[flagged]

bcrosby95 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Imagine thinking people losing their primary income source (usually 100% of it) is remotely comparable to the share price of a single company not going up 2%.

▲

simianwords 3 days ago | parent [-]

If you can’t lay off people then the economy won’t run and it affects everyone.

Sure you can show easy empathy for the employees but this is how economy runs. A static economy where layoffs are hard or punished will lose to a more dynamic one.

▲

wiseowise 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Sure you can show easy empathy for the employees but this is how economy runs. A static economy where layoffs are hard or punished will lose to a more dynamic one.

Is that why workers are generally happier in Europe even though on paper their economy loses?

	▲	pedroma 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I've always been skeptical of happiness statistics. In many cases, self-reporting happiness offers an objective floor for happiness, but the ceiling is entirely relative/subjective. The floor is universal: starvation, suffering, death. The ceiling... For someone who's starving & facing death, would simply be good health, easy access to food, healthy family, house & car. But the ceiling for someone who already has these things is different. The ceiling for a billionaire is different. The only way I can imagine not doing this type of subjective self-reporting is... maybe you can draw blood from populations and record cortisol and oxytocin levels?

▲

kjs3 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think we have a new high water mark for "false equivalence".