WhirlpoolBrewer

@WhirlpoolBrewer@lemmings.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Intel reveals it’ll shed 33,000 employees this year and retreat in Germany, Poland, and Costa Rica⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  Very cool thanks for the informative answers

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Intel reveals it’ll shed 33,000 employees this year and retreat in Germany, Poland, and Costa Rica⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  This is a strong argument. One of my main complaints with modern large companies is the need to operate for short term gains long term losses, so point number 3 sounds amazing to me. Does this mean Intel would no longer be a publicly traded company, but a US Government owned company, something similar to the USPS?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Intel reveals it’ll shed 33,000 employees this year and retreat in Germany, Poland, and Costa Rica⁩ ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m uninformed on this topic, perhaps you or someone else can teach me a bit more on this. What would the argument be for bailing them out, and what would be the argument for letting them fail? Without any knowledge of the consequences of either, I feel like letting the business fail is what we should do. We let businesses fail all the time, especially small ones. Why should we bail out this business when we let other fail all the time?

  It feels like the core concern is letting that many people all lose their job at the same time would be particularly challenging issue for the people affected. But these numbers are far less than the number that have been laid off recently by other companies. The government didn’t step in to help those people or companies performing massive layoffs, why bailout this company? I don’t know, but would like to hear arguments for both