It’s a nitpicking semantic however you contradicted yourself..
A reminder that billionaires don’t create jobs
In order to fire 25k people those billionaires had to creat jobs to start with, you can’t fire someone you don’t employ.
I’d suggest that the point is there were not sustainable jobs and from what I understand specifically about US employment law they were probably working under the requisite number of hours to get compensated for the loss of a job.
All this while said billionaires are getting richer.
Which leads me to a follow up question.
If I had a business idea, and after hard work, personal time and investment it became popular enough to start making me and my shareholders money.. at what point should I stop making money because society thinks it’s too much?
I mean, the point of running your own business, putting in the work, growing it and providing a popular service isn’t always altruism. It’s making money so you can provide you and your family a better life..
Any growth economy needs people starting businesses and being successful, employing people. If a percentage of people doing that are money motivated and stop starting businesses for being put down for success, why bother in the first place?
If you’ve got as far as here and are not fuming then fair play to you.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment of the post, however this is a sustainability issue specific to the boom and bust cycles in the tech sector and not a let’s take pitchforks to the billionaires home issue.
If we (not they) want change then surely that’s what needs changing?