Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a surprising fact: companies exist to make money for their owners, not to provide as much employment as possible for as many people as possible.

Either be essential to a company's functioning and success, or start your own company, or work for a government which is not focused on efficiency. Expecting employment to be a sinecure is just foolish.

Here’s a fact. Companies exist because our government created laws that allow them to exist. They are legal fictions. They can exist for WHATEVER reason we as a society decide, and that reason is not just to make money for shareholders.

Just how many entrepreneurs are waiting to create companies which lose money intentionally? You're free to do so right now, but may have trouble attracting investors.

Disingenuous argument. It's one thing to create a company that is intentionally non-profitable, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about companies squeezing additional margin and profit when they are already extremely profitable.

So who is the arbiter of a "sufficient" profit? The free market, or the government? The government already takes taxes from anyone and from any business which is productive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a surprising fact: companies exist to make money for their owners, not to provide as much employment as possible for as many people as possible.

Either be essential to a company's functioning and success, or start your own company, or work for a government which is not focused on efficiency. Expecting employment to be a sinecure is just foolish.

But they get tax breaks because they are “job creators” who “contribute to the community”.

We're going to be taxing the AI bots soon. That's how they're going to generate the UBI.

The problem is this kind of taxation has never been done and the massive corporations will fight it tooth-and-nail.

The US tax system relies on W2 wage taxation as the primary driver of tax receipts. Massive companies that in reality earn billions, end up paying almost no corporate income tax because of their ability to manipulate the tax system.

Even the WSJ is also now saying that there needs to be a way to tax billionaires because they can essentially pay zero tax...they don't pay themselves a wage, they borrow against their stock to fund their living expenses instead of selling their stock and paying capital gains, etc. They don't generate any income to tax.

I realize it's never been done, but AI disruption is going to change a lot of things and a lot of policies. Sure, it'll be a fight. But at the end of the day, we'll be taxing the robots to make up for the opportunity cost is fewer workers on the payroll paying for social insurance programs especially. Taxing models are going to change, just like business models will. It's inevitable.

This is Elon Musk advocates, BTW.

+1. The only way this works is taxing the AI/corps and paying a dividend (UBI) to citizens. Otherwise, nobody will have any money to spend and it all implodes. Maybe it's happening behind closed doors, but my impression is the government (as usual) is behind on this. Getting heavy Feb 2020 vibes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a surprising fact: companies exist to make money for their owners, not to provide as much employment as possible for as many people as possible.

Either be essential to a company's functioning and success, or start your own company, or work for a government which is not focused on efficiency. Expecting employment to be a sinecure is just foolish.

Here’s a fact. Companies exist because our government created laws that allow them to exist. They are legal fictions. They can exist for WHATEVER reason we as a society decide, and that reason is not just to make money for shareholders.

Just how many entrepreneurs are waiting to create companies which lose money intentionally? You're free to do so right now, but may have trouble attracting investors.

Disingenuous argument. It's one thing to create a company that is intentionally non-profitable, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about companies squeezing additional margin and profit when they are already extremely profitable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a surprising fact: companies exist to make money for their owners, not to provide as much employment as possible for as many people as possible.

Either be essential to a company's functioning and success, or start your own company, or work for a government which is not focused on efficiency. Expecting employment to be a sinecure is just foolish.

Here’s a fact. Companies exist because our government created laws that allow them to exist. They are legal fictions. They can exist for WHATEVER reason we as a society decide, and that reason is not just to make money for shareholders.

Just how many entrepreneurs are waiting to create companies which lose money intentionally? You're free to do so right now, but may have trouble attracting investors.

So layoff by tweet? Is that better than group videoconference?

https://x.com/jack/status/2027129697092731343

And can Jack not afford a shift key on his laptop? All lowercase feels disrespectful, but maybe I’m just old.

All that severance Block is paying is taxable at a high rate on W2s.

Pretty remarkable how much Jack Dorsey has screwed up

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a surprising fact: companies exist to make money for their owners, not to provide as much employment as possible for as many people as possible.

Either be essential to a company's functioning and success, or start your own company, or work for a government which is not focused on efficiency. Expecting employment to be a sinecure is just foolish.

But they get tax breaks because they are “job creators” who “contribute to the community”.

We're going to be taxing the AI bots soon. That's how they're going to generate the UBI.

The problem is this kind of taxation has never been done and the massive corporations will fight it tooth-and-nail.

The US tax system relies on W2 wage taxation as the primary driver of tax receipts. Massive companies that in reality earn billions, end up paying almost no corporate income tax because of their ability to manipulate the tax system.

Even the WSJ is also now saying that there needs to be a way to tax billionaires because they can essentially pay zero tax...they don't pay themselves a wage, they borrow against their stock to fund their living expenses instead of selling their stock and paying capital gains, etc. They don't generate any income to tax.

I realize it's never been done, but AI disruption is going to change a lot of things and a lot of policies. Sure, it'll be a fight. But at the end of the day, we'll be taxing the robots to make up for the opportunity cost is fewer workers on the payroll paying for social insurance programs especially. Taxing models are going to change, just like business models will. It's inevitable.

This is Elon Musk advocates, BTW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-26/jack-dorsey-s-block-slashes-nearly-half-of-workforce-in-ai-bet

Get the lube ready. This is going to ripple thru the entire economy as ceos and boards understand the market will reward massive labor replacement

IBM just announced it was tripling entry-level hires. So.

Keyword "announced" lol.

Why do you think that's funny? Explain it to me like I am five.

NP but it sounds like they think companies can "announce" anything they want-- "we are eco-sustainable" "we have a commitment to stopping global warming" "we support trans-people and women hockey players" but at the end of the day they don't necessarily follow through. So announcements, stock lifts are just good PR. Until everyone sees through it.

So, wait, we're supposed to take the Block announcement as truth but consider the IBM announcement a lie? Make that make sense. They're both making material announcements to investors. A lie would literally be criminal.

For folks who dont know how Fintech works. The people who work there are most young, energetic and very qualified. Getting let go is a badge of honor and ex-coworkers are in a club.

My old ex very large pre-IPO now very late stage Finttech the ex staff have literally started around 40-50 new start ups and love to hire from my old company regardless if let go.

My old company I would see pictures on line of a company where most of room under 30, trendy, cool, hip and very very hard workers they get snatched up. It is not like a Fed job where letting go of 55 year olds with dated skills that are very Fed specific.

My old Fintech (even though not young), wanted me to set up a big thing very very quickly all by myself in a short time frame that would pass regulatory approval on first shot. I worked at two other Fintechs and one I did exact same thing they wanted done and to be honest I kept everything from prior job.

Those Block folks I am sure did the same

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-26/jack-dorsey-s-block-slashes-nearly-half-of-workforce-in-ai-bet

Get the lube ready. This is going to ripple thru the entire economy as ceos and boards understand the market will reward massive labor replacement

IBM just announced it was tripling entry-level hires. So.

Keyword "announced" lol.

Why do you think that's funny? Explain it to me like I am five.

NP but it sounds like they think companies can "announce" anything they want-- "we are eco-sustainable" "we have a commitment to stopping global warming" "we support trans-people and women hockey players" but at the end of the day they don't necessarily follow through. So announcements, stock lifts are just good PR. Until everyone sees through it.

Announcements like "we're laying of 15% of our workforce because AI is making us more productive" also aren't necessarily accurate, either.

Also, as companies layoff in one area due to AI, they will hire in other areas, due to AI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a surprising fact: companies exist to make money for their owners, not to provide as much employment as possible for as many people as possible.

Either be essential to a company's functioning and success, or start your own company, or work for a government which is not focused on efficiency. Expecting employment to be a sinecure is just foolish.

But they get tax breaks because they are “job creators” who “contribute to the community”.

We're going to be taxing the AI bots soon. That's how they're going to generate the UBI.

The problem is this kind of taxation has never been done and the massive corporations will fight it tooth-and-nail.

The US tax system relies on W2 wage taxation as the primary driver of tax receipts. Massive companies that in reality earn billions, end up paying almost no corporate income tax because of their ability to manipulate the tax system.

Even the WSJ is also now saying that there needs to be a way to tax billionaires because they can essentially pay zero tax...they don't pay themselves a wage, they borrow against their stock to fund their living expenses instead of selling their stock and paying capital gains, etc. They don't generate any income to tax.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-26/jack-dorsey-s-block-slashes-nearly-half-of-workforce-in-ai-bet

Get the lube ready. This is going to ripple thru the entire economy as ceos and boards understand the market will reward massive labor replacement

IBM just announced it was tripling entry-level hires. So.

Keyword "announced" lol.

Why do you think that's funny? Explain it to me like I am five.

NP but it sounds like they think companies can "announce" anything they want-- "we are eco-sustainable" "we have a commitment to stopping global warming" "we support trans-people and women hockey players" but at the end of the day they don't necessarily follow through. So announcements, stock lifts are just good PR. Until everyone sees through it.

Fine. But why is that funny?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-26/jack-dorsey-s-block-slashes-nearly-half-of-workforce-in-ai-bet

Get the lube ready. This is going to ripple thru the entire economy as ceos and boards understand the market will reward massive labor replacement

IBM just announced it was tripling entry-level hires. So.

Keyword "announced" lol.

Why do you think that's funny? Explain it to me like I am five.

NP but it sounds like they think companies can "announce" anything they want-- "we are eco-sustainable" "we have a commitment to stopping global warming" "we support trans-people and women hockey players" but at the end of the day they don't necessarily follow through. So announcements, stock lifts are just good PR. Until everyone sees through it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a surprising fact: companies exist to make money for their owners, not to provide as much employment as possible for as many people as possible.

Either be essential to a company's functioning and success, or start your own company, or work for a government which is not focused on efficiency. Expecting employment to be a sinecure is just foolish.

But they get tax breaks because they are “job creators” who “contribute to the community”.

We're going to be taxing the AI bots soon. That's how they're going to generate the UBI.