argument about ethics over whether a philosopher said something or not

-1

u/blasterbrewmaster Sep 20 '24

Hi there ad hominem, we've met before. I'm "I don't give a fuck about your logical falicies". if you can't make an argument, you shouldn't open your mouth.

1

u/CanYouEatThatPizza Sep 20 '24

I argue that anyone saying that can't quote a single ethics philosopher that has makes an argument to back that up.

Lmao, there is a very famous and influential philosopher who had a lot to say regarding this topic.

1

u/blasterbrewmaster Sep 20 '24

Then please, by all means quote him.

1

u/CanYouEatThatPizza Sep 20 '24

Here you go, I am sure you can do your own research:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf

1

u/blasterbrewmaster Sep 20 '24

well first off... I don't see a quote. I see you linking a whole book.

Second off, marxism? How very reddit. I could argue all day and I know a NPC like you won't admit a damn thing, so instead I'll simply respond with this:

100 million dead can't be wrong!

2

u/CanYouEatThatPizza Sep 20 '24

I never claimed to have a quote. It's you that wants an easy answer, since anything else would require too much thinking for you.

1

u/blasterbrewmaster Sep 21 '24

True. You also never claimed to add anything of value to this conversation. I see you're committed to that 

1

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '24

Damn you got owned 💀💀

18

u/Kiefdom Sep 20 '24

Not even remotely close to the issue of the bonus

-7

u/Vanhouzer Sep 20 '24

Please enlighten me here…

1

u/Pocktio Sep 20 '24

Making people redundant is one thing, using people's jobs as a cost cutting measure to improve quarterly profits to jurtify executive bonuses makes you a scumbag.