Riot Games laying off 11%(riotgames.com)
riotgames.com
Riot Games laying off 11%
https://www.riotgames.com/en/news/2024-rioter-update
156 comments
See this comment in every layoff thread. There is actually no reason why being accountable for something means you necessarily face imposed consequences for something. That does not follow. They are not synonyms.
[deleted]
It's narcissistic BS corporate speak that ridicules the victims. We shouldn't stop pointing that out just because it's common.
Sorry, someone who gets laid off is not a victim. It's a known part of the deal of having a job. You might decide to quit and leave the employer. The employer might decide they don't need you anymore and lay you off. You both have that option. You know this going in and you both are supposed to make arrangements to be able to deal with this possibility.
Sophistry aside, it’s still profoundly disruptive for many people. Whether or not they know there’s a risk, it means people are scrambling to reestablish their finances and routines, and in many cases that can have long-lasting impacts – people have to move, Americans have disruptions to their healthcare access & providers, and older people might never regain their old salary.
That doesn’t make it illegal, or even a bad business move, but it very much has victims. They’re the ones being sacrificed for the good of the company.
That doesn’t make it illegal, or even a bad business move, but it very much has victims. They’re the ones being sacrificed for the good of the company.
I agree, but layoffs are not necessarily sacrifices. layoffs really are necessary sometimes.
Definitely sometimes, but my point was simply that whoever is being let loose is taking the downside. It might help their friends who are still employed but they’re feeling the most immediate downsides and likely will not benefit if it does save the business.
What about the millions of customers. Prices all go up then. Sort of goes against the bussiness priorities, most produce for lowest cost.
That doesn’t matter to them anywhere near as much as losing a job does to the people who were laid off, and it’s certainly not the case that prices won’t go up anyway.
Im not talking about the consequences of the layoffs for those who are fired. We agree on that front entirely.
But i'm pointing out that if all the agents in a market acted against the interest of the relationship between the bussiness and the customers, we would have much bigger issues than just layoffs. Everything would be unnecessarily expensive all the time, insufficient volumes and supply. Development would be slower. The companies trying to minimize costs and maximize trade between them and the customers is not just caused by greed, or resulting in suffering, these are the basic drives behind the survival of modern life as we know it.
But i'm pointing out that if all the agents in a market acted against the interest of the relationship between the bussiness and the customers, we would have much bigger issues than just layoffs. Everything would be unnecessarily expensive all the time, insufficient volumes and supply. Development would be slower. The companies trying to minimize costs and maximize trade between them and the customers is not just caused by greed, or resulting in suffering, these are the basic drives behind the survival of modern life as we know it.
Exactly. My wife is a highly paid doctor, but she can only work at a children’s hospital. If she were laid off we’d be fine financially, but we’d still have to relocate the entire family hundreds of miles away.
Riot is offering a minumum of six months of severance. I agree, layoffs are disruptive, but this view that somehow if you get hired the company can't ever decide to let you go is totally bizarre to me. Plus, what you would be essentially arguing is that it would have been better to never have hired these people in the first place, which I strongly disagree with in the vast majority of cases.
People need to stop acting like layoffs are the worst, evilest thing that can happen. It's important that people are treated with dignity and a financial cushion, and at least according to this blog post that seems to be the case.
People need to stop acting like layoffs are the worst, evilest thing that can happen. It's important that people are treated with dignity and a financial cushion, and at least according to this blog post that seems to be the case.
Maybe those people would have been otherwise hired by employers who prudently didn’t overhire and need to cut afterwards.
I think that's a fair point when you hear stories about people who are hired and then laid off within a couple months (or sooner). Nobody can predict the far future with accuracy, but those kinds of stories usually just point to corporate incompetence and the company usually could have planned better.
But when it comes to cases where economic and business conditions have drastically changed, I don't think it's reasonable that we expect business leaders to have crystal balls for years in the future.
But when it comes to cases where economic and business conditions have drastically changed, I don't think it's reasonable that we expect business leaders to have crystal balls for years in the future.
> Plus, what you would be essentially arguing is that it would have been better to never have hired these people in the first place
If you reread my comment, that’s not there and I acknowledged that it’s sometimes necessary (many of the current layoffs are not but I also remember 2000 when a lot of places which had been unable to fill customer demand were abruptly without business). My point was simply rejecting the idea that people are somehow not harmed by this - it’s usually legal, something people should expect, etc. but it still has a big impact. I respect business leaders who are cognizant of that and treat people with dignity - for example, Riot doesn’t appear to be claiming this is performance based like a certain company recently in the news.
If you reread my comment, that’s not there and I acknowledged that it’s sometimes necessary (many of the current layoffs are not but I also remember 2000 when a lot of places which had been unable to fill customer demand were abruptly without business). My point was simply rejecting the idea that people are somehow not harmed by this - it’s usually legal, something people should expect, etc. but it still has a big impact. I respect business leaders who are cognizant of that and treat people with dignity - for example, Riot doesn’t appear to be claiming this is performance based like a certain company recently in the news.
[deleted]
> Riot is offering a minumum of six months of severance. [...] It's important that people are treated with dignity and a financial cushion, and at least according to this blog post that seems to be the case.
It wouldn't surprise me if part of this is because of how much harder it (anecdotally) seems to be for game developers/designers to find new jobs relative to their non-gaming peers. I'm having a hard time finding data to distinguish the two (game devs v. devs, game designers v. e.g UX designers), but going at least from my own network, those in gaming were more profoundly affected.
If that's true on any broader scale, then putting people out with two months pay in an industry that could take four to eight months to find new work could be a bad look for the RIFing company.
It wouldn't surprise me if part of this is because of how much harder it (anecdotally) seems to be for game developers/designers to find new jobs relative to their non-gaming peers. I'm having a hard time finding data to distinguish the two (game devs v. devs, game designers v. e.g UX designers), but going at least from my own network, those in gaming were more profoundly affected.
If that's true on any broader scale, then putting people out with two months pay in an industry that could take four to eight months to find new work could be a bad look for the RIFing company.
You say that, but there are always cases of people getting laid off despite having positive performance reports, were hired shortly prior to RIF, were given assurances there would not be layoffs, etc. People don't continuously act like their jobs are precarious, even if the American system with its employer-tied insurance and other mediocre safety nets, should incentivize us to.
> there are always cases of people getting laid off despite having positive performance reports, were hired shortly prior to RIF, were given assurances there would not be layoffs, etc.
Right. And since we know this, isn't it basic common sense to ask yourself "what would I do if I lost my job tomorrow?" and have some savings and a plan? Especially if you're a relatively well-paid tech employee? It doesn't matter if you consider your job precarious or not, it's simply irresponsible to not be prepared for the possibility.
Right. And since we know this, isn't it basic common sense to ask yourself "what would I do if I lost my job tomorrow?" and have some savings and a plan? Especially if you're a relatively well-paid tech employee? It doesn't matter if you consider your job precarious or not, it's simply irresponsible to not be prepared for the possibility.
More than a fifth of Americans have no savings. At a certain point of spread, irresponsibility stops being a matter of personal character and becomes a systemic problem that concerns the public interest.
https://www.newsweek.com/americans-have-burned-through-their...
https://www.newsweek.com/americans-have-burned-through-their...
And there's a systemic solution, called unemployment insurance, that every company is required to pay into, and they pay more when they lay people off. What else would you have us do?
These are grown professional adults we're talking about, not helpless wards of the state. It's not unreasonable to expect people to be able to take care of themselves.
These are grown professional adults we're talking about, not helpless wards of the state. It's not unreasonable to expect people to be able to take care of themselves.
Decouple health insurance from employment, for starters.
I don't necessarily disagree, but we're getting into the weeds here. My point is just that choosing to voluntarily end a business arrangement, within the the terms of the agreement, does not constitute "victimizing" someone. Otherwise, the employer could claim they're a victim when an employee quits. A store could claim they're a victim if a customer starts shopping at a different store, and so on. It's ridiculous.
The tendency to cry victimhood at every obstacle is pernicious and debilitating to those who practice it. I would encourage people to avoid it.
The tendency to cry victimhood at every obstacle is pernicious and debilitating to those who practice it. I would encourage people to avoid it.
The way I see it, mass layoffs are one of those situations where it feels unjust. A company might have acted incompetently, even recklessly, leading to people’s lives get disrupted. Are the executives culpable or were they victims of economic fortunes? Who knows? Either way, their positions often don’t change afterwards, and the companies stock price will usually rise as expenses fall with their workforce.
So you have one set of people suffering, and others connected to the suffering being unaffected. Whether that connection is causation is up to interpretation. Either way the ethical calculus certainly feels imbalanced. You can use all the logic you want, but it’s hard to address the feeling of something amiss. It might not be arson, but it still feels like a controlled burn that went out of control.
So you have one set of people suffering, and others connected to the suffering being unaffected. Whether that connection is causation is up to interpretation. Either way the ethical calculus certainly feels imbalanced. You can use all the logic you want, but it’s hard to address the feeling of something amiss. It might not be arson, but it still feels like a controlled burn that went out of control.
Sure things can feel all sorts of ways, but an initial gut reaction is not often the best one. People can choose to see themselves as a victim or they can choose to see themselves as having agency. Deciding that feelings are immutable things that can't be touched by reason is a choice too.
A layoff can prompt suffering or it can just be a blip between jobs depending on how you prepared someone is for it. A person who chooses to exercise agency is more likely to take steps to prepare because they don't feel they're helplessly at mercy of forces they can't control. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A layoff can prompt suffering or it can just be a blip between jobs depending on how you prepared someone is for it. A person who chooses to exercise agency is more likely to take steps to prepare because they don't feel they're helplessly at mercy of forces they can't control. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sure and it’s probably a bad idea to walk alone in bad areas of town at night. That doesn’t mean that if you get shot while doing so that you aren’t a victim.
The company is not mugging anyone. They are exercising their right to end a voluntary association. This is a perfectly valid choice that either party of the employment relationship may make. If you usually shop at grocery store A and you decide you don't want to any more and shop at grocery store B instead, you're not "victimizing" grocery store A.
No one said that a company is mugging anyone. The point of the analogy is that failure to prepare doesn’t preclude being a victim.
Most societies recognize that the employer to employee relationship is unbalanced in favor of the employer in a way that consumer to grocery store isn’t.
Unemployment insurance, and severance requirements wouldn’t be necessary if the relationship were really the equally balanced market transaction you think that it is.
Even the executives who do the laying off recognize the harm they are causing. I’ve been on calls with CEOs who were crying because they recognized (or wanted to appear that they recognized) the harm they were causing even if they thought it was justified.
Victim is a perfectly reasonable word to describe the people on the receiving end of that harm.
Most societies recognize that the employer to employee relationship is unbalanced in favor of the employer in a way that consumer to grocery store isn’t.
Unemployment insurance, and severance requirements wouldn’t be necessary if the relationship were really the equally balanced market transaction you think that it is.
Even the executives who do the laying off recognize the harm they are causing. I’ve been on calls with CEOs who were crying because they recognized (or wanted to appear that they recognized) the harm they were causing even if they thought it was justified.
Victim is a perfectly reasonable word to describe the people on the receiving end of that harm.
> Sorry, someone who gets laid off is not a victim. It's a known part of the deal of having a job.
Death is a known part of the deal of living, and car accidents are known risks of driving a car. That doesn’t mean someone who dies in a car accident isn’t a victim.
For many people there isn’t a realistic option other than employment.
Death is a known part of the deal of living, and car accidents are known risks of driving a car. That doesn’t mean someone who dies in a car accident isn’t a victim.
For many people there isn’t a realistic option other than employment.
This attitude of shrug and say “that’s how it works” seems common with older accounts.
You know going into this the next generation can come along and change the rules. Maybe the past should have thought about that before having kids shrug
Physics doesn’t put an obligation on us to serve the elders catechisms and chants. It does empower us to overwhelm through strength and raw numbers.
Throwing up their hands is not a good political position of the generations who need to trust the next generations won’t just drug them up and stick them in poorly run state care.
You know going into this the next generation can come along and change the rules. Maybe the past should have thought about that before having kids shrug
Physics doesn’t put an obligation on us to serve the elders catechisms and chants. It does empower us to overwhelm through strength and raw numbers.
Throwing up their hands is not a good political position of the generations who need to trust the next generations won’t just drug them up and stick them in poorly run state care.
[deleted]
Unemployment played a large impact in my parents divorce. Which pretty much haunted me until 25.
Unemployment is also the largest contributer to male suicide in the entire world.
So while they are not victims of a crime or mistreatment, they are certainly victims of circumstance.
Unemployment is also the largest contributer to male suicide in the entire world.
So while they are not victims of a crime or mistreatment, they are certainly victims of circumstance.
This is all true, but acknowledging the harms caused to lives by layoffs is unpopular with the bootlicking type that's so prominent on HN.
People are right to want to see real, impactful consequences for leaders who "take full responsibility" because if they in fact are taking it, they're taking responsibility the bad choices and mismanagement that lead to the layoffs and the consequences of said layoffs.
People are tired of leadership huffing their own farts, posting a teary eyed message, and continuing their lives like nothing ever happened.
If I fucked up and had an adverse effect on hundreds, possibly thousands of lives tomorrow I'd be fired on the spot, rightfully so too.
> Unemployment is also the largest contributer to male suicide in the entire world.
Imagine how many people have already tried, or succeeded as a direct result of layoffs in the last year as a direct consequence of mass layoffs. It's sickening to think about.
People are right to want to see real, impactful consequences for leaders who "take full responsibility" because if they in fact are taking it, they're taking responsibility the bad choices and mismanagement that lead to the layoffs and the consequences of said layoffs.
People are tired of leadership huffing their own farts, posting a teary eyed message, and continuing their lives like nothing ever happened.
If I fucked up and had an adverse effect on hundreds, possibly thousands of lives tomorrow I'd be fired on the spot, rightfully so too.
> Unemployment is also the largest contributer to male suicide in the entire world.
Imagine how many people have already tried, or succeeded as a direct result of layoffs in the last year as a direct consequence of mass layoffs. It's sickening to think about.
I think the fed has a lot to do with the layoffs.
Anyone could have reasonably foreseen interest rate increases from historic lows, but of course company leaders got greedy and now those under them have to suffer for it.
"Accountable" doesn't mean you have to be punished.
So what is it in practice? If nothing happens, in any way, what's the point of saying it? If it means nothing, then sure, I'm accountable too, why not?
> (of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible
This is from the OED. There’s no mention of consequences. You are expected to account for your actions. Like an accountant is expected to keep an accounting of transactions.
I’m an on-call engineer, I’m accountable for outages. That means that I give a root-cause analysis when they happen. I’m not given disciplinary action when outages happen, because there are many factors that cause an outage and that’s too much for one person to bear.
> what's the point of saying it?
This is basic corporate comms. If you’re silent, people may assume something worse than the truth. So you give some explanation (some kind of account is given by the person held accountable).
This is from the OED. There’s no mention of consequences. You are expected to account for your actions. Like an accountant is expected to keep an accounting of transactions.
I’m an on-call engineer, I’m accountable for outages. That means that I give a root-cause analysis when they happen. I’m not given disciplinary action when outages happen, because there are many factors that cause an outage and that’s too much for one person to bear.
> what's the point of saying it?
This is basic corporate comms. If you’re silent, people may assume something worse than the truth. So you give some explanation (some kind of account is given by the person held accountable).
> You are expected to account for your actions. Like an accountant is expected to keep an accounting of transactions.
If an accountant lies in his numbers, they go to prison.
Why are you missing the most obvious explanation, it’s simply a political point they have to be seen saying, but have no intention of doing
- I.e. it’s a lie
If an accountant lies in his numbers, they go to prison.
Why are you missing the most obvious explanation, it’s simply a political point they have to be seen saying, but have no intention of doing
- I.e. it’s a lie
There are lots of scenarios where a CEO can go to prison.
I don’t think we get a lot of mileage when we argue about the right words used in corporate comms. Like, “this person is accountable to some extent, but not enough for my standards, so the word ‘accountable’ should not be used here.”
I don’t think we get a lot of mileage when we argue about the right words used in corporate comms. Like, “this person is accountable to some extent, but not enough for my standards, so the word ‘accountable’ should not be used here.”
what makes it even worse is just the usage of the word accountable is technically correct but awkward as shit because no one actually uses that word in that manner, they use it in the manner you suggested.
I doubt that. More likely people are just motivated to interpret it negatively because it supports their point if they do.
most people would say on-call or responsible-for, both having vastly different connotations than accountable.
saying accountable isn't wrong per se but it's definitely not the connotations anyone would say on the spot when on-call or responsible-for are vastly more accurate.
in particular, on-call brings with it all the baggage that being on-call requires. responsible-for implies you have a responsibility, it does not imply a negative consequence if you fail to meet that responsibility (it doesn't preclude it, but it doesn't imply it either).
accountable implies being held accountable which implies a negative consequence.
saying you're held accountable for a system very strongly implies there will be a negative consequence for failure whereas responsible-for does not.
it's what's technically allowed vs what people actually say.
saying accountable isn't wrong per se but it's definitely not the connotations anyone would say on the spot when on-call or responsible-for are vastly more accurate.
in particular, on-call brings with it all the baggage that being on-call requires. responsible-for implies you have a responsibility, it does not imply a negative consequence if you fail to meet that responsibility (it doesn't preclude it, but it doesn't imply it either).
accountable implies being held accountable which implies a negative consequence.
saying you're held accountable for a system very strongly implies there will be a negative consequence for failure whereas responsible-for does not.
it's what's technically allowed vs what people actually say.
It means he’s responsible for making tough choices like initiating a layoff. Obviously all CEOs would prefer their headcount growth initiatives had generated significant revenues to justified continued employment of those heads. But that doesn’t always happen and resets are sometimes in order.
It doesn't mean nothing. It just doesn't mean being punished. You can look it up if you are interested.
Accountable... to the board, who are loving the efficiencies.
Who's upset with this CEO's actions besides the families affected by it, who have no power individually over anything to hold him accountable? They're his capital resources. Executives aren't accountable to that.
Who's upset with this CEO's actions besides the families affected by it, who have no power individually over anything to hold him accountable? They're his capital resources. Executives aren't accountable to that.
But what about being held accountable for all the “significant investments” that didn’t pan out into the expected revenue? The board may be happy that the layoff cuts cost, but is the board happy with a CEO that has made multiple bad bets?
Riot Games actually changed CEOs in 2023.
https://www.riotgames.com/en/news/announcing-dylan-jadeja-ri...
https://www.riotgames.com/en/news/announcing-dylan-jadeja-ri...
> is the board happy with a CEO that has made multiple bad bets?
Which bad bets?
Which bad bets?
Whichever are the ones mentioned in the article:
“Since 2019, we’ve made a number of big bets across the company … Some of the significant investments we’ve made aren’t paying off the way we expected them to.
“Since 2019, we’ve made a number of big bets across the company … Some of the significant investments we’ve made aren’t paying off the way we expected them to.
Tech companies are supposed to take bets. Not all of them will pay off, that’s what makes them bets. So yes, most tech investors are happy to see their companies have failed bets.
> I see no indication as to how Dylan will actually be held accountable for the decisions that ultimately led to this.
I believe you're reading the sentence differently than how it's being conveyed.
Dylan is talking about the decision to layoff will improve the company for the future. If it does not then the board should "hold him accountable" and remove him.
You're hoping that Dylan gets punished for being forced to layoff employees.
I believe you're reading the sentence differently than how it's being conveyed.
Dylan is talking about the decision to layoff will improve the company for the future. If it does not then the board should "hold him accountable" and remove him.
You're hoping that Dylan gets punished for being forced to layoff employees.
OP stated specifically (which you quote) “the decisions that ultimately led to this”.
So…
> You're hoping that Dylan gets punished for being forced to layoff employees.
Seems to intentionally misconstrue what OP said.
So…
> You're hoping that Dylan gets punished for being forced to layoff employees.
Seems to intentionally misconstrue what OP said.
I'll need you to point out where I'm misconstruing OP because it still reads, to me, that I interpreted OP's desires.
That he wants "accountability for why there are layoffs".
That he wants "accountability for why there are layoffs".
[deleted]
Decent? It's a very generous one.
It's generous, yes, but it's also decent (though I don't think that's what GP meant). The computer/laptop thing is a nice touch, and the email thing seems genuinely thoughtful.
A more literal interpretation of accountability would mean that they can tell the story, the accounting, of how things happened.
Now if they are responsible, maybe they should be liable for consequences
Now if they are responsible, maybe they should be liable for consequences
> A more literal interpretation of accountability would mean that they can tell the story, the accounting, of how things happened.
That's not a common interpretation in this context, especially the part about responsibility v. accountability. If it helps to understand it in a business process context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matr...
Often, the entity accountable for an outcome owns the consequences regardless of who's responsible for implementing it. It doesn't help that accountability and responsibility are often synonyms in all other contexts. It's why the department executive gets fired if 30 million dollars was spent and the program doesn't get the job done, at least if they manage not to skirt accountability for it.
That's not a common interpretation in this context, especially the part about responsibility v. accountability. If it helps to understand it in a business process context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matr...
Often, the entity accountable for an outcome owns the consequences regardless of who's responsible for implementing it. It doesn't help that accountability and responsibility are often synonyms in all other contexts. It's why the department executive gets fired if 30 million dollars was spent and the program doesn't get the job done, at least if they manage not to skirt accountability for it.
Redefinition allows ambiguity. Perfect outcome for this
There's no real redefinition here.
All they mean by that is if you want to be mad at someone be mad at him.
> Severance Pay — We’ll offer a minimum 6 months of salary,
Well that actually does make it seem like it was something they wanted to avoid.
I might need to eat my hat https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38957024
Well that actually does make it seem like it was something they wanted to avoid.
I might need to eat my hat https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38957024
I wonder how hard it would be to wait 4-6 months and then attempt to get rehired at Riot again. It seems unlikely that they will be on a total hiring freeze for over 6 months.
Some places make you sign papers you wont reapply to get your severance.
Someone explained that in one of the other recent layoff threads.
Someone explained that in one of the other recent layoff threads.
What is the rationale of promising to not reapply? If a company is hiring again 6 months after some layoffs, what would be wrong will rehiring an ex-employee who was one of those laid off, assuming they are the best candidate for the new job opening?
Some places would also love to get the people they lay off back, at some point in the future. I believe Salesforce did this. Obviously the company matters and each one will have their own stipulations.
Dylan Jadeja has only been CEO a short while, although he's been at the company in an executive role much longer. He took over after the previous CEO left after years of being tainted by various sexual harassment scandals at the company. https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/12/23720971/riot-games-new-c...
"To all the Rioters who are being laid off"
imagine if a retained CEO's layoff statement resulted in actual rioters
imagine if a retained CEO's layoff statement resulted in actual rioters
First company I've seen doing a large layoff and also has zero open positions on the careers page.
https://www.riotgames.com/en/work-with-us/jobs
https://www.riotgames.com/en/work-with-us/jobs
From the public info at least, this is one of the better examples of how to handle layoffs: generous severance, an apology that sounds sincere, a reasonable amount of info, etc.
To the commenters saying this is just about juicing profits: ok, maybe so, but it seems at least equally plausible that it is what he says it is. Once you've reached the point that you've realized you've made a mistake, it makes sense to act.
To the commenters saying this is just about juicing profits: ok, maybe so, but it seems at least equally plausible that it is what he says it is. Once you've reached the point that you've realized you've made a mistake, it makes sense to act.
Layoffs are often a polite way of firing deadwood. The laid off people can preserve their dignity and apply for unemployment.
If 11% of their employees are “deadwood” they have had a spectacular failure of management.
The failures of Riot's management have been apparent. Three years ago, the company paid $100 million due to sexual harassment and gender discrimination done at all levels of management including the cofounders and their CEO and COO. Over 150 employees held a walkout. It's not just employees either, on the esports side, the North American players walked out last spring which caused the summer split to be delayed.
the player walkout was due to changes in the league made by Riot, specifically that orgs are no longer required to have academy teams (academy teams are the equivalent of college teams, not pro but better than most players).
you're overselling that unnecessarily.
But the point about the abuse is true and it wasn't just sexual abuse, it was harassment at all levels.
for anyone not aware:
https://kotaku.com/top-riot-executive-suspended-without-pay-...
> Earlier this week, Riot’s CEO sent an e-mail to employees describing the punishment its COO, Scott Gelb, will face after multiple employees alleged that, as a comedy bit, he has repeatedly touched subordinates’ balls or butt or farted in their faces. Several employees tell Kotaku that his punishment—two months of unpaid leave and training—is far from satisfactory.
you can't make this shit up, and in fact it's so ridiculous we don't need to mislabel the player walkout, the truth is bad enough by itself.
you're overselling that unnecessarily.
But the point about the abuse is true and it wasn't just sexual abuse, it was harassment at all levels.
for anyone not aware:
https://kotaku.com/top-riot-executive-suspended-without-pay-...
> Earlier this week, Riot’s CEO sent an e-mail to employees describing the punishment its COO, Scott Gelb, will face after multiple employees alleged that, as a comedy bit, he has repeatedly touched subordinates’ balls or butt or farted in their faces. Several employees tell Kotaku that his punishment—two months of unpaid leave and training—is far from satisfactory.
you can't make this shit up, and in fact it's so ridiculous we don't need to mislabel the player walkout, the truth is bad enough by itself.
I'm sorry, I didn't intend to say that the player walkout was due to sexual harassment or discrimination claims. The player's association voted for a walkout because the players did not have faith in Riot and in fact believed that their decisions were jeopardizing the health of the esport. I agree the player walkout had nothing to do with the employee walkout and in fact it happened much later, after the lawsuit had already been settled. The way I wrote the comment made it seem like they were the same when it was actually my intention to say the opposite. I was trying to say that Riot has failed in other ways unrelated to sexual harassment and discrimination.
> Layoffs are often a polite way of firing deadwood
This may well sometimes be true, but I doubt it passes over to "often".
This may well sometimes be true, but I doubt it passes over to "often".
You spelled “people who are bad at office politics” wrong there.
Really bums me out when I see people getting laid off and they still list a bunch of open job reqs. They were good enough to empty it out...
Work with us - Open Positions: 0
Work with us - Open Positions: 0
Peoples' job skills are not interchangeable.
That’s what training is for.
In Britain the investment by companies into workforce training has fallen off a cliff. Then the same companies complain about shortage of skills. Apparently people should finish university with 10 years of work experience, at their own expense.
In Britain the investment by companies into workforce training has fallen off a cliff. Then the same companies complain about shortage of skills. Apparently people should finish university with 10 years of work experience, at their own expense.
You can't really run an engineer through a machine shop course and turn him into an expert machinist, and vice versa.
I know how to run machine tools. But turn out precise parts, that eludes me.
People specialize into different skills.
I know how to run machine tools. But turn out precise parts, that eludes me.
People specialize into different skills.
Below a certain IQ sure. The actual answer here is presumably just that it's legally cleaner — that and internal hiring and so on is apparently logistically almost impossible for a lot of companies (organizations accumulate a lot of scar tissue, flexibility is usually the first thing to go)
reading what ben said the other day, google was hire slow, fire never and flexibility was the first thing to go. you're pretty on the money in that regard.
I loved Legends of Runeterra, but I knew the writing was on the wall from the very start.
Bummer considering it was one of the best F2P online TCGs out there (and that was probably also the problem, it's such great value for the F2P playerbase and didn't go as hard on monetization other than cosmetics).
LoR State of the Game Update for those that care:
https://playruneterra.com/en-us/news/game-updates/state-of-t...
Bummer considering it was one of the best F2P online TCGs out there (and that was probably also the problem, it's such great value for the F2P playerbase and didn't go as hard on monetization other than cosmetics).
LoR State of the Game Update for those that care:
https://playruneterra.com/en-us/news/game-updates/state-of-t...
Their severance looks good, (6mo minimum, cash bonus, health insurance, computer, etc). Also, kinda weird to being referred as a bet.
Every forward looking business strategy decision is a bet.
Everything in life in a way could be thought of as a bet. It's all a probabilities game. When you travel, you are betting your airplane doesn't crash, you don't get robbed, kidnapped etc.
People that think that way often don't worry as much about hurting other people.
[deleted]
Can you share sources for that claim?
Particularly attractive/cheap bets along these lines are often massively short vega
> … We want to make sure Rioters who are leaving us this week have a bit of time to identify and unwind any personal info or accounts that may be tied to their Riot email addresses.
TIL: people of recent generations use work e-mails for personal usage.
I have only seen this phenomena with older generations when they worked for a single company their entire life until or up to retirement.
TIL: people of recent generations use work e-mails for personal usage.
I have only seen this phenomena with older generations when they worked for a single company their entire life until or up to retirement.
It can vary a lot by industry and how much of your identity is wrapped up in your job...or how much prestige the domain after the @ has. I saw it all the time in entertainment. Now that I work at a fintech...not so much.
unless it’s my own company, I’ll never mix personal with work emails.
I already know these companies archive and search this shit. Last thing I need is my personal emails ending up in some email dump (ie, epic vs Apple)
I already know these companies archive and search this shit. Last thing I need is my personal emails ending up in some email dump (ie, epic vs Apple)
I have my own company and still won't mix personal emails in there. Keep em separate. Just for your own sanity but if that's not good enough you could be bought out and they'll want to take your domain.
Buy a personal domain for personal stuff and don't run a business off it.
Buy a personal domain for personal stuff and don't run a business off it.
Possibly just open source stuff / juniors glued to their work machine too much because they work for a games company during a lockdown (potentially)
Honestly there are grey area things you don't think about.
Is your employer provided HSA account work or personal?
Is your employer provided HSA account work or personal?
My employer contributes to the account. But it’s never tied directly to the e-mail provided by my employer. I can only recall one time where I had to transfer HSA to diff bank but that’s it. Never had to use my work email to login
All it takes is for one of the big firms to go on a big hiring spree and the others will follow.
Probably not until IRC 174 is fixed. You can't write your employees off on taxes anymore, but have to amortize them over four years.
https://www.stambaughness.com/blog/amortize-research-and-dev...
Lovely new little wrench in everyone's plans.
Plus many companies hired going into Covid, thinking online was the "new normal". They're returning to a healthier headcount now.
Plus they probably let go those underperforming certain metrics or backing unproductive initiatives. Though that should have no bearing on hiring, it will.
Plus it's no longer ZIRP.
That's a lot of hiring headwind.
https://www.stambaughness.com/blog/amortize-research-and-dev...
Lovely new little wrench in everyone's plans.
Plus many companies hired going into Covid, thinking online was the "new normal". They're returning to a healthier headcount now.
Plus they probably let go those underperforming certain metrics or backing unproductive initiatives. Though that should have no bearing on hiring, it will.
Plus it's no longer ZIRP.
That's a lot of hiring headwind.
Multiple references to R&D at the end suggests to me they’re pointing to 174 as a factor.
Everyone is enjoying the ongoing industry-wide wage suppression too much to want to jump back into rapid talent acquisition just yet
I don't know how accurate this release is, but on its face it seems very generous.
This is a great severance! Incredible actually. If my company offered me this package right now I’d take it in a heartbeat and I love my job!
Kinda hoping their upcoming League of Legends-based MMORPG will finally be one worth playing (after World of Warcraft from Blizzard).
They've created a nice world and lore in League of Legends, so I am having high hopes.
I wonder if any devs will be fired from that team. Probably not?
They've created a nice world and lore in League of Legends, so I am having high hopes.
I wonder if any devs will be fired from that team. Probably not?
I'm curious to know the layoffs by game. It would be surprising if League of Legends retains all of its game design/balance team, and it'd also be surprising if Valorant lays off any employees.
valorant had layoffs, as did league. what makes you expect cuts on the league game design and balance teams? (not the same thing, btw)
brutal job market in games right now. layoffs and studio closures all over the place, startups having trouble closing rounds, meanwhile ever more games on the market with 15k released on steam last year
> startups having trouble closing rounds
Game startups or tech startup in general? I can understand tech startups still feeling the effects of limited venture capital, I'm less familiar with gaming startups and their funding dynamics.
Also, can you share more details about the games industry? There's no much that has made it to the front page of HN regarding how hard the games industry in particular was hit by layoffs, so I don't have a sense of numbers.
Game startups or tech startup in general? I can understand tech startups still feeling the effects of limited venture capital, I'm less familiar with gaming startups and their funding dynamics.
Also, can you share more details about the games industry? There's no much that has made it to the front page of HN regarding how hard the games industry in particular was hit by layoffs, so I don't have a sense of numbers.
Does this mean the Seattle campus on Mercer Island is no longer opening?
It's opening in Q2. Source: I'm one of the subjects of the article :^)
Sorry man! I'm sure you'll land on your feet!
"We’re going to hold a Riot WW Town Hall on Thursday to give more context into this moment as well as portfolio changes we’ve made"
Sounds like that some project might be cancelled.
Sounds like that some project might be cancelled.
2024 is just another 2023. Google laying off, followed by everyone else laying off. Supply >>> Demand, barely any hires.
Damn, 6 months is pretty good.
Parent company is Tencent. Good riddance.
Riot Games is profitable, so this is about increasing profits.
EDIT: As several people have noted, while Riot Games is private, their majority owne (Tencent) is not. According to Tencent's most recent filings, video game revenue is up by double-digits and they reported profits in the past.
Unless Riot is claiming that they increased expenses by double-digit % in Q4, they are profitable.
EDIT: As several people have noted, while Riot Games is private, their majority owne (Tencent) is not. According to Tencent's most recent filings, video game revenue is up by double-digits and they reported profits in the past.
Unless Riot is claiming that they increased expenses by double-digit % in Q4, they are profitable.
Why wouldn’t they want to be as profitable as possible? They aren’t a charity.
The vilification of capitalism is so unjustified. Everyone who does it should first listen to Milei’s recent speech [0] and then try to coherently explain which of any of the anti-capitalism policies they support have any empirical evidence to justify them.
[0] https://x.com/aphysicist/status/1747868626948907325
[0] https://x.com/aphysicist/status/1747868626948907325
I vilify capitalism because it makes kids work in coal mines. Is that unjustified?
Capitalism didn’t invent child labor, but it did help end it. While socialist regimes like the Soviet Union exploited child labor extensively under the guise of equality, it was the economic growth fueled by capitalism that empowered societies to enact labor reforms. The wealth created by free markets enabled the development of laws that protect workers, proving that capitalism is a solution, not the problem.
That’s true. Riot games isn’t a charity, but workers and their families certainly are. Clearly we must sacrifice grandma in a glorious email layoff ritual for both the economy and a sweet C-suite end year bonus
And snatch the profits end-of-life care companies are supposed to make from grandma? Yeah right.
I wonder if being an adult has always felt like, financially, being placed in the "rack" torture device. These days it feels like I'm being stretched from all directions.
I wonder if being an adult has always felt like, financially, being placed in the "rack" torture device. These days it feels like I'm being stretched from all directions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvk_XylEmLo was a really good overview of how and when this changed, in terms of labor.
Got a source for that? They’re a private company, unless you have access to non-public financial info it seems like you’re just making an assumption.
Riot Games is a subsidiary of Tencent.
Okay, and does Tencent publish a P&L for Riot Games? Or are you assuming that if Tencent is profitable that means all of their subsidiaries are profitable? If you read the actual press release you’ll see Riot doubled headcount in the last few years. Highly doubtful their revenue growth kept up with their growing labor costs. Overhiring during the pandemic is a much more likely root cause for layoffs rather than management just trying to juice the profit margin in a market downturn.
Gotta juice that stock price!
I do not believe Riot Games is publicly traded. Tencent do own a large stake however along with their stakes in other gaming companies
100% is definitely a large stake
Whose, Tencent?
Unbelievable! They're profitable!? That's rare these days.
Please educate yourself properly and try to understand capitalism the single biggest force behind the improvement in the human condition. Vilification of profits is a disgraceful attitude.
https://x.com/aphysicist/status/1747868626948907325
https://x.com/aphysicist/status/1747868626948907325
I am amazed by this shameless appropriation of credit for scientific breakthroughs and peddling of a self-congratulating fantasy.
Nicola Tesla was a successful capitalist? Isaac Neuton? Leu Paster? What about the guy that invented penicillin?
Without capitalists, progress reaches the masses a bit slower. Without scientists, capitalists would still trade sheep, live in huts, and wipe their ass with tree bark.
Nicola Tesla was a successful capitalist? Isaac Neuton? Leu Paster? What about the guy that invented penicillin?
Without capitalists, progress reaches the masses a bit slower. Without scientists, capitalists would still trade sheep, live in huts, and wipe their ass with tree bark.
Science is public, everyone can read and learn the results if they want. So why are some countries better off than others? The poor ones could just use the science if they wanted to. The answer is their governing and economic systems, and you are much better off in a capitalist democracy than other kinds of countries.
There are some really insidious undertones of racism in this comment. Geography is a much bigger determinant of national economic well-being than whether or not they want to read about science. And blaming citizens for being born in autocratic countries and not immediately implementing a western democracy is also pretty gross.
Accusing this argument of racism misses the point entirely and shifts the focus from the real issue: the impact of economic systems on national well-being. It’s not about geography or race; it’s about policies and governance. Countries rich in resources have languished under collectivism, while others with few natural resources have thrived with capitalism. This isn’t about blaming citizens; it’s about recognizing that systems matter. And it’s a disservice to the debate to reduce this critical discussion to baseless accusations of racism, rather than confronting the hard truth about the effectiveness of different economic systems.
> I am amazed by this shameless appropriation of credit for scientific breakthroughs and peddling of a self-congratulating fantasy.
I am amazed by the shameless disregard for empirical facts and data and hard historical evidence.
I’m not shameless the anti-capitalists are.
Here is a book you might be interested in:
“Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior” by Schoeck
That can help explain this very common destructive human instinct towards collectivism in general.
and here is an examination of the most failed idea in human history - socialism:
https://iea.org.uk/publications/socialism-the-failed-idea-th...
It’s outrageous and shameless to vilify entrepreneurs legitimate and ethical pursuit of profits.
I am amazed by the shameless disregard for empirical facts and data and hard historical evidence.
I’m not shameless the anti-capitalists are.
Here is a book you might be interested in:
“Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior” by Schoeck
That can help explain this very common destructive human instinct towards collectivism in general.
and here is an examination of the most failed idea in human history - socialism:
https://iea.org.uk/publications/socialism-the-failed-idea-th...
It’s outrageous and shameless to vilify entrepreneurs legitimate and ethical pursuit of profits.
> ethical pursuit of profits.
There’s the sticking point. Way too many unethical capitalists, and without strong enforcement mechanisms those bad actors simply concentrate market power and actually break the capitalist system you’re so ready to cream your jeans over.
Edit: also after having looked up that book, not sure if some Freudian level psychobabble making sweeping claims about human emotion and motivation is really that great of an argument for unrestrained capitalism.
There’s the sticking point. Way too many unethical capitalists, and without strong enforcement mechanisms those bad actors simply concentrate market power and actually break the capitalist system you’re so ready to cream your jeans over.
Edit: also after having looked up that book, not sure if some Freudian level psychobabble making sweeping claims about human emotion and motivation is really that great of an argument for unrestrained capitalism.
The vulgarity of your language doesn’t mask the weakness of your argument. In capitalism, unlike collectivist systems, the market naturally weeds out those who don’t serve the public good, it’s self-regulating through consumer choice and entrepreneurial competition. Discrediting the entire structure due to a few unethical players is an oversimplification that ignores the successes of capitalism in driving progress and prosperity.
The book delves a lot deeper than Freudian concepts, offering a sociological perspective on how envy drives societal dynamics. He argues that in modern societies, envy often triggers destructive emotions, leading to flawed support for collectivist and socialist ideas based on instinct rather than logical outcomes, understanding how emotional responses like envy generate repetitively failed economic and social policies. Socialism is literally the single most failed idea in history, no other idea has been tried so many times and failed so miserably so many times, the question is why? one definition of insanity in individuals is repeating the same approach and expecting different outcomes! why are we sociologically insane? understanding the evolutionary origins of envy is highly relevant, an emotion that in smaller groups can improve overall performance of the group, motivating aspirations, but in larger groups reverts to destructive actions.
The book delves a lot deeper than Freudian concepts, offering a sociological perspective on how envy drives societal dynamics. He argues that in modern societies, envy often triggers destructive emotions, leading to flawed support for collectivist and socialist ideas based on instinct rather than logical outcomes, understanding how emotional responses like envy generate repetitively failed economic and social policies. Socialism is literally the single most failed idea in history, no other idea has been tried so many times and failed so miserably so many times, the question is why? one definition of insanity in individuals is repeating the same approach and expecting different outcomes! why are we sociologically insane? understanding the evolutionary origins of envy is highly relevant, an emotion that in smaller groups can improve overall performance of the group, motivating aspirations, but in larger groups reverts to destructive actions.
> He argues that in modern societies, envy often triggers destructive emotions, leading to flawed support for collectivist and socialist ideas
What is this socialism you are railing against, where can I find it? Russia is not socialist any more, neither is China, so where is it?
I think you have a religion, and it is that capitalism must never be criticised. Its excesses must never be reigned in. For the past 20 years we have tried your ‘capitalism without breaks’ experiment and it has delivered fastest falling living standards and environmental destruction in recorded history of peacetime
> Socialism is literally the single most failed idea in history
Have you heard of this little 500 year long period called the DarkAges? We had plenty of capitalism, mercantilism, classism, religious fundamentalism, but no science, and half the population of Europe died in agony because they didn’t know about soap.
Or about the trans Atlantic slave trade, an entirely capitalist institution that killed more people than Mao and Stalin combined.
In fact how could you even make such a statement, what societal order existed for the previous 10,000 years of human history before socialism was invented?
If socialism is such a failure, how come USSR was even ever a threat to the USA? Do you feel threatened by other societal orders, say a monarchy? No you don’t, they are not competitive
What is this socialism you are railing against, where can I find it? Russia is not socialist any more, neither is China, so where is it?
I think you have a religion, and it is that capitalism must never be criticised. Its excesses must never be reigned in. For the past 20 years we have tried your ‘capitalism without breaks’ experiment and it has delivered fastest falling living standards and environmental destruction in recorded history of peacetime
> Socialism is literally the single most failed idea in history
Have you heard of this little 500 year long period called the DarkAges? We had plenty of capitalism, mercantilism, classism, religious fundamentalism, but no science, and half the population of Europe died in agony because they didn’t know about soap.
Or about the trans Atlantic slave trade, an entirely capitalist institution that killed more people than Mao and Stalin combined.
In fact how could you even make such a statement, what societal order existed for the previous 10,000 years of human history before socialism was invented?
If socialism is such a failure, how come USSR was even ever a threat to the USA? Do you feel threatened by other societal orders, say a monarchy? No you don’t, they are not competitive
Your reference to the transatlantic slave trade and its erroneous association with capitalism is not only historically inaccurate but intellectually dishonest. Let’s be clear: the transatlantic slave trade resulted in the tragic deaths of approximately 1.2 to 2.1 million people, a horrifying figure. However, to compare this to the atrocities committed under Mao and Stalin, where the death tolls reached tens of millions - estimates suggest around 45 million under Mao and 20 million under Stalin - is not just deceitful but numerically absurd. Conflating the horrors of slavery with the principles of free-market capitalism, which fundamentally hinge on individual liberty and property rights, is beyond outrageous. It’s a gross misrepresentation of history and a blatant disregard for the millions who suffered under truly oppressive systems. Such distortion of facts is unacceptable in any serious debate about economic systems and their impact on human life and liberty.
The claim that the Dark Ages represent an era of capitalism is a fundamental misunderstanding of both history and the essence of libertarian capitalism. The Dark Ages, characterized by feudalism, lacked the core tenets of modern capitalism – namely, individual property rights and the principle of non-aggression. True libertarian capitalism, as we understand it today, emerged around the 1800s, bringing with it unprecedented economic growth and scientific progress. This system is founded on respect for individual rights, voluntary exchange, and freedom from coercion – principles nonexistent in the feudal societies of the Dark Ages. In stark contrast, collectivism and socialism, despite their relatively recent emergence, have consistently failed wherever tried, lacking the efficiency and innovation-driven growth inherent in capitalist systems. It’s crucial to distinguish between these vastly different epochs and ideologies. Modern libertarian capitalism is not only the most successful system in human history for advancing prosperity and human well-being, but also a cornerstone for scientific and technological advancement.
The supposed success of the USSR, which was indeed a threat to the US, was built on a foundation of resource exploitation, extreme violence, and suppression of individual freedoms. This model proved to be unsustainable, ultimately leading to the USSR’s collapse. The real threat was not its competitive prowess but its potential for global destabilization through military force and ideological expansion. As for the modern resurgence of collectivist ideas, now often cloaked in terms like ‘progressive,’ ‘social democratic,’ and ‘social justice,’ these are merely rebranded versions of the same failed ideologies. They promise equity and fairness but historically deliver devastation and disaster. This isn’t just a theoretical debate; it’s a matter of learning from history to avoid repeating catastrophic mistakes. The resurgence of these collectivist ideas poses a real threat to the future of humanity, as they undermine the principles of individual liberty, economic freedom, and innovation that have driven human progress. It’s crucial to recognize and resist these regressive ideologies for the sake of preserving and advancing a prosperous and free society.
Lastly, the assertion that the last 20 years of capitalism have led to the fastest falling living standards is factually incorrect. On the contrary, global living standards have significantly improved over this period. The World Bank and other international organizations consistently report reductions in extreme poverty and improvements in health, education, and overall quality of life worldwide, largely due to the spread of market-based economies. Furthermore, the greatest environmental challenges are often seen in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, where there is less transparency, weaker environmental regulations, and less accountability. In contrast, many capitalist countries have been at the forefront of adopting sustainable practices and investing in green technologies. It’s essential to base our arguments on accurate data and acknowledge the complex interplay between economic systems and environmental outcomes.
The claim that the Dark Ages represent an era of capitalism is a fundamental misunderstanding of both history and the essence of libertarian capitalism. The Dark Ages, characterized by feudalism, lacked the core tenets of modern capitalism – namely, individual property rights and the principle of non-aggression. True libertarian capitalism, as we understand it today, emerged around the 1800s, bringing with it unprecedented economic growth and scientific progress. This system is founded on respect for individual rights, voluntary exchange, and freedom from coercion – principles nonexistent in the feudal societies of the Dark Ages. In stark contrast, collectivism and socialism, despite their relatively recent emergence, have consistently failed wherever tried, lacking the efficiency and innovation-driven growth inherent in capitalist systems. It’s crucial to distinguish between these vastly different epochs and ideologies. Modern libertarian capitalism is not only the most successful system in human history for advancing prosperity and human well-being, but also a cornerstone for scientific and technological advancement.
The supposed success of the USSR, which was indeed a threat to the US, was built on a foundation of resource exploitation, extreme violence, and suppression of individual freedoms. This model proved to be unsustainable, ultimately leading to the USSR’s collapse. The real threat was not its competitive prowess but its potential for global destabilization through military force and ideological expansion. As for the modern resurgence of collectivist ideas, now often cloaked in terms like ‘progressive,’ ‘social democratic,’ and ‘social justice,’ these are merely rebranded versions of the same failed ideologies. They promise equity and fairness but historically deliver devastation and disaster. This isn’t just a theoretical debate; it’s a matter of learning from history to avoid repeating catastrophic mistakes. The resurgence of these collectivist ideas poses a real threat to the future of humanity, as they undermine the principles of individual liberty, economic freedom, and innovation that have driven human progress. It’s crucial to recognize and resist these regressive ideologies for the sake of preserving and advancing a prosperous and free society.
Lastly, the assertion that the last 20 years of capitalism have led to the fastest falling living standards is factually incorrect. On the contrary, global living standards have significantly improved over this period. The World Bank and other international organizations consistently report reductions in extreme poverty and improvements in health, education, and overall quality of life worldwide, largely due to the spread of market-based economies. Furthermore, the greatest environmental challenges are often seen in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, where there is less transparency, weaker environmental regulations, and less accountability. In contrast, many capitalist countries have been at the forefront of adopting sustainable practices and investing in green technologies. It’s essential to base our arguments on accurate data and acknowledge the complex interplay between economic systems and environmental outcomes.
Firstly your number for slave trade is way too low, tens of millions died in slavery, estimates range up to 150 million. The only way you can get number that low, is it you could people that only died on a ship in transit. Any honest estimate beats Stalin.
> transatlantic slave trade and its erroneous association with capitalism is not only historically inaccurate but intellectually dishonest.
You have fully adopted ‘no true socialism’ argument, no matter what criticism of capitalist I bring up, whether it’s current USA or historic wrongdoing, it’s always not the right kind of capitalism. If they would be doing capitalism right, all those deaths would have never happened.
What is unhinged is the idea that unrestricted capitalism protects your rights.
When capital rules, it trumps individual rights and liberty.
Unregulated capitalism gives you children dying in coal mines, it gives you trade in organs, it gives you liquidation of penguins while they are still alive, and slavery.
The entire argument of ‘Capitalism= freedom’ is totally dishonest.
> transatlantic slave trade and its erroneous association with capitalism is not only historically inaccurate but intellectually dishonest.
You have fully adopted ‘no true socialism’ argument, no matter what criticism of capitalist I bring up, whether it’s current USA or historic wrongdoing, it’s always not the right kind of capitalism. If they would be doing capitalism right, all those deaths would have never happened.
What is unhinged is the idea that unrestricted capitalism protects your rights.
When capital rules, it trumps individual rights and liberty.
Unregulated capitalism gives you children dying in coal mines, it gives you trade in organs, it gives you liquidation of penguins while they are still alive, and slavery.
The entire argument of ‘Capitalism= freedom’ is totally dishonest.
It appears we’re talking past each other, stemming from a fundamental misunderstanding of what capitalism, especially libertarian capitalism, truly represents. Capitalism is not feudalism, colonialism, mercantilism, anarchy, nor fascism. Each of these systems, in their own way, violates the core tenets of libertarian capitalism - which are freedom of movement, freedom of exchange, property rights, equality under the law, and voluntary transactions without coercion or violence.
The statement ‘when capital rules it trumps individual rights and liberties’ is a mischaracterization. In capitalist systems, capital doesn’t ‘rule’ – it’s merely a tool in a framework where individual rights and liberties are paramount. The free market depends on a rule of law where the state ensures a level playing field, not by controlling the economy but by safeguarding these rights and freedoms.
Your focus on slavery, while an important historical issue, is a misapplication in this context. Slavery, as practiced in colonial times, was the antithesis of libertarian capitalist principles. It was based on coercion and violence, the very things libertarian capitalism opposes. Similarly, child labor in its exploitative historical context was a result of a lack of regulation protecting individual rights, not a feature of capitalism. Capitalism didn’t invent child labor, but it did help end it. While socialist regimes like the Soviet Union exploited child labor extensively under the guise of equality, it was the economic growth fueled by capitalism that empowered societies to enact labor reforms. The wealth created by free markets enabled the development of laws that protect workers, proving that capitalism is a solution, not the problem.
Conflating the failures and injustices of feudalism, colonialism, and other oppressive systems with libertarian capitalism is a distortion. It’s essential to understand and debate these concepts based on their actual principles and historical implementations, not on mischaracterizations or conflated definitions.
Claiming that unregulated capitalism leads to child labor, organ trade, and slavery is a gross misrepresentation. Let’s look at the facts:
- Child labor is still a grave issue in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, often linked to cobalt mining, where the government does not enforce labor laws effectively, and the economy is far from a libertarian capitalist model.
- Organ trade thrives in regions with weak legal systems and rampant poverty, like certain parts of Asia and the Middle East, not in countries with strong property rights and free markets.
- Modern slavery and human trafficking are most prevalent in nations where the rule of law is weak, and economic freedom is limited, such as North Korea and Eritrea, not in libertarian capitalist societies.
These examples clearly show that such human rights abuses are more common in environments lacking the core principles of libertarian capitalism: strong property rights, rule of law, and individual liberty.
The statement ‘when capital rules it trumps individual rights and liberties’ is a mischaracterization. In capitalist systems, capital doesn’t ‘rule’ – it’s merely a tool in a framework where individual rights and liberties are paramount. The free market depends on a rule of law where the state ensures a level playing field, not by controlling the economy but by safeguarding these rights and freedoms.
Your focus on slavery, while an important historical issue, is a misapplication in this context. Slavery, as practiced in colonial times, was the antithesis of libertarian capitalist principles. It was based on coercion and violence, the very things libertarian capitalism opposes. Similarly, child labor in its exploitative historical context was a result of a lack of regulation protecting individual rights, not a feature of capitalism. Capitalism didn’t invent child labor, but it did help end it. While socialist regimes like the Soviet Union exploited child labor extensively under the guise of equality, it was the economic growth fueled by capitalism that empowered societies to enact labor reforms. The wealth created by free markets enabled the development of laws that protect workers, proving that capitalism is a solution, not the problem.
Conflating the failures and injustices of feudalism, colonialism, and other oppressive systems with libertarian capitalism is a distortion. It’s essential to understand and debate these concepts based on their actual principles and historical implementations, not on mischaracterizations or conflated definitions.
Claiming that unregulated capitalism leads to child labor, organ trade, and slavery is a gross misrepresentation. Let’s look at the facts:
- Child labor is still a grave issue in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, often linked to cobalt mining, where the government does not enforce labor laws effectively, and the economy is far from a libertarian capitalist model.
- Organ trade thrives in regions with weak legal systems and rampant poverty, like certain parts of Asia and the Middle East, not in countries with strong property rights and free markets.
- Modern slavery and human trafficking are most prevalent in nations where the rule of law is weak, and economic freedom is limited, such as North Korea and Eritrea, not in libertarian capitalist societies.
These examples clearly show that such human rights abuses are more common in environments lacking the core principles of libertarian capitalism: strong property rights, rule of law, and individual liberty.
Here is a hard fact that you seemingly missed - Alexander Fleming was not a capitalist, or a socialist, he invented penicillin for the betterment of human condition and his work was funded by taxpayers.
There are millions of people whose work made the West a great civilisation that it is today, who did not pursuit profit, many of them through self-sacrifice.
This propensity to claim credit for their work is morally corrupt. That’s outrageous and shameless.
It’s the same ideology that allowed boss of United Carbide to shelter in US from justice after killing 10,000 people Bhopal
There are millions of people whose work made the West a great civilisation that it is today, who did not pursuit profit, many of them through self-sacrifice.
This propensity to claim credit for their work is morally corrupt. That’s outrageous and shameless.
It’s the same ideology that allowed boss of United Carbide to shelter in US from justice after killing 10,000 people Bhopal
Capitalism isn’t about claiming scientists like Tesla or Pasteur were capitalists, but about creating a system where their innovations reach and benefit the masses. For instance, the widespread use of penicillin, a monumental scientific breakthrough, was massively scaled up and distributed thanks to capitalist structures. It’s about turning breakthroughs into real-world solutions that improve lives.
Fleming’s invention of penicillin wasn’t about capitalism or socialism, but how capitalism effectively used his discovery to save millions of lives globally. It’s not about claiming credit, but recognizing the system that best harnesses such innovations for widespread benefit. Regarding corporate responsibility, capitalism doesn’t excuse unethical behavior, as seen in public and legal backlash against such incidents. True capitalism demands accountability, not sheltering the guilty.
Consider the printing press, invented not just for knowledge’s sake, but also driven by Gutenberg’s vision for profit. This invention revolutionized the spread of knowledge, paving the way for scientific progress and the Enlightenment. Just like with penicillin, it’s a prime example of how the pursuit of profit under capitalism can fuel advancements that benefit all of humanity.
The real moral outrage would be ignoring how capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty. It’s not self-congratulatory to acknowledge facts. Capitalism, unlike any other system, has consistently turned innovations into tangible benefits for the masses. Using emotive language like ‘shameless’ or ‘morally corrupt’ doesn’t change these historical truths. It’s about progress and real-world results, not ideological rhetoric.
Fleming’s invention of penicillin wasn’t about capitalism or socialism, but how capitalism effectively used his discovery to save millions of lives globally. It’s not about claiming credit, but recognizing the system that best harnesses such innovations for widespread benefit. Regarding corporate responsibility, capitalism doesn’t excuse unethical behavior, as seen in public and legal backlash against such incidents. True capitalism demands accountability, not sheltering the guilty.
Consider the printing press, invented not just for knowledge’s sake, but also driven by Gutenberg’s vision for profit. This invention revolutionized the spread of knowledge, paving the way for scientific progress and the Enlightenment. Just like with penicillin, it’s a prime example of how the pursuit of profit under capitalism can fuel advancements that benefit all of humanity.
The real moral outrage would be ignoring how capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty. It’s not self-congratulatory to acknowledge facts. Capitalism, unlike any other system, has consistently turned innovations into tangible benefits for the masses. Using emotive language like ‘shameless’ or ‘morally corrupt’ doesn’t change these historical truths. It’s about progress and real-world results, not ideological rhetoric.
But, as usual,
> As CEO, I’m accountable for the changes we’re making and where we’re headed in the future. So, I think it’s important for me to share how we got here and how the next few days will work.
I see no indication as to how Dylan will actually be held accountable for the decisions that ultimately led to this.